Separation of Church and State

_{May 8, 2007

Constitution, Culture, Religion}

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

This is for ForTheKids (FTK) to discuss separation of church and state. An important topic IMO. I deleted her opening separation comment on the DCA Update II thread as well as responses because I wanted that thread to remain topical. Our blog software has no option for relocating comments. FTK has been so gracious to me on her blog when I go off topic I felt bad about it so here’s the venue. I’ll open it with links to a couple relevant articles I wrote last year, some verbatim quotes of relevant constitutional amendments, and some historical facts regarding use of the phrase by founders and the US Supreme Court:

List of Preambles to US State Constitutions

Self Evident Truths in State Constitution Preambles

This is all the constitution has to say on religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

A wall of separation between church and state is a synthesis that doesn’t appear in the constitution. Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase “wall of separation” while president in a letter to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that the federal government would not establish a state church nor be biased in any way for or against Danbury Baptists. It wasn’t until 75 years later it came into legal parlance when the supreme court in 1878 used it in deciding Reynolds, where (of all things) the court defended marriage as institution between one man and one woman, holding against the “free exercise” claim of Mormons in Utah who wanted polygamy legalized. It was yet another 75 years before it was quoted a second time where in 1947 in Everson the USSC held that (of all things again) state funded transportation of children to and from parochial schools was constitutional. It was used by the USSC 23 more times after that until in 1970 the court backed away from it for setting a tone too hostile towards religion.

Moreover the 1st amendment didn’t apply to state governments until the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 which included an extension of federal constitional rights to all citizens. Prior to the 14th amendment states weren’t forbidden from making laws regarding an establishment of religion. The relevant portion of the 14th:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So you see, when Jefferson and a few other founders talked about a wall of separation they were only talking about a wall between federal government and churches. State governments could do whatever they wanted with laws regarding religion. I mention the 14th because it adds crucial context to the early use of the phrase Jefferson coined i.e.; it was only about federal laws at that time. None of them were arguing that state and local governments couldn’t do as they saw fit and this ties neatly back into the articles I wrote about preambles in state constitutions. States weren’t nearly as bashful about God and government as the federal government was in the early days.

Comments

Jerry wrote: “The whole idea of separation of church and state is nonsense no matter how far back you can find someone using the phrase. Dear Jerry: Just what do you mean by the phrase “separation of church and state?”Fred Flash_{October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Jerry wrote: “Thomas Jefferson attended religious services regularly in Congress throughout his presidency as did other presidents.” Dear Jerry: So what, dude? Atheist lectures were held in the Capitol Building during the early years of the Republic. One lecture was given by the famous infidel Robert Owen. It was attended by the President and the Vice President. Robert Owen was also granted permission to set up an exhibit in the White House. Christianity, in the eyes of the early federal government, was apparently no better than atheism, in the eyes of the law.Fred Flash_{October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Jerry wrote: “…the display of … religious sayings in public places and on money was never an issue.” Dear Jerry: I challenge you to show us some evidence that the federal government, during the early years of the Republic, displayed religious sayings in public places and on money. The federal government didn’t do those sorts of things until the founders were all dead and the American people allowed the government to assume advisory authority over the things that are God’s. FYI, a statue depicting Roger Williams holding a book, on which was inscribed the Baptist name for “Separation of Church and State”, would have been seen by visitors to the Capitol Building during the 1820’s.Fred Flash_{October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Jerry wrote: … the display of the ten commandments in public places was never an issue. Dear Jerry: It apparently was an issue, dude. I challenge you to show us evidence that the federal government, during the early years of the Republic, ever recommended or suggested that the people obey the following commandments: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and consecrated it." The 1810 Post Office law rejected the commandment regarding keeping the Sabbath holy. The law required the U. S. Mail to be transported on Sunday and the post offices to be opened. According to U. S. Representative Samuel Griffin (Virginia), a proposal to post the Ten Commandments in Federal Courthouses was proposed by Jonathan Grout of Massachusetts in 1789. It was rejected. Grout was supposedly labeled a fool by Roger Sherman.Fred Flash_{October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Jerry said: ...the use of prayer...in public places...was never an issue. Dear Jerry: Civil authority over prayer was an issue during the early years of the Republic. That's why there was no opening prayer in Congress until the 1850's. That's also why the general policy in the common schools was no prayer, unless there was 100% agreement. One objection meant no prayer. That's also why 20,000 of Jefferson's supporters marched in the streets of Philadelphia in 1798 to express their anger over President John Adams' issuance of a prayer/fast recommendation. John Adams blamed his defeat in the 1800 Presidential election on his religious recommendation.Fred Flash_{October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Jerry wrote that establishing a Christian religious holiday as a national holiday was not a big thing. *** Dear Jerry: During the early years of the Republic, Christmas wasn't a federal government holiday. It wasn't until after 1865, the year our nation surrendered any claim to be a true Christian nation, that Christmas became a holiday established by federal law.Fred Flash_{October 25, 2007
October
10
Oct
25
25
2007
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Fred Flash, "Explain to me how making Christmas a holiday gives the government authority over religion?" It doesn't. I never said it did. It just indicates that establishing a Christian religious holiday as a national holiday was not a big thing and was consistent with what the country was about. Similarly the use of prayer and the display of the ten commandments and other religious sayings in public places and on money was never an issue. Thomas Jefferson attended religious services regularly in Congress throughout his presidency as did other presidents. The whole idea of separation of church and state is nonsense no matter how far back you can find someone using the phrase. The constitutional amendment was about preventing the establishing a state religion sponsored and supported by the federal government. At the same time some states did establish state religions so this was not thought to be against the constitution. After World War II no one had any problem with vets using their GI bill money in religious schools. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of vets used the money to become ministers, priests and rabbis. The separation of church and state issue is bogus and made up in the 20th century primarily by Hugo Black and was mainly used to undercut tax monies being used to support Catholics for their schools. The source for this is Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer and Jewish.jerry_{October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Dave Scott claims that Thomas Jefferson, in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, assuring the Baptists that the federal government would not establish a state church nor be biased in any way for or against Danbury Baptists. The Danbury Baptists had expressed no concern whatsoever, in their letter to President Jefferson, about the establishment of a national church. Their complaint was about the Connecticut Certificate Law of 1791. Presented below is an excerpt from the letter to Jefferson from the Danbury Baptists that Jefferson responded to. "our [Connecticut State] constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient [colonial] charter [for Connecticut] [from Charles the Second, in 1626] together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our [Connecticut State] government, at the time of our [American] revolution [against England]; and such had been our [state] laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements [required by the Connecticut Certificate Law of 1791] as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws [refuse to issue executive religious proclamations] to govern the kingdom of Christ."Fred Flash_{October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Dave Scott falsely claims that Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase “wall of separation.” Benjamin Franklin's friend, the radical James Burgh, coined e phrase "wall of separation" in his writings prior to Jefferson's. In Crito (1766, 1767. 2 Vols. Pp 92-3), Burgh proposed building "an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil": "I will fairly tell you what will be the consequences of your setting up such a mixed-mungrel-spiritual-temporal-secular-ecclesiastical establishment. You will make the dispensers of religion despicable and odious to all men of sense, and will destroy the spirituality, in which consists the: whole value, of religion..." "Shew yourselves superior to all these follies and knaveries. Put into the hands of the people the clerical emoluments; and let them give them to whom they will; choosing their public teachers, and maintaining them decently, but moderately, as becomes their spiritual character. We have in our times a proof from the conduct of some among us, in respect of the appointment of their public administrators of religion, that such a scheme will answer all the necessary purposes, and prevent infinite corruption;--ecclesiastical corruption; the most odious of all corruption." "Build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil. Do not send a graceless officer, reeking from the anus of his trull, to the performance of a holy rite of religion, as a test for his holding the command of a regiment. To profane, in such a manner, a religion, which you pretend to reverence, is an impiety sufficient to bring down upon your heads, the roof of the sacred building you thus defile."Fred Flash_{October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Dear Jerry: Explain to me how making Christmas a holiday gives the government authority over religion? Fred FlashFred Flash_{October 24, 2007
October
10
Oct
24
24
2007
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

H'mm: I think that DS raises important issues here, especially on the questions that tie to the Wedge document. 1] Wedges, reason, ID and DI's motives: I note though that in effect the DI's Wedge is a countering strategy, relative to a powerful wave of evolutionary materialist thought that has long since pervaded powerful institutions starting with the Academy and Science, as well as the media and education, then also the Courts and increasingly legislatures. Arguably, that materialism has had seriously deleterious effects over the whole world across the past 100 years, and our Civilisation is in need of countering it, as DI argued in their Web Site circa 2003:
Materialistic thinking dominated Western culture during the 20th century in large part because of the authority of science. The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks, therefore, to challenge materialism on specifically scientific grounds. Yet Center Fellows do more than critique theories that have materialistic implications. They have also pioneered alternative scientific theories and research methods that recognize the reality of design and the need for intelligent agency to explain it. This new research program — called "design theory" — is based upon recent developments in the information sciences and many new evidences of design. Design theory promises to revitalize many long-stagnant disciplines by recognizing mind, as well as matter, as a causal influence in the world. It also promises, by implication, to promote a more holistic view of reality and humanity, thus helping to reverse some of materialism's destructive cultural consequences.
In short, the socio-cultural agenda that led DI to support the already existing ID research programme is legitimate in light of the previous materialist takeover of key institutions, and it is NECESSARILY significantly independent of the logical validity and empirical warrant for the science therein contained. In particular, unless the design inference is sound standing on its own, it is of no help to the DI in seeking to respond tot he claimed base for Evolutionary Materialism viewed as a socio-cultural agenda championed by powerful and articulate forces and advocates. We should therefore separate motives and reasons and associated supportive evidence, or we fall afoul of the ad hominem fallacy. [As my linked will show, I believe on significant evidence, that there is excellent reason to see that the design inference is solid. the now standard resort to ad hominems, strawmen and red herrings by Evo Mat advocates, is eloquent testimony that they too in their heart of hearts see that this is so. And, such a resort speaks eloquently of the ruthless commitment to an agenda on their part . . . ] 2] On "Establishment": I also think it may be useful to revisit and think again about a few ideas and original sources on the US Constitution, its precursor history and the results that have flowed therefrom across the world, once the American experiment in liberty and self-Government by a free people succeeded. Further to this, note that the original import of the relevant clause of Amdt 1 was that landeskirke would be a local not a federal matter. That is, the Federal-level state had no jurisdiction on establishment of churches as state churches, but was bound to protect freedom of conscience and expression where local established churches overstepped their proper limits -- as has historically been a problem. (Nobody handles unbridled power well, including increasingly secularists, as recent bans on ID in Europe sadly reveal.) That is, the Amndt embraced in a republican context the substance of the settlement at Westphalia in 1648, whereby the local established church would be that of the relevant prince's religious loyalties. But at the same time, there would be toleration of dissenters and freedom to express and propagate one's views, including of course that of the media [i.e. the press]. 3] "References" to religion in the US Const: Of course we need to recognise that religious concepts and worldviews that have theistic elements in them are distinct from institutions that may or may not be based on those worldviews in part. In that context, we can see that there is more on religion in the US Constitution than may be immediately apparent to C20 or 21 readers unfamiliar with the reformation era concept of establishment of states by explicit or implicit covenant under God. For illustration [cf the linked above], look at the overall structure of the US COnstitution, in light of the 2nd paragraph of the US DOI and the many proclamations of the Continental Congress of days of fasting, penitence, prayer and thanksgiving surrounding the Revolutionary war:
[Const] We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America . . . . [Main Body, Arts I - VII] . . . . Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. . . . . [AMENDMENTS].
"Blessings," of course is not a general legal term, but as the Theology-trained Madison [he studied under Witherspoon] would have known, is a covenantal one. Indeed, it reflects the ideas recently summarised by the US Library of Congress [cf the above linked] in discussing the religious framework of the US Founding:
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."
A brief excerpt from the Congressional proclamation of penitence of May 1776 will suffice to show what "blessings of liberty" meant in America circa 1775 - 1787:
In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity.. . . Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies . . . That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity.
On the strength of much more like that, I think the whole frame of reference of the current debates needs to be seriously reassessed and a lot of one-sided historical and legal revisionism needs to be re-thought and, frankly, corrected. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{October 23, 2007
October
10
Oct
23
23
2007
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

Fred Flash, Christmas is an offical holiday of the United States of America, established by Congress, signed by the President and never challenged by the Supreme Court.jerry_{October 23, 2007
October
10
Oct
23
23
2007
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

Dave Scott wrote that "A wall of separation between church and state is a synthesis that doesn’t appear in the constitution." **** Dear Dave: What is your concept of separation between church and state, the concept that you claim is not in the Constitution? Are you claiming that the Constitution gives the government authority over religion?Fred Flash_{October 23, 2007
October
10
Oct
23
23
2007
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Dave Scott wrote that all the U. S. Constitution has to say on religion is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The U. S. Constitution established a limited government with no powers except for those expressly granted. The Constitution grants the U. S. Government no authority or jurisdiction whatsoever over religion. No human authority, and especially no civil government authority, over religion is what separation of church and state is all about.Fred Flash_{October 23, 2007
October
10
Oct
23
23
2007
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Hmm ... am I on suspension? or is the machine just acting up? Don't seem to be getting through.Rude_{May 11, 2007
May
05
May
11
11
2007
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Dave ScottÃ¢â‚¬â€IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m with you on all that but will have to desist on this:
While I strongly feel that new testament directives focused on charity and forgiveness are an exceedingly positive influence on society IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m just as strongly against the brutality found in the old testament. To me it seems like entirely different versions of deities inspired the two texts and the latter was created to correct the horrible deficiencies of the former and where the only reason there was a connection made between the two was to leverage the existing base of believers in the old testament.
America was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy where the Old Testament played a very strong role for which I recommend a look at this from David Gelernter. Some of the founders even wrote in Hebrew and Yale still bears Hebrew in its seal. Early America countenanced a great deal of religious disputation and diversityÃ¢â‚¬â€much that would be classed as deep heresy by todayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s cult watchersÃ¢â‚¬â€and so it is in keeping with this tradition that no organized church dictates to the central government. The Torah was a nation founding contract, the New Testament (as also the Talmud) dealt more with life in the diaspora, and so it was not unexpected that our founders drew so heavily on the Old Testament. Today there is much ridicule of the TorahÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s take on slavery (Exodus 21), but we should note that there is no provision for prison in the Torah (even though Israel is freed from Egypt where there were prisons aplenty Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Genesis 39-40), and rather than extolling slavery the Torah sets limits including the fact that slaves must be released in the seventh year shemittah, and though this didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t apply to noncitizens (such as prisoners of war), the Torah sets the pattern whereby citizenship was available to aliens willing to live in accord with the law. Today we reject all forms of indentured servitude, but one who has served time in any of AmericaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s prisons (weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re mistaken if we think we get a private cell and protection from the beasts haunting the crowded corridors) might be interested in the TorahÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s provisions. The New Testament cannot be understood apart from the OldÃ¢â‚¬â€perhaps thinking it can be is a source of some of today's touchy-feely, politically correct, multi-culti, criminal-coddling, effeminate attitudes. Just about every saying of Jesus is a quote from the Old Testament. Here, for example, is how he sums up the Old Testament (Matthew 22:37-40):
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
HeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s quoting, of course, Deuteronomy 6:5Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might [Ã—â€¢Ã–Â°Ã—ÂÃ–Â¸Ã—â€Ã–Â·Ã—â€˜Ã–Â°Ã—ÂªÃ–Â¼Ã–Â¸ Ã—ÂÃ–ÂµÃ—Âª Ã—â€Ã—Â³ Ã—ÂÃ–Â±Ã—Å“Ã–Â¹Ã—â€Ã–Â¶Ã—â„¢Ã—Å¡Ã–Â¸ Ã—â€˜Ã–Â¼Ã–Â°Ã—â€ºÃ–Â¸Ã—Å“Ã–Â¾Ã—Å“Ã–Â°Ã—â€˜Ã–Â¸Ã—â€˜Ã–Â°Ã—Å¡Ã–Â¸ Ã—â€¢Ã–Â¼Ã—â€˜Ã–Â°Ã—â€ºÃ–Â¸Ã—Å“Ã–Â¾Ã—Â Ã–Â·Ã—Â¤Ã–Â°Ã—Â©Ã—ÂÃ–Â°Ã—Å¡Ã–Â¸ Ã—â€¢Ã–Â¼Ã—â€˜Ã–Â°Ã—â€ºÃ–Â¸Ã—Å“Ã–Â¾Ã—Å¾Ã–Â°Ã—ÂÃ–Â¹Ã—â€œÃ–Â¶Ã—Å¡Ã–Â¸].Ã¢â‚¬Â And also Leviticus 19:18Ã¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself [Ã—â€¢Ã–Â°Ã—ÂÃ–Â¸Ã—â€Ã–Â·Ã—â€˜Ã–Â°Ã—ÂªÃ–Â¼Ã–Â¸ Ã—Å“Ã–Â°Ã—Â¨Ã–ÂµÃ—Â¢Ã–Â²Ã—Å¡Ã–Â¸ Ã—â€ºÃ–Â¼Ã–Â¸Ã—Å¾Ã—â€¢Ã–Â¹Ã—Å¡Ã–Â¸] Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â Just this morning there was a note in my box Ã¢â‚¬â€œ
Scribner, an Imprint of Simon and Schuster Publishers, has won the rights to publish Azure Editor-in-Chief David HazonyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s The Ten Commandments: A Blueprint for the Redemptive Society in 2009. The book examines the importance and meaning of the Ten Commandments, both for individuals seeking to live moral, socially engaged lives, and for a democratic nation looking to survive and thrive in a time of flux, moral relativism and political danger.
I suggest that now more than ever we need strong input from both our Christian and Jewish spokesmenÃ¢â‚¬â€particularly those who have sloughed off the materialism that so stifles us. It is ironic that Christendom should have had such a history of violenceÃ¢â‚¬â€drawing as it did on the Sermon on the Mount. Some in Christendom have apologized and sought to make amends, others are retreating to the same old error. What they need is some real down to earth Torah study. It would be good for them. Anyway yÃ¢â‚¬â„¢all take care and have a great weekend!Rude_{May 11, 2007
May
05
May
11
11
2007
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Excellent points, Fire. Thanks.Forthekids_{May 10, 2007
May
05
May
10
10
2007
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

rockr So itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not about promoting one religion, but rather about providing important services to the soldiers, without which they would refuse to fight. You're so full of it I bet your eyes are brown. I was in the Marines for 4 years and I don't recall knowing a single Marine that used the base chapel or talked to a chaplain. The idea that anyone would refuse to fight if there weren't base chapels and chaplains is ludicrous.DaveScot_{May 10, 2007
May
05
May
10
10
2007
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

Scubaredneck the modest aims of the DI seem entirely justified and even to be expected We've come a long way since the Mayflower which preceded the Revolutionary War by well over a century. I certainly don't want puritanical mores imposed by gov't edict and I'm certain that sentiment is shared by comfortable majority of my fellow citizens. The influence of religion in government and culture declined a lot since the 17th century colonial days. A lot of people don't want to give back the freedom from religion ground they've gained. Maybe some ground, as in my case, but not a whole lot. As I said a theocracy is pure hyperbole but certainly not hyperbole is DI using ID to promote a conservative Christian religious agenda. When motives are rightly suspect the veracity of the scientific claims is sullied. Most people don't have the knowledge or time to acquire the knowledge to evaluate the claims very well so they make their judgement of its veracity based upon the unscientific agenda that inspires the proponents. The science may be solid, or at least as solid as chance & necessity narratives, but they have no way of knowing that. All they know is what the great majority of scientists have believed about evolution for the last 100 years and what little they were taught and remember about evolution in K-12 biology. This is quite understandable. Why should they believe a small minority of scientists instead of the great majority when they don't really understand the science but well understand an agenda of trying to promote religion in the public square where many if not most feel religion shouldn't directly influence the government to begin with? I daresay very few people want someone like Kent Hovind or Jerry Falwell making public policy carrying the force of law based on Draconian old testament directives. While I strongly feel that new testament directives focused on charity and forgiveness are an exceedingly positive influence on society I'm just as strongly against the brutality found in the old testament. To me it seems like entirely different versions of deities inspired the two texts and the latter was created to correct the horrible deficiencies of the former and where the only reason there was a connection made between the two was to leverage the existing base of believers in the old testament.DaveScot_{May 10, 2007
May
05
May
10
10
2007
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Angry, What do you mean by freedom from religion? Do you think that Jefferson thought we were not free to be non-believers? Or do you just think that he didn't believe we were to be free from religion in our government? If you think that I think he meant that there should be no religion or churches or belief in god, then no, obviously he didn't believe that. I would think that in US history, only a few extreme radicals have ever suggested such a thing. When you refer to "the phrase we've been talking about," I don't know whether you mean the 'wall of separation' or the 'alter of god' quote. Which one do you mean, and what is it that you are obviously eager to say about what he really meant by it?Wittgenstein_{May 10, 2007
May
05
May
10
10
2007
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Wittgenstein, Nothing you've just posted answered my question, nor made the case that Jefferson advocated freedom from religion. You are conflating church with belief in God. They are not the same thing. You didn't even address what Jefferson was so upset about when he wrote the phrase we've been talking about. I suspect you don't know.angryoldfatman_{May 10, 2007
May
05
May
10
10
2007
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

This may be a bit of a hijack of the thread, and if so, I am sorry, but there is something I've never understand about the "debate" over evolution. All creationist arguments, including ID, at their heart, say "God created life". Creationism is about the Origin of LIFE. Evolution is not. Evolution is about the Origin of SPECIES. i.e. Why is a dog a dog, cat a cat, a duck a duck, and how did they get those silly feet? As far as I'm aware, science has yet to come out with a repeatable theory on the origin of life. Every time I see the subject discussed, people are always talking past each other. It's like the Ten Commandments issue. One side says "You're trying to create a theocracy!" (As if a block of stone would do so) and the other side says "Our laws are based on this!" (When, in fact, only three of the ten are actually laws, at least in the USA.) I believe there is a great danger in comingling government with religion. One need only look at Sharia law in countries governed by muslims to see the danger. Would anyone want to live in a country where strict interpretation of Leviticus was law? I wouldn't. But I doubt that's what anyone has in mind, which leads to... The seperation came about not to protect atheism or science, but to protect the different interpretations of faith. The quakers had very different ideas of law and punishment than the puritans. The first amendment was put in to prevent the federalizing of one sect's interpretation and imposing it on the others. Somewhere along the lines, atheism became the enemy of christianty, even more so than other religions. Why is atheism any different than Islam or Judaism?Fire_{May 10, 2007
May
05
May
10
10
2007
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

AngryOldFatman Said IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d like you can explain how one can swear on the altar of God to be hostile to tyranny over the mind of man while simultaneously thinking that a belief in God is tyrannical to manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s mind. Thomas Jefferson said But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer [Jesus] of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State. (Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Samuel Kercheval, 1810) I recognize that Jefferson was himself a religious man, but he was very suspicious of the mix of religion and government, if only because he feared the abuse of insincere or corrupted religion rather than religion in principle. We can argue all day about whether the constitution we ended up with guarantees any separation of church and state, but you are going to have a hard time supporting the idea that Jefferson would not have wanted it to. And he clearly wanted to protect even the non-believer: "Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." His own proposed language for the new Virginia constitution was even more clearly secular: "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution" And finally... "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."Wittgenstein_{May 10, 2007
May
05
May
10
10
2007
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Scubaredneck wrote: "Personally, I think that most of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“concernsÃ¢â‚¬Â about the establishment of a Christian theocracy in the U.S. are either simply partison political hystrionics or the predictable result of uncritically listening to such. I ask anyone who claims to have this concern to share their basis for such. Typically, their response is based on something they heard some liberal pundit say, not anything they heard DI or the Bush admin say or do." Truth be told, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve only heard the liberal pundits version of what Ahmanson is all about, and have not been able to find anything damning written by him (still looking). But, as far as whether people are just making up allegations or not, I like to try to take people at their word. Some are deliberate scare mongers (RSR) and they are pretty easy to spot, but for others I do think they are legitimately concerned. I can think of two TEÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s in particular who I know, and I trust them enough to believe that they do have true concerns about this issue. Granted, theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve listened to one too many pundits, but there must be a way to ease this fear. They truly believe that the DI fellows are dishonest and interested only in pushing religion into the public schools or making a buck or two on their books. I think there would be much more support for ID if this fear were addressed more extensively. "In my mind, this makes this argument a classic Red Herring (a false argument inserted into a debate to serve as a powerful distraction) and ought to be treated as such." Maybe so, but is this Ã¢â‚¬Å“false argumentÃ¢â‚¬Â distracting to the point of turning potential ID supporters away? And, could there be materialists out there who are not so much opposed to religion and science working hand in hand as they are fearful of an impending Christian reign of terror (in their opinion)? DaveScot wrote: "How can the public be assured that narratives about chance & necessity are not part of a larger plan to establish atheism as the dominant world-view? I think with people like Dennet and Dawkins being spokespersons for the other side, and 72% of the National Academy of Sciences members being confirmed positive atheists, this question is just as legitimate as yours." Right, and of course this is a concern. But, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m of the belief that a majority of those 72% arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t hostile to religion...they merely arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t interested. But, by framing this debate as US and THEM we seem to look over the fact that most of us, from both sides, fall somewhere in the middle. Perhaps we wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have such a problem working together on some of these issues if it wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t for the LOUD voices coming from of the leaders of the anti-religion and anti-atheism sectors....perhaps we need to work harder at ignoring them and trying to find ways to work together. But, then again, maybe thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s just wishful thinking on my part. "ID is true or not regardless of the motivation of proponents and the same holds true for chance & necessity. Motivation doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t establish whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s true or untrue. Evidence and the logical inferences that can be drawn from it do." Very true, but I just wish that people werenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t so concerned about this theocracy issue. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s seem to me that it stands in the way of them thinking clearly about the science. Todd, In theory, I think that the voucher idea is very interesting and could benefit our students. But, I also see a down side that worries me quite a bit. If students split off into different schools based on social, religious, or moral issues, might that lead to further divisions within our society? If atheist parents send their children to a particular school that teaches a naturalistic view of the world, that science is the only means of finding truth, and that belief in supernatural events is ignorant or insane, while Christian parents send their children to another school which warns them of the evils of atheism, teaches them about God and his word for us, and present the design factor in regard to our origins, how will those students treat each other outside of the classroom? Will there be less tolerance for various ideas and beliefs? Would we be pushing our students into a civil war? As Christians, shouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t we be living among those who are unbelievers? IsnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t that what Christ was all about? Letting your light shine and all that jazz? What good would come of secluding ourselves and our children? We should set an example, not hide ourselves away in fear of negative influence. The proof for our faith is there, and if our children are well educated in regard to the evidence that supports our faith, theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll follow the truth...Forthekids_{May 10, 2007
May
05
May
10
10
2007
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

Dave, Read the Mayflower Compact and then try to convince me that DI's wildest strategies and hopes even come close to the language found therein. Given the fact that our government continues to re-affirm that we are "one nation, under God," the modest aims of the DI seem entirely justified and even to be expected. The charges of theocracy are little more than hystrionics being spouted by folks who wish to remove all mention of God from the public square. These are the, in large part, same folks who have "sanitized" our kid's history classes by removing references to things like the Mayflower Compact (the earliest American document of government), various sections of the Declaration of Independance, etc. The fact that the Wikipedia article seems to support certain notions about DI means little as Wikipedia has yet to distinguish itself as a reliable source of unbiased information (indeed, that would seem to run counter to its stated purpose). The ScubaredneckThe Scubaredneck_{May 10, 2007
May
05
May
10
10
2007
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

latemodel I put a link to the survey of NAS scientists on the "Additional Descent" sidebar. Scubaredneck You know the old saying Give an inch and they'll take a mile. The difference between religious influence in government, science, and culture and theocracy is one of degree not of kind. The concern is inflated but valid for anyone who doesn't desire stronger Christian influence in the public sphere. The Wedge document escaping the confines of private pitches to small receptive audiences for fund raising purposes was a monumental blunder. It really poisoned the well. Read this and imagine you're an outsider wanting to know what ID is all about. Would you think it's about science or a conservative Christian political agenda? I'll agree with you that a theocracy in the United States is hyperbole - about as likely as Iran making Judaism its state religion. DaveScot_{May 9, 2007
May
05
May
9
09
2007
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

Wittgenstein wrote: And to AngryOldFatMan: A little more of JeffersonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s quote changes the meaning, at least a little. The quote came from a letter to Benjamin Rush. Jefferson was discussing the Philadelphia clergyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s opposition to his political candidacy. Ã¢â‚¬Å“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough too in their opinion.Ã¢â‚¬Â Here's the full letter you're talking about. It still does not mutate "freedom of religion" into "freedom from religion", nor does it magically transform "separation of Church and state" into "separation of God and state". I'd like you can explain how one can swear on the altar of God to be hostile to tyranny over the mind of man while simultaneously thinking that a belief in God is tyrannical to man's mind.angryoldfatman_{May 9, 2007
May
05
May
9
09
2007
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve never seen anything remotely close to anyone from the DI suggesting any type of Christian reconstructionism, but the Wedge scares people half to death. Oh for Pete's sake. 90 percent of Americans don't know what "the Wedge" is and of the ones that do, only a fraction say it bothers them. And of the ones who say it bothers them, 90 percent are lying since they are the ones who are trying to use it to spread fears of a impending "theocracy." How about we just return to how church related to state in Jefferson's day. If that concerns you too much, how about FDR's?tribune7_{May 9, 2007
May
05
May
9
09
2007
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

Here is the story on Ahmanson by a hostile reporter: Avenging angel of the religious right
Ahmanson shuns luxury for a lifestyle of down-to-earth humility. As his wife of 17 years, Roberta Green Ahmanson, told me, he once gave up his seat on an airplane for a refund. And when he goes out for a spin in his neighborhood in Newport Beach, a posh coastal community 45 minutes south of Los Angeles, he drives a Prius, Toyota's new, environment-friendly hybrid car. It's a modest choice for a man who could afford an entire Hummer dealership, but nevertheless a considerable upgrade from his old Datsun pickup.

. "Due to my association with Rushdoony, reporters have often assumed that I agree with him in all applications of the penalties of the Old Testament Law, particularly the stoning of homosexuals," Ahmanson wrote. "My vision for homosexuals is life, not death, not death by stoning or any other form of execution, not a long, lingering, painful death from AIDS, not a violent death by assault, and not a tragic death by suicide. My understanding of Christianity is that we are all broken, in need of healing and restoration. So far as I can tell, the only hope for our healing is through faith in Jesus Christ and the power of his resurrection from the dead."

Roberta Ahmanson made pains to highlight her husband's charitable side, stressing his donations to the Nature Conservancy, the evangelical humanitarian aid group World Vision, and the Orange County Rescue Mission, a Christian homeless shelter

. "I may have had 'a plan to change American society' once," he mused. "Now I'm just trying to be faithful with what I have."
I had the honor of having lunch with Ahmanson and others September 21, 2005.scordova_{May 9, 2007
May
05
May
9
09
2007
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Marvin Olasky just addressed this on In Depth on C-Span 2's Book TV. He stated that Ahmanson had been connected early on to Rushdooney a Christian Reconstructionist. But both he and Ahmanson rejected theocratic approaches to government. There is going to be a replay on May 12late_model_{May 9, 2007
May
05
May
9
09
2007
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply