On dispelling common misconceptions.

Posted by Les on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 at 09:32 AM. Read 955 times. Tags: , ,
{name} pic

There’s a common misperception among many Christians upset about the various Decalogue monument lawsuits being filed around the country that the plaintiffs in these suits are always atheists or, at a minimum, aren’t Christians. Robert Frey provides a perfect example of this misperception in his response to me the other day when he said, “Moore was simply exercising his freedom of speech and certain of your little groupies didnt like it so they sued.” He was speaking about the lawsuit over the monument installed in the Alabama State Supreme Court building by former judge Roy Moore and the implication in his statement is clear: If it weren’t for you atheists, there never would’ve been a lawsuit. In my reply I pointed out the fact that the three people who enlisted the ACLU in filing the lawsuit were, in fact, Christians. A Roman Catholic and two Southern Baptists, to be exact. Rather than being an exception to the rule this actually turns out to be fairly common yet the perception that it’s always the actions of whiny atheists that bring these lawsuits about is rather rampant.

Take, for example, the fight over a Ten Commandments display in Habersham County, Georgia. One of the two plaintiffs in this case is 70 year old Pastor Bo Turner and he explains that he filed suit because of his belief that the display violates the separation of church and state. Pastor Turner is used to ruffling feathers and has spoken up on a number of issues he’s considered important and this has made him rather unpopular at times. This lawsuit has brought him a chilly reception by many and at least two death threats. A response that is unfortunately all too common which is why so many plaintiffs ask to remain anonymous in these cases.

But Turner has to say what he feels. He said it’s his duty as a Christian to speak out when he sees any injustice done and to try to help fix it any way he can.

Because he does believe one thing - he believes he’ll face a day of judgment.

And as his life on Earth faces its divine scrutiny, Turner doubts the questions will center around what he did.

Instead, Turner’s sure his God will want to know about all the things he didn’t.

Reading the profile on Pastor Turner left me impressed with his approach to his religious beliefs. Among other things he encourages his congregation to think for themselves rather than just blindly follow. For those so inclined, a little searching will net you lots of other separation lawsuits that were filed by Christians rather than atheists which puts the lie to this common misperception.

The reason folks like Robert Frey are so eager to promote the idea that these lawsuits are almost always filed by atheists who hate the Ten Commandments and what they supposedly stand for is rather simple: It’s hard to argue that there’s an anti-Christian motivation behind the lawsuit if the person filing it happens to be a Christian. It’s so much easier to paint atheists as being anti-Christian because most folks tend to think that’s the case already. It’s also easier to cast the argument as being an attack on Christianity rather than an issue of keeping the government unbiased in matters of religion. Folks like Frey are so eager to have government promote their ideological viewpoint as much as possible that they are willing to misrepresent the issue in order to achieve their goals. They engage in deceptive practices and deliberately ignore the facts for what they believe is the greater good of their cause.

This is called “lying” by most people and is referred to in the Ten Commandments as “bearing false witness.” The hypocrisy of violating one of the Ten Commandments in order to try and promote them should be pretty obvious to most reasonable people, Christian or not.

Comments:

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

*** Dave United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 10:51 AM

*** Dave pic

Amen, brother.

Geoff Foley United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 11:18 AM

Geoff Foley pic

Atheists also get a bad rap in these cases because of the shit-head that lives out here, in my city in fact, Mike Newdow.

This guy, in many interviews, used his daughter as the reason for his latest lawsuit.  Fact is, his daughter doesn’t even live with him.  She lives with her mother, a devout Christian.  While I may agree that it may violate the division, based on the fact that many religions believe in God, in many forms, I don’t find it as forcing religion on anyone.

When I was in the 6th grade, there was one boy who didn’t believe and he simply didn’t say the word.  Nobody chastised him for it.  It was just understood that he didn’t believe.  That was it.

Its too bad when those that get the media attention are the ones with less than honorable motives.

Oh yeah..... Newdow is also suing to have the laws thrown out that hold the rights of the child higher than those of the parents involved, in child custody cases.  He’s pissed that the court decided that he didn’t deserve 50/50 custody of his daughter.  When he goes around using her as a tool to further his agenda, I can’t blame them.

Greg United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 11:41 AM

Greg pic

There need to be more Christians like Pastor Turner. It’s people like him that would make for an interesting roundtable discussion, ya know? We could sit around and make fun of Frey. wink

Dast United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 12:20 PM

Dast pic

See also the Straw Man logical fallacy.  It is hard to believe people who are supposedly so interested in the issue can set themselves up to be rejected by such a simple flaw in reasoning.  If I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are not complete idiots, my only conclusion is that they must not care that much about the issue at hand.

Alicia United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 01:19 PM

Alicia pic

Has someone pointed out to these people that Moore’s obsession with the monument borders on idol worship?

Covie United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 03:25 PM

Covie pic

This sounds so third-grade to me. What is it about this kind of Christian who says I am an atheist or anti-christian because I do not agree with them on any given behavior? Les, I read your reasons for it and they seem about right, but is it a level of maturity, intelligence, need for control, the elements of Christianity itself, etc. that puts these people back in third grade mentality? Anyone?

~ Also ~
I don’t want to take this off topic and get into a debate over it, but Goeff Foley wrote something above that made my blood boil. He isn’t the first to say it either. That is, ”This guy, in many interviews, used his daughter as the reason for his latest lawsuit. Fact is, his daughter doesn’t even live with him. She lives with her mother, a devout Christian.” I don’t care if the mother worships the Porcelian God, that has no place in it. Do people really think that just because the child does not live with the man that he has no right to take any legal action he feels necessary to defend his daughter? If so, that isn’t right. This guy could be a nut job using his daughter for all I know, but when we start thinking all rights are lost to parents who do not live with their children, the hair on the back of my neck raises. I am just glad neither my Ex nor I feel this way. We are both still the parents, after all.

Les United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 03:42 PM

Les pic

You ask a very good question, Covie. I don’t think it’s possible to nail down a single answer or two that would explain this behavior in all the people that exhibit it. Speaking in strictly generalized terms I’d say that some of the reasons for it would include issues such as an insecurity in one’s own beliefs, control issues in their personality, problems with diversity in others and so on. I’m sure there are a lot of books out there that go into the psychology of Fundamentalist attitudes, but I have really checked into them myself.

As for Goeff’s reply there is quite a bit of debate on how much influence or claim a non-custodial parent actually has over the kids in the legal arena these days and as such he raises a valid point. Personally I tend to agree with you on that issue, but I must admit that Newdow isn’t my first choice for someone to take on the challenge that he has and that he has a tendency to be quite Fundamentalist in his attitude st times. I agree with his goal, but I disagree with some of the means he’s using to achieve it.

 Signature 

When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn’t know.
-- Mark Twain

Queen Millefiore United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 03:46 PM

Queen Millefiore pic

All good and valid arguments, stated many times over and over again by reasonable people like yourself and other civil libertarians, whether they be Atheist, Christian, Jewish, Pagan or whatever. However, we might as well be talking to a brick. The people that want religion in the government or even the majority of people who don’t see any harm in it, will not ever be swayed by logic of any kind. My aquarium fish have a better understanding of the importance of the wall of separation between church and state. If I was’t an atheist I’d have a bumper sticker proclaiming “God Save Me From a Christian Nation!”

Jeremy United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 04:32 PM

Jeremy pic

Okay, I see just about everyone has jumped on the bandwagon...I’d like to play the “devil’s advocate” (no pun intended) on this one:

1) Putting a monument of the 10 commandments in a courthouse is in no way a violation of church and state. Truth be told, this entire nation was FOUNDED on Christianity (don’t even bother arguing this one - history speaks for itself). To rip out Christianity would mean to rip out our entire system of law, justice, and the very essence of what makes America...well...America! The 10 commandments are just a reminder of this (as well as a basis for many of our laws).

2) This whole thing about the daughter being forced to say the pledge is totally bogus as well...As many of you have said, she can choose not to say it if she wants. But the problem goes even deeper - it seems that most of you are interpreting “freedom of religion” as “freedom FROM religion.” Fortunately, THAT was never promised in our constitution. Otherwise we’d be a bunch of communists.

Food for thought,

Jeremy

Queen Millefiore United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 04:36 PM

Queen Millefiore pic

Like talking to a brick.

Jeremy United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 04:39 PM

Jeremy pic

Nice. Well thought through reply Millefiore.

Sorry about the double post.

cubsfanatic United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 04:52 PM

cubsfanatic pic

Jeremy, This country was NOT founded on Christianity! Yes, it was founded BY Christians, but not on making this a Christian nation. You seem to have forgotten that the original settlers were escaping a ‘Christian nation’ because of the bigotry of their fellow Christians and did not want this nation to turn into another Church of England. They did not want this country run by the ‘good book’ [what a contradiction in terms!].

Jeremy United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 05:15 PM

Jeremy pic

Sorry CubsFan…

I think the founding fathers of the nation said it best:

John Quincy Adams “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

George Washington “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

It is clear that our founding was for a country tolerant of religious faiths other than Christianity, and even of no faith at all; all were to be welcomed and eligible for full participation as citizens. There would be no official state religion. It was absolutely the intention, however, that the nation be one based on Judeo-Christian principles and under a Judeo-Christian God.

Les United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 05:28 PM

Les pic

I find it rather disingenuous that you say you wish to play devils advocate (which implies that you’re open to debate) and then make an assertion that you claim isn’t open to debate. Seeing as it’s my website I’m going to debate it anyway.

1) Putting a monument of the 10 commandments in a courthouse is in no way a violation of church and state. Truth be told, this entire nation was FOUNDED on Christianity (don’t even bother arguing this one - history speaks for itself). To rip out Christianity would mean to rip out our entire system of law, justice, and the very essence of what makes America…well… America! The 10 commandments are just a reminder of this (as well as a basis for many of our laws).

According to the United States Supreme Court putting a monument of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is in every way a violation of the separation clause. Seeing as their function as outlined within the system of government is to act as the final arbiter of what the laws of the land mean I’d say they have quite a bit of authority on the subject. In other words, if the men in black say it’s a no-no then it’s a no-no.

Regardless, it’s clear that your argument is based on what you believe to be a matter of history that should be self-evident and as such you make a couple of claims that, if you are correct, should be easy enough to prove.

First you claim that “this entire nation was FOUNDED on Christianity” and that the truth of this claim is beyond debate. This says to me that you’ve not read very much of this website as I’ve been over that issue many times before and I believe I’ve given quite a bit of evidence to the contrary including a law of the land that specifically denies the validity of your claim. Still, I’m willing to listen to a reasonable counter-argument so if you would be so kind to explain what it is about this nation’s history that you feel makes it obvious that it was founded as a Christian nation I’d love to hear what proof you have to back up that claim.

Secondly, you claim that to rip out Christianity would be to rip out our entire system of law. Which, again, shows me you haven’t studied your history much as there have been systems of law in existence before the founding of Christianity and there isn’t anything about our system of law that would make it particularly Christian in nature. In fact, quite a bit of out law is based on various systems of Common Law that in many aspects predates Christianity. Still, please explain how the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses and other public buildings in any way destroys our entire system of law, justice and the very essence of what makes America what it is?

Thirdly, you lay claim to the idea that the Ten Commandments is a basis for many of our laws. If this is so then you should have no trouble outlining exactly what laws are based on it and how they wouldn’t exist if not for the Ten Commandments.

I eagerly await your follow up reply as I am sure it will be in-depth and enlightening and present an ironclad case for your viewpoint seeing as you seem to feel it’s such an obvious matter that it’s not even worth debating. You will excuse me, however, if I don’t hold my breath waiting for it.

2) This whole thing about the daughter being forced to say the pledge is totally bogus as well… As many of you have said, she can choose not to say it if she wants. But the problem goes even deeper - it seems that most of you are interpreting “freedom of religion” as “freedom FROM religion.” Fortunately, THAT was never promised in our constitution. Otherwise we’d be a bunch of communists.

We have another parrot on our hands. The arguments and claims you are making are the same tired old arguments we’ve been over before on this website. I suggest you read up in the Religion, Church and State and Rants categories before trying to engage in too many debates here. I’d rather not have to repeat myself more than necessary.

There are areas of the country where a daily recitation of the Pledge before school is mandatory and opting not to say the words can get you into trouble. Colorado has a mandatory Pledge law, for example.

As for your claim that the constitution only promises “freedom OF religion” and not FROM religion, it’s silly to say that if I am free to believe and worship any religion I see fit that I don’t have the option of not believing or worshiping at all. In order to have freedom OF religion you must naturally have the choice of freedom FROM religion. It was Thomas Jefferson himself who proposed the following language for the Virginia constitution in 1776: “All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.” In other words, not only freedom OF religion, but freedom FROM religion. The argument that freedom of religion doesn’t include freedom from religion is nonsensical and silly.

Still, I’d love to hear how you explain that a constitution which recognizes the right of freedom from religion automatically results in people becoming Communists. Or are you suggesting that the people of Virgina are Communists?

Try not to choke as you digest your food for thought.

 Signature 

When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn’t know.
-- Mark Twain

Les United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 06:27 PM

Les pic

Looks like you responded while I was typing up my reply. It also looks like you’re a fan of David Barton’s writings on this issue as you’re parroting his viewpoints. Allow me to address the couple of points you’ve raised:

First, John Quincy Adams was the sixth President of the United States and not a Founding Father as you claim. You’re confusing him with his father, John Adams, who was a Founding Father and not a Christian. A minor point to be sure, but still significant. David Barton cites this supposed Adams quotation in the first edition of his video tape titled Americas’s Godly Heritage and the original source for the quotation appears to be a book of quotations called The Pulpit of the American Revolution 1860 by John Wingate Thornton. Finding copies of this book these days is difficult, but those that have state that the book itself doesn’t present this statement as a direct quote of Adams so much as the author’s own conclusion about Adams’ beliefs. It is not enclosed in quotation marks, it is not annotated with footnotes providing information on the date the quote was made nor is there any effort to trace it back to an original source as all the other quotations in the book are, including quotations from JQ Adam’s father. In absence of proper documentation it’s validity is questionable and David Barton dropped it from succeeding editions of his video tape.

The quote you cite from George Washington is also dubious at best and another favorite of David Barton as it appears in his book The Myth of Separation. Barton later put out a press release that listed this quote, as well as the previous one attributed to Washington, as being “unconfirmed”. This book has since ceased being published though much of it has made its way into a later book titled Original Intent. Minus the bogus quotes, of course.

The fact that David Barton later admitted he couldn’t trace either quote back to the original source hasn’t stopped these quotes from being popular among folks such as yourself who like to toss them around without any information on when or where there were supposedly said or what writings can be cited to support the claim.

The truth is that if you actually study up on the quotations of the Founding Fathers than can be verified through their own writings you’ll find that most of them were Deist and not Christian, many held rather nasty opinions about Christianity (Jefferson and Paine were particularly critical) and many were hypocrites in that they felt that religion was, indeed, important as a means of keeping the “masses” lawful.

 Signature 

When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn’t know.
-- Mark Twain

Ted K. United States Posted on 01/14/2004 at 07:12 PM

Ted K. pic

Jeremy,

If you look at the actions of the founders, both in the Continental Congress during the Revolution, and in the Constitutional Convention, and during ratification, you will see that above all else they tried to _depoliticize_ religion.

They wanted to make darn sure that the central government could not make religious decisions for the several states - that would look too much like the British Establishment and, more importantly, the rest of the colonies were terrified that New England folks would try to impose their Congregationalist establishment in the rest of the country.

So, they said don’t mess.  Justice O’Connor’s recent emphasis on endorsement is a good reflection of the founding impulse - government should not endorse any religion and especially not any particular sect, denomination, or subcategory of religion.

The whole business about Christianity and the Revolution being linked was present in Sam Adams and some of the folks in the 1770s, and it was present in the 1820s and beyond as former Federalists tried to win the culture wars - it was absent during the 1780s and 1790s.  In other words, everyone BUT the founders bought it.  (and the second generation still beleived in the non-endorsement concept even though they interpreted it as a general Protestant establishment that gave the state power to discriminate against Catholics, Universalists, and minor sects.) I digress.

Roy’s Rock is objectionable because it is an explicit endorsement, because it endorses one particular flavor of religion (showing an edited form of the King James Bible), and because it and its installation were a de facto sectarian religious shrine placed at the focus of a presumably non-sectarian public building.

Ted K.

Pablo United States Posted on 01/15/2004 at 01:03 AM

Pablo pic

Practically speaking, I don’t care what the founding fathers or any other important leader said in letters or speeches or conversations with their friends about the separation of church and state or the role of Christianity in our government. When it comes to my day-to-day existence living here in America throw it all in the trash. All I care about is what they wrote into the law. You want to say that the “Ten Commandments monument issue” does not violate church and state than don’t give me comments, give me the law. I don’t care if some or all of the founding fathers went on record and said they made a huge mistake with the constitution. It doesn’t matter. If I found comments from them that declared people of certain colors and sex to be unworthy of the very principles and rights that they wrote into the law should we reassess those people’s rights or ignore the law and follow the comments? I would hope not. Here’s what I’m going do, just for fun. I’m going to see if I can find a quote from a founding father that says that they believe that black slavery was okay. I’m still looking but I’m sure there are some from representatives from the southern states. Then I’m going to tell a black friend of mine that quote and then see if that convinces him that I have the right to own him. “I’m sorry man, a slave would so help out with the house work and ‘insert founding father here,’ said it was okay. Besides, we were founded on it and if your founded on slavery and a founding father says it’s okay then any law concerning slavery is void.” That’s two against one and we all know two is greater than one. Then again, knowing Luther that may not be so fun. Words alone do not give one the right to break the law no matter who uttered them, even if those words were from the creator of the law. Yes, words can and should influence the creation and changing of laws but they should not BE the law, until those words ARE law!

I also found an interesting comment from Bill O’ Rielly on America being founded on Christianity. Its half way down the page. might not be what you expect.
http://www.time.com/time/2003/franklin/bfforum3.html

Spocko United States Posted on 01/15/2004 at 01:58 AM

Spocko pic

Maybe Jeremy should read these words from John Adams…

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

How ‘bout James Madison…

“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.”

and of course how could you forget Thomas Paine…

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. “

“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. “

I say…
Only sheep believe this nation is based on Christinsanity!

Les United States Posted on 01/15/2004 at 05:35 AM

Les pic

I’m disappointed that Jeremy seems to have decided not to come back and enlighten us with his knowledge. He seemed so confident earlier and I was really looking forward to hearing his undebatable historical facts, but it looks like he was just another parrot.

 Signature 

When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn’t know.
-- Mark Twain

Jeremy United States Posted on 01/15/2004 at 07:36 AM

Jeremy pic

Good grief! I log off the Internet last night at 6:30pm, and at 6:30am this morning people are screaming about me being a parrot and not responding…

Remind me again, because I might be a little confused...is this a WEBLOG or an online chat tool?!? I’m obviously going to need a little time to read through the mass of responses sometime today and consider a reply.

But for now, I must leave to finance this Internet connection smile.

Jeremy United States Posted on 01/15/2004 at 08:46 AM

Jeremy pic

Les –

Well, I have read through most of your responses…Let me respond first off by apologizing. In my first response, I mentioned that this nation was founded off Christianity. I misspoke, and quickly corrected myself in my second response to CubsFan – this nation was founded off of Christian principles. As I mentioned:  It is clear that our founding was for a country tolerant of religious faiths other than Christianity, and even of no faith at all; all were to be welcomed and eligible for full participation as citizens. There would be no official state religion. It was absolutely the intention, however, that the nation be one based on Judeo-Christian principles and under a Judeo-Christian God. The goal of the founding fathers was to build this nation with a freedom OF religion (I’ll get back to this one later).

Second thing, I don’t want to get in a “quote war.” You can search the Internet as well as I can – there are many verifiable quotes from many of the founding fathers regarding the God of the Bible…but I think that Pablo brings up a really good point…and I quote, “I don’t care what the founding fathers or any other important leader said in letters or speeches or conversations with their friends about the separation of church and state or the role of Christianity in our government. When it comes to my day-to-day existence living here in America throw it all in the trash. All I care about is what they wrote into the law.” That is exactly my point in this paragraph – we could all go back and forth all day with quotes. Let’s talk about the law. But before I do, I think there’s a pretty key point I need to bring up:

I think there may be quite a bit of confusion as to what it means to be a Christian. It seems that most of you are pointing in the direction of Christianity = rules and regulations…when actually, it is quite the opposite. A little history lesson: when God created mankind, everything was peachy…perfect. But that begs the question, “why the heck were we created?” To love and be loved. By who? By God. But there’s a problem… in order to have a true, loving relationship, free will must enter the picture. You can’t create a person that truly loves you when they have no alternate choice, right? That would defeat the very meaning of love: A free, uninhibited giving of yourself to another. I think you get the idea.

As most of you know, man chose not to love God and things started to get all screwed up. The earth became a pretty whacked out place to be; just read your history books to find out how depraved mankind can get. It got to the point where mankind could not even distinguish between right and wrong. THIS is where the law of the Bible came from (including the 10 commandments): because the relationship between man and God was broken, he had to lay a basic set of principles down so people could tell right from wrong. HOWEVER, he never intended this to last forever (just read the beginning of your Bible: If your maidservant kills my ox, I’m not going to gain rights to that maidservant…

OBVIOUSLY there are laws from the Bible that don’t apply today at all. Now here’s the key point after my rambles: Christians don’t have a law to which they are accountable. That’s the whole point of Jesus Christ – he restores the relationship that mankind had with God from the beginning: back when things were perfect and peachy, and there WAS NO LAW…So, does this mean Christians can do whatever they want? It sure does.

Now let me bring this all back around so you can see why that was necessary: Christians can do whatever they want because what they WANT to do IS right. Now I’m sure half of you reading this are thinking, “riiiight…” in an “Office-Space-esque” tone. I’m not saying that there aren’t thousands of counterfeits out there: people claiming to be Christians for their own advantage. What I’m saying is that there is a true RIGHT and WRONG (I know this opens a whole other path for argument…). When this nation was founded, people knew this…and that’s where the LAWS initially came from (to get back to Pablos argument).

So why the big deal about the 10 Commandments? Because society has begun to slip back into depravity. The fact that the statement in my paragraph above about RIGHT and WRONG generates so much controversy is proof of this. People are beginning to fall back on the original law of the Old Testament because this is becoming an increasingly non-Christian nation. People don’t know what is RIGHT and WRONG anymore…the statement, “what’s right for you might not be right for me” has been burnt out and overused. People have no clue…which leads to what? Anarchy.

Before I wrap up, I want to address Les’ comments on freedom FROM religion. Les – I did not really understand where you were coming from…I quote, “In order to have freedom OF religion you must naturally have the choice of freedom FROM religion. It was Thomas Jefferson himself who proposed the following language for the Virginia constitution in 1776: “All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.” …Isn’t that exactly what you have? Maybe I’m out of it, but I haven’t seen anyone in America forced to frequent a religious institution? You DO have freedom FROM religion – you don’t have to participate in anything religious at all if you choose… Now if you’re interpreting freedom FROM religion as, “I never want to hear, speak, or have anyone else speak about religion,” that’s a totally different argument. That’s why I brought up Communism – a structure designed to provide true freedom FROM religion: to forbid a person from ever speaking of, practicing, or believing in a religion.

Anyhow, now I’m late to work smile. I’m sure I’ll get the retaliation of many, and that’s okay. That always happens to the “devil’s advocate.” wink

Brent United States Posted on 01/15/2004 at 10:19 AM

Brent pic

Jeremy, you’re not playing the Devil’s Advocate, you simply being an apologist for theocracy. You’re not alone in this. There are many, many of your fellow apologists spouting the exact same arguments out there. This is made crystal clear to us with your statement:

“Christians can do whatever they want because what they WANT to do IS right.

You go on to say:

You DO have freedom FROM religion – you don’t have to participate in anything religious at all if you choose… Now if you’re interpreting freedom FROM religion as, “I never want to hear, speak, or have anyone else speak about religion,” that’s a totally different argument.

But that’s the whole point. No one, not one secularist - atheist, deist, liberal christian, constitutional scholar, etc. - no one that I know of has EVER made the claim that “Freedom from religion” means “I never want to hear, speak, or have anyone else speak about religion”. That’s simply a ridiculous red herring dreamed up by the would-be theocrats in our country.

We’re using the same words, but assigning them different meanings. Much like when a Christian uses the word “atheist” they mmean something entirely different than “atheist” - like “satanist” or “communist” or “socialist” or “liberal” (or all of those rolled up into one big amorphous “bad guy").

Which goes right back to the subjective nature of words and a human being’s ability to assign arbitrary and incorrect meaning to them - even in the face of consensus and etymology.

Christians and Christianity have enjoyed an elevated social status in our country for so long that they scream “persecution” when the rest of us try and get the government back on track and following the Constitution. Elevating Christianity above all other religions and philosophies is not only wrong, it’s also unconstitutional.

Using the power of the Government to endorse or promote Christianity is NOT your right. The government must remain strictly neutral with regards to religion.

Les United States Posted on 01/15/2004 at 11:27 AM

Les pic

Ah, he has returned. Shame you haven’t provided any of the proofs for your claims as requested, but that’s not surprising. Still, let’s see what we can do with what you have provided.

Good grief! I log off the Internet last night at 6:30pm, and at 6:30am this morning people are screaming about me being a parrot and not responding…

Sorry, but I don’t see anyone screaming here. Of the responses so far I’d say that CubsFanatic’s might be construed as screaming, but beyond that I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. Yes, I did say you seem to just be parroting arguments we’ve already heard, which is true. I also did express my disappointment that you hadn’t responded by this morning, which is also true, but I haven’t been screaming about you at all. Trust me, it’ll be hard to miss should I get to that point.

Remind me again, because I might be a little confused…is this a WEBLOG or an online chat tool?!? I’m obviously going to need a little time to read through the mass of responses sometime today and consider a reply.

I suppose that depends on your definition of the terms. Some would argue they’re more or less the same. I do have a fair number of regular readers who respond quickly to new comments on the site.

Les – Well, I have read through most of your responses…Let me respond first off by apologizing. In my first response, I mentioned that this nation was founded off Christianity. I misspoke, and quickly corrected myself in my second response to CubsFan – this nation was founded off of Christian principles. As I mentioned: It is clear that our founding was for a country tolerant of religious faiths other than Christianity, and even of no faith at all; all were to be welcomed and eligible for full participation as citizens. There would be no official state religion. It was absolutely the intention, however, that the nation be one based on Judeo-Christian principles and under a Judeo-Christian God. The goal of the founding fathers was to build this nation with a freedom OF religion (I’ll get back to this one later).

You seem to feel there’s some significant difference between these two statements that I’m not sure I see. Regardless, it’s still an assertion you’ve not backed up with any facts. If this is as self-evident as you claim it should be by your previous responses then please enlighten us on what we’ve missed to not see it. Were some of the Founding Fathers Christian? Certainly, did they use their beliefs to help shape aspects of the new government? Probably. Does this mean the intent was to found this country solely on Judeo-Christian principles and under a Judeo-Christian God? Absolutely not.

I could possibly see this line of argument if all of the Founding Fathers had been Christian, but they weren’t. One would also expect that if this were the intent that we’d be able to find plenty of writings from the people involved that would verify this as being the intention, but no one seems to be able to produce these writings. It’s certainly possible that some of the Founding Fathers who were Christian did intend as you claim, but there’s nothing to suggest that this was the sole intention of all the men involved and there’s plenty of examples of Christian language being proposed by some people which was dropped by mutual agreement. Surely if the intent of the Founding Fathers is as you claim they could easily have made such intentions clear in the final product. You seem to feel that this is the case so I will ask for a second time: If this is so then can you please provide something relevant that backs your assertion up?

Second thing, I don’t want to get in a “quote war.” You can search the Internet as well as I can – there are many verifiable quotes from many of the founding fathers regarding the God of the Bible…

So you claim, but the two quotes you’ve provided so far as evidence in support of your position was exactly the opposite which doesn’t cast your assertion here in a positive light. I know I can certainly cite a large number of verifiable quotes from various Founding Fathers complete with date and context regarding the God of the Bible and most of them aren’t very complimentary. If the two examples you’ve provided so far is any indication of the quality of your quotes then I wouldn’t want to get into a quote war either if I were you. The point remains, however, that you are trying to argue about what the intent of the Founding Fathers happened to be at the time and the best way to support such an argument is through the words and writings of the people involved and that involves quoting them in an attempt to establish intent. If you don’t wish to provide supporting quotes then I suggest you drop trying to argue what the intent was.

but I think that Pablo brings up a really good point…and I quote, “I don’t care what the founding fathers or any other important leader said in letters or speeches or conversations with their friends about the separation of church and state or the role of Christianity in our government. When it comes to my day-to-day existence living here in America throw it all in the trash. All I care about is what they wrote into the law.” That is exactly my point in this paragraph – we could all go back and forth all day with quotes. Let’s talk about the law.

I already have talked about the law. In fact I believe I stated in response to your claim that a Decalogue in a courthouse isn’t a violation of the separation clause that the U.S. Supreme Court says it, in fact, is and as they are the final authority on what the laws of the land mean this makes the issue pretty clear cut. You don’t have to agree with the decision of the Supreme Court, but if you want to take about “the law” then they are the ones with the final say in this matter.

If your point wasn’t to argue intent of the Founders and you’re more concerned with what the law is then why did you bother to bring up intent as an argument in the first place?

But before I do, I think there’s a pretty key point I need to bring up: I think there may be quite a bit of confusion as to what it means to be a Christian. It seems that most of you are pointing in the direction of Christianity = rules and regulations…when actually, it is quite the opposite. A little history lesson: when God created mankind, everything was peachy…perfect. But that begs the question, “why the heck were we created?” To love and be loved. By who? By God. But there’s a problem… in order to have a true, loving relationship, free will must enter the picture. You can’t create a person that truly loves you when they have no alternate choice, right? That would defeat the very meaning of love: A free, uninhibited giving of yourself to another. I think you get the idea.

As most of you know, man chose not to love God and things started to get all screwed up. The earth became a pretty whacked out place to be; just read your history books to find out how depraved mankind can get. It got to the point where mankind could not even distinguish between right and wrong. THIS is where the law of the Bible came from (including the 10 commandments): because the relationship between man and God was broken, he had to lay a basic set of principles down so people could tell right from wrong. HOWEVER, he never intended this to last forever (just read the beginning of your Bible: If your maidservant kills my ox, I’m not going to gain rights to that maidservant…

OBVIOUSLY there are laws from the Bible that don’t apply today at all. Now here’s the key point after my rambles: Christians don’t have a law to which they are accountable. That’s the whole point of Jesus Christ – he restores the relationship that mankind had with God from the beginning: back when things were perfect and peachy, and there WAS NO LAW…So, does this mean Christians can do whatever they want? It sure does.

What I get is that this is your opinion on what it means to be a Christian. What I also get is that there is a very wide-range of opinions about that topic among Christians that often disagree on the finer points in a myriad of ways. What I don’t get is why you feel we should accept your viewpoint as being the correct one versus all the other viewpoints from various Christians we’ve heard from which differ from yours in various ways. There are a number of claims made in the above that based on my own understanding of Christianity as a former Christian seem questionable, but rather than get into that at this point I will just ask a simple question:

Why should we accept your interpretation provided above as being the correct one versus all the other opinions we’ve heard from other Christians?

Now let me bring this all back around so you can see why that was necessary: Christians can do whatever they want because what they WANT to do IS right. Now I’m sure half of you reading this are thinking, “riiiight…” in an “Office-Space-esque” tone. I’m not saying that there aren’t thousands of counterfeits out there: people claiming to be Christians for their own advantage. What I’m saying is that there is a true RIGHT and WRONG (I know this opens a whole other path for argument…). When this nation was founded, people knew this…and that’s where the LAWS initially came from (to get back to Pablos argument).

So why the big deal about the 10 Commandments? Because society has begun to slip back into depravity. The fact that the statement in my paragraph above about RIGHT and WRONG generates so much controversy is proof of this. People are beginning to fall back on the original law of the Old Testament because this is becoming an increasingly non-Christian nation. People don’t know what is RIGHT and WRONG anymore…the statement, “what’s right for you might not be right for me” has been burnt out and overused. People have no clue…which leads to what? Anarchy.

I see we’re headed for the “absolute truth” argument. Let me see if I can summarize your claim. From where I’m standing you are saying that the Founding Fathers were “true” Christians and had knowledge of what was absolutely beyond-a-doubt “RIGHT” and “WRONG” and based the early laws of the United States on that understanding which makes them essentially founded on “Christian principles.” And that the reason the Ten Commandments is important is because the nation has gone astray and no one really knows (except you, apparently) what is absolutely without-a-doubt “RIGHT” and “WRONG” anymore. Is this the claim you are making?

I’ll wait for your reply before commenting on it too much, but if I’m accurate in my summary then this isn’t a difficult argument to defeat for anyone who’s studied what the Founding Fathers went through in setting up this country. One of the easiest counter-points to raise would be the issue of slavery.

Before I wrap up, I want to address Les’ comments on freedom FROM religion. Les – I did not really understand where you were coming from…I quote, “In order to have freedom OF religion you must naturally have the choice of freedom FROM religion. It was Thomas Jefferson himself who proposed the following language for the Virginia constitution in 1776: “All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.” …Isn’t that exactly what you have? Maybe I’m out of it, but I haven’t seen anyone in America forced to frequent a religious institution? You DO have freedom FROM religion – you don’t have to participate in anything religious at all if you choose…

I’m not the one who was claiming that I didn’t have freedom from religion; you were with your reference to the phrase not appearing in the Bill of Rights. I was merely pointing out that freedom of religion naturally implies the right of freedom from religion and supplied a reference to back that statement up.

Now if you’re interpreting freedom FROM religion as, “I never want to hear, speak, or have anyone else speak about religion,” that’s a totally different argument. That’s why I brought up Communism – a structure designed to provide true freedom FROM religion: to forbid a person from ever speaking of, practicing, or believing in a religion.

I agree that statement would be a totally different argument and it’s not one that anyone here has advocated. The removal of the Ten Commandments from government buildings is not in any way a silincing of religious speech of individuals. Whether or not the Decalogue is posted in a courthouse doesn’t affect your right or ability to talk about religion in any way. All it does is remove the implied government endorsement of Christianity over all other religious viewpoints which is not allowed under the First Amendment.

By your own argument the intent of the Founding Fathers is irrelevant in the face of what is “the law” and the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court functioning as the final authority on the law states that the government shall not promote one religious viewpoint over another and that Decalogues in courthouses or other government buildings is a violation of that law. I think this is a first here at SEB as you seem to have defeated your own argument.

As for Communism, there isn’t anything about that particular type of government that necessarily makes it incompatable with religion or requires the outlawing of it in order to function. You are obviously referring to a particular sub-type known as Marxism, which does require the abolotion of religion. As such Marxism isn’t “truly” freedom from religion in the sense that it is a choice one is allowed to make which is clearly what the Founding Fathers wanted to secure for America: The right to choose any religion or none at all.

Anyhow, now I’m late to work . I’m sure I’ll get the retaliation of many, and that’s okay. That always happens to the “devil’s advocate.”

Your choice of words seems to be intentionally antagonistic. It leaves one to question whether your intent is to participate in an honest discussion or just stir up trouble so you can claim persecution. The fact that you won’t address some of the points raised in previous replies also casts doubt onto your real intention.

 Signature 

When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn’t know.
-- Mark Twain

JoshMan3D United States Posted on 01/15/2004 at 12:30 PM

JoshMan3D pic

First of all, I’d like to revert back to Pablo’s uneducated and nonsensical viewpoint on the wall of separation (which Jeremy thinks of as a “great example").  I’ve argued with Pablo in the past, and quite frankly, I lost interest when his last analogy lacked so much in terms of sense that I simply lost interest in the argument.

The problem with your analogy (which, once again, was almost grammatically incomprehensible) is that there are amendments to the Constitution pertaining to slavery.  Not only is slavery completely wrong, but also we’ve made amendments to the Constitution to make sure that it doesn’t ever find its place in society again.  What I also find humorous is that slavery is used as a comparison, as if the separation of Church and State is a comparable evil.

But it’s not.  In fact, to have a truly democratic and fair government, the government CANNOT take ANY position when pertaining to religion.  Flat out, that’s the damned rule.  And there’s no amendment concerning the definite separation of Church and State, nor the joining of the two, hence the confusion.  The clause over religion in the Bill of Rights is fairly vague, so we HAVE to revert back to quotations to see what they actually meant, and it clearly shows that they intended a wall be there to separate them for BOTH their sakes.  That’s just common sense, Pablo.

And if the government starts favoring some religions over others, not only will the other religions catch the brunt of hostility and intolerance in the face of governmental bias, but other programs (like Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative) will completely destroy whatever (if any) integrity the religion originally had with money and power.  Which, by the way, are two evils that you guys are NOT supposed to be abusing, if I’m assuming correctly.  But enough about Catholicism.

Which once again brings me back to Jeremy, who thinks that the lack of acceptance of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse of the UNITED STATES would lead to “total Anarchy”.  Once again, I revert back to the point that if people need an imaginary (or simply lackadaisical) God to govern their actions, then what is keeping me – an “evil” atheist – from finding your address on the internet and breaking into your house to murder you for your contradictory and biased opinion?  Well, I suppose the REASONING of the situation would be pretty explanatory - if I kill you, what would stop someone from killing me for MY opinions?  What would stop anyone from killing anybody for anything?

Common decency.  Something in me tells me - maybe that’s not such a good idea.  Maybe I DON’T support might makes right.  Actually, when you think about it… that KIND OF reverts back to COMMON LAW - MOST OR ALL OF WHICH EXISTED BEFORE CHRISTIANITY.

Which brings me back to the point that EVERYBODY was making before - the Ten Commandments WERE NOT the basis for all of our laws.  In fact, I personally don’t believe that ANY of them were, considering that Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers were openly using Common Law as a means to make these rules.  It’s basic human rights that we strive for in America (or at least, that’s what half of us are THINKING as we invade countries for no reason), not a society founded on religion.  And I don’t care what’s been said about it’s teachings; REGARDLESS of what it teaches, when people use Christianity as a front for moral codes, it gets abused in the hands of the clergy and greedy evangelists.  That’s why it’s better not to go with the supposed wishes of an invisible man who doesn’t put a say in (or if “He” does, constantly contradicts himself), and stick to thinking of WHY we keep morality instead.  Because if we weren’t respectful of each others rights (which you guys seem to be in favor of violating), THEN we would have total Anarchy.

Grow up and think.

nowiser United States Posted on 01/15/2004 at 01:47 PM

nowiser pic

Is that what Pablo said?

I thought he was saying that the intent of the Founding Fathers was irrelevant, as they were, in many ways, a bunch of backwards mofos.  They thought slavery was OK.  And that women shouldn’t vote.  And a variety of other things that contemporary people, in general, believe to be rather “benighted” perspectives.  Even if some of them DID believe America should be a strictly Christian nation, then, why should we feel bound by their intent?

But maybe I just totally misread his post.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main