Darwin at Columbine

_{Barry Arrington
November 9, 2007

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a recent post Denyse O’Leary linked to a news story coverning Pekka Eric Auvinen, the Finnish student who killed eight in a shooting spree at his school. Apparently Auvinen was an ardent Darwinist who considered himself to be an instrument of natural selection. He wrote: “I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgaces of human race and failures of natural selection.”

One of O’Leary’s interlocutors more or less accused her of cherry picking her data to push her personal religious agenda. Apparently this person believes this case is an aberation, and it is unfair to suggest a connection between Darwin’s theory and a school shooter’s self understanding as an instrument of natural selection. Not so.

As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, I read through every single page of Eric Harris’ jounals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes, including the infamous “basement tapes.” There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles. For example, he wrote: “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms . . . but it’s all natural! YES!”

Elsewhere he wrote: “NATURAL SELECTION. Kill the retards.” I could multiply examples, but you get the picture.

It was no coincidence that on the day of the shootings Harris wore a shirt with two words written on it: “Natural Selection.”

I am not suggesting that Auvinen’s and Harris’ actions are the inevitable consequences of believing in Darwinism. It is, however, clear that at least some of Darwin’s followers understand “survival of the fittest” and the attendant amorality at the bottom of Darwinism as a license to kill those whom they consider “inferior.” Nothing could be more obvious.

Comments

School systems should be neutral on such questions in a pluralistic society. That would really depend on whether some absolute moral code exist. If one does then every institution should be captured to that code, don't you agree. Should a public school be neutral with regard to racism? Intolerance? They were opposed because they were available in school libraries. Nope. The most well-known controversy involved "The Children of the Rainbow, aimed in part at teaching grade-school children "positive aspects," as the curriculum put it, of homosexual family life" http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n1_v45/ai_13366243 In fact, I would say that if teacher read The God Delusion to a class without commentary or (worse) with approval, that teacher would be fired and sued. I would say that is wishful thinking. What book promoting atheism has ever been ruled unconstitutional to teach/read etc. in a public school.tribune7_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

tribune7, one more point: your link to the GSA network is also irrelevant since that is not a public school or public organization. It can organize in public schools, yes, just like Bible clubs can do.getawitness_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

tribune7, you must be kidding. "Huh? Why? Homosexuality is behavior that is wrong. Why would it be controversial to say such?" Any individual may say it. I can say it, you can say it. Good for us! What should not happen is for a public school to declare it so, since it is not illegal (in America, anyway). Nor should a school declare it moral. School systems should be neutral on such questions in a pluralistic society. "The loudest controversies involving anti-Christian morality being taught as acceptible were Heather has Two Mommies and Daddy’s Roommate." First, those books do not promote atheism, so it's irrelevant to my question. Second, in the cases I have heard of, those books were not "read without commentary in the classroom." They were opposed because they were available in school libraries. "How do you know they are not? We can be confident they would not be unconstitutional, which is the point." We can be confident of no such thing. In fact, I would say that if teacher read The God Delusion to a class without commentary or (worse) with approval, that teacher would be fired and sued. And rightly so. Still, at the moment the case you pose remains utterly hypothetical. As to Freud and Marx, neither is taught or read by teachers "without commentary" in the public schools. Next time you respond to my questions, try not to shift the goalposts or create imagined scenarios.getawitness_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

it’s as wrong for a school authority to say homosexuality is “just fine” (when has that happened?) is it is for a school authority to say homosexuality is “wrong” (that seems to happen a lot). Huh? Why? Homosexuality is behavior that is wrong. Why would it be controversial to say such? And one example w/re to public schools giving a stamp of approval: http://www.gsanetwork.org/resources/start.html I can’t think of a situation where a book defending atheism has been read without commentary in a public school. The loudest controversies involving anti-Christian morality being taught as acceptible were Heather has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate. Neither has been found to be unconstitutional although parents have managed to force them out at times via their school boards. Are teachers reading Dawkins or Hitchens to their classes? How do you know they are not? We can be confident they would not be unconstitutional, which is the point. And, of course, Freud and Marx have been taught in our schools without it becoming an issue for federal courts.tribune7_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

So many comments. StephenB [100], "What are you disturbed about–the loss of freedom or my “insensitive” remark?" I don't know how you would fight "allow[ing] atheists and Muslims to dilute our cultural heritage." Legislatively? Would you treat atheists and Muslims differently in law? "Even now, congress is seeking to establish “hate crime” laws which would silence Christians from public utterances about Biblical moral principles." I'm against all criminalization of speech. As I understand hate crime laws, however, they simply add to an already defined crime; they don't criminalize speech as such. Feel free to correct me by citing the legislation under consideration. Tribune7 [101], I'm all for free speech, so we agree there (though it seems you doubt my faith if I don't agree with you on some specifics of morality or science). I'll say there is not an absolute argument to contest the wrongs you mention all the time, or else you would be doing that right now instead of reading this! But anyway, I'll agree that there have been times when a school has gone overboard: it's as wrong for a school authority to say homosexuality is "just fine" (when has that happened?) is it is for a school authority to say homosexuality is "wrong" (that seems to happen a lot). tribune7 [102], you write Name me one book defending atheism (or neo-paganism) that has been declared unconstitutional for reading w/o commentary in a public school. Name me one book defending the existence of God that has not. What an odd request! I can't think of a situation where a book defending atheism has been read without commentary in a public school. Are teachers reading Dawkins or Hitchens to their classes? StephenB [104], the historical roots of our jurisprudence don't make our government "Christian" any more than the historical roots of December 25 make the celebration of Christmas "Roman." The DoI does indeed refer to "unalienable" rights (not "inalienable") given by our Creator. Reference to the Creator is helpful, rhetorically speaking, because it leapfrogs over the authority of the King. The particular phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is of course a variation on a phrase of John Locke -- who was a Christian like every other philosopher in England of the time but whose own philosophy is hardly an expression of Christianity.getawitness_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Reynold Hall: "As for the supposed hateful remarks at Pandas Thumb and Pharyngula, are any of them even close to Ann Coulter’s" 1. What does Ann Coulter have to do with this? 2. I highly doubt any of her so-called "co-religionists" actually do laugh at such an idea. Or in fact the same idea applied to any other lame-brained atheist who, like Dawkins, is a proselytizing TV evangelist type with no more logic than a turd and a ton of ulterior motives. 3. I suspect that, as usual, she was making one of her extremely vicious 'jokes' 4. You want worse than Coulter? Why do suppose there is a worse or a better in the first place? Atheism has no grounds for objective moral values at all. "No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly.... There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea." William B. Provine - From a debate between him and Phillip E. Johnson, Stanford University, 1994 When you finally figure out that atheism, admittedly having no ultimate foundations for ethics, can have no real foundation for any ethics at all then come back and lecture us on Ann Coulter's morals.Borne_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Maybe I shouldn't take anything for granted. The words, "We are endowed by Our Creator with certain inalieanable rights (which I mistyped as inalieable) does indeed come from the Declaration of Independence. I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence here. Quite the contrary. I am outraged on behalf of those who were cheated out of a decent education by secularists who rewrite history to serve their own ends.StephenB_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

---Getawitness — But the structure of government is secular, and resolutely so. Western jurisprudence is grounded in the Christian concept of the "atonement." "Consent of the governed" is an idea that came from the book of Judges in the Old Testament, where the Israelites did indeed, choose their own judges. The idea that we are "Endowed by Our Creator with certain inalieable rights" follows from the theological belief that we are "made in the image and likeness of God." Is that what you mean by secular?StephenB_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Reynold Hall: Pointing anyone here to anything Hector Avalos, the most inane drone of all the inane drone atheist dupes around, is not going to score you any points. The man is a lame reasoner, self-contradicting and he always loses debates with W.L. Craig. Not to mention that his whole turn to atheism was based personal trauma in regards to the manipulations and sufferings he lived as a child preacher. He's thus now on the war-path against all religion and hypocritically makes his living as a prof. of religion! Now THAT is a travesty. Talk about psycho-emotional reasons for denying the evidence of the existence of a designer!!Borne_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Getawitness --Your speculation about Dembski and Dawkins is just a great big “what if”? Name me one book defending atheism (or neo-paganism) that has been declared unconstitutional for reading w/o commentary in a public school. Name me one book defending the existence of God that has not.tribune7_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Same as most Christians in America Actually, a lot of Christians feel it is appropriate to, well, witness. And to speak out against wrongs. For instance if someone or something -- maybe even a school -- is telling children promiscuity is normal and acceptible (we are nothing but mammals afterall) there is an obligation to contest that. Or if something -- maybe even a school -- is saying homosexuality is just fine, there is an obligation to contest that. Or if something -- say a public funded TV network -- is saying the Bible is just a book of myths, there is an obligation to contest that. Of if something -- say a legislature -- appropriates tax money for Planned Parenthood to promote abortions (and promiscuity), there is an obligation to contest that. Or if a school or college should teach their charges that anyone who thinks all can't be explained by random, material events is not reasonable, there is an obligation to contest that.tribune7_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

from getawitness: StephenB, you wrote: That is why we will all eventually lose our freedoms if we continue to allow atheists and Muslims to dilute our cultural heritage. ------"Could you expand on this? All the interpretations I come up with are profoundly disturbing." What are you disturbed about--the loss of freedom or my "insensitive" remark? Both secularists and Islamists have their own agenda, and neither is compatible with the concept of natural rights as found in Declaration of Independence. Neither likes the idea that our rights come from God. Both would prefer to disestablish the founding father’s formula for liberty which rests on two principles: 1 the authority of God and 2 the dignity of the human person. Since atheists renounce the authority of God and Islamists renounce the dignity of the human person, each has an interest in undermining Christianity, which upholds both. That means that, for the moment, they are on the same side. That will change, of course, if either manages to establish hegemonic control of the culture. Naturally, not all atheists and Muslims share this militant attitude. Many, in fact, just want to be left alone. But the fact remains that there is a culture war going on and the combatants and the battle lines are very well established. Part of the secularist agenda is to convince the gullible that there is no conflict at all. The sad truth is, our own government has become complicit in advancing this anti-freedom, anti-Christian agenda. Even now, congress is seeking to establish “hate crime” laws which would silence Christians from public utterances about Biblical moral principles. The very same people who uprooted one-hundred year old displays of the Ten Commandments are now installing foot baths for Muslims in airports.StephenB_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Pray, go to church, give, etc. Same as most Christians in America. If you're trying to question my faith, why don't you tell me some way that the government is oppressing your beliefs? Of course, some actions prompted by my beliefs would be opposed by the government. For example, I am too old to be in the army but would have refused to serve when I was younger. When I signed my Selective Service pre-registration, I got all my C.O. paperwork in place, just in case. If In the event of the draft's returning, the government could have recognized me as a C.O. or jailed me. In a sense that would have been an oppression of my Christian practice. But that kind of persecution is precisely what Jesus told his followers to expect. Why would we expect anything else?getawitness_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

I honestly don’t see how my belief in God is being opposed by our secular government. What action does your belief in God compell you to do?tribune7_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

tribune7, The Bible is taught in public schools. There's even a curriculum. I honestly don't see how my belief in God is being opposed by our secular government. Your speculation about Dembski and Dawkins is just a great big "what if"?getawitness_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Getawitness -- But the structure of government is secular, and resolutely so. I don't think anybody disagrees with you albeit that secularism was guided by Christian thinking and no way was it in opposition to it. The problem is that it persons have acquired power to interpret our structure of government as one in which the belief in God, and Christianity, should be opposed. If one of Dawkins books should be taught in one of our high schools, no court in the country would ordered it removed. That wouldn't be true of Dembski's works. And obviously that applies to the Bible -- the book that has most influenced our culture -- as well.tribune7_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

Correction: for "required by Congress," read "required by the Constitution." Sorry.getawitness_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

StephenB, you wrote: That is why we will all eventually lose our freedoms if we continue to allow atheists and Muslims to dilute our cultural heritage. Could you expand on this? All the interpretations I come up with are profoundly disturbing. kairosfocus, Thanks for your comment. I agree with you on a lot of that history, but I'm not sure that it is salient to my point. Let me give you an example. When he became the first President, George Washington was required by Congress to report to Congress on the state of the union, a new form (as the government itself was a new form). Did he invent a new way of doing that? Yes and No. The State of the Union was in a sense a new kind of speech, but President Washington fell back on the monarchical form known as the "King's Speech" to Parliment, and Congress responded in a form that looked a lot like the "echoing speech" traditionally given by Parliment back to the King. A person could look at that history -- as well as a lot of the other trappings of monarchical tradition -- and say, well, looks like deep down the American government is just like a Parliment/King system. But it wasn't. That's what I think you're doing with the traditions that informed the (secular) governmental structure of the U.S. Of course the founders drew language, understanding, and ideas from their Christianity. I've never said they didn't! But the structure of government is secular, and resolutely so. Reference on the "king's speech" issue: K.M. Jamieson, "Antecedent Genre as Rhetorical Constraint." Quarterly Journal of Speech 61 (1975): 406-15.getawitness_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

GAW: I see your: transforming the Constitution into a Christian document because it uses a common convention of dating Kindly examine the gross structure of the document, as I excerpted and discussed in no 68, point 6. Then also, see the onward context in the various actions of the founding Continental Congress, which was a continuing context for all the documents from circa 1774/5 to about 1787-9. In no 76, I cited one example of those actions, which clearly shows why the Constitution uses "OUR Lord" in dating itself, in a context where the Constitution seeks from its outset to secure "the BLESSINGS of liberty" to the US, and to pursue justice [cf here Rom 13:1 - 10 onhow Ceasar is God's servant to do us good especially by promoting justice, i.e. that is the line between him and God in the classic quote on rendering -- indeed, taxing power (the root of the loaded question Jesus was answering) is predicated on the duty of pursuing this task, in Rom 13]. As I have repeatedly noted and have linked and discussed, blessings is a covenantal term, tying back to the Biblically anchored, Reformation understanding of the dual covenant of nationhood and government under God. Cf the recent Library of Congress exhibition for much more. It is worth excerpting their summary remark on introducing an extensive collection of relevant documents:
The Continental- Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men . . . both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity . . . . Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people . . . The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."
To see why this is an objectively based, accurate summary, kindly follow up the link and the onward links to many original documents across the entire founding era; many of them available as facsimilies. Any interpretation of the US Constitution and DOI which does not comport well with what is EXPLICITLY and REPEATEDLY stressed in the cumulative set of these and related documents, is plainly without objective foundation -- though it is evidently increasingly the consensus view of today's highly ideologised, secularist- influenced intelligentsia. Maybe, the time has come to demand to know why such evidence is plainly systematically excluded from the textbooks. In short, Perry Miller was plainly right in Nature's Nation, p. 110, when he said:
Actually, European deism was an exotic plant in America, which never struck roots in the soil. 'Rationalism' was never so widespread as liberal historians, or those fascinated by Jefferson, have imagined. The basic fact is that the Revolution had been preached to the masses as a religious revival, and had the astounding fortune to succeed."
What he needed to add, methinks, is that CONGRESS, through official proclamations, was doing a lot of that preaching and calling to penitence as a basis for revival and blessing through "the merits of Jesus Christ," including those of independence, victory and prosperous, virtuous peace. GEM of TKI PS: I think you may find it helpful to glance at this.kairosfocus_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

Janice: Thank you for your kind words.StephenB_{November 12, 2007
November
11
Nov
12
12
2007
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

There’s a mutual reinforcement, but I think ideology is mainly acquired without conscious teaching. And I disagree completely. If you think that “A.D.” was my step-great- grandmother’s coded Christian insertion, I have no idea. OTOH, if your great grandfather was such a virulent atheist I would not dismiss the use of the letters as trivial -- assuming he knew what they meant. that’s even weirder than transforming the Constitution into a Christian document because it uses a common convention of dating. It is far weirder to say that it is a "godless" document or "does not mention Jesus" when the phrase is in there for all to see.tribune7_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

tribune7, "Teaching changes, and always trumps, culture." There's a mutual reinforcement, but I think ideology is mainly acquired without conscious teaching. "And your step-great-grandmother was an atheist too, right?" I think so, but she was pretty quiet. He was a virulent atheist, however, to the point that he refused to attend his son's wedding if it was in a church (his fiancee, my grandmother, was a nominal Methodist). They were married in a courthouse. If you think that "A.D." was my step-great- grandmother's coded Christian insertion, that's even weirder than transforming the Constitution into a Christian document because it uses a common convention of dating.getawitness_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

I don’t think our values and cultures are a result of teachings either. Once upon a time ministral shows were common here. White guys would put on blackface and act like fools. Amos and Andy -- which was based on the same concept -- was the most popular radio show, and a popular TV show. It was an intrinsic part of our culture. That sort of thing would not be accepted today. Why? Because it was taught that it was insulting and demeaning. Teaching changes, and always trumps, culture. Great-grandfather, and yes. They were all custom-designed cards: he wrote the text and his wife (who was an artist, my step-great-grandmother after his first wife died) And your step-great-grandmother was an atheist too, right?tribune7_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

tribune7, "'Teachings' guide culture and values not vice-versa." There we differ; though I don't think culture and values entirely determine 'teachings,' I don't think our values and cultures are a result of teachings either. "Did your grandfather print the cards himself?" Great-grandfather, and yes. They were all custom-designed cards: he wrote the text and his wife (who was an artist, my step-great-grandmother after his first wife died) created the pen-and-ink illustrations.getawitness_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Depends what you mean by “founding” (the Declaration is one time, the Constitution is another). An 11-year difference. But first I’d say that any group’s cultural norms and values are based on a lot of things of which “teachings” are almost always a distinct minority. And you would be wrong. "Teachings" guide culture and values not vice-versa. But they did refer to “1933 AD” and so forth (AD for Anno Domini, “Year of our Lord”). Did your grandfather print the cards himself?tribune7_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

tribune7, The use of "the Year of our Lord" is not accidental but trivial. Here's an example: my great-grandfather was an atheist, but he used to send printed Christmas cards to all his relatives every year. I inherited some. They never actually mentioned Christmas but "the Holidays" (back in the 1930s, he was the kind of person Henry Ford used to complain about as waging a "war on Christmas.") But they did refer to "1933 AD" and so forth (AD for Anno Domini, "Year of our Lord"). Much as I might wish my great-grandfather was a Christian, he wasn't. I can't do anything about that. His use of AD was a convention. The use of "Year of Our Lord" in legal language of the 18th century is routine (though not required.) It is also a convention. We seem to have left the original subject of this post, but I'm not too sad about that, as I still think it was an abuse of tragedy to score debate points.getawitness_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

Tribune 7:---"That’s a very interesting observation. I guess one can claim that the Pentateuch as a Biblical law, but when added to the rest of the OT — in which numerous ceremonial transgressions are forgiven by the Almighty while more intrinsic sins are not– even that becomes apparent that the spirit counts for more than the letter." Yes, I like your instincts here about the spirit and the letter of the law. In one respect, we can say, "yes there is a 'law' to the extent that we must take seriously the mandates that apply to personal salvation. On the other hand, there is no "prescription" for establishing a hierarchy of civil mandates than cannot ever be changed. The natural moral law never changes, but the civil law must always be changing. Thus, we can successfully manage the chaos of an ever-changing law only from the non-chaotic vantage point of the never-changing moral law. Alas, our leaders still do not get this.StephenB_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

tribune7, "I’ll let you clarify — upon whose teachings were the cultural norms and values of the United States, based at the time of its founding?" Depends what you mean by "founding" (the Declaration is one time, the Constitution is another). But first I'd say that any group's cultural norms and values are based on a lot of things of which "teachings" are almost always a distinct minority. So, briefly, American cultural norms and values at the end of the eighteenth century are a mix of (among other ingredients) Christian belief (variously interpreted and practiced) both Protestant and Catholic, longstanding English cultural traditions, Enlightenment philosophy, the writings of John Locke, mercantilism emerging into capitalism, institutionalized racism and the slave trade, post-Renaissance individualism, institutionalized misogyny, fear of the natives, a misplaced sense of entitlement, etc., etc. Lots of good and lots of bad, like any set of cultural values in this World.getawitness_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

StephanB -- There is no “Biblical law” (as in a parallel to Islamic Sharia law) but only Biblical principles which can serve to guide us, and they work only insofar as we honor them. That's a very interesting observation. I guess one can claim that the Pentateuch as a Biblical law, but when added to the rest of the OT -- in which numerous ceremonial transgressions are forgiven by the Almighty while more intrinsic sins are not-- even that becomes apparent that the spirit counts for more than the letter.tribune7_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

I’m always perplexed that some find that values and cultures don’t matter . . .”I’ve never said anything of the sort, I'll let you clarify -- upon whose teachings were the cultural norms and values of the United States, based at the time of its founding? and that is appended to a document It is not "appended" but, rather, part of the document. that deliberately did not mention God directly anywhere. Deliberately? You think they put that "Year of Our Lord" thing in by accident, do you? I’m glad, however, that you seem to accept that the Magna Carta example is not to the point ??? I think you missed the point.tribune7_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply