After reading this weekend's Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm, I scoured Bartlett's and other sources to help me find the best way to describe this event. Though Shakespeare and Samuel Johnson are keen observers of human nature, their words seemed too lofty, too dignified to be used for such a banal purpose. So instead I turned to one of my favorite cultural critics. Although the reference is to The Matrix, it's an apt description of the experience I had reading these posts:
[It's] like watching a retarded bear in the circus. It's painful and annoying and just frustrating because you just wish there was something you could do. But you don't really want to watch it. No one really wants to see that.
Indeed, it is painful, frustrating, and annoying to read such ignorant drivel. In the past I've written numerous posts on the "theocracy canard" in a futile attempt to address this misconception. But for the radical fringe of the secular left--the Chomskyites, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Rosie O'Donnell--reason and logic are like kryptonite. Because they live on emotion what they feel is what is true, regardless of facts and reality.
The theophobes, however, are a bit unique in that they embrace an infantile brand of libertarian socialism.* Like other leftists, they tend to advocate for collectivist government solutions. But their support ends when government interferes with their "rights" to do as they please. This is why they hate--and hate is not too strong a word--people who refuse to keep their religious beliefs in the closet. Christians, in particular, are considered a group that is always trying to impose their bourgeois standard of morality on society despite how it makes some people feel.
To get a sense of what I mean, all you have to do is read the introduction to the blogswarm:
The post will be against theocracy, in favor of our Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state. But there are a LOT of issues tied to this, as is pointed out in the First Freedom First website:
No religious discrimination.
PRO End-of-Life Care (no more Terri Schiavo travesties)
Reproductive health decisions made by individuals, not religious "majorities"
Democracy not Theocracy
Academic Integrity (like, a rock is as old as it is, not as old as the Bible says)
Sound Science (good bye so-called "intelligent" design)
Respect for ALL families (based on love, not sexual orientation. Hellooooo.)
And finally,
The right to worship, OR NOT.
Let's take a closer look at these claims:
The post will be against theocracy, in favor of our Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state.
Whenever someone starts talking about the "Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state" you can be sure that they've never bothered to actually read the Constitution. Even when Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Madison used that term in their private writings there is no evidence that the intended it to mean anything as extreme as the dogma proposed by radical secularists. Most of the founders were deists, which contrary to popular belief, was quite moralistic and opposed to atheism. The secularists would have hated the Founding Fathers with a passion that they now reserve for Jerry Falwell and James Dobson.
No religious discrimination.
Isn't it odd how people who typically favor discrimination (i.e., affirmative action for hiring) can be so selective in its application? Of course when they say they favor "no religious discrimination" what they really mean is "no religious discrimination…unless…" and then proceed to fill in the blanks. In this they are no different from most religious believers. What they mean by that term is precisely the type of "church-state separation" that I favor: People are free to make life choices consistent with these beliefs as long as they do not violate the public good or infringe on the rights of others. Our disagreement is not over whether we should allow discrimination (we all agree on that point) but how and where it should be applied.
PRO End-of-Life Care (no more Terri Schiavo travesties)
While most people would think that "PRO End-of-Life Care" means favoring pain management and hospice care, this group believes it means the "right to kill the lebensunwerten lebens, people who are unworthy of life."
And to invoke Terri Schiavo as an example of "PRO End-of-Life Care" shows a contemptible level of cluelessness. Are they aware that Terri was denied medical tests that would have confirmed her condition? Or that her husband had previously testified under oath that Terri did not want to be taken off life-supporting treatment? Are they aware of the fact that Terri wasn't even dying? Apparently, their definition of "end-of-life care" includes starving a woman to death.
Reproductive health decisions made by individuals, not religious "majorities"
Again, the group's pro-death bias is apparent. By "reproductive health decisions" they mean the right to end a life in the womb. Does this mean that they favor health decisions such as partial birth abortions for any cause? If not, why place such restrictions on an individual's decision? And why should such decisions stop after birth? After all, it was "religious majorities" who determined that infanticide was a moral evil. What non-religious argument would they have for opposing infanticide? They've already shown their desire to kill "human non-persons", which as Peter Singer points out, includes infants. Do they have the courage to be consistent?
Democracy not Theocracy
Remember when this group opposed the U.S.-led establishment of a theocracy in Afghanistan? Yeah, me neither.
This is why they opposed the Academic Integrity (like, a rock is as old as it is, not as old as the Bible says) Sound Science (good bye so-called "intelligent" design)Isn't it "religious discrimination" to oppose the teaching of views that clash with some people's beliefs? Again, their choices of what is acceptable just happen--quite coincidentally--to align with the agenda of the secular left.
And what's up with this blanket rejection of intelligent design. I realize that they think they are aligning with the "brights" on this one but they don't seem to have given it much independent thought. Odd, that for a group that respects Enlightenment thinking on church-state matters that they reject the Enlightenment thinking on atheism and intelligent design. To quote Voltaire from the Philosophical Dictionary, the bible of Enlightenment thought:
We are intelligent beings: intelligent beings cannot have been formed by a crude, blind, insensible being: there is certainly some difference between the ideas of Newton and the dung of a mule. Newton's intelligence, therefore, came from another intelligence.
And my favorite quip from the old deist:
Atheism is the vice of a few intelligent persons, and superstition is the vice of fools. But rogues! what are they? rogues.
In rejecting the beliefs of both the world's religions and the "secular" Enlightenment they've carved out a bizarre anti-intellectual niche for themselves.
Respect for ALL families (based on love, not sexual orientation. Hellooooo.)
Why did they leave out polygamy? Surely if they believe the love is all that matters then they should be pro-polygamy, right?
And finally, The right to worship, OR NOT.
Who disagrees with that? I've never met a Christian that doesn’t believe a person has a right to worship--or not--as they choose. I've never even heard the dominionists (the people who actually do advocate theocracy) say otherwise. This is why it is impossible to take these people seriously. Their crack-pot conspiracy theories rarely bear any resemblance to reality. Do they seriously think that a country with a thriving abortion industry, a pornified pop culture, and where even speaking ill of homosexuality is considered déclassé is in danger of becoming a theocracy? Are they really that stupid or is the hyperventilating hyperbole just for effect? And if it's just an act, who do they intend to convince? Even retarded circus bears have more sense than to believe such nonsense.
*It does a disservice to respectable people (like Ed Brayton) when we treat these radical libertarian socialists as representative of secularists in general. While I disagree with secularism, both in its incarnations on the right and left, it is not inherently disreputable as is the theophobic wingnut wing of secularism.
(HT: Prosthesis)
Update: I found a prime example of the type of tin-foil hat wearing paranoia that leads people to denude terms of all relevant denotation. In reference to a post I wrote, a blogger wrote:
The theocracy in those statements is soft, but its certainly there. Joe Carter is not arguing in favor of personal conscience. He's arguing something much stronger, that there is a divine law, that governments should be run with reference to that law and, more importantly, that everyone who disagrees is wrong.
Joe's belief that he's cornered the market on divine Truth, and his willingness use the machinery of government to administer said Truth, makes him a theocrat.
Anyone who claims to have a direct line to The Almighty, to know eir mind and wishes, and who expresses a willingness to use the coercive power of government to force others to conform, is a theocrat.
So yes, Ed is right, we shouldn't go around reflexively accusing the people at the Discovery Institute of being dominionists. At the same time, however, we should feel free to call a spade a spade. Persons who believe the business of governance should conform to a particular set of religious precepts are theocrats, pure and simple.
And we should feel free to call a moron a moron. Anyone who thinks that I am a theocrat is, pure and simple, a moron.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-trackback.cgi/3525
1
"We are intelligent beings: intelligent beings cannot have been formed by a crude, blind, insensible being: there is certainly some difference between the ideas of Newton and the dung of a mule. Newton's intelligence, therefore, came from another intelligence."
Then only people who claim that intelligence can come from nothing are religionists because they claim that the intelligence of their god came from nowhere...or always was...which is essentially the same thing.
Intelligence,like most things that relate to living organism is in constant evolution and that evolution can be mapped all the way back to instinct billions of years ago. The is absolutely no "irreducible" quality to intelligence...it does not need to be the result of some supernatural agency in order to exist. It is a fact that generations of humans are usually smarter than the previous ones is they keep on recording knowledge...so in that,Voltaire's comments is of no help to the ID cause.
"Atheism is the vice of a few intelligent persons, and superstition is the vice of fools. But rogues! what are they? rogues."
Athiesm is not a vice...it is the absence of belief in the supernatural as a direct result of the absence of convincing evidence supporting the claims of the supernatural's existance.
posted on 04.09.2007 3:24 AM2
Then only people who claim that intelligence can come from nothing are religionists because they claim that the intelligence of their god came from nowhere...or always was...which is essentially the same thing.
The difference is in one of causality, where the thing that has always existed (whether it be God or a steady state) has no point of origin and the thing that sprang from nothing does, though arguing that existence can spring from non-existence is perhaps philosophically absurd (though Stephen Hawking recently asserted this very thing). And since you atheists argue that animal and human intelligence arose from purely physical causes, that means that "religionists" aren't the only ones to argue that "intelligence...came from nowhere...or always was."
Intelligence, like most things that relate to living organism is in constant evolution and that evolution can be mapped all the way back to instinct billions of years ago.
This is risible. Besides the fact that not even Dawkins or Dennett would have the gall to claim that, evolutionary theorists are still debating the precise biomolecular mechanism (not the general conception of random mutation) that would cause macroevolutionary change. And trying to reconcile morphology with genetics yields contradictory results.
The is absolutely no "irreducible" quality to intelligence...it does not need to be the result of some supernatural agency in order to exist.
Thank you for that evidentially baseless assertion.
It is a fact that generations of humans are usually smarter than the previous ones is they keep on recording knowledge...so in that, Voltaire's comments is of no help to the ID cause.
By "smarter" do you mean problem solving ability, personally inculcated knowledge, or the total available accumulated information in a society? Since you're so much smarter than your ancestors, can to become a hunter-gatherer for week, or start a farm?
Thinking about more recent history, two hundred years ago, any reputable university would have required literacy in Latin and Greek. Now, I doubt the average frat boy could get through a single passage of Shakespeare's Sonnets in English. Heck, the average vocabulary of an eighth grader in 1950 is better than today.
However, being "smarter" doesn't result in one iota of physical change, either genetically or biochemically. In that regard, you're no more advanced than a Cromagnum Man.
Atheism is not a vice...it is the absence of belief in the supernatural as a direct result of the absence of convincing evidence supporting the claims of the supernatural's existence.
Thank you for that well phrased non-argument. That statement also completely avoids dealing the previous citations of Voltaire upon which that quote rests. Bravo.
High Joe. Long time, no post.
posted on 04.09.2007 5:06 AM3
Then let's begin the Blog against Theophobes!
posted on 04.09.2007 7:15 AMhttp://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/2007/04/blog-against-theophobes.html
4
"The difference is in one of causality, where the thing that has always existed (whether it be God or a steady state) has no point of origin and the thing that sprang from nothing does, though arguing that existence can spring from non-existence is perhaps philosophically absurd (though Stephen Hawking recently asserted this very thing). And since you atheists argue that animal and human intelligence arose from purely physical causes, that means that "religionists" aren't the only ones to argue that "intelligence...came from nowhere...or always was."
Not at all...a brain by itself,even as part of a living human being is not intelligence...it is merely a piece of biological matter containing a base programming (instinct) which has been passed down from its genitors...intelligence comes the the experiences that are accumulated in that brain in the pathways that are created each time a new piece of data is incorporated. but the brain is not identical in each and every humans...different individual organism have different potential...its not true for instance that everyone who was subjected to say Einstein exact life experiences would automatically develop an Einstein caliber intelligence...nor is it true that the cromagnons of 50 thousand years ago could have sported an Einstein like mind...at least thers no evidence that there ever was...The brain evolves over time from generations to generations and like any other biological parts,the more it is exercised in one generation,the greater the potential passed on to the next generation.
"This is risible. Besides the fact that not even Dawkins or Dennett would have the gall to claim that, evolutionary theorists are still debating the precise biomolecular mechanism (not the general conception of random mutation) that would cause macroevolutionary change. And trying to reconcile morphology with genetics yields contradictory results. "
I m afraid you re quite misinformed...studies of morphology and genetics do not produce contradicting results..save perhaps in the minds of those fools who would like their pet mythology to be taught in science class instead of sound,peer reviewed science. you wouldnt be one of those would you?
"Thank you for that evidentially baseless assertion."
Really?...care to give me an exemple of an irreducible element that would have required intelligence to be spawned magically out of thin air as the only possible explanation as to how it can exist?
"By "smarter" do you mean problem solving ability, personally inculcated knowledge, or the total available accumulated information in a society? Since you're so much smarter than your ancestors, can to become a hunter-gatherer for week, or start a farm?"
only lact of interest would present me with a challenge to becoming either of those things...on the other hand,no amount of training could have produced a cro magnon that could use a computer or repair one as i do regularely...their brains simply did not possess the potential that mine had when i was born.
"Thinking about more recent history, two hundred years ago, any reputable university would have required literacy in Latin and Greek. Now, I doubt the average frat boy could get through a single passage of Shakespeare's Sonnets in English. Heck, the average vocabulary of an eighth grader in 1950 is better than today."
Actually,thats true in the US but then,we re far behind most Europeen countries in terms of education...for exemple over there,people speak on average 3-4 languages.
"Thank you for that well phrased non-argument. That statement also completely avoids dealing the previous citations of Voltaire upon which that quote rests. Bravo."
posted on 04.09.2007 7:16 AMhow is it a non agrument?...i refuted a false statement.
5
Whenever someone starts talking about the "Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state" you can be sure that they've never bothered to actually read the Constitution.
Ah, but there is Article VI Section III prohibiting the use of a religious test; but requiring the use of an oath and Amendment 1 prohibiting the establishment of a state church or otherwise regulating the practice of religion.
Since the state won't form a church, won't stop a church from forming, and won't use the dogma and/or religious text of any religion to serve as a basis for serving in office - it's pretty clear to me that the Consititution makes separates - for all practical purposes - the Church from the State.
This separation, of course, should include militiant Secular Humanism.
The people on the Left who scream about Theocracy remind me of the people on the Right 10 years ago who warned of an UN invasion. When it became obvious that any jacknape with an AK-47 could repel a platoon of UN forces - the fear was shown as a paranoid imagination. The Christian Church can, twice a year, fill its pews - I doubt it can overthrow a superpower.
posted on 04.09.2007 7:35 AM6
-reason and logic are like kryptonite...
To which one can only retort: Shavabambleda!
Musugava SHAN dala!
posted on 04.09.2007 9:50 AMAnybody who's seen "Jesus Camp" - and yeah, I can
understand why some folks don't like it - it shows
stuff that some folks would prefer to stay hidden-
anybody who's seen "Jesus Camp" knows that reason and ogic
are like kryptonite to the fundamentalist.
7
When you have the founders of private mercenary armies like Blackwater Security being friends and major contributors to organizations like Focus on the Family and the Family Resource Council, it kind of encourages theorcracy conspiracy theories, right?
I am a christian and it kind of raises some questions with me.
posted on 04.09.2007 10:09 AM8
Nonsense, people who give in to theocracy conspiracy theories don't need any encouragement at all.
