In two important church-state rulings announced yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld a Ten Commandments display in Texas, but struck down one in Kentucky. The court ruled that an outdoor public presentation of the Decalogue among other monuments on the Texas State Capitol grounds in Austin did not amount to an unconstitutional government promotion of religion. The majority justices said that while the Texas display was an acknowledgment of a sacred religious text by the government, the public exhibit did not cross the line into impermissible proselytizing.
But the high court reached a different conclusion in a Kentucky case involving displays on the walls of two county courthouses. The justices ruled 5 to 4 that public officials were not motivated by a necessary secular purpose in ordering the courthouse display and that the government officials in the case had acted in a way that sought to advance religion in violation of the separation of church and state.
While I’ll leave it to the legal scholars to determine whether the rulings were in harmony with the Constitution, the implications for Christians appear rather clear: we should not endorse the display of the Decalogue on government property.
For those who haven’t been to the courthouse lately, the text of the Ten Commandants reads:
You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
You shall not kill.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.
Considering that most states only consider 2 ½ of the commandments to be against the laws of man, it is hard to argue that the Decalogue has been all that influential a document. While it might serve to provide a contrast between the laws of God and the laws of the legislature, it is difficult to imagine why the text would need to be displayed at a government courthouse. If such a reminder is really needed then why not just look up the relevant text in the Bibles that the oaths are sworn on?
The truth is that the struggle over the display is not about the text as text as a meaningfully authoritative document but rather as a symbol of religion in the public square. Unfortunately, too many Christians are more concerned about winning a symbolic victory involving the Decalogue than they are in obeying the actual commandments. Because the only displays that are considered constitutional are those that have been denatured of their religious connotations, Christians are agreeing that the “god” in the text does not necessarily have to be the God of our faith. But accepting that claim is to violate the very first commandment. Are we willing to put a “graven image” before allegiance to the truth?
1
Why- assuming that display is simply an acknowledgment of the Decalogue's role in the history of the Western legal tradition?
Which- as I understand it- the Court recognized as quite proper. As I believe it should have, even while agreeing with the other decision as well. Where the Decalogue is a sectarian statement, it clearly has no place on public property under either the First Amendment or the proper, divinely- instituted purpose of government.
posted on 06.28.2005 1:58 AM2
Trackback doesn't seem to be working. Some thoughts here.
posted on 06.28.2005 2:55 AM3
Err... sorry about that link. Better to right-click on it and open in a new tab or window.
posted on 06.28.2005 2:57 AM4
Why- assuming that display is simply an acknowledgment of the Decalogue's role in the history of the Western legal tradition?
What role?
As Joe points out, most of the decalogue is irrelevant to western legal tradition. The first four commandments are specifically religious commands. For the few commandments that do map nicely onto western legal traditions, it is not obvious that their presence in our legal code is derived from the decalogue. Stealing and murdering, for instance, were also the subject of pre-Christian legal traditions in northern Europe, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any legal system that didn't include them.
Joe is right: any claim that the decalogue is just a historical document should be problematic to Christians. They are a fundamental statement of God's commands, and as such must be a sectarian religious document if we are to give them proper respect. If they have to be reduced to history in order to sneak them onto government property, then I think we're better off if we don't bother.
posted on 06.28.2005 8:39 AM5
Some comments here too. My biggest objection is the fact that most of the people who are adamant about it being displayed refuse to acknowledge the Grecko-Roman and Danish influence on our legal system. Roman and Dane law are probably far and away more influential in the foundation of our system than the 10 commandments.
posted on 06.28.2005 9:13 AM6
About "it is hard to argue that the Decalogue has been all that influential a document" and "most of the Decalogue is irrelevant to western legal tradition"--actually David Barton argues just that at http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=41
Grab a Grande and scroll down thru the legal stuff to "How the 10 Commandments are expressed in civil law in American history." There's more at the same site.
7
It's also ironic that in their zeal to elevate Decalogues, the proponents of such monuments are breaking Commandment #2.
posted on 06.28.2005 10:17 AM8
Joe C,
Great post. It's important that we keep things in perspective. That said I do have some minor points to quibble over, as I lay out here.
9
The truth is that the struggle over the display is not about the text as text as a meaningfully authoritative document but rather as a symbol of religion in the public square. Unfortunately, too many Christians are more concerned about winning a symbolic victory involving the Decalogue than they are in obeying the actual commandments. Because the only displays that are considered constitutional are those that have been denatured of their religious connotations, Christians are agreeing that the “god” in the text does not necessarily have to be the God of our faith. But accepting that claim is to violate the very first commandment. Are we willing to put a “graven image” before allegiance to the truth?
I don't think this is the primary issue being dealt with Joe. I think the primary issue is the systematic purging of references to our cultural heritage, whether it be Ten Commandments monuments, or crosses on county symbols, or saying the word 'God' in the pledge, or singing a Christmas hymn. The commandments remain as powerful a testament to truth as they ever were, regardless of the courts ruling; it is our society that has been 'denatured'.
posted on 06.28.2005 10:43 AM10
I'm a conservative Christian and I seriously don't really care whether or not we can have a Ten Commandments display in a courthouse.
I understand, judicial tyranny, Christian heritage, so on and so forth, but really, who cares if there's no Moses at the county court?
Here's my idea that I've been kicking around on other blogs: The religious displays in the courthouses are often gorgeous. Instead of demolishing them, why not move them into modern evangelical churches which typically have no religious iconography of any kind?
It is a sad day when a secular institutions like the Supreme Court have better religious art than modern churches. I say move the displays into the churches where people will appreciate them anyway. Having some scummy lawyer like Cochran or Geragos arguing to keep killers and pedophiles out of prison in front of the very words of God is just offensive anyway.
And Tgirsch, I hope you don't honestly think that the 2nd Commandment refers to all graven images for any reason, especially since the Israelites carved many graven images for the Tabernacle to glorify God (which he approved of, by the way).
11
Since I usually only chime in when I disagree with Joe, I thought I should note that in this case, I agree with him 100%. I've always argued that most of the commandments are not relevant to secular law, and that since several of them are quite exclusively religious (i.e., they're not simply monotheistic, but are quite specific to Judeo-Christian theology), they don't belong in courtrooms (or on the grounds of the Texas capitol). It'd be nice of more Christians recognized this.
posted on 06.28.2005 11:46 AM12
I think the primary issue is the systematic purging of references to our cultural heritage, whether it be Ten Commandments monuments, or crosses on county symbols, or saying the word 'God' in the pledge, or singing a Christmas hymn. The commandments remain as powerful a testament to truth as they ever were, regardless of the courts ruling; it is our society that has been 'denatured'.
But isn't "cultural heritage" in your post just a coded phrase for "my Christianity"? And I'm sorry, but "under God" in the pledge can't be really be counted as that, it's only been around since the 50's. In a sense, to alter it for political purposes in the first place was more disrespectful than trying to correct it back to its original form.
Some of the Founding Fathers had views that might surprise you. Madison for example thought that Churches should be taxed. He also thought that having military and Congressional Chaplains was a bad idea. And he did not want the US government to recognize religious holidays in any way.
Keep in mind he was an extremely religious man. He wanted to these things not in order to remove religion from the public sphere, but rather he wanted to protect his religion from Government interference.
I think that Christians need to take a good hard look at what they are doing. It's fine to pass laws that respect your values, so long as they respect the inherent human dignity of others, but to try and put specific religious tenets into Government is a bad idea. It's a two way street.
Look at faith-based funding for example. No matter how many pledges are written into law regarding the program, Government still has a say in what a Church does or does not do, simply by holding the purse strings. It's like asking Jesse James to hold your wallet for you. Even if he promises he won't steal from you its a bad idea don't you think? Do you really want to trust the Governments "beneficent nature" to control itself when it comes to exerting pressure on your religion? It's just not in the nature of the beast.
posted on 06.28.2005 12:51 PM13
Pat,
I hear some of what you're saying, but if you take an originalist view of the constitution - which is the most intellectually defensible - its difficult to argue the Founders would expel all religion from the public square, as we are seeing.
Given their actions (hiring chaplains, opening with prayer, multiple references to a God/Maker/Creator/Higher Authority, etc.) it is difficult to make the case that the Constitution doesn't permit the recognition of a higher authority. However, what we may need is a better understanding of pluralism and religious liberty.
Religious liberty means being free to select and practice your faith as you see fit. Government must take a non-sectarian approach appropriate to the context if it is going to endorse a creator. In a fully Christian society this means endorsing Christianity but not Catholicism, Calvinism, and so on. By endorsing Christianity - broadly speaking - and through that implicitly having its citizens recognize Christianity, it is not imposing a selection of faith on anyone as everyone is already on that same page.
In contrast, in today's society filled with many faiths, the adoption of Christianity by the government would have citizens implicitly being Christians because they are members of the State. Thus the state, to maintain a pluralism that accomodates the many-faithed citizenry, must adopt a broader stance on religion... perhaps an endorsement of theism. This leaves the specific theistic view up to the individual citizen, just as in a wholly Christian society the choice of which sect is left up to the citizen.
Then here comes the $1,000,000 question: what about the inclusion of atheism, as it is noncompatible with a theistic view? If we hold atheism to be a religion in itself, by defining religion as a set of beliefs, then the state can no more adopt the atheistic view than theistic one. For holding the former isolates theists and the latter atheists. Therefore, at this juncture I think it becomes a question of leaving it to the majority on each given level of government. On the federal level it is a question for the whole American nation. On the local level, a question for each county or city.
posted on 06.28.2005 1:20 PM14
Ship, why, again, is the originalist interpretation the most intellectually defensible?
posted on 06.28.2005 2:07 PM15
That's really a conversation for another post, but the basic reason is that it makes the most sense. Read the document, as it was written. No penumbras, emanations, citing of foreign laws and constitutions, or other invention of rights. No looking at intent, when each of the 535 people who voted for a law could have different intent. Just what is written. It's the only consistent way to apply the law, and thus the most intellectually defensible. If you really want to get into this, go read some Bork, Scalia, or Thomas first.
posted on 06.28.2005 3:43 PM16
Jack:
Patrick already addressed the pledge issue, so I'll let that one go. But the "systematic purging" of which you speak is largely imagined. Displays which have been there for quite some time, such as the one in Texas, have generally been allowed to stand; it's usually new displays, like those in Kentucky, that get rejected. And those displays are explicitly intended to inject more religion into the public square, not just to protect against some imagined purge-fest.
And in any case, what would be so horribly wrong with purging such symbols from government property? You'd still be free to post whatever you want in your homes and churches and even buy billboards and ad space if you wanted to, and you wouldn't need to get some bureaucrat's approval, and you wouldn't have to try to find a version that doesn't offend anyone. This could only enhance your free exercise rights.
Phil:
No, the sin is in worshipping the idol instead of the thing it's supposed to represent. Which, IMO, is what many of these Commandments proponents -- particularly the Roy Moores of the world -- are guilty of.
But actually, some sects take the commandment to mean that ALL graven images are forbidden, except those explicitly authorized by God.
Shipwrecked:
You ignore the fact that the original intent is often unclear and, in fact, often intentionally vague. The Constitution is a document rife with compromises. No, the correct way to read the Constitution is based on what it says (and considering the practical implications of what it says), rather than trying to figure out what a bunch of guys two and a quarter centuries ago meant when they wrote "arms."
Of course, if you admit original intent as admissible, then you have to concede that the framers intended the total (or, at least, near total) separation of church and state. The writings of Jefferson and Madison make this abundantly clear. And they would clearly take issue with this statement of yours:
By endorsing Christianity - broadly speaking - and through that implicitly having its citizens recognize Christianity, it is not imposing a selection of faith on anyone as everyone is already on that same page.Not according to Madison, who wrote:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?More on this. posted on 06.28.2005 5:13 PM
17
As to the inclusion of atheism, I don't see how it's relevant. The government must remain scrupulously neutral on religion, neither encouraging nor discouraging it. If the government somehow endorsed atheism, that would be taking a side, when what it ought to be doing is refusing to take sides. As soon as you post one version or another of the Ten Commandments, you have most certainly taken sides. By not posting the Commandments on government property, but allowing people to worship/post/etc. as they please on their own property and in their own churches, the government stays out of the whole mess, and allows people to worship as their conscience dictates.
This is why secular government is so important: true religious liberty is impossible without it.
In fact, I'd argue (and often have argued) that the amount of religiosity in the US is precisely because of our doctrine of separation, not in spite of it.
posted on 06.28.2005 5:18 PM18
Tgirsch -
Heh, I have to apologize, I missed the nuance in what you were saying.
There has been a rash of people around the blogosphere going "Hyuk hyuk, the 10Cs are graven images which is against the 10Cs!" which is cute but idiotic.
Your point, on the other hand - Christians worshipping the graven image of the 10Cs - is much more interesting and worthwhile.
For me personally, saying that removing the 10C's from a courtroom is anti-American Culture makes about as much sense as saying that removing a pornography shop from a strip mall is anti-Marriage.
posted on 06.28.2005 6:01 PM19
Do we really understand that it is not about the physical world and its standards? For as christians who have been converted the word states what we face it this:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities,against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickness in high places. Ephesians 6:12
So those whom are heirs to salvation let your eyes and ears see and hear in the name of Jesus.
posted on 06.28.2005 6:14 PM20
But isn't "cultural heritage" in your post just a coded phrase for "my Christianity"? And I'm sorry, but "under God" in the pledge can't be really be counted as that, it's only been around since the 50's. In a sense, to alter it for political purposes in the first place was more disrespectful than trying to correct it back to its original form.
No, not 'my Christianity' since the Ten Commandments, you might be surprised to hear, didn't originate with the Christianity. I am not of course concerned either with 'how long it's been around' but that a particular practice, or object (like the LA county seal), which was once seen as either beneficial or quite ordinary, is now seen as somehow harmful.
Some of the Founding Fathers had views that might surprise you. Madison for example thought that Churches should be taxed. He also thought that having military and Congressional Chaplains was a bad idea. And he did not want the US government to recognize religious holidays in any way.
Keep in mind he was an extremely religious man. He wanted to these things not in order to remove religion from the public sphere, but rather he wanted to protect his religion from Government interference.
Well, no, their views don't suprise me. But your use of them is somewhat disingenious; would you be amenable to the degree of religious expression in public life and influence which churches wielded in the late 18th and early 19th American cultures?
I think that Christians need to take a good hard look at what they are doing. It's fine to pass laws that respect your values, so long as they respect the inherent human dignity of others, but to try and put specific religious tenets into Government is a bad idea. It's a two way street.
How do the Ten Commandments offend human dignity?
Look at faith-based funding for example. No matter how many pledges are written into law regarding the program, Government still has a say in what a Church does or does not do, simply by holding the purse strings. It's like asking Jesse James to hold your wallet for you. Even if he promises he won't steal from you its a bad idea don't you think? Do you really want to trust the Governments "beneficent nature" to control itself when it comes to exerting pressure on your religion? It's just not in the nature of the beast.
I might be inclined to agree with you concerning government infusions of cash into religious institutions (though the people who generally dislike this seem not to mind government infusions of cash into every other institution), this hardly applies to displays like the Ten Commandments.
21
The comments above are interesting, but I think the whole decalogue issue is controversial because there are many that are concerned about preserving the grounding of our nation in;
1) Acknowledgement of where those much vaunted rights this nation was premised on, come from (our Creator, not government). The founders would have been familiar with the Old Testament warning to those who would become forgetful or presumptuous... "Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I will reject you from serving as My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your sons."
2) A morality that is absolute (although perhaps not always perfectly understood or interpreted), as opposed to a morality that is whatever we, or international courts happen to say it is, at the given moment (moral relativism). The apostle Paul explained that when he outlined the simple premise of an ideal government... "Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do good and you will have its approval."
With that said, it is also clear that the founders generally had in mind a nation that acknowledged God in its character and intent, while being tolerant of citizens that didn't. After the way the church had abused its power in Europe, they rightly wanted to leave the specific denominational issues alone, and let people sort that out for themselves. That makes
sense, in that any Christian recognizes that following Christ has to be a personal choice and
commitment, not a mandate from another imperfect individual or group.
But what you have today is the reverse, and that is what has brought the so-called "religous right" out into more active participation in the political process. Secular humanism has quickly become the national religion, enforced in schools, workplaces, and the public square, with little tolerance for Christianity. The whole ten commandments issue is just one small symptom of that whole trend. As a nation we find ourselves falling all over ourselves not to offend anyone by actually having the decalogue on government property, while mandating secularism anywhere and everywhere.
posted on 06.28.2005 8:52 PM22
BTW, trackback still is out. Here is an essay which uses this one as a jump off point. It's be my Christian Carnival entry too.
posted on 06.28.2005 10:04 PM23
A few great quotes that apply here:
"We have staked the whole future of American civilazation not on the power of goverment, far for it. We have staked the futureof all our political inutionsupon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God"
James Madison
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this, that it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil goverment with the priciples of Christainity."
John Quincy Adams
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians not on religions but on the gosple of Jesus Christ.
Patrick Henry
The Blogging Boy Scout,
Travis
24
I don't want to get into it too much, because its not pertinent to the post, but for anyone who thinks Originalist jurisprudence means a strict separation of religion and state is either illiterate or has not read any dissents by its two most important practicioners, Judges Thomas and Scalia.
For more on this, pick up a copy of Scalia Dissents or just read his dissent on Lee v. Weisman, found here.
The assertion that an originalist reading of the Constitution requires a wall of separation is unfounded, disingenuous, and flat out wrong.
posted on 06.28.2005 11:01 PM25
Travis:
If you're going to quote stuff, try quoting things they actually said instead of invented Madison quotes. And your John Quincy Adams quote is also probably false. The Patrick Henry quote, at least, appears to be legitimate, but then Patrick Henry was an opponent of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights was included in large part to appease him.
Shipwrecked:
Such a reading is not flat out wrong -- it's the subject of a great deal of debate. Prithee, if acknowledgement of God without preferring this religion or that was okay with the founders, then why didn't they actually bother to acknowledge that God in the Constitution itself?
All Scalia's dissent proves is that we haven't historically lived up to the standards set in the Constitution by the framers.
And way to completely ignore my Madison quote that I offered up as a counterexample, by the way. The quote I gave above comes from Memorial and Remonstrance. In fact, Madison said all kinds of things about church and state, most of them on the side of strict separation. But hey, who cares what Madison and Jefferson thought, when you can fall back on what George Clymer thought? (And no, I don't actually know what Clymer thought...)
posted on 06.28.2005 11:54 PM26
No the Patrick Henry quote is false as well. I debunked it here.
So Travis is 0/3.
Someone above mentioned the name "David Barton." David Barton is a moron. He's the one who is responsible for spreading all of these phony quotes.
posted on 06.29.2005 7:28 AM27
Tgirsch,
As I've said before, the conversation over originalism isn't really germane to this post. In fact, Joe C says "I’ll leave it to the legal scholars to determine whether the rulings were in harmony with the Constitution".
Because I respect Evangelical Outpost a great deal I'll not get off the point of this post anymore and leave you with the last word re: originalism.
posted on 06.29.2005 8:36 AM28
Jon Rowe: "So Travis is 0/3. Someone above mentioned the name "David Barton." David Barton is a moron. He's the one who is responsible for spreading all of these phony quotes."
Follow the links and what do you see? Same old liberal style tactics again: trash the messenger of anything you don't like by questioning his pedigree (guess anyone who's not a professor should shut up, eh?), questioning his motives (anyone who makes a living by what he writes must be suspect!), and tossing in a few epithets and smears just for good measure.
I don't know Barton nor can I vouch for everything he has written or said, but to be fair Barton does address many of the criticisms leveled at him by those completely pure and objective folks (sarc) like Rob Boston (paid to be a skeptic) here:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=20
Form your own conclusions.
posted on 06.29.2005 10:13 AM29
Jdeger:
If the quotes are indeed phony, then the criticisms of Barton are valid.
posted on 06.29.2005 10:48 AM30
Yup -- that's Barton's mea culpa where he admits that he has no evidence that those Founders said what he quoted.
From Barton's article:
"1. It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! -- Patrick Henry (unconfirmed)
"[Barton]: Few could dispute that this quotation is consistent with Henry's life and character."
As I've aptly demonstrated, Henry would never refer to the US as a "great nation." He was a militant anti-federalist who voted against the US Constitution particularly objecting to the phrase, "we the people of the United States," (he preferred "We, the states") because this implied one "great consolidated government," which Henry regarded as "pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous." Henry made it clear that he preferred "a confederation" with "the States" as "agents of this compact."
posted on 06.29.2005 10:51 AM31
Well, except for the "moron" part. That, if anything, is giving Barton the benefit of the doubt, because the alternative is that he's being deliberately misleading.
posted on 06.29.2005 10:59 AM32
Jon Rowe: "Yup -- that's Barton's mea culpa where he admits that he has no evidence that those Founders said what he quoted."
Wow, talk about misrepresentation! Barton answers the questions raised about a small portion of his original work, in some cases showing that it was correct, in others showing that it can't be traced to a sufficiently original/well-documented source. He hardly admits that he has no evidence for anything he has done. Now who's being dishonest Jon?
Tgirsch: "Well, except for the "moron" part. That, if anything, is giving Barton the benefit of the doubt, because the alternative is that he's being deliberately misleading."
Thanks for proving my point about the typical liberal approach to an argument: smear the messenger and move on.
A small quote from the above site sums it up nicely...
"As the Church/state debates continue, we are all called to a higher standard of scholarship. Advocates of a secular society use the slightest discrepancy to advance their own intolerant and bigoted agenda. Ignoring their own weaknesses and failures, they attempt to discredit both the message and messenger of America's religious history."
33
The arrogance of human court passing a law and a statement about the Divine law is absurd. It is much like a mouse telling an elephant where he can walk.
posted on 06.29.2005 11:41 AM34
Jon Rowe: "As I've aptly demonstrated, Henry would never refer to the US as a 'great nation.' ... Henry made it clear that he preferred "a confederation" with "the States" as "agents of this compact."
So in your logic, since Henry was a strong proponent of federalism, he would never use the phrase 'great nation'? Pretty lame argument to attack David Barton with I think.
posted on 06.29.2005 12:12 PM35
But what you have today is the reverse, and that is what has brought the so-called "religious right" out into more active participation in the political process. Secular humanism has quickly become the national religion, enforced in schools, workplaces, and the public square, with little tolerance for Christianity.
I'm sorry but this sounds more like a Focus on the Family press release rather than a true argument. For one thing, how do you propose to reconcile your statement of "Secular Humanism has...become the national religion" with the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God? Atheists are a tiny minority in this country. This is an argument between different groups of believers, not between believers and atheists.
And as for your statement; "...little tolerance of Christianity". Can you please give a specific event where the government walked into your personal life and dictated to you that you could practice your Christianity? In what ways has Christianity been attacked by the government? In what specific ways have Christians actually been stopped from practicing their Faith? Can you name specific examples that demonstrate an overall intention by Government to prevent you from going to Church? Or can you describe exactly how the Government is physically preventing you from praying?
What I see is not a reaction of Christians against secularism. What I see is that Christians of a particular bent wish to force their version of Christianity on everyone else. Instead of actually taking the time to convince others to follow Christ in the ways they approve of, they are instead trying to remove the choice, to proselytize by government enforced fiat. To remove any other choice but their version of Christianity from marketplace of ideas.
And you are being dishonest about what you are trying to accomplish. This isn't about recognizing the historical place Christianity has had in the USA. This isn't about the past. Its about what you want the future to look like. And I think what you want is for your religion to be reflected and enforced by our Government. And that is "our" Government, not yours alone. Although you certainly don't want to recognize that fact. You are not interested in the slightest in respecting my beliefs, unless they are exactly the same as yours.
You may win, but how soon before you fall into bickering among yourselves? Then will anyone be truly free to practice their religion as they see fit? It's not just the freedom of choice for others you are destroying, it is your own.
posted on 06.29.2005 12:19 PM36
"Secular humanism has quickly become the national religion, enforced in schools, workplaces, and the public square, with little tolerance for Christianity"
Pure garbage.
Try watching a professional sport event or a Congressional hearing on TV and see how little Christianity is "tolerated" in American public life.
Of course, false statements such as that in quotes above have a purpose: agitating the rubes. That is why it is not unreasonable to call such statements lies -- the likely intent of the speaker is easy to assess.
Which brings us back to that age old question of what is the point of all this Ten Commandments nonsense when the loudest-mouthed followers of Jesus don't even pay attention to its message.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
posted on 06.29.2005 1:23 PM37
Dear Sirs,
Thank you so much for pointing out this link to me.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=20
Mr. Barton has shed light on this topic for me and all to see. The quotes are historical but would not stand up in a court of law. I am sorry for relying on them to prove my point as they are as of yet contested quotes. As such I should like to say that I have grown from this experience and shall go forth armed with the valid quotes given by Mr. Barton in this article.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=21
I wish you all a good day and again many thanks for pointing out the flaw in my armor as it were. I go forth encouraged in Christ.
I would also recommend Mr. Barton's work on Separation of Church and State if you would care to read it.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9
The Blogging Boy Scout,
Travis
38
tgirsch:
Of course, if you admit original intent as admissible, then you have to concede that the framers intended the total (or, at least, near total) separation of church and state. The writings of Jefferson and Madison make this abundantly clear. And they would clearly take issue with this statement of yours:
By endorsing Christianity - broadly speaking - and through that implicitly having its citizens recognize Christianity, it is not imposing a selection of faith on anyone as everyone is already on that same page.
Not according to Madison, who wrote:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?
I think there is a distinction between endorsement and establishment. I believe your Madison quote was in reference to the Virginia legislature's tax laws that provided tax money directly to the Anglican church. That is a far cry from acknowleding certain precepts and beliefs as being right or good. Further, I think that Shipwrecked's point was to say what a society composed essentially entirely of Christians (of any stripe) would have the government do with respect to acknowledgement of religion. He proceeds then to discuss what that government would do if the society was composed of Christians and people who had other beliefs, taking it so far as to include atheists.
posted on 06.29.2005 2:14 PM39
Patrick: "In what ways has Christianity been attacked by the government? In what specific ways have Christians actually been stopped from practicing their Faith?"
Glad you asked...
From David Limbaugh's book:
“In May 1995, Samuel B. Kent, U.S. District judge for the southern District of Texas, decreed that any student uttering the word “Jesus” would be arrested and incarcerated for six months. Lest you think this was some month-late April Fools’ joke, the judge expressly avowed his earnestness in his official order. His ruling stated, in part:
‘And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I’m kidding about this order better think again…. Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it.’ “
“A Vermont kindergartner was forbidden to tell his classmates that God is not dead, because such talk ‘was not allowed at school. A teacher in an elementary school in Florida overheard two of her students talking about their faith in Jesus and rebuked them, not for talking in class, but for talking about Christ in class. In no uncertain terms, she ordered them not to discuss Jesus at school.”
“Another teacher was singled out in a Denver elementary school, where the principal removed his Bible from the library and also made him remove his personal Bible from his desk, where he kept it to read during silent time. School officials didn’t want the book in the students’ sight, so they prohibited the teacher from reading it and made him hide it during the school day, even though he never read from it to his students.
“The parents of Raymond Raines, a fourth grader at Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, Missouri, taught Raymond to pray before eating, which he did faithfully each day. By all accounts Raymond was a well-behaved, respectful, and studious young man. When a teacher saw Raymond in the school cafeteria at lunchtime bowing his head to thank God for providing his food, the teacher allegedly ordered him out of his seat and sent him to the principal’s office. The teacher, according to reports, apparently made no effort to downplay this scene, as Raymond was singled out in full view of the other students present.
Raymond says the principal told him that it was against the rules to pray in school and ordered him not to do it again. But since Raymond’s parents had instilled in him the importance of praying at mealtime he continued to do so. On two further instances—three in all—he was allegedly taken from the cafeteria and disciplined. The school administration segregated him from his classmates, subjected him to ridicule for his religious beliefs, and eventually gave him a weeklong detention.”
“Meanwhile in Syracuse, New York, Antonio Peck’s kindergarten teacher at Catherine McNamara Elementary School gave Antonio the assignment of creating a poster that would depict what could be done to save the environment. Antonio drew a picture of Jesus Christ praying and captioned the drawing, “The only way to save the world” and “Prayer Changes Things.” The teacher refused to display the poster, saying it promoted one religion over another.”
“Repeatedly, in the name of inclusiveness and tolerance, Christmas is targeted for special discrimination. In Frederick County, Maryland, a school employee was barred from distributing Christmas cards with a Christian message. A fourth grader in Ephrata, Pennsylvania, was forbidden from handing out religious Christmas cards to his classmates.”
“A school district in California has forbidden teachers to utter the word “Christmas” in class and instructed them not to wear Christmas jewelry.”
“A public school in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, permitted its students to exchange valentines of all varieties, including those showcasing pop stars Britney Spears and *Nsync. All varieties, that is, except one honoring Jesus Christ. Eight-year-old Morgan Nyman was told she could not pass out her homemade cards saying ‘Jesus loves you’ or ‘Freely rely on God.’ “
“A teacher at Lynn Lucas Middle School in the Houston, Texas, area reportedly shouted, ‘This is garbage,’ as she threw two students’ Truth for Youth Bibles in a trash can. According to Liberty Counsel’s report, the two sisters were carrying Bibles when they walked into their classroom one morning, where their teacher met them at the classroom door. She noticed the Bibles and promptly escorted the students to the principal’s office. She then paged the girl’s mother and threatened to call child protective services because the Bibles were not allowed on school property. … When the mother arrived, the teacher waved the Bibles at her and exclaimed, ‘This is garbage,’ then threw them into the trash can. She said the girls could not bring Bibles to school. In a separate but similar incident at the same school, officials confronted three students whose books had the Ten Commandments displayed on the covers. They threw the covers in the garbage, claiming the Ten Commandments were hate speech that might offend other students.”
“In April 2002, the Daily Nebraskan reported that Stanford University denied the head coaching job to University of Nebraska assistant football coach Ron Brown because of his religious beliefs. Not surprisingly, one of the major objections to Brown was his belief that homosexual behavior is sinful. Alan Glenn, Stanford’s assistant athletic director of human resources, said Brown’s religion was not the determining factor, but admitted to the student newspaper that is ‘was definitely something that had to be considered.’ … In a column he wrote for Sharing the Victory, a Fellowship of Christian Athletes publication, Brown said, ‘After the first interview, the athletic director vacillated whether to bring me on campus for a final interview. After deliberation he decided not to, with the explanation that he did not believe that my Christian convictions would mesh well with that university…. They seemed to have no problem with the notion of squelching or eliminating one because of his representation of Jesus Christ. … Brown noted that it was ironic that a prestigious school founded on religious principles no longer welcomes Christians.”
“Michael Nash, a junior at Cumberland College in Williamsburg, Kentucky, received a Kentucky Educational Excellence scholarship based on academic achievement and college board scores. That is, he thought he received one until the school notified him otherwise in October 2002, having discovered that he would be majoring in philosophy and religion.”
“Ron Sims, county executive of King County, Washington, directed his employees not so say ‘Merry Christmas’ or ‘Happy Hanukkah’ at work.”
“The City Council of Little Rock, Arkansas, changed the name of its annual December parade from the ‘Christmas Parade’ to the ‘Holiday Parade,’ in order not to offend non-religious people or those of other faiths. As one writer quipped, ‘I can’t wait until they find out the word ‘holiday’ actually means ‘holy day.’ What to do then?’ “
“In April 2001, the Logan County Public Library in Bowling Green, Kentucky, fired employee Kimberly Draper for wearing a necklace with a cross pendant to work, even though, Draper asserts, she was told when hired in August 1998 that she was ‘free to wear religious jewelry.’ “
“In the Arlington, Texas, police department, thirteen-year-veteran Sergeant George Daniels was fired for insubordination when he refused to remove a lapel cross from his uniform while on duty. Although other officers were permitted, even encouraged, to wear other insignia on their uniforms, such as Mexican flag pins and union pins, police chief David Kunkle refused to permit the cross because it ‘might offend someone.’ “
“Art and Norma Ellison of Marietta, Georgia, regularly hosted prayer meetings at their home on Friday evenings for six to eight people. Most of the attendees parked in the Ellison’s driveway and the meetings were neither noisy nor disruptive. The City and Planning Department sent a letter to the couple informing them they were violating the zoning code by operating a church in a residential neighborhood and gave them ten days to continue their meetings.
A nearly identical situation arose in Onalaska, Wisconsin, when the city zoning authority threatened to shut down a Bible study for five college students in the home of Richard and Audrey Gilmore. Similarly, the zoning board of Denver, Colorado, told David and Diane Reiter that they would have to cut back their weekly Bible study to a monthly meeting.”
“A social worker wanted to use part of his lunchtime break to hold prayer meetings in an empty conference room at his office at the Tehema County Department of Social Services in Red Bluff, California. His superiors not only denied him permission, they also instructed him verbally and in writing not to have his Bible and other items of faith in public view at his cubicle. Further, he was asked not to discuss his religion in the workplace.”
AND IF YOU WANT A PERSONAL EXAMPLE...
My son's elementary school class was recently asked to write an essay on which person in history they thought was most unique and contributed most to our civilization. He chose to write about Jesus. But when asking permission from his teacher whether this would be allowed, he was told: "only if you insure that you never mention anything that might claim he was divine, or did miracles, or was anything but a man, or that the accounts in the Bible about him were true."
Seems like a pretty clear secular humanist demand to me.
posted on 06.29.2005 2:28 PM40
Religious liberty means being free to select and practice your faith as you see fit. Government must take a non-sectarian approach appropriate to the context if it is going to endorse a creator. In a fully Christian society this means endorsing Christianity but not Catholicism, Calvinism, and so on. By endorsing Christianity - broadly speaking - and through that implicitly having its citizens recognize Christianity, it is not imposing a selection of faith on anyone as everyone is already on that same page.In contrast, in today's society filled with many faiths, the adoption of Christianity by the government would have citizens implicitly being Christians because they are members of the State. Thus the state, to maintain a pluralism that accomodates the many-faithed citizenry, must adopt a broader stance on religion... perhaps an endorsement of theism. This leaves the specific theistic view up to the individual citizen, just as in a wholly Christian society the choice of which sect is left up to the citizen.
What does this mean? Does the gov't endorse a faith or group of faiths the way Tom Cruise endorses a breakfast cereal? Where is the tipping point at which a sufficient number of non-christians are in society so as to require gov't to shift from a 'Christian endorsement' to a 'theistic' one? I'd like to hear your number and how you derive it since you endorse an 'originialist' view of the Constitution.
Therefore, at this juncture I think it becomes a question of leaving it to the majority on each given level of government. On the federal level it is a question for the whole American nation. On the local level, a question for each county or city.
Which would be the case if we didn't have the First Amendment. However the First clearly states that the gov't cannot endorse or infringe on religious belief regardless of what the majority feels.
But isn't "cultural heritage" in your post just a coded phrase for "my Christianity"?....
It amazes me that Christians would resort to the 'culture' argument. The Ten Commandments are a religious document and religious doctrine, not a classic comic book that was first published in 1932!
But what you have today is the reverse, and that is what has brought the so-called "religous right" out into more active participation in the political process. Secular humanism has quickly become the national religion, enforced in schools, workplaces, and the public square, with little tolerance for Christianity. The whole ten commandments issue is just one small symptom of that whole trend. As a nation we find ourselves falling all over ourselves not to offend anyone by actually having the decalogue on government property, while mandating secularism anywhere and everywhere.
Interesting that not having the Ten Commandments in a court house is intolerant of Christianity. What would Christians make of a monument to athiesm in a court house? How about a statue of a famous athiest with an inscription saying "This guy was great because he said God didn't exist" (NOTE I'm excluding monuments to people who might have been athiest but are being honored for something else like discovering something etc.). It would seem pretty hard to see how Christians and others would NOT be offended by that. Yet if it was removed would that be discrimination against athiests?
posted on 06.29.2005 3:40 PM41
jeger,
No doubt the above selection of examples is a mix of fact, fiction and urban legend. I would put forth a large chunk of your examples are:
1. Not gov't officials so much as regular people (granted a public school teacher is technically a gov't employee).
2. People most likely mis-reading what the actual case law is regarding religion.
As part of this second point I would put forth that one of the prime villians here are not secularists but right wing groups themselves! They, after all, spend a great deal of time and energy screaming that the courts have 'banned religion' from the public schools. Is it any surprise to learn some teachers (who, after all, are mostly regular people with only slightly more than average education) might have taken them seriously and believed a kid talking about religion needed to be stopped least a lawsuit blow up?
A third point is that it is well recognized that teachers and other figures have the authority to limit behavior and freedom inside school if doing so is necessary for good order. They may, for example, prohibit discussions of current events if it happens to be a 'hot topic' that may result in a lot of arguing and other problems. A police officer patrolling the town's park, though, has no such authority.
There are cases where things go too far however I think the issue is more of how stringent do you want to be when you assert that gov't must be neutral on religion....not whether religous displays are contrary to some sort of made up 'secular religion' that has somehow become the state church. Public schools are a magnet for these sorts of things because they are naturally a mix of both gov't and private service.
posted on 06.29.2005 3:49 PM42
jdeger:
Thanks for proving my point about the typical liberal approach to an argument: smear the messenger and move on.You seem to mistake attacking the messenger in addition to the message for attacking the messenger instead of the message. And if you think smear tactics are exclusively in the liberal domain, you obviously haven't paid any attention at all to the current administration... (that, or you somehow think they're "liberal.")
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who knowingly spreads fabricated quotes to make their point is deserving of scorn.
novello:
If that were the sole thrust of Rowe's attack, you might have a point, but it's not. Notice that Barton is unable to defend the veracity of the statement attributed to Henry. Since the statement is highly inconsistent with verified Henry writings/statements, and since Barton is wholly unable to authenticate the statement, I'd say Rowe has an excellent point. Now, of course, if you could substantiate the purported Henry statement, you would resoundingly prove both me and Rowe wrong. Hop to it!
Patrick:
Atheists are a tiny minority in this country.And, it bears pointing out, Secular Humanists are but a small subset of atheists. Otherwise you're spot-on.
Travis:
What?!? Despite the fact that you know the quotes are almost certainly fabricated, you're going to go ahead and rely on them anyway? That sounds nothing at all like intellectual honesty to me! (Then again, you never claimed to be concerned with intellectual honesty.)
Brandon:
I think there is a distinction between endorsement and establishment. I believe your Madison quote was in reference to the Virginia legislature's tax laws that provided tax money directly to the Anglican church. That is a far cry from acknowleding certain precepts and beliefs as being right or good.Well, if that were the only Madison quote on the matter, you might have a point. But when you look at the totality of Madison's quotations and writings (where, among other things, he talks about the "total separation of the church & the state"), coupled with the fact that the Constitution he had such a large hand in drafting was scrupulously secular, it's not too difficult to infer what his ideological preference here was, even if he didn't always live by it.
And in any case, the difference between endorsement and establishment is not so stark as you'd like to imply. Like it or not, the government edorsing one religion (or even a group of religions) has the effect of relegating those citizens who do not adhere to such religion(s) to a second-class status, and that's impermissible.
jeger:
What's interesting is what Limbaugh leaves out. Kent's order was specific to prayer at a public school graduation ceremony, where long-standing precedent prohibits sectarian prayer. What Kent was trying to prevent was someone turning what's supposed to be an inclusive event for all graduates into an event that excludes non-Christians (and, honestly, even some Christians). The problem in this case (and cases like it) is where you have Constitutional protections that come into conflict. Here we have a student's first amendment free speech and free exercise rights coming into conflict with prohibitions on endorsement of religion and the free exercise rights of the other students present -- those other students who don't share the religious beliefs of the one giving the prayer have a choice of tolerating it, joining in, or abstaining from the ceremony entirely. The dictates of conscience should not allow such a scenario.
(Personally, on graduation speeches, I would favor allowing a student speaker to thank Jesus on his or her own behalf if so inclined, but not allow them to lead the group in prayer or ask others to do likewise in that scenario.)
Last, on the Kent situation, I question the veracity of the story altogether, since in all the references I can find, the statement is quoted without any case cites. I can't even find the name of the case in question.
As to your other examples, there are varying degrees of legitimacy to the complaints there. I'd like to see specific cites on those to know if (a) they're not fabricated; and (b) they were upheld, if challenged. If true, I'd agree that several of them go too far, but I seriously doubt these are typical or even common examples.
I wholly oppose any attempt to prevent anyone from practicing their religion as they see fit, provided they don't do so in their official capacities or try to compel or pressure anyone else to join them. The line, to me, is pretty clear: personal exercise is fine; voluntary group exercise is fine, within reasoned limits (e.g. you don't get to hijack some other event to use as a podium for your "voluntary" exercise); official exercise, pressure, compulsion, etc., are off-limits.
As to your personal example, it's mostly an appropriate response, as far as I'm concerned, because students should not be allowed to use classroom exercises as an attempt to proselytize to their fellow students. I'd about guarantee that you'd get your panties in a twist if some student went in front of your son's class explaining why Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his prophet, even if your son were allowed to do his Jesus spiel.
posted on 06.29.2005 4:00 PM43
Let's look at one case in detail:
“Art and Norma Ellison of Marietta, Georgia, regularly hosted prayer meetings at their home on Friday evenings for six to eight people. Most of the attendees parked in the Ellison’s driveway and the meetings were neither noisy nor disruptive. The City and Planning Department sent a letter to the couple informing them they were violating the zoning code by operating a church in a residential neighborhood and gave them ten days to continue their meetings. A nearly identical situation arose in Onalaska, Wisconsin, when the city zoning authority threatened to shut down a Bible study for five college students in the home of Richard and Audrey Gilmore. Similarly, the zoning board of Denver, Colorado, told David and Diane Reiter that they would have to cut back their weekly Bible study to a monthly meeting.”
Assume all facts here are true. What evidence is there that these people were being harassed because they were religious or Christian? How do we know it wasn't because neighbors were simply upset at all the extra traffic on their street? I know a few people who live or have lived in areas with 'community associates' that love to micromanage everyone's life down to the color they are allowed to paint their house, whether or not they can have a satallite dish on their roof etc. Certainly these meetings couldn't have been that quiet otherwise how would the zoning office have known to send them a letter saying they violated zoning laws regarding Churches? How would they have known the people weren't hosting Amway meetings in their homes?
In fact, it isn't impossible to believe that maybe it was other Christians who turned these people in. It is not unheard of for established businesses to use zoning laws to go after people operating home based businesses. Churches often divide into various groups that sometimes fight with each other. For all we know an established Church might have been the ones making the trouble for the people who were having a Church in their homes.
Churches all the time get into zoning disputes with local towns. This isn't evidence of discrimination, though, but rather evidence of how successful and powerful churches can become. Here in NJ a local Church wants to build a large retirement complex in one town. The zoning fight is no different than what would happen if a private business wanted to build a similar building.
posted on 06.29.2005 4:02 PM44
tgirsch,
Not the quotes that are in question. Just the proven quotes I mentioned located here.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=21
Does that make sense?
The Blogging Boy Scout,
Travis
45
My son's elementary school class was recently asked to write an essay on which person in history they thought was most unique and contributed most to our civilization. He chose to write about Jesus. But when asking permission from his teacher whether this would be allowed, he was told: "only if you insure that you never mention anything that might claim he was divine, or did miracles, or was anything but a man, or that the accounts in the Bible about him were true."
He was asked to write about a historical figure. Santa Claus also fits the bill. So would it be OK for me to write about Santa Claus at the North Pole as if he was real?
Like it or not there is a debate as to whether Jesus actually existed or was a mythological figure. There is no debate about whether Thomas Edison or George Washington or Thomas Jefferson existed. Your son could have chosen any of those and even discussed their religious beliefs in great detail.
In the context of a historical biographical essay the teachers request is quite reasonable. And note that your son was not actually forbidden to write about Jesus. In fact this was a chance for your son to review and learn the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, of which there is a great deal.
Besides, even the Bible says Jesus was also a man. What wrong with learning about that side of him? Or does Jesus always have to have "special effects" to be real or have value? In the long run, his words were much more important than his miracles.
posted on 06.29.2005 9:04 PM46
Again is this a case of religious discrimination or is it a case of a teacher putting restrictions on what choices could be used for a report? There are plenty of reasons for not letting a student do a historical report on Jesus. For one thing, using the Bible as a historical document is a complicated issue with involved arguments on both sides. An elementary and even High School teacher can quite reasonably deem the topic too advanced for a student even if they had no particular bias against Christianity or in favor of secularism. Another issue is that such a report may be disruptive. If it was done properly the student would have to examine sources critical of Jesus. This could easily cause a larger scandal when the student comes home and tells his parents that he must read some articles or books by those advocating he not believe in Jesus.
On the college level this is not a big deal but it sounds like the underlying purpose of the assignment is not to learn a great deal about a historical figure or do groundbreaking research on one but to:
1. build up writing skills.
2. build up report writing skills
3. learn to use and balance different sources
4. possibly get a small introduction to what academic historians do
It is reasonable for a teacher to veto a student's choice if she feels it will do a poor job advancing these goals.
posted on 06.30.2005 9:01 AM47
Since the Supreme Court has ruled the inclusion of The 10 Comandments in public life unconstitutional, can we get Barry Land to move to repeal all laws - local, state and federal - which outlaw murder(#6) and theft (#8)? The others already have no earthly consequences. People even get away with perjury (a la Clinton).
We have states destroying marriage in the name of anti-religion. Since Mr. Land is so concerned about any and all possible religious connections in public life, it seems logical for him to progress to the two commands mentioned above...No?
posted on 06.30.2005 3:53 PM48
John,
I'd be careful about using the word 'logic' or 'logical' in your posts. I don't think you're yet up for the challenge.
posted on 06.30.2005 4:26 PM49
"We have states destroying marriage in the name of anti-religion."
Anti-Religion.? If you are referring to Spain, thats actually what they call a "Democracy". You must be from Cuba or someplace that doesn't have one of those.
I notice that Johns e-mail actually starts with the word "Melon".
-Nuff Said.
posted on 06.30.2005 4:43 PM50
John:
Um, this follows how? Just because everyone doesn't agree with all ten commandments, we should throw out the two we can agree upon? That seems silly.
And I think you mean Barry Lynn. Far from being hostile to Christianity, he's an ordained and practicing minister in the United Church of Christ.
Or did you maybe mean Richard Land?
posted on 06.30.2005 4:49 PM51
I meant Barry Land... and being an ordained minister means nothing these days. Look at Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Land. Jesse and Al support abortion rights, homosexual marriage and government sponsored racism (a.k.a.- Affirmative Action). Land has been hostile to every public display/afirmation of religion (ESPECIALLY Christianity) in the last 5 to 10 years. His hero, Madeline Murray O'Hare would be extremely proud. Check out the UCC.org site, their Mission Statement says that "from the beginning of our history, we were a church that affirmed the ideal that Christians did not always have to agree to live together in communion," speaks to what Land is doing, ie trying to destroy unity of the body of Christ.
I wasn't ONLY referring to Spain...Massachussetts and Canada qualify as well. You speak of "Democracy" as if any place had a true democracy. The majority of the people of the U.S. think abortion is wrong, but in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy they cannot get laws passed to outlaw it. The majority of Spaniards and Canadians do not agree with homo marriage, but their elected representatives want to appease the minority.
posted on 07.01.2005 12:08 PM52
Boonton, a quick look at your blog and one can see that you do not understand logic as the rest of us do. You suffer with the same astigmatism/myopia as your heroes Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton (both) and Durbin. All psuedo-Intellectals and self-professing Christians with no real signs of knowledge of Christianity through their actions.
For some reason, this blog appeals to your and your ilk.?.?.?
posted on 07.01.2005 5:17 PM