I don't remember any people from the Right forwarding conspiracy theories about a U.N. invasion 10 years ago. What I do remember was the theory that Clinton and Gore wanted to relinquish American sovereignity to the U.N. (different methodology altogether but no less horrifying), which was significantly more believable considering the courts martial of soldiers refusing to wear U.N. insignia on their uniforms.
posted on 04.09.2007 12:33 PM9
I found the video at the blog against theocracy site to be quite reasonable. Unlike some people and media outlets they make their points without using the tired old tactic of saying people with differing viewpoints are simply crazy and no reasonable person or patriotic american could think like they think. The petition on the First Freedoms First page is quite reasonable as well.
I invite everyone to check out the Blog Against Theocracy for themselves. Christians can take a look at what is going on in our country for themselves without the aid of media conglomerates like Focus on the Family and Political Action Committees like Family Resource Council. These groups have their own agendas and questionable associations. I believe the evangelical community will find these groups to be totally discredited within the next few years.
posted on 04.09.2007 12:39 PMblogagainsttheocracy.blogspot.com/
www.firstfreedomfirst.org (First Freedoms First)
10
"The brain evolves over time from generations to generations and like any other biological parts,the more it is exercised in one generation,the greater the potential passed on to the next generation."
So you aren't a Darwinist? Lamarke redidivus!
posted on 04.09.2007 12:42 PM11
Ludwig:
"... they claim that the intelligence of their god came from nowhere...or always was...which is essentially the same thing."
How is "coming from nowhere" and "always was" "essentially the same thing?" How does that make an iota of sense? "Came from" (in the English language) implies an place (aka 'origin') that is left; "nowhere" is the absence of place. How can something "come from nowhere?" That's a logical contradiction in terms.
Perhaps you can show me scientific evidence for something coming from nowhere? I would like to see it. Please prove it to me if you can.
I doubt you can, and it is precisely such confused, sloppy thinking that Christians would deny. It is true, however, that "God always was" is not logical nonsense. So those descriptions are obviously not "essentially the same."
Perhaps atheists tend to gloss over logic when it comes to origins because they can't rationally account for it?
posted on 04.09.2007 12:44 PM12
Yeah, but smmtheory, does the fact that founders of private mercenary armies like Blackwater Security being friends and major contributors to organizations like Focus on the Family and the Family Resource Council give you any cause for concern?
Is there anything wrong or curious about this sort of thing? I'll concede that if one thinks the invasion/occupation of Iraq and the so-called "war on terror" is a righteous patriotic christian cause, that maybe one wouldn't care about this sort of thing. Myself, I'm not quite sure what to make of it.
posted on 04.09.2007 12:45 PM13
Ken:
Lamarke redidivus!
Lol :)
Ludwig:
...on the other hand,no amount of training could have produced a cro magnon that could use a computer or repair one as i do regularely...their brains simply did not possess the potential that mine had when i was born.
Sure they could have. Haven't you seen the video of the baby playing Mario Tennis? =D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDdErzFwrRY
posted on 04.09.2007 1:03 PM14
Yeah, but smmtheory, does the fact that founders of private mercenary armies like Blackwater Security being friends and major contributors to organizations like Focus on the Family and the Family Resource Council give you any cause for concern?
Do you have any evidence that Focus on the Family or the FRC plan on using private mercenary armies, like Blackwater as part of a super duper secret plan to overthrow the legitimate government of the US and impose a "Taliban-like" theocracy?
posted on 04.09.2007 1:38 PM15
It's not a matter of theocracy-James Dobson, Tony Perkins, et al. are merely enablers.
posted on 04.09.2007 1:54 PMWithout the support of evangelical christians it is doubtful that our nation's out of control militarism would continue.
16
Justin
Since the state won't form a church, won't stop a church from forming, and won't use the dogma and/or religious text of any religion to serve as a basis for serving in office - it's pretty clear to me that the Consititution makes separates - for all practical purposes - the Church from the State.
This separation, of course, should include militiant Secular Humanism.
Good post but I think you're being repetitive here. Since you state the state won't stop a church from forming why mention secular humanism (which is more of a philosophy than a church anyway)?
giggling
How is "coming from nowhere" and "always was" "essentially the same thing?" How does that make an iota of sense? "Came from" (in the English language) implies an place (aka 'origin') that is left; "nowhere" is the absence of place. How can something "come from nowhere?" That's a logical contradiction in terms.
A little bit like infinity and negative infinity are very much the same. They are terms that if you really think about them stretch language far into a realm where human beigns have few reference points. Trying to think logically in this realm leads to errors such as thinking adding 3 to an infinite set makes a bigger set.
Perhaps you can show me scientific evidence for something coming from nowhere? I would like to see it. Please prove it to me if you can.
Can't, nor could you prove that something couldn't come from nothing.
David
though arguing that existence can spring from non-existence is perhaps philosophically absurd (though Stephen Hawking recently asserted this very thing). And since you atheists argue that animal and human intelligence arose from purely physical causes, that means that "religionists" aren't the only ones to argue that "intelligence...came from nowhere...or always was."
Why is it philsophically absurd? It seems to actually happen on the sub-atomic level. I think this is an area where a 'common sense' reading of our language fails to really convey a truth. From our every day experience it is absurd to think of, say, a supermodel appearing out of nothing. But our everyday experience does not encompass huge periods of time or empty space. I wouldn't trust language developed to describe 'normal' circumstances to extraordinary (for humans anyway) ones.
posted on 04.09.2007 1:57 PM17
Joe should think twice about bringing up the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Few incidents (aside from maybe abortion clinic bombers) have done more to damage the credibility of the pro-life movement. (Scratch that, at least the bombers were never the mainstream of the movement).
While most people would think that "PRO End-of-Life Care" means favoring pain management and hospice care, this group believes it means the "right to kill the lebensunwerten lebens, people who are unworthy of life."
As usual Joe finds more affinity for the echo chamber of his movement than actually listening to anyone else's argument. No one ever argued that Terry was 'unworthy of life'. In fact both sides of the case were built on agonizing over what Terry wanted or would have wanted by trying to pull up half remembered conversations about TV movies of the Week! As usual, though, Joe and the 'life Nazis' would rather pretend they are sitting back in Nazi Germany where everyone else is arguing poor Terry wasn't a good contributor to the state therefore needed to be killed!
And to invoke Terri Schiavo as an example of "PRO End-of-Life Care" shows a contemptible level of cluelessness. Are they aware that Terri was denied medical tests that would have confirmed her condition? Or that her husband had previously testified under oath that Terri did not want to be taken off life-supporting treatment? Are they aware of the fact that Terri wasn't even dying? Apparently, their definition of "end-of-life care" includes starving a woman to death.
Perhaps they don't give these arguments much credibility because your side choose to slander and lie about Michael Schiavo. Making up nefarious motives without even checking the facts for plausibility. Perhaps they don't give these arguments much credibility because your side paraded through a series of quacks who are familiar to anyone who ever dealt with a loved one in a hopeless medical condition. Those would be the quacks who prey on hopeless situations either to make money on their novel 'treatments' or who seek to use sick people as guinnie pigs either to bolster their reputations or income streams.
Over in the world of reality most people realized this was a case about refusing certain types of care. If Terry could speak and said she did not want a feeding tube even though it would result in death in less than two weeks, there would be no question.
No for the pro-lifers the Schiavo case has a lot of parrells to another case that is beloved by many on the hard left, that of Mumia Abu-Jamal. There's a huge sub-industry of self-righteous 'Free Mumia' sites that make a convincing argument he was framed for killing a police officer. Convincing that is until you actually leave the echo chamber and realize for the few who are educated about the case they have refuted almost all the arguments that he is innocent. In both cases what is interesting is what the case does for the psychology of the activists. It gives them a nice warm sense of self-righteousness that is confirmed by fellow activists. A nice portal out of the real world and into a fantasy one where they can make reality up as they go along and get patted on the back for doing so.
posted on 04.09.2007 2:36 PM18
Probably not. But Joe, the thing I never see you address when this issue comes up is that the Founding Fathers WERE vehemently against the mixture of State and Religion. Adams was against official chaplains for the military and Congress for crying out loud.
But their concern was not with the corruption of the State by Religion, it was with the corruption of Religion by the State.
When you look at the actions of the religious political organizations, like the umbrella Arlington group, or your own employer Joe, can you deny that the corruption the Founders feared hasn't taken place?
How else do you explain all the non-Christian actions and non actions that these groups commit? Remaining silent in the face of the use of government-sanctioned torture just because it was good politics for them to do so? Kicking out their own leaders if they dared to consider addressing such apparently non-Christian topics like feeding the poor or sound environmental stewardship? Rather than the GOP assuming Christian goals and principles, Christian groups are assuming GOP political cynicism and compromised ethical standards instead. They might as well be Democrats.
Really Joe I've often watched you get all huffy over the theocracy charge, but you ignore the elephant in the room in favor of the flea.
posted on 04.09.2007 2:53 PM19
Probably not. But Joe, the thing I never see you address when this issue comes up is that the Founding Fathers WERE vehemently against the mixture of State and Religion. Adams was against official chaplains for the military and Congress for crying out loud.
But their concern was not with the corruption of the State by Religion, it was with the corruption of Religion by the State.
When you look at the actions of the religious political organizations, like the umbrella Arlington group, or your own employer Joe, can you deny that the corruption the Founders feared hasn't taken place?
How else do you explain all the non-Christian actions and non actions that these groups commit? Remaining silent in the face of the use of government-sanctioned torture just because it was good politics for them to do so? Kicking out their own leaders if they dared to consider addressing such apparently non-Christian topics like feeding the poor or sound environmental stewardship? Rather than the GOP assuming Christian goals and principles, Christian groups are assuming GOP political cynicism and compromised ethical standards instead. They might as well be Democrats.
Really Joe I've often watched you get all huffy over the theocracy charge, but you ignore the elephant in the room in favor of the flea.
posted on 04.09.2007 2:53 PM20
Christians, in particular, are considered a group that is always trying to impose their bourgeois standard of morality on society despite how it makes some people feel.
Ah, that Pesky Christian Sexual Morality, the real reason behind the twelve-syllable intellectual psychobabble.
The Bloggers Against Theocracy might just get their wish.
You never need to worry about Those Christians taking over and instituting an Oppressive Christian Theocracy when you're living under an Islamic Republic...
posted on 04.09.2007 4:21 PM21
So the choice is Christian theocracy or Islamic Republic? What's wrong with the moderate secular society we have now?
posted on 04.09.2007 4:24 PM22
And what's up with this blanket rejection of intelligent design. I realize that they think they are aligning with the "brights" on this one but they don't seem to have given it much independent thought.
This is kind of strange. Whenever someone takes an unorthodox view of Christ such as in the Davinnci Code (which, BTW, I think is nonsense) or even a rather orthodox view that's of slightly different flavor (The Last Temptation of Christ) there is no shortage of yahoos on the religous fronts declaring that they are being subjected to prejudice, discrimination or harassment as if the Constitution gave them monopoly control over anything Jesus related.
Intelligent design should be rejected for the same reason astrology or the influence of UFO's are rejected. Not because they are declare wrong ahead of time but because they have consistenly failed to stand up to cross examination. Rather than respond by refining their theories and arguments they have choosen to deploy obsfucations, red herrings and other fallacies to keep themselves alive.
posted on 04.09.2007 4:36 PM23
Patrick
posted on 04.09.2007 5:28 PMSome of the original 13 states did have official churches. I guess none of the founding fathers lived in these states
24
Boonton,
So the choice is Christian theocracy or Islamic Republic? What's wrong with the moderate secular society we have now?
I like the sentiment, but it seems naive. Have you seen recent rulings in Germany? Have you seen the situation in France? Liberalism must change or collapse. And right now the choices seem to be in one of two direcitons -- generally Christian or generally Islamic. Only one of the two will guarantee a theocracy. So take your pick. :)
Collin
posted on 04.09.2007 5:58 PM25
"Anybody who's seen 'Jesus Camp' - and yeah, I can
understand why some folks don't like it - it shows
stuff that some folks would prefer to stay hidden-
anybody who's seen 'Jesus Camp' knows that reason and ogic
are like kryptonite to the fundamentalist."
What's "ogic"? And what is "reason" for someone who takes a documentary (by its very nature a flawed and incomplete medium) and draws from it a generalized conclusion about all fundamentalists?
posted on 04.09.2007 6:20 PM26
"I also don't think we should use the term theocrat to describe all conservative Christians, evangelicals or fundamentalists; that is simply painting with too broad a brush. A theocrat is someone who wants the country to be ruled by the rules of a particular religion, in this country nearly always Christian of course. It's reasonable, even necessary in my view, to fight against the views held by many conservative Christians; I do so constantly on this blog. But while people like Joe Carter and David Heddle may be conservative evangelicals, and I may disagree with them on most things, they certainly are not theocrats or dominionists, and it's not reasonable to lump them in with the RJ Rushdoonys of the world." - Ed Brayton
"When people use their interpretation of a particular religion to obtain, hold, and wield political power, that is theocracy. That is also what makes the current battles in the so-called "culture wars" different from, say, the Civil Rights struggle and before that, the battle for women's suffrage. Those struggles were about expanding rights to previously oppressed disenfranchised groups. The fights today being waged in the media, at the polling place, and in the courts are about denying rights, rights given to us by our Creator, and about reducing the scope of who can be a full citizen. And that should concern everyone, of every political and religious persuasion." - Quaker Agitator
This was a blog swarm - are you stating you read every post?
- ignorant drivel
-futile attempt to address this misconception
- the radical fringe of the secular left
-theophobes
-embrace an infantile brand of libertarian socialism
-they hate--and hate is not too strong a word--people who refuse to keep their religious beliefs in the closet
-they've never bothered to actually read the Constitution.
-contemptible level of cluelessness
-to align with the agenda of the secular left
-a bizarre anti-intellectual niche for themselves.
-it is impossible to take these people seriously
-crack-pot conspiracy theories
-are they really that stupid or is the hyperventilating hyperbole just for effect
-even retarded circus bears have more sense
-a prime example of the type of tin-foil hat wearing paranoia
-we should feel free to call a moron a moron
posted on 04.09.2007 6:42 PM27
I like the sentiment, but it seems naive. Have you seen recent rulings in Germany? Have you seen the situation in France? Liberalism must change or collapse. And right now the choices seem to be in one of two direcitons -- generally Christian or generally Islamic. Only one of the two will guarantee a theocracy. So take your pick. :)
Hmmmmm, I'll wait and see.
Mike O
Patrick
Some of the original 13 states did have official churches. I guess none of the founding fathers lived in these states
True they did. That was because the original Constitution only applied to the Federal Gov't (in this case). The post Civil War amendments essentially 'incorporated' the 'essentials' of the Bill of Rights to the states as well.
Ron
What's "ogic"? And what is "reason" for someone who takes a documentary (by its very nature a flawed and incomplete medium) and draws from it a generalized conclusion about all fundamentalists?
Tell us, then, what flawless and complete medium must be used before we can say the folks at 'Jesus Camp' are making a mockery of Christianity with their pseudo-worship of George Bush? I will agree, however, that it should not be generalized to all fundamentalists. Just the nutso ones.
posted on 04.09.2007 7:42 PM28
Hmmm... do I prefer the theocracy of the Secular Humanists, or the Christians? I must admit that so far, the current theocracy seems pretty mild, so I'll stick with the Christians. Otherwise, you know, the nation's out of control militarism might be directed inward toward Christians by the Secular Humanists. After all, they can't very well let anybody preach that there might be something mightier than the all-powerful ME.
posted on 04.10.2007 1:13 AM29
What?
posted on 04.10.2007 1:32 AM30
"Some of the original 13 states did have official churches. I guess none of the founding fathers lived in these states "
A common misperception. The original COLONIES did in 1776. The Constituion was ratified and went into effect in 1789, thirteen years later. By 1789 or immediately thereafter, all states except Coonecticut had abolished their state religions. Connecticut didn't offically abolish Congregationalism unitl 1815, an oversight, because the laws were ignored in practice.
The states the foundign father lived in in 1789 were not the colonies they lived in in 1776. Official religions were seen as undesirable in the new country.
posted on 04.10.2007 2:15 AM31
"By 1789 or immediately thereafter, all states except Coonecticut had abolished their state religions. Connecticut didn't offically abolish Congregationalism unitl 1815, an oversight, because the laws were ignored in practice."
Mass. had its established Church until 1833. Off the top of my head, I can't give you a list of who had an established Church 1789, but it was, I believe more than just Mass. and Conn.
By 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified, ALL states had indeed abolished their established Churches.
That's what's most important because if the federal government forbids states from having established churches, it's through the mechanism of the 14th Amendment.
posted on 04.10.2007 10:25 AM32
"Adams was against official chaplains for the military and Congress for crying out loud."
That was actually Madison.
posted on 04.10.2007 10:40 AM33
"Mass. had its established Church until 1833. Off the top of my head, I can't give you a list of who had an established Church 1789, but it was, I believe more than just Mass. and Conn."
Not quite. Massachusetts disestablished its state church in 1780. Massachusetts did have a law that required citizens to belong to *some* church, without specifying *which* church. That law was abolished in 1833.
The 14th amendment put the nail in the coffin, but the body was dead by 1789.
Even today, North Carolina prohibits atheists form the Massachusetts requirement to belong to a church. That law is unconstitutional based on the religious test clause, not the 14th Amendment.
The idea that the early colonies offically sponsored stater religions is overblown by a substantial amount. In addition to the Constitution's own Free exercise clause and disestablishment clause, the vast majority of states had their own religious freedom clauses in the state constitutions.
That does not mean that all were in favor of religious disestablishment in 1789. There was no uniformity of opinion then, just as there is no uniformity now, but then, as now, majorities favor separation of church and state.
posted on 04.10.2007 2:14 PM34
Yup. I stand corrected.
My main point however, is still that the influence of the State on Religion is something Christians who involve themselves in politics should be more concerned about.
I'm also simply tired of all the whining so-called Christians do about their supposedly being "persecuted" and "victimized". I think if some of the original Christians were around today, you know the ones that got fed to the lions on a regular basis? I think that if they were around today that they would look upon the present crop of politically active Christians with total disgust. I'd bet real money that they would think modern American Christians are a bunch of wimpy idiotic sissies.
Sitting in a chicken coop isn't going to make you a chicken. Turning American pluralism into a Christian-only society isn't going to make you a Christian either.
posted on 04.10.2007 2:48 PM35
Neither is allowing American pluralism to totally exclude Christian polity from society going to make one a Christian.
posted on 04.10.2007 3:29 PM36
I think the Gospel of Jesus Christ can stand on its own merits.
Actually it would be better if we would just go ahead and be honest and recognize we live in a secular society and stop trying to stubbornly cling to a false myth that the United States is "christian nation" It never was and never will be.
posted on 04.10.2007 3:44 PM37
Organized religion is, at this point in history, almost entirely evil. It works in service to evil, and it enables evil on every level.
For example: millions of evangelicals and fundamentalists supported (and support) the Iraq war, with nary a peep of critique or (for the most part) mea-culpa moments. They claim their faith is about life and its prolongation, its nurturing, yet...they stay silent on the defining harvest of blood and souls of our time: Iraq.
Today, Christianity as organized religion serves Mammon, and happily so. No concerted effort to stop the killing and maiming of innocents has come from the organized Christian quarter.
'Nuff said.
posted on 04.10.2007 3:54 PM38
Organized religion is, at this point in history, almost entirely evil. It works in service to evil, and it enables evil on every level.
For example: millions of evangelicals and fundamentalists supported (and support) the Iraq war, with nary a peep of critique or (for the most part) mea-culpa moments. They claim their faith is about life and its prolongation, its nurturing, yet...they stay silent on the defining harvest of blood and souls of our time: Iraq.
Today, Christianity as organized religion serves Mammon, and happily so. No concerted effort to stop the killing and maiming of innocents has come from the organized Christian quarter.
'Nuff said.
posted on 04.10.2007 3:54 PM39
Clancy J., I've wondered about the evangelical support of the invasion/occupation of Iraq too. Seems hypocritical if you're not an evangelical, doesn't it? Maybe some of the evangelicals here on this blog could explain why they lend their support to it?
I can't really offer an explanation, except to say that President Bush presents himself as an evangelical born-again christian and I suppose evangelicals wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt with his policies (I know I did-at one time). Also, maybe we are really comfortable with our lives here and don't want to think about how our nation's actions effect other countries. Perhaps, deep down in our hearts we truly believe America is a special nation and our policies are blessed by God.
Anyone else have any explanations for Clancey?
posted on 04.10.2007 5:32 PM40
I know there's a verse in the Bible about pearls before swine, but I'm going to attempt this anyway.
Hey, Clancy J!! Only Christians are allowed to judge whether or not a person or group is evil. Only Christians can be hypocrites. Please refrain from any judgmentalism until you know enough about the rules of Christianity to become a hypocrite in good standing. And please be sure to understand irony before attempting any further posts here at the hypocritical outpost.
posted on 04.10.2007 5:38 PM41
And that goes for you, too, JohnW!
posted on 04.10.2007 5:41 PM42
JD,
Clancy, makes a valid point. And FYI, he's a human being-therefore he knows right and wrong, even if he doesn't follow your religion.
Can you offer an explanation for evangelical support of the invasion/occupation of Iraq or not? Isn't war and resulting death and destruction a "moral value" issue that should be considered by evangelicals. If not, why not? Do you have an answer? I'd like to know what it is.
posted on 04.10.2007 5:52 PM43
johnw:
what do you mean, "your religion?"
Isn't war and resulting death and destruction a "moral value" issue that should be considered by evangelicals?
After giving your question the serious thought that it deserves and considering the moral values and death and destruction--especially those 600,000 innocent Iraqi civilians--I have concluded that evangelicals really shouldn't attempt to discuss issues like these. These issues should be left to non-evangelicals and leprechauns. Evangelicals get very nervous talking about morality and stuff.
posted on 04.10.2007 6:16 PM44
I'd also like to know the Evangelical stance on torture or even "coercive interrogation".
posted on 04.10.2007 6:30 PMThe silence from any of the major Evangelical political groups has been deafening. Are they not willing to oppose an Evangelical President on important moral issues? Are they ignoring the topic in order to present a united political front? Seems like a rather morally corrosive practice to me.
45
JD,
In my post no. 42, instead of "your religion", insert "your personal relationship with Jesus Christ that guides all your thoughts, actions, and attitudes towards your fellow man"
Why can't you give a straightforward answer?
posted on 04.10.2007 7:32 PM46
Can you offer an explanation for evangelical support of the invasion/occupation of Iraq or not? Isn't war and resulting death and destruction a "moral value" issue that should be considered by evangelicals. If not, why not? Do you have an answer? I'd like to know what it is.
You can't possibly be serious. You ask these questions as if we and you haven't beat this horse to death on this blog for the last few interminable months. You've heard our thoughts on these issues backwards and forwards. You are not interested in what I think. Your thoughts are cemented in a long list of endlessly debatable "facts" from the war being for oil, power, and militarism to the lunacy of 600,000 dead Iraqi civilians. And you seriously ask the question whether or not evangelicals have considered the "moral values" of the situation. Your condescension is insulting. It might be unintentional, but it's insulting nevertheless. I shudder to post this, because what you write next will undoubtedly be just as maddening.
posted on 04.10.2007 10:01 PM47
Paraphrased:
posted on 04.10.2007 10:21 PMGive up you hosers, you can't hold a candle to us organized anti-religionists. We're so much more efficient at slaughtering innocents than you pansies because we've perfected the art of concentration camps, gulags, despotism and collectivist purges.
48
"Organized religion is, at this point in history, almost entirely evil. It works in service to evil, and it enables evil on every level"
Please, the secular humanist lovers of communism and socialism have killed, murdered and tortured more people since 1917 than religion has in recorded history. (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.)
Religion has never killed or murdered any soul, but humans of all stripes have co-opted religion for their agendas. Yet you willing submit your life and ideals to faith in humans.
posted on 04.10.2007 11:26 PM49
JD, I think non-christians or non-evangelicals truly wonder how followers of Christ can possible support the invasion/occupation of Iraq. Can you give a straightforward answer? I deserve some criticism, but critizing me is not an explanation of your views.
You know, when you talk to non-christians you are problably going to be asked this kind of thing more often in the future. How are they going to take you seriously when you are trying to share your faith, if you can't address this sort of very important issue?
posted on 04.11.2007 1:04 AM50
Are you dense? I have done nothing but address this sort of very important issue for the last four years. You are not interested in what I have to say. You simply want to express your outrage over evangelicals not seeing things the way you do. In fact, you wrote on this blog not so long ago, something like "jd, you just keep on thinking that if you want to." In other words, "jd, I don't care what you think."
How can you expect anyone to take YOU seriously when you continue to spout garbage like 600,000 Iraqi civilians dead? I guess by your calculations, that number should be closer to 800,000 now. Or is 600,000 the accepted and most effective number to use not only for the last 18 months but also in perpetuity?
posted on 04.11.2007 8:00 AM51
Neither is allowing American pluralism to totally exclude Christian polity from society going to make one a Christian.
There is no evidence this is happening or that even a serious number of people want it to happen.
posted on 04.11.2007 9:47 AM52
The 600,000 estimate of exess deaths in Iraq is valid-it was a valid study. I can't help it if you can not accept reality. Our president says atleast 30,000 Iraqis died as a result of our country's invasion/occupation-does this lower number make our actionss ok
Also, If you have been such a big supporter of the invasion/occupation of Iraq over the last four years, what's the big deal about explaining your support to Clancy?
posted on 04.11.2007 10:10 AM53
I'm going to take a wild arsed guess at what the "this" is you are talking about. Evidence? Is it not evidence enough that a serious number of people want it to happen when a whole wing of people belonging to a certain political affiliation that shall remain nameless accuse the President of trying to start a theocracy? The ACLU (just one organization that has brought lawsuits against many municipalities just for having Christian symbology in seals and eblems) has dozens of judges philosophically in their back pocket, so it won't necessarily take a serious number of people who want it to happen to try to make it happen. Personally, I think they are fighting a losing battle trying to remove all public references to Christ or God, but heathens will be heathens.
posted on 04.11.2007 11:46 PM54
"Retarded bear in the circus?" Yep, if that's the sort of insulting, unthinking, uncaring metaphor theocracy breeds, we're all against it.
posted on 04.12.2007 8:06 AM55
Whenever we hear the old canard that there's no separation of church and state in the Constitution, we can be sure there is some theocrat behind it who hasn't read the Constitution and hopes the readers haven't either.
Separation of church and state is woven throughout the Constitution. In articles I, II, and III, the legislature, executive and judicial branches are given zero religious duties or privileges. Similarly, in those articles, no church or religious official is given any formal role in government. Article IV keeps the same wall of separation for the state governments, and Article VI makes it even more clear, prohibiting any religious test for any official in government, federal, state or local. Amendment I makes it even more clear.
Is that what the founders meant? According to Jefferson and Madison, yes it is. See Madison's views in the Memorial and Remonstrance, and note Jefferson's views in his Autobiography where he explains the significance of no "Jesus amendment" to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (which Jefferson wrote and Madison shepherded into law), noting that by that action the Virginians agreed religious freedom was intended to be for Moslems, Hindus, Jews, and "infidels of every faith."
The "dogma" promoted by modern secularists is called the Constitution of the United States. It allows the flowering of religion in this nation as in no other.
I am constantly astounded at how the theocrats wish to bite the hand that has protected them all these years -- and if you thought there was no such thing as a theocrat, look at your own post. Such misrepresentations of law and history are exactly what the "Blog Against Theocracy" was intended to expose.
Your post is Exhibit B.
posted on 04.12.2007 9:37 AM56
I happened upon this thread when looking for more about the Rev. Jack Barr after reading about his very narrow minded and hurtful interpretations of the bible (his view on suicide were despicable).
posted on 04.12.2007 11:08 AMI am a Christian (although no longer an evangelical), my problems are not Iraq as there ARE more issues for being there (just as there are for not being there), however my problems with this movement (especially the Charismatic Pentecostals and Baptists) is there hyper judgmental interpretations of the bible often placing the writings (Epistles) of Paul over the Gospels and the Prophets.
My family and business has been literally destroyed by these people and there judgments (and continues to be), these people cannot even bother to ask the facts and look for the truth and make lame statements quoting 1 Cor. 10:13 and similar. It is time to for them to stop acting as the High Priests of Christ’s time and see that what they see is not what the real truth is (Christ went to the tax collects, forgave Mary Magdellan and more). Christ was not about image as modern day Baptists are.
57
I'm going to take a wild arsed guess at what the "this" is you are talking about. Evidence? Is it not evidence enough that a serious number of people want it to happen when a whole wing of people belonging to a certain political affiliation that shall remain nameless accuse the
The only example you cite is the ACLU, why don't you show me a case they brought against a non-governmental agency displaying religious symbols on their property? I doubt you could. In fact, you'll find cases where the ACLU defended yes even Christians whose religious liberty was infringed.
posted on 04.12.2007 4:05 PM58
What has that got to do with separation of church and state; and peoples perception of it being carried to the extreme of eradication of all references to or reliance upon Christianity; eventually to the point of non-religiosity being a requirement for public office? The ACLU doing a paltry few cases to protect religious rights doesn't do enough to tip the scales against all they've done to eradicate historical references to Christianity from the public purview. Those heady days of glory for the ACLU fade farther and farther from memory with every case they take in opposition to Christianity. And having people make exaggerated claims that Christians (in general) are interested in forming a theocracy when it is really the farthest thing from their minds exacerbates the tension.I myself have witnessed commenters on another blog state that Christian legislative members should keep their Christian belief systems out of the halls of government and refrain from participating if they cannot follow that guideline.
posted on 04.12.2007 11:57 PM59
The ACLU doing a paltry few cases to protect religious rights doesn't do enough to tip the scales against all they've done to eradicate historical references to Christianity from the public purview.
What have they done to eradicate historical references to Christianity from the public purview? The History channel seems to have a documentary about Christianity running every other day. Any public library is chuck full of books about Christianity and historical Christianity. Any art history class taken at a public school or college is full of historical Christian work. There are Churches everywhere in the US and they almost always enjoy protected status from local gov't (either property tax breaks/exemptions, historical landmark status etc.).
All of these 'references' to my knowledge have never been challenged by the ACLU.
posted on 04.13.2007 10:20 AM60
Currently, they have sued Tennessee Wilson County schools alleging a violation of separation of church and state because they allowed a group called Praying Parents to pass out fliers letting the students know they had been prayed for. Now, you may not have a problem with that lawsuit, because you may be looking around at all the books in the library that the ACLU hasn't done anything about yet and thinking they don't ever intend to do anything about all those books in the library, but there are people who believe that eventually the ACLU will target all those books in the library. All that aside though, you seem to be getting too hung up on details and ignoring the gist of what I'm saying. What I've been saying is that lawsuits like that do more to damage religious liberty than the very occasional lawsuit the ACLU takes to guarantee religious freedom. And that is precisely because of the ACLU's philosophy that religious liberty should not be openly displayed in the halls of government, whether it be legislative representatives, school teachers, or even janitors hired to sweep up the school hallways.
posted on 04.13.2007 1:22 PM61
What I've been saying is that lawsuits like that do more to damage religious liberty than the very occasional lawsuit the ACLU takes to guarantee religious freedom.
In general, though, what you are talking about has nothing to do with religious liberty. I cannot go into a school and pass out fliers to students telling them that they should ignore religion. I cannot pass out fliers asking students to vote Democratic in the next election.
If this school had such an 'open door' policy then yea the ACLU would be wrong to sue over one religious group taking advantage of it. More than likely, though, the school has a closed door policy prohibiting people from passing out fliers to its students on school grounds. In that case opening the school up to just one group or type of group isn't 'liberty' but granting special priviliages.
posted on 04.13.2007 2:08 PM62
This group was not just any old group of people, but parents of students. And why do you assume the school would have prevented other groups of parents of a different religion from doing the same thing? Is it because you think almost every Christian wants to make the USA into a theocracy?
posted on 04.13.2007 4:59 PM63
"What I've been saying is that lawsuits like that do more to damage religious liberty than the very occasional lawsuit the ACLU takes to guarantee religious freedom."
Very occasional? Are you joking, or do you get all your information about the ACLU from WorldNetDaily and the STACLU?
Maybe you should check this out:
http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html
The ACLU is a greater friend of freedom of religious expression than the exclusionists who try to shove their religion down the throats of a captive audience while keeping all others out. If you think it's OK for Satanists to approach your child in school, that's a different story. At least you would be consistent; that is, if you lived in an area where that were even a possibility.
I work in a public school in Tennessee, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that Christians have a great deal of religious freedom, even privilege, compared to the followers of minority worldviews. Google "India Tracy" to find out what happens to little pagan girls in Tennessee schools.
posted on 04.13.2007 6:52 PM64
No, I get most of my impression of what the ACLU handles from the news media. So either the news media want to downplay all the ACLU does for religious freedom, or the ACLU doesn't do enough to overcome my impression they do more damage to religious freedom than good. Take your pick, but obviously you've seen the one extreme from people who really do believe the ACLU is trying to eradicate religious expression of Christians alone and favoring relaxed standards for others. Just don't try to sell me on the other extreme, okay?
As an aside, I don't really think a pagan parent group would think of praying for the students. Some people might get freaked out about it, but as far as I'm concerned, prayers to non-existent gods or goddesses don't amount to anything other than the wasted breath. And satanists... well, it just seems so antithetical as to appear an impossibility.
posted on 04.14.2007 1:53 AM65
"... or the ACLU doesn't do enough to overcome my impression they do more damage to religious freedom than good."
Obviously you didn't check out the link I provided, which lists many defenses of Christian religious expression over just a couple of years. You are not very curious, are you?
"Just don't try to sell me on the other extreme, okay?"
That's very telling; you just don't want to hear the other side. "Leave me alone with my didtorted perception of reality!" you seem to say.
"As an aside, I don't really think a pagan parent group would think of praying for the students."
Who said anything about pagan parents praying for students? You didn't google "India Tracy", I see. It's about a pagan girl who was abused and driven from her school by her compassionate Christian classmates, teachers, administrators, and community. Christian love in action. I guess you don't want to know about that, either.
posted on 04.14.2007 10:20 AM66
On the contrary, I am curious, just not curious about what you think I should be curious about. As I'm not really either attacking or defending the ACLU, only explaining my perceptions of the ACLU which were only nominally relevant to my arguments anyway, I don't see why I need to go view a web page of the ACLU tooting their own horn. I only need to view somebody's resume if I'm involved in the hiring process.
I did, it was an aside, so get over it.
Cite your evidence without using logical fallacies. If anything, that story provides evidence of my original point that there are plenty of people that would prefer no references to religion in the halls of government, and some of them are willing to use the ACLU to see that their aims are achieved.
posted on 04.14.2007 11:44 PM67
This group was not just any old group of people, but parents of students. And why do you assume the school would have prevented other groups of parents of a different religion from doing the same thing?
It would still be unusual for a school to have an 'open door' policy for even parents to enter the school and pass out fliers to students. Are you trying to say they are passing out fliers to their own kids? If that is the case why can't they just give their own kids these fliers off school grounds....say before they leave for school. If they are giving the fliers to other people's kids again the school's 'open door' policy has to be neutral. If I have a kid in this school why can't I wander in and pass out fliers to all the other kids advertising my business? Asking them to tell their parents to vote Democatic? Or even asking them not to pray or to tell their parents to stop praying?
Show me how this school really has an 'open door' policy on passing out fliers and I'll agree with you the ACLU would be wrong to go after just one group using it!
No, I get most of my impression of what the ACLU handles from the news media.
Ohhh, so you haven't even bothered to know what you're talking about! You just happen to 'feel' that the ACLU is more anti-religion than pro-religious freedom! I love it, yet again another theist on this list happily embraces the most extreme relativism when it suits his cause!
Rob
Obviously you didn't check out the link I provided, which lists many defenses of Christian religious expression over just a couple of years. You are not very curious, are you?
It's worse than that. I asked SMM here for a specific example. He hasn't even bothered to read anything beyond a headline. To date he hasn't even answered if the school has an open door policy like I asked. He seems to be of the opinion that he doesn't need to support his accusations. He only needs to see if he has an 'impression'. You know, there happens to be a prohibition against bearing false witness SMM. Please look it up, trust me it is there. I suspect that you might be tempted to respond "whenever the Ten come up in the media they are usually talking about sex or murder so that whole false witness thing probably isn't there or the media's covering it up...take your pick!". You made an accusation you have an obligation to at least try to determine if your right first.
posted on 04.14.2007 11:50 PM68
Boonton: "It's worse than that. I asked SMM here for a specific example. He hasn't even bothered to read anything beyond a headline."
That's why I think that smmtheory is not curious. He seems to think he has perfect knowledge now and has no need to supplement it with nettlesome dissenting views. I think the ACLU's record speaks for itself, but some people get all their impressions of the organization from FauxNews and the WorldNutDaily.
posted on 04.15.2007 7:42 PM69
"If anything, that story [the India Tracy story http://www.religioustolerance.org/news_03feb.htm] provides evidence of my original point that there are plenty of people that would prefer no references to religion in the halls of government, and some of them are willing to use the ACLU to see that their aims are achieved."
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
How in blue blazes did you arrive at that patently absurd conclusion? The story is about a kid getting run out of school because she didn't want to go to a crusade, for crying out loud.
posted on 04.15.2007 7:48 PM70
Rob,
There are some interesting people writing on this blog. Textbook right wing authoritarian followers. You can't change their minds or get them to admit they might be wrong about anything that deviates from their leader's ideas.
Take a look at the discussion thread about Bush's signing statements. You've got one guy who doesn't believe the constitution intended for the government to have separation of powers, co-equal branches, and checks & balances. They have some kind of crazy idea that when Bush puts a signing statement on a piece of legistlation banning torture indicating he reserves the right to torture...He's really protecting the constitution by keeping the judicial branch from legislating from the bench!
It's really something.
posted on 04.15.2007 11:56 PM71
What accusation is that Boonton? The following? -
Do you even understand what that accusation is? I doubt it, because in your very next comment you introduce for the very first time that you THINK I made an accusation that the ACLU brought a case again a non-governmental agency. Do you get it now? You - y.o.u. - switched from the topic of suits against government agencies to suits against non-goverment agencies. Explain to me why I should have to defend an accusation that I NEVER made.
To date, there are many examples of the ACLU suing school districts alleging establishment or preferential treatment for a specific religion. You know about them, the ACLU even includes them on its web site (oh yeah, the ACLU record speaks for itself Rob Ryan - and btw, you still haven't cited evidence that I did not research India Tracy - my lack of addressing it to your satisfaction is not evidence or proof). To date, there are NO examples of the ACLU suing to guarantee a government worker's freedom of religious expression on the job. Instead, it treats their freedom of religious expression as an extension of the government's expression of establishment or preferential treatment toward a specific religion. So you can get all weepy if you want that I didn't answer whether or not the school has an open door policy, but it is irrelevant to the determination of whether or not the suit was brought against the school system by the ACLU for allowing Prayer Parents to pass out fliers.
posted on 04.17.2007 12:16 AM72
Take a peek at your accusation:
just one organization that has brought lawsuits against many municipalities just for having Christian symbology in seals and eblems)
Ok, so your example had nothing to do with your accusation. Thanks, you don't even pay attention to what you write.
I do, you actually wrote (post 58):
The ACLU doing a paltry few cases to protect religious rights doesn't do enough to tip the scales against all they've done to eradicate historical references to Christianity from the public purview.
Then I asked for a specific example. The case you provided failed to establish or support you point.
You did run with this case, though, in post 60
What I've been saying is that lawsuits like that do more to damage religious liberty than the very occasional lawsuit the ACLU takes to guarantee religious freedom.
As has been pointed out, you did not produce an example of the ACLU attacking religious freedom. Instead, your example was of special treatment which is the opposite of liberty.
To date, there are NO examples of the ACLU suing to guarantee a government worker's freedom of religious expression on the job. Instead, it treats their freedom of religious expression as an extension of the government's expression of establishment or preferential treatment toward a specific religion.
I believe the ACLU has taken cases where supervisors of gov't workers tried to restrict their worker's religious expressions such as demanding Jewish males uncover their heads etc. In the case of the military I believe they lost the case but Congress later changed the law to accomodate expression.
I have a feeling here, now that you've taken this in another direction (gov't workers expression). I don't really see why this needs to get overly complicated. The general idea is quite similiar to the school case you cited. If the policy is generally evenhanded & reasonably related to the job then it should be fine.
So what case(s) are you talking about now smm?
posted on 04.17.2007 12:06 PM73
"To date, there are NO examples of the ACLU suing to guarantee a government worker's freedom of religious expression on the job."
If this is true, it is probably because no one is infringing upon the freedom of religious expression of government workers.
The ACLU is quite even-handed in its treatment of religion. I doubt you would be if you were making the calls, judging from your heartless brush-off of a case where Christians slammed a little girl's head against her locker.
Btw, I don't have to prove you didn't google the story, smmtheory. It actually reflects more negatively on you if you did and were so unmoved that you cited it as supporting your contention.
posted on 04.17.2007 8:57 PM74
I know you don't.
A specific case of... I'd be surprised if anybody but you knew, but I suppose it must be related to your opinion that people incidentally expressing their religion in their capacity of being a government worker means they are infringing on everybody else's liberty as if the government were out busily stomping their jack-boots on peoples necks. That is exactly the attitude which encourages people to think that atheists and secularists want to do a bit of 'reverse' discrimination.
No, it wasn't I that took it in another direction, but you that maybe finally realized what direction my arguments were pointed all the time but you just didn't want to admit it.
Paraphrased:
posted on 04.17.2007 10:26 PMIf you continue to ignore my irrelevant arguments in the future smmtheory, I will instead attack you personally and do my best to make you look stupid, cruel and heartless.
75
A specific case of... I'd be surprised if anybody but you knew, but I suppose it must be related to your opinion that people incidentally expressing their religion in their capacity of being a government worker means they are infringing on everybody else's liberty as if the government were out busily stomping their jack-boots on peoples necks.
Again why don't you give us a specific example of what you're talking about. Nothing I've stated justifies your accusation that my opinion is that an 'incidental' expression of religion by a gov't worker means they must be stomped out. In fact, if you bothered to read my last post I expressed just the opposite opinion.
No, it wasn't I that took it in another direction, but you that maybe finally realized what direction my arguments were pointed all the time but you just didn't want to admit it.
Actually I am only slightly less confused about your direction than you are. At this point I have no idea if you even have a coherent opinion let alone what it is. Again I'll ask (and this is the last time), what are you talking about?
posted on 04.18.2007 8:56 AM76
Boonton, you know the ACLU is involved in (according to them) over 6000 cases a year, and they do not make it very easy on their website to search through all of the cases they are involved in. So before I spend all the time I can spare to search for a case you think I should be citing, I need to know exactly what to look for so that I can narrow it down some. So answer the following questions to help me do so:
1) Do you think I hold animus toward the ACLU?
posted on 04.18.2007 11:28 PM2) Do you care whether or not I hold animus toward the ACLU?
3) Are you predisposed toward the opinion that some Christians want to make the USA into a theocracy?
4) Are you predisposed toward the opinion that most Christians want to make the USA into a theocracy?
5) Are you predisposed toward the opinion that all Christians want to make the USA into a theocracy?
6) Am I suppose to be citing a case where the ACLU has sued a municipality to remove Christian symbology from their official seals and/or emblems?
7) Do you think that same case would show evidence of the ACLU suing non-governmental agencies for displaying religious symbols on their property?
8) Do you think that same case would show no evidence of the ACLU suing non-governmental agencies for displaying religious symbols on their property?
9) Do you interpret the phrase "public purview" to always be synonymous with "public sight"?
10) What does the phrase "there are people" mean to you?
11) Do you think I would include myself in the grouping "there are people"?
12) Should a student be allowed to wear a religious symbol at school?
13) Should a teacher be allowed to wear a religious symbol at school?
14) Should a parent be allowed to wear a religious symbol at school?
15) Should a student be allowed to tell another student that they had been praying for them?
16) Should a teacher be allowed to tell a student that they had been praying for them?
17) Should a parent be allowed to tell a student that they had been praying for them?
18) Is a parent not employed by a school an agent of a school to which their children belong?
19) Is a student an agent of a school to which they belong?
20) Should a school be allowed to hold a graduation ceremony at a religious structure?
77
I'm not sure why I need to answer 20 questions from you for you to answer my rather simple question of "what are you talking about".
I'm going to ignore most of them. 12-17 I would answer generally yes but with the footnote that the circumstances do matter. I haven't seen you cite any ACLU cases that would hint to me that they disagree there.
18... No parents are not employed by a school as an agent (unless, of course, they actually have a job at the school like teacher, principal, cafeteria worker etc.)
19. No students are not agents of their school.
20. I'd be inclined to say no since it would be pretty hard to not see that as an endorsement of the religious establishment. However I could see some situations where it might be ok. For example, take a Katrina type situation wehre maybe the community only has one large structure that is usable. Another might be if the 'religious structure' is often used for non-religious purposes then I can see how a school might utilize it without necessarily endorsing the underlying religion.
This is why I've asked you discuss specific cases (real or even hypothetical ones). It's very hard when discussing law to just give blanket answers. If I asked you should speech be punishable you'd probably be inclined to answer no but at the same time you probably would agree there are cases where speech should be punishable (fraud, blackmail, threats etc.)
You seem to lurch into specific charges (removing symbols, gov't employees being punished etc.) but then vanish whenever anyone asks you to be specific as to what you are trying to object too.
posted on 04.19.2007 9:22 AM78
If you don't understand what I say, it is better to ask me to clarify exactly what I said instead of demanding a legal case citation as I have no idea where or what you do not understand.
Then expect the same in return.
posted on 04.19.2007 6:07 PM79
smm,
I've asked for numerous clarrifications and attempted to address the cases you did bother to cite and even the cases you hinted at (gov't employees's right to religous speech) but never bothered to actually explain. I even answered the bulk of your list of questions and I'm wondering for what purpose? Again where exactly are you trying to take all of this? What is the point?
posted on 04.20.2007 8:53 AM