August 23, 2005
Of, By, For the People
Abraham Lincoln told us that we have a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” How do the people express themselves? By speaking, writing and voting. Yet there are prominent evangelicals who today tell us that the word of God is more important than the word of a citizen. These people are running seminars in the nation’s capital, which as the L.A. Times puts it, “seek to mold a new generation of leaders who will answer not to voters, but to God.” Is this the new Republican democracy?
One of the outfits doing this is the Statesmanship Institute. According to the newspaper:
"Nearly every Monday for six months, as many as a dozen congressional aides - many of them aspiring politicians - have gathered over takeout dinners to mine the Bible for ancient wisdom on modern policy debates about tax rates, foreign aid, education, cloning and the Central American Free Trade Agreement."Through seminars taught by conservative college professors and devout members of Congress, the students learn that serving country means first and always serving Christ."
Jeremy Bouma, who coordinates the institute's program, said:
"We help them understand God's purpose for society."
How on earth does Bouma know God's purpose? He may say he gets it from the Bible. But other people get entirely different points of view from the same Bible. And how about those who do not believe in the Bible? Our wise founders decided to make U.S. a secular nation and allow the free exercise of any religion or non-religion. They were in favor of true religious tolerance. They wanted the U.S. to be a liberal democracy.
And a liberal democracy it is. Religious extremists do not like this. They clamor day and night to bring God back into our politics.
Doing so would move our country backwards. Remember when all the kings claimed their right to rule came from God? Remember when the Japanese thought that Emperor Hirohito was divine?
Too many Republican leaders support this religious extremism. Democrats are firmly against mixing religion with politics. They favor the free exercise of religion, without anyone imposing his religion upon anyone else. Democrats want to keep our democracy strong by assuring that our government is:
"of the people, by the people, for the people."Posted by Paul Siegel at August 23, 2005 05:32 PM
“They wanted the U.S. to be a liberal democracy”
Then where have I heard “Constitutional Republic?”
“Doing so would move our country backwards. Remember when all the kings claimed their right to rule came from God?”
Thank goodness our founders didn’t think God helped them any.
-We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.-
Ordain? Holy Orders
-with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.-
Divine Providence?
Traditional theism holds that God is the creator of heaven and earth, and that all that occurs in the universe takes place under Divine Providence-that is, under God’s sovereign guidance and control.
Everyone (including Paul) believes in something. To some it is God, to some it is themselves, and to others it is simply personal integrity. To state that there is separation in ones beliefs and the way one thinks and acts is just ignorance. One cannot separate self from beliefs.
Our beliefs drive who we are. It may be as jaded as believing that they can do anything they want and to hell with what everyone else thinks, but hey, it’s a belief.
BTW - if your best example is of kings and emperors, why did you bother to post?
The really sick, insane thing about this whole mess is that THERE ISN’T ANY GOD!!! Here we have a whole bunch of idiots on all sides of many fences who want to found, or run, or eliminate governments, kill, maim, torture, and otherwise “rule” societies basing their rationales ON SOME VERSION OF A FAIRY TALE!!! Some twaddle that has been drummed into their heads since childhood, that the priest-class (parasitic monsters like Pat Robertson)have been using to control them all their lives…(If you believe that nonsense he’s got you right where he wants you!)
Hey kiddies, it’s time to put down those silly-ass korans and bibles and scrolls, throw the priest-class out, and learn to deal with REALITY.
Posted by: capnmike at August 23, 2005 06:24 PMAnd lets all make sure it is Capnmike’s reality. Because apparently his is the only right one.
I’m all for freedom of religion (or from religion for that matter) but I’m not sure that calling everyone who believes different than you “silly-ass” is the best way to prove whatever point is was that you were trying to make.
Posted by: BradM at August 23, 2005 06:36 PMI don’t want to argue if there is a god or not, but what the founding fathers thought about religion is easy to figure out. Thomas Jefferson wrote these words; “endowed by their creator.”
The key word here is THEIR. Jefferson didn’t say our creator, your creator, my creator or GOD. He leaves it open for all people, not just christians. It is one of the reasons why people flock to this country. So that they can practice their religion without persecution. Ask a Sikh, or Hindu, or anyone else. In most countries you can’t practice your religion unless it is the religion of the gov’t. Thomas Jefferson new this would make us great and that is why he writes “endowed by their creator.”
Everyone (including Paul) believes in something. To some it is God, to some it is themselves, and to others it is simply personal integrity. To state that there is separation in ones beliefs and the way one thinks and acts is just ignorance. One cannot separate self from beliefs.
While I agree that everyone holds some belief, there’s a distinctive difference between a secular driven mind and a religious driven mind. A secular driven mind is open to reason, debate, and logic. As extremists from all religions have shown throughout recorded history, once infected with the religion virus, the mind loses reason, logic and debate. (Pat Robertson is a shining example of such)
Belief is an inherant aspect of being human. Perpetuating the spread of a virus capable of shutting down our capacity to reason, especially in the realm of government, is a sure way to starve the human race of it’s potential.
Posted by: Taylor at August 23, 2005 07:06 PMPaul,
“Democrats are firmly against mixing religion with politics. They favor the free exercise of religion, without anyone imposing his religion upon anyone else. Democrats want to keep our democracy strong by assuring that our government is:
“of the people, by the people, for the people.”“
And if people vote for politicians knowing full well that they consult the Bible in order to help them make decisions, where does that leave the Democrats?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 23, 2005 07:08 PMcapnmike,
Come on, tell us how you really feel.
Just what or who do YOU believe in?
It has to be something, (see discerner post).
Taylor,
“Belief is an inherant aspect of being human. Perpetuating the spread of a virus capable of shutting down our capacity to reason, especially in the realm of government, is a sure way to starve the human race of it’s potential.”
And relying on science, when it’s proved itself wrong numerous times on numerous accounts, isn’t a similar virus? Understanding our universe by looking at it through a wide variety of lens is what we need, not the myopic view of “man above all else.” That’s part of why our environment is such a disaster.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 23, 2005 07:11 PMBelief in GOD is a personal issue that each individual addresses in his or her own way.
Some choose a different approach and have other beliefs.
David Remer said something to me in a post a short time ago dealing with belief. I can’t remember it exactly but what it amounted to was that BELIEF is not something that is debatable.
David, if you weigh in on this thread maybe you can recall precisely what your comment was.
Posted by: steve smith at August 23, 2005 07:12 PMTaylor,
Are you saying that all religiously minded people are extremists? Granted there are some, just like there are secular extremists.
Being “open to reason, debate, and logic” is not relinguished to the secular alone. Lumping all into one category does not seem logical at all.
Posted by: discerner at August 23, 2005 07:18 PMBOB ABERNETHY: The candidates’ use of religion has been controversial throughout the campaign. In the last of our special election reports, Kim Lawton asked several leading political experts to evaluate the role of religion and religious rhetoric this election season.
Bush: I know faith can lead the way.
Gore: I believe with all my heart that our nation has been blessed by God.
Cheney: And to treat them, as Christ taught us, in the way we would wish to be treated ourselves.
Lieberman: We Americans have got to have faith.
Gore: The center of my life is faith and family.
Bush: I searched my heart and recommitted my life to Jesus Christ.
LAWTON: Carter says politicians who raise the issue of their religion have a moral obligation to explain what it means for their politics.
Bush from [a primary] debate: Favorite philosopher? Christ, because he changed my heart.
Professor LEO RIBUFFO (George Washington University). As someone who has studied religion and politics all of my adult life, I would love to know what George Bush means when he says that Jesus is his favorite philosopher.
?.But I don’t think we would get useful answers to those questions, and I don’t think that’s the sort of thing Americans really need to know to evaluate a presidential candidate.
JIM WALLIS (Call to Renewal Coalition): I think it very important to get this right. In other words, I don’t think candidates, or any of us, should say “Biblical faith dictates particular policy prescriptions.” Rather we have to say, “What are the fundamental kind of moral issues here?” Vision and direction, and I would say, moral imperatives have to be there, or else faith-talk is sort of “vote for me, I’m a nice religious guy and you can trust that.”
BUSH MORAL ISSUES & evaluations after recommitting his life to Jesus Christ before the election:
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Condoleezza Rice
Resume: Chevron, Board of Directors
Our ethnic leaders: Bush, Cheney, Rice?connect the dots.
Ethnic leader Bello Obuku says Chevron supports an oppressive government. He says oil companies remind him of a Nigerian general — one who was executed for aiding and abetting a coup.
Chevron executive Chuck Taylor says the company is now talking to ethnic leaders, and refining the way it spends money on community development.
Condoleezza Rice was a Chevron Director from 1991 until January 15, 2001 when she was transferred by President George Bush Jr. to National Security Adviser.
Another Chevron Corporation giant in the Bush administration is Vice President Dick Cheney. Vice President Cheney was Chairman and Chief Executive of Dallas based Halliburton Corporation, the world?s largest oil field services company with multi-billion dollar contracts with oil corporations including Chevron. Lawrence Eagleburger, a seasoned Bush counselor who held top State Department posts under George Bush Sr., is a director of Halliburton Corporation.
Dick Cheney was instrumental in negotiating a Caspian Sea pipeline for Chevron. The crude oil pipeline is a 900-mile project stretching from western Kazakhstan to the Black Sea that will primarily benefit Chevron by connecting the Tengiz oil field to the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk in Russia. Chevron, the largest oil company member of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, holds a 55 percent ownership interest with the Republic of Kazakhstan in Tengizchevroil. The 40-year, $20 billion joint-venture company was formed in 1993 to develop the Tengiz field. Tengiz is one of the world?s largest oil fields with 6 to 9 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
Also, there are allegations that the Bush Administration declared war in Afghanistan, not necessarily to combat terrorism, but to make it possible for U.S. oil interests to construct gas and oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to Pakistani harbors on the Indian Ocean. The first phase, now accomplish, was to install a friendly “puppet” regime in Kabul. La Voz de Aztlan has a report on this subject at:
It’s all about the “O” word!
From Judicial Watch
JudicialWatch.Org
October 1, 2001
WALL STREET JOURNAL: Bush Sr. in business with bin Laden family conglemerate through Carlyle Group
Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, reacted with disbelief to The Wall Street Journal report of yesterday that George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm. The senior Bush had met with the bin Laden family at least twice. (Other top Republicans are also associated with the Carlyle group, such as former Secretary of State James A. Baker.) The terrorist leader Osama bin Laden had supposedly been ?disowned? by his family, which runs a multi-billion dollar business in Saudi Arabia and is a major investor in the senior Bush?s firm. Other reports have questioned, though, whether members of his Saudi family have truly cut off Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the Journal also reported yesterday that the FBI has subpoenaed the bin Laden family business?s bank records.
Judicial Watch earlier this year had strongly criticized President Bush?s father?s association with the Carlyle Group, pointing out in a March 5 statement that it was a ?conflict of interest (which) could cause problems for America?s foreign policy in Middle East and Asia.? Judicial Watch called for the senior Bush to resign from the firm then.
?This conflict of interest has now turned into a scandal. The idea of the President?s father, an ex-president himself, doing business with a company under investigation by the FBI in the terror attacks of September 11 is horrible. President Bush should not ask, but demand, that his father pull out of the Carlyle Group,? stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
The brother of Osama bin Laden, Salem bin Laden was killed mysteriously in 1988 after his plane, an BAC 1-11, crashed in Texas soon after a meeting concerning an “oil deal” with George Bush. It is time for the American people to wake up and demand the truth.
CAN YOU CONNECT THE DOTS? IS THIS THE NEW REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY? THIS IS PROOF THAT IT WORKED FOR BUSH.
And relying on science, when it’s proved itself wrong numerous times on numerous accounts, isn’t a similar virus?
Absolutely not at all similar. An important element in science is disproof. Take away the ability to prove itself wrong, and then, yes, it becomes religion.
Posted by: Taylor at August 23, 2005 07:30 PMIt strikes me as funny that a lot of those on the left froth at the mouth at the mere mention of Christianity…they lump them all together as nutcases etc. BUT……..you mention Muslims or the Koran and they will froth at the mouth yelling that they are not all extremists and it’s actually a peaceful religion!! Things that make you go HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
Posted by: Traci at August 23, 2005 07:31 PMHoly energy policy, Batman, I thought that my comments to Paul’s post of yesterday about Jesus’ views on interstate commerce were rhetorical.
kctim
BTW, your last quote regarding “divine Providence” and “sacred Honor” is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. These are two very different documents.
The D of I did not establish the laws of the land. It was an indictment of the King of England that enumerated the gross moral and ethical breaches he had committed against the colonials, as well as some of his more mundane crimes. Hence, it was entirely appropriate for the rebels to base the rationale for their treason against the King upon a higher (i.e. divine) authority, which compelled them to disobey the tyrant who happened to occupy the English throne.
This is why you see a phrase such as “endowed by their Creator” in the former document, but no mention of any God, divinity or Creator anywhere within the Constitution. The authors of the Constitution knew exactly what they were doing: crafting a secular legal document that derived its sole source of sovereignty from the will of the people, not from a spiritual or mystical divinity.
(Even the Presidential oath of office in the Constitution [Article II, Sec.1 (7)] does not mention “God”. George Washington tagged that little bit of religious doggerel [“So help me God”] onto the oath during his inauguration. Just goes to show you what can happen when you let a politician adlib.)
Sure, the vast majority of the rebels believed in God and may very well have prayed for divine guidance in drafting the document personally, but they knew from first hand experience the dangers inherent in creating a government predicated upon divine right, and they were very careful not to do so. They built a “wall of separation”, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, between religious and temporal power that some on the religious right seem to want to destroy sanctimoniously. (Oh, and BTW, just in case you forgot, that’s the same Jefferson who wrote the words you quoted from the D of I)
Finally, not to quibble, but the definition of the word “ordain” is,
“To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.”I’ll grant you that it often has religious connotations, not but as it’s used in the Constitution. Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 23, 2005 07:34 PM
Kctim
I believe that you have taken Paul’s words a little further than what he intended; at least by my read of it.
For example, referring to the “divine right of rule” and comparing it to our founding fathers believing in a God is not consistent. Nor is your comment regarding divine providence and your apparent meaning that religion belongs in government.
Having faith that God is going to help is a far cry from saying that we should incorporate religion into our government. The fact that our founding fathers did not want religion in our government is clearly shown in the consitituion.
But they did want religion (any religion) to be permitted for the people.
By the way, here is the real definition of
Ordain: Order by virtue of superior authority; decree
I recall that a supreme court justice was criticized by the conservatives for considering what the law is in other countries, and allowing those principles to enter his thought process. “we want strict consitutionalist justices” was the cry.
The last time I looked, the Bible was not part of the constitution.
Are you saying that all religiously minded people are extremists? Granted there are some, just like there are secular extremists.
No, discerner, I said:
“As extremists from all religions have shown throughout recorded history”
Never did I say all religious minded persons are extremists. The extremists, however, have indeed been the ones making the biggest marks on the history books. If you want to derive the 1 million followers of Pat Robertson as “all”, I can’t stop you from doing so.
There are certain to be extremists on both sides of any issue. But let’s consider this in a better context. A search on google for “religious extremist” returns 29,400 hits, from a wide array of sources: secular, mainstream media, religous sites, etc. A search for “secular extremist” returns 336, a disproportionate number of which are religious, and often, christian organizations. Help me understand what that context means, and why apples to oranges has entered the debate?
Posted by: Taylor at August 23, 2005 08:01 PMTaylor,
I just googled “secular extremists” and got 357,000 hits. What kind of scam are you trying to pull here?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 23, 2005 08:13 PMWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
…to insure domestic tranquility for the common defense….basis…TO SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY FOR THE USA!!!!!!!!
Talk about feeling violated.
VOTING HAS CONSEQUENCES.
HOW ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST? IF IT WERE US AT WORK - WE’D BE FIRED.
Posted by: Annie at August 23, 2005 08:14 PMYou must use double quotes around a phrase to query a phrase in whole. What kind of scam are YOU trying to pull?
Posted by: Taylor at August 23, 2005 08:19 PMBefore he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article. IV.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
G°. Washington
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
…TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY HOW DID HE “PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OR “THE UNITED STATES” WITH LIES?
Annie,
May I suggest switching to decaf?
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 23, 2005 08:40 PMTaylor,
And your numbers are still off.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 23, 2005 09:17 PMAnd your numbers are still off.
[Sigh] Not that there’s much point in it anymore, since we seem to be stuck on Using Search Engines 101…. but here:
Results 1 - 10 of about 336 for “secular extremist”. (0.16 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 29,400 for “religious extremist”. (0.07 seconds)
I suppose now you’ll want to analyze why it takes longer to search for “secular extremist” even though there are less? Can we get beyond this and get to what’s really on your mind?
We no longer have a government of/by/for the people, because:
[a] some with vast wealth and power influence government (5% of the wealthiest have 59% of all wealth) and use that influence to fill the tax code full of tax loop holes and tax shelters,
[b] the people have discovered how to vote themselves anything they want from the U.S. treasury by voting for the biggest panderers, proving that the federal government has insufficient discipline manage government adequately,
[c] and that treasury is already bust with an $8 trillion National Debt, pensions are $1.6 trillion in the hole, Medicare/Medicaid is bust, the dollar is falling year after year, and
[d] and pressing problems continue to grow in number and severity since politicians are not willing to tackle them for fear of risking re-election.
The U.S. is not invulnerable, but many must think so, considering the lack of action to solve so many issues.
Taylor,
Googling the PHRASE “religious extremists” and you get 124,000 sites. Then add the PHRASE “anti-religious extremists” and you get 3,880. Google the PHRASE “against religious extremists” and you get 920. Google the PHRASE “secular extremists” and you get 800. Google the PHRASE “anti-secular extremists” and you 0 hits. Google the PHRASE “against secular extremists” and you get 1 hit. Google the PHRASE “religious extremists” without the PHRASES “against religious extremists” and “anti-religious extremists,” then look at these pieces and you’ll find of the first 20, 11 pieces were self-professed opinion pieces (counting blogs), 3 was self-promotion piece for a movement, 1 was government generated, 2 was from a univerisity, 1 seemed like a thesis and 2 was from a regular news source.
Whereas, you do the same thing for the PHRASE “secular extremists” without the PHRASES “anti-secular extremists” and “against secular extremists” and then look at the first 20 hits, you’ll find 12 was self-professed opinion pieces, 6 were self-promotion pieces for a movement AGAINST secular extremists, whereas 2 was FOR secular extremists, and 0 was actualy news.
So, if this initial sampling (I’m not going through the whole batch) is any indication, there’s just more OPINION about “religious extremists.” And, considering we’re at WAR with religious extremists, that’s no surprise. So, how does that put things into context?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 23, 2005 10:32 PMWithout God or religion as a guiding force it’s much easier to promote immoral laws and practices. What kind of immoral bills would you like to see passed?
Posted by: Guest at August 23, 2005 10:56 PMNone, but plenty of immoral laws and practices have been passed with the saction of corrupt religious leaders. It’s the CORRUPTION that’s the problem, not whether something is religious or secular.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 23, 2005 11:47 PMJust to show you how radical these people are, I found an article about a Representative the Statesmanship Instutute had speak at a commencement excersize. Look how radical he is on the Iraq War:
Support Said Growing for Iraq Exit Plan By STEVE HARTSOE, Associated Press Writer Thu Aug 18,11:12 PM ETPosted by: Craig Holmes at August 23, 2005 11:58 PMThis bigotry from the left is disgusting.
Craig
RALEIGH, N.C. - Congressman Walter Jones said Thursday he has about 50 co-sponsors on a joint resolution that calls on President Bush to announce by year’s end a plan for withdrawal from Iraq.This fits well into the stereotype of how evil and monolithic Christians are.
Sorry about the above post, my new grandaughter (one month old) was crying loudly in my ear!!
In the spirit of fairness here is another quote from a speaker at the Statesmanship Instutute. (Sorry for the length. I think my point is that stupid comments are coming from both sides).
GOP Congressman Calls Democrats Anti-Christian Remarks in Floor Debate Stir ProtestBy Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Page A04Business on the floor of the House was halted for 45 minutes yesterday after Rep. John N. Hostettler (R-Ind.) accused Democrats of “denigrating and demonizing Christians,” prompting a furious protest from across the aisle.
The House was debating a Democratic amendment to the annual defense appropriations bill that would have required the Air Force Academy to develop a plan for preventing “coercive and abusive religious proselytizing.”
Rep. John N. Hostettler spoke of a “long war on Christianity.” (AP)
Hostettler, speaking against the amendment, asserted that “the long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the House of Representatives” and “continues unabated with aid and comfort to those who would eradicate any vestige of our Christian heritage being supplied by the usual suspects, the Democrats.”
“Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can’t help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians,” he said.
Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, protested the statement, saying: “I move that the gentleman’s words be taken down.”
The incident followed dust-ups between the two parties over the conduct of the war on terrorism. Over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) called on Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) to apologize and withdraw his comments made on the Senate floor comparing U.S. soldiers’ handling of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the actions taken years ago by “Nazis and Soviets in their gulags.”
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) repeated an assertion yesterday that had drawn heavy Republican criticism, calling the war in Iraq “a grotesque mistake.”
Yesterday, Hostettler had a choice: to agree to withdraw his words, or to stick by them and face a ruling from the chair that he had violated rules against disparaging another member on the floor. If the member’s words are taken down, it is considered a serious offense and the lawmaker would not be able to speak for the rest of the day.
Eventually, Hostettler rose and read a sentence that had been written out for him in large block letters by a young Republican floor aide: “Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the last sentence I spoke.”
Later, the Democratic amendment was defeated, 210 to 198, and on a voice vote the Air Force was required to say how it is promoting religious tolerance before the overall appropriations bill passed, 398 to 19.
Instead of being allowed to speak at the “Statesmanship Institute”, he should be required to to take the course. It appears he could learn something. We could use more statesmanship in Washington.
Craig
How amusing to quote Lincoln to put down those who invoke god in politics. Here is a quote from his second inagural address (his second most famous speach, I think):
If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.” 3
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
We have a seperationg between church and state, but it is a government of the people. The reason Lincoln spoke this way was because he was a christian man in a nation that was overwelming christian. Today, Bush is a christian man in a country that is less christian, but still christian. I am an agnostic immigrant, who was Jewish by birth, but I am not silly enough to pretend to seperate our this country’s religious nature and say that those who use refrences to god in politics are somehow not appealing to the people- they are.
I think this quote by Lincoln provides a perfect prism for non-religious people to look at how they can take part in politics in a somewhat religious nation. If i was alive during the time of slavery, I would support Lincoln, even though his opposition to slavery may have been religiously inspired, and mine is philosophicaly inspired. Today, I support those who oppose abortion, even though their oposition is religiously inspired, while mine is philosophically inspired. On the other hand, I support rights for gays, in oppisition to many of the same people with whom I agree with on abortion.
Religious preferences are just like any other preferences. You want the endagered animals protected, or no death penalty, or whatever. The bottom line, for each citizen, is not to determine if the source of the opposition is “religious”, but whether they are ultimately correct. Building up this religious boogy man and then trying to quote Lincoln to boot doesnt advance the conversation at all.
Posted by: mishatseytlin@gmail.com at August 24, 2005 01:13 AMSome people use religion to seek to overcome their apparent separation from God on this earth, while others seek to use religion to govern others on this earth for their own purposes, not the least of which are ministers and priests and politicians who seek to make a living by pedalling religion to their congregations.
In my book, any person who seeks to use religion or atheism to shape politics or swing votes their way is a charlatan, whether they be Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, or Humanist. This to me was one of the great wisdoms of Christ’s life. He did not seek to unseat the pagan Emperor of Rome. Whether the Roman Emperor existed or not, had no bearing on the relationship of Christ and each person to God.
One could be just as close to God and deserving of God’s blessings as a slave and food for lions as a nobleman whose charity and mercy reflected the goodness of God within them.
The basic function of governments is to organize people for common effort. The purpose of the teachings of all the great prophets, was to help humans understand their spiritual and immortal relationship with God, and to recognize that the immortality of that relationship supercedes all other events that may occur while in this physical realm world.
When one tries to marry the power of government with the power of religion, one secularizes and corrupts religion and redirects people’s attention from the truth at the heart of all great religions from pantheism of the American Indians to Christianity, Buddhism and Islam, in my opinion. And that truth is the immortal relationship of creator and his creation.
Religions inevitably become political institutions seeking influence and power over the affairs of others on this earth. That is the foundation for my basic distrust of all Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples and their priests and priestesses. And that I believe was a basic mistrust shared by most of our founding fathers.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 24, 2005 02:58 AMIt strikes me as funny that a lot of those on the left froth at the mouth at the mere mention of Christianity…
LOL! It strikes me as funny that a lot of us on the left ARE Christians. Republicans seem to find that fact confusing, so they mostly just ignore it. :)
The U.S. is not invulnerable, but many must think so, considering the lack of action to solve so many issues.
d.a.n, I totally agree with you on that, though we’ll probably disagree on which issues.
Interesting article, Paul. Seeing as how there are a gazillion different Christian sects in the US, it’ll be interesting to see what these guys come up with as “God’s politics”.
That reminds me of an interesting book, “God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong, and the Left Doesn’t Get It”.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 24, 2005 03:38 AM“It strikes me as funny that a lot of those on the left froth at the mouth at the mere mention of Christianity…they lump them all together as nutcases etc. BUT……..you mention Muslims or the Koran and they will froth at the mouth yelling that they are not all extremists and it’s actually a peaceful religion!! Things that make you go HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!”
I personally feel that moderation is called for. I believe that the bulk of Muslims are peaceful, I also believe the same of Jews and Christians. Like most reasonable Americans I see trouble in religious extremists such as the Taliban, but I realize that they are not representative of all Muslims. I am not a hypocrite; I see this same extremism in America. Science is rational and to insist that religion be taught in its stead or as its equal in the form of ID or creationism is, to me, the same corruption or co-opting of religion.
This morning on the subway I spent 20 minutes being preached to by a religious fanatic proclaiming the end is near. As annoying as it was, it is his right and I would never want to take it away from him but neither would I want to be forced to live by his idea of god and that which is or is not acceptable. Look around at the various Christian faiths; some are quite crazy to outsiders. How many different flavors are there? Any path down incorporation of religion into politics will degrade society.
The Roger Williams had a disagreement with the puritans and this small group of like minds split in two.
Also a lack of god in law does not equate to immoral laws, rather amoral laws. What is moral to me might not be moral to you. I think that the war in Iraq is immoral but the war in Afghanistan is moral. Should there be a moral distintion between killing in anger and out of mercy in the form of assisted suicide? I think so. How can someone be christian and pro death penalty? Are those who make this ultimate judgement without sin? Remember Jesus stopped an execution, he didn’t cast the first stone. So who’s morals, who’s god should we follow?
I’m watching a series on Public television last night called origins. It postulated comets bombarding the earth for hundreds of millions of years early in its life, the origin of the all important liquid water, and the foundation for development of life.
I was concerned my much more devout christian spouse was uncomfortable with the subject matter but I was too interested to turn the channel. These were very smart, decent, enthusiastic people who were the experts on this program. Would fundamentalist christians think they were part of some sort of anti-god liberal plot? - Probably.
I’m trying to imagine how long hundreds of millions of years is considering the time of Jesus was only 2000 years ago and even that seems unbelievably ancient.
What was God doing all this time? Those who try to bridge the gap between Science and Religion (such as Catholics) may say hundreds of millions of years is nothing to God.
But it sure seems like a long time to be doing nothing. When you consider that in the last few thousand years God is paying attention to every detail like who is eating meat on Fridays and who is missing church and who finds their lost car keys and whether it rains on your picnic. That’s a lot to pay attention to and keep track of for the millions of Gods’ people.
I try to find a way of looking at religion that works. Some find it harder than others to find a perspective that works. Those who find it are fortunate.
Posted by: Ms Schwamp at August 24, 2005 09:31 AMChuck
Where did I say it was from either? It was just another example of religion being used by our founders.
Cole
“The fact that our founding fathers did not want religion in our government”
I would say they did not want it controlling our govt. or vice versa.
“is clearly shown in the consitituion”
Where?
Posted by: kctim at August 24, 2005 09:46 AMkctim, while I am not Cole it is here in the Bill of Rights:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Thanks Vague
I see where Congress cannot make a law respecting one religion or another and I see where they cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.
What I don’t see is where it is “clear” that the founding fathers did not want religion to have anything whatsoever, to do with our govt.
Paul - great article. I couldn’t agree more.
Misha:
“We have a seperationg between church and state, but it is a government of the people. The reason Lincoln spoke this way was because he was a christian man in a nation that was overwelming christian.”
Actually Misha, the brilliant Mr. Lincoln was not at all a religious man, though many people assume he was because he often used it for rhetorical purposes in political speeches. It appears that the only reason he did so was because he was aware that many of his constituents could easily be reached by throwing in some referrences to biblical scripture. Let’s face it, churchgoers have always been always suckers for that. Look a W — he can ignore all of Jesus’s philosophy, but as long as he pays lip service, he’s the Reverend Mr. President to America’s Christians.
From Wikipedia:
Abraham Lincoln � Deist; no affiliation known (KY/IN/IL) Life before the presidency For much of his life, Lincoln was undoubtedly Deist (see [5], [6]). In his younger days he openly challenged orthodox religions, but as he matured and became a candidate for public office he kept his Deist views more to himself, and would sometimes attend Presbyterian services with his wife. He loved to read the Bible, and even quoted from it, but he almost never made reference to Jesus, and is not known to have ever indicated a belief in the divinity of Jesus. Evidence against Lincoln’s ever being Christian includes offerings from two of Lincoln’s most intimate friends, Ward Hill Lamon and William H. Herndon. Both Herndon and Lamon published biographies of their former colleague after his assassination relating their personal recollections of him. Each denied Lincoln’s adherence to Christianity and characterized his religious beliefs as deist or atheist. Lincoln’s religion at the time of his death is a matter about which there is more disagreement. A number of Christian pastors, writing months and even years after Lincoln’s assassination, claimed to have witnessed a late-life conversion by Lincoln to protestant Christianity. Some pastors date a conversion following the death of his son Eddie in 1850, and some following the death of his son Willie in 1862, and some later than that. These accounts are hard to substantiate and historians consider most of them to be apocryphal.Posted by: Adrienne at August 24, 2005 11:15 AM
In what manner could religion be incorporated into government without violating the 1st amendment? The founding fathers went so far as to give the president elect the option of affirming instead of swearing. As the text of Article II of the Constitution reads:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
So while this allows for the personal faith of the president it does not require it.
Excellent post, Paul. One I am sure will stir the ire of many conservatives who will blame you (and the entire left) for not believeing in God. Clearly, this is not what you are saying, but we all know how the knee-jerk reaction spin machine works.
What troubles me most is the fact that this country’s ultra-conservative religious base refuses to understand the damage, elitism, and ostracization that imposing one religion would have on a country comprised of so many religious beliefs. Indeed, when one religion drives political decisions, tyranny reults. The Taliban results. The Inquisition results. Why is this so difficult to understand? We are not saying “No” to God; what we are saying is “No” to legislating a single view of God — a view that will never be shared the same way by everyone. Ou founding fathers knew this, but the current Reublican party does not.
For example, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
Well said, Mr. Jefferson. But with a current President who asserts that God speaks through him, we should all fear the repurcussions of his continued desire to further Christianize our country.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 24, 2005 12:50 PMMr. Magoo
If I may ask, in what ways, aside from the vote getting gay marriage scam, do you feel as if they are imposing their religion onto you?
vague:
“So while this allows for the personal faith of the president it does not require it.”
Absolutely vague, in fact, under Article VI. in the Constitution it states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Obviously this means they wanted a clear separation of church and state.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 24, 2005 12:58 PMWell clearly they wish to do away with science since creation myths are seen as preferable to scientific fact. They wish to prolong suffering since pulling the plug on a brain dead person is murder. Medical uses for marajuana are not permissable because someone might enjoy the cure too much. Teen pregnancies occur because sex-ed does not. There are lots of reasons.
Posted by: vague at August 24, 2005 01:07 PMvague,
“So while this allows for the personal faith of the president it does not require it.”
Your statement sums things up right there. There’s nothing in the Constitution that excludes religion from politics, it simply does not require it. So, excluding politicians who were elected by their own constituents on the basis of their religion, is against the Constitution, because it is interfering with their right to practice their religion.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 24, 2005 01:20 PMThank you Adrienne, You provided a better point of reference than mine.
Even Jesus would agree, did he not say “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s: and unto God the things that are God’s.”
A clear seperation of church and state…
vague,
“Well clearly they wish to do away with science since creation myths are seen as preferable to scientific fact.”
Scientific fact is rare, mostly it’s scientific theory. What scientific fact disproves the creation myths?
“They wish to prolong suffering since pulling the plug on a brain dead person is murder.”
If you’re talking about the Schiavo case, she wasn’t brain dead.
“Medical uses for marajuana are not permissable because someone might enjoy the cure too much.”
Medical uses for marajuana were determined illegal by the courts.
“Teen pregnancies occur because sex-ed does not.”
Teen pregnancies occur with sex-ed classes too. I know, personally.
If a person is elected to office, while honestly representing his views and how religion plays a part in his decision making, it is not the government’s place to interfer with how he goes about making his decisions. That would be “prohibiting the free excerise thereof.” If, on the other hand, he were to get the position dishonestly, by representing himself as something other than a man who makes decisions with his faith in mind, then there would be cause for impeachment. If a Senator were to say how secular he is, how much he will rely on polls to make his decision, ect, and then, when he gets into office, ignore what his constituents say and rely on the Bible as his source of information, then the government would have every right to interfer and start impeachment proceedings, not because he’s religious, but because he’s duplicitous.
Just because you don’t want your representative to make decisions based on the Bible, doesn’t mean they can’t. That just means you shouldn’t vote for him or her.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 24, 2005 01:37 PMkctim,
How much time do you have? Seriously. There is so much theocratic nonsense coming from so many conservative Republicans, that it is impossible to respond to your question in full. That said, I will offer a few examples of how I see the religiosity of the Right creating division instead of unity, intolerance instead of acceptance, and self-imposed moral superiority instead of equality:
> The Catholic Task Force. Embarrassingly, their mission statement proclaims God on their side with the triumphant words: “We have studied the political record of all major political parties and we believe that the Republican Party is closest to the teachings of the Catholic church.” Members of the Catholic Task Force include well-known conservatives and ant-iabortion leaders such as former Vatican Ambassador Thomas Patrick Melady, Mary Cunningham Agee of the Nurturing Network and Women Affirming Life, Rep. Bill Archer (TX), Rep. Henry Hyde (IL) and Sen. Rick Santorum (PA).
> Republicans Under God (a 527 group). Their stated purpose is “to educate voters and to bring Godly men and women back into the political process.”
> In 2001, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced a bill that would allow churches, temples, mosques and other houses of worship to channel donations directly to political campaigns, and to use church resources to help elect or defeat specific candidates without losing their tax-exempt status.
> Television preacher Pat Robertson sent out a memo to his political organization in 1986 calling on his followers to “Rule the world for God.”
> God tells the Amish that “God speaks through me.” In other words, God’s will manisfests itself through the actions of George Bush? If that’s true, God help us all.
Obviously, these are just a few examples. I didn’t even address gay marriage, stem cell research, Terri Schiavo, etc — which always come back to a “What would Jesus do?” dilemma for many on the Right.
Also, please realize that I am not bashing God. I am bashing ultra-conservatibe Republicans for hijacking the language of faith to prop up their political agenda and instilling intolerance in the processs. God is bigger than one political party, but too many on the Right appear to disagree (see the Catholic Task Force bit above).
Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 24, 2005 01:39 PMThrough Thomas, Jesus taught us to not blindly follow. As democrats, we questioned and we were right to question, as it turned out.
also,
“Be not righteous overmuch.” Ecclesiastes 7.16
I believe that Religion is just another form of fixation, like a love for money, for winning, or for anything else that surpasses what is purely reasonable. People just tend to have strong emotional stakes invested in certain things, certain values.
What makes Religion a good in human society is getting people’s ability to fixate on things, and focus it on the improvement of the person and the soul, to take the narrowing confluences of the mind, and spread them out to the universe in general. We profit from religion when it is used to encourage people to be better engaged in their world in a better way.
The reason why Church and State must be separate is pretty simple: The State would turn the Church to its own principles. Power has it’s own gravitational influence on people’s behavior, and at times, it turns people away from the values that the truly religious would hold sacred. Those who are supposed to lead the flock would feel tempted to ignore their own principles to support their power, or to support what they see as a political good.
The recent discussion about Pat Robertson’s call for Chavez’s assassination is one example. Think what could happen if Robertson had the authority to order that hit? Robertson would have okayed cold-blooded murder as a political leader, in contradiction to his loyalties to a God that terms murder as a great sin. His followers would take that as a cue to their behavior, with predictable results.
In the Catholic Church, the word Scandal has a very useful connotation- a scandal is a sin by a leader or public figure that causes others to fall into sin. When such figures as Robertson mix religion and politics, They increase the chance of this conflict of interest.
Religion is best used as a counterbalance to the status quo of those in power. When it is employed as a support of power itself, it loses the capacity to act as that check- there’s too much face to lose.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2005 02:22 PMIt’s true our country was founded on the basis that any person can believe what they want.But you have to be a total idiot not to see that there is a God,if this were true how would we be here He is the ultimate designer,for example lets say that there are all the parts to Honda civic laying in a junk yard and a tornado comes through and it blows all the parts into the right places,how likely is that to happen 0% chance ask anybody that and they will tell you it’s imposible.Now lets say the earth got put to gether in the same mannor a couple of stars blow up here and there and the particalls somehow make an earth and plants,water,an o-zone layer if people tell me that the civic being blown togther is impossible then why am I going to believe that the Earth could be assembled in the same mannor as where nobody believes that the civic got blown together by a tornado.So that suggests a designer,God would be the only logical answear for this because every thing that happens on earth has design,what about before earth there had to be a designer for that too.Because without a God there would be no earth no universe no debate right now about whether or not there is a designer or there isn’t because with out one we wouldn’t be able to tell who is right or wrong.Now I know you Lib’s like the subject of intelagent design just as much as most growm men like to kicked whee the sun don’t shine because it completly goes against the Libral mindset beacuse the Bible is about morals which is something that most Lib’s lack or are to busy trying to destroy them.
Posted by: William Nash at August 24, 2005 02:22 PMStephanie, Facts in science can be rolled into theories. The terminology may contain words you are familiar with but the definitions are very different. The courts did not rule marijuana illegal, they upheld the federal statutes proclaiming it so. Terri was just one example and she was very much brain dead. You may have known about condoms through sex-ed and chose not to use them or had an accident but at least you were given the knowledge, many are not given that chance.
Though I know it will anger many think of a politician who has an occasional drink. Much like religion there is no problem when it is used moderately, now would you want that politician to legislate when intoxicated? No you wouldn’t because it is no longer reasoned though but the alcohol that is talking. It is permissible for a politician to have a certain religion; it is not permissible for them to push that faith on the rest of us.
Strange no one argues my points regarding Jesus’ teachings which illustrate the hypocrisy of the Christian far right.
William Nash:
You are correct, but I have been reading this site long enough to know it is overwhelmed with God-hating Christian bashers. If you read the story of the death of Stephen in the book of Acts, you will see that this group is like the one that stoned Stephen. I can imagine them sitting in front of their PC’s, while holding their hands over their ears & shouting “stop, you are hurting my ears” every time a conservative Christian speaks of God.
Perplexed
Nash,
Show me the intelligence in the design of our fragile existance. Most of our DNA is junk, deseases ravage us, we are violent creatures trying to force our beliefs on others. If an omnipotent being were to design us he could do a better job.
Posted by: vague at August 24, 2005 02:43 PMPerplexed,
Again, why are many christians pro death penalty? are you without sin that you would do what Jesus farbade, to cast the first stone? I am a “godless” liberal who doesn’t believe in killing, or in needless war.
Posted by: vague at August 24, 2005 02:47 PMWilliam Nash:
“Now I know you Lib’s like the subject of intelagent design just as much as most growm men like to kicked whee the sun don’t shine because it completly goes against the Libral mindset beacuse the Bible is about morals which is something that most Lib’s lack or are to busy trying to destroy them.”
:^D This is both funny and absurd — and on so many levels!
“Intelagent design”! - perfect spelling for it, no?
Mr. Magoo
Thanks for taking the time.
None of your examples show how they are trying to force their religion onto us.
You mentioned how Catholics support Reps because they have more in common with them.
You mention Reps Under God wanting to educate voters and bring, what they believe, better people into politics.
Neither case shows how they are forcing their beliefs onto us.
I just don’t see it.
vague:
Why should we discuss your points? Would we be able to change your thinking, or do you just troll for a chance to do more bashing?
From abiblical prospective, mankind is in a depraved & sick condition by his own choice. God created all things perfect, but we messed it up, so don’t blame God.
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at August 24, 2005 02:52 PMGees, what a hot topic! I don’t have a lot to say, but i would like to add my own 2 cents to this discussion.
I still WANT to believe that decent people would at least attempt to try to not allow their religious beliefs to interfere with their political positions. Obviously this is not the case right now - but hopefully the pendulum will swing back again before more damage is done.
I have been concerned about the “Christian” beliefs in the White House ever since Ashcroft ordered that the statue of the “naked lady’s breast be covered!!!” I am not all together certain that any one in the White House is a Christian - at least not in the sense that I believe a Christian should be. Of course that’s just MY belief. I also have a healthy respect for the ROMAN Catholic Church as well - they must be doing something right, because they are still one of the most powerful forces in our world. By the way, there seemed to be an inference that somehow Roman Catholics are not Christians… yes there are MANY problems in the Chruch, but I can not blame the whole for the sins of a few. Just like I hope to heaven that the members of the 700 Club are not judged by Pat Robertson statement. (Remember when HE did run for President?) Scarry thought.
While this bothers me greatly, I am bothered more by the fact that NEITER Democrats or Republicans have the foggiest idea about the actual set up of our government.
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. WE ARE A REPUBLIC!!!
Why no one seems to get this point is beyond me. It is very important to remember,because this squarely puts our representatives on the spot - they should and are elected to represent the people’s views, not their own.
Christian, Jewish, Buddhists, Moslems, etc. They are SUPPOSED to AT LEAST attempt to represent ALL of us, NOT just the ones they want to.
But that goes back to the story of Adam and Eve and the creation story. Do you believe that story 100%? If you belive in god and that we messed it up you must believe in free will. Doesn’t free will mean that we must be given all the truths of science, all the temptations of the real world in order to wholly exercise our free will. If one is never given those options how free is there will? Raised without temptation it is easy never to give in to it.
Posted by: vague at August 24, 2005 03:00 PMPerplexed,
It appears to me that you are not really reading the posts but merely reacting to a pre-conceived notion you have already formulated.
I do not believe that this site is filled with “God-hating Christian bashers,” as you assert. A few individuals might be (it takes all kinds, right?), but the majority of the posters seem to be informed, intelligent people who aren’t bashing God so much as (as I stated in a previous post) they are bashing ultra-conservatibe Republicans for hijacking the language of faith to prop up their political agenda and instilling intolerance in the processs.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 24, 2005 03:03 PMkctim,
Trying to outlaw gay marriage because of religious convictions? Denying further stem cell research because of religious convictions? Intervening in the Schiavo case because of religious convictions? The other examples I brought up in a previous post — again, bcause of religious convictions?
Sorry, but the far right IS forcing religion on us. And if you “can’t see it,” perhaps you need to visit the Opthalmologist.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 24, 2005 03:13 PMI was raised catholic, but I felt that the greatest atrocities are often commited in the name of a god. I would never wish to take away anyone’s rights. I do not feel that the same is true for the conservative christian right.
Posted by: vague at August 24, 2005 03:13 PMWilliam Nash-
A Honda Civic being put together by a tornado is an example of a complex machine being assembled by a one-time random event. If you are familiar with Evolution’s real claims, then that is not a good comparison to make.
Evolution asserts that the genes of the creatures of this world have mutated on countless occasions, through millions of generation, over billions of years. Every event in that chain carries with it probabilities that are not at all random. The selection mechanism for all this depends very much on the creature’s surroundings, it’s relationship with other creatures that might serve as competitors, predators or prey for it, and even the emergent effects of the collection of genes themselves.
Intelligent Design tries to wedge in a creator by putting their finger on something and useing some equations to determine whether that thing is too complex to be naturally created. Trouble is, nature can and often does destroy information. Rocks subduct into trenches, melt under mountain roots, and metamorphosize under the heat and pressure of sedimentary layers above. Rocks get cleaved, weathered away.
Only those creatures that die in the right places and situations get fossilized. If you weren’t buried in some location where water could percolate minerals through your bones, it’s not likely your bones would survive.
In essence, we’re trying to figure the odds, when we don’t (and never will) have complete picture of what makes things likely or unlikely.
So, intelligent design would end up relying on the scientist’s personal beliefs on what would be true or not, and that is what science is trying to get away from.
As for God, he doesn’t ask us to look for proof, he asks us to have faith, because proving God is impossible to those who only have the natural world to tests. All you will see are the laws of nature. God’s hand will always remain hidden in the patterns of things.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2005 03:24 PM“Trying to outlaw gay marriage because of religious convictions?”
Yes they are against it but it is hardly a “far right” only group. Many Dems voted against allowing it.
“Denying further stem cell research because of religious convictions?”
Not entirely about religion. Alot of people do not favor using tax money to fund it.
“Intervening in the Schiavo case because of religious convictions?”
Terry’s case was not only about religion. I am an atheist and I totally supported her parents wishes. Of course, I had been reading about Schiavo for years and did not come to this conclusion in just the 3 or 4 mths it was popular.
The evil christians have not forced anybody to follow their faith.
My eyes aren’t bad, they are just open.
I see. So if proposed legislation (or anything else) isn’t overtly backed 100% by either religious convictions, ultra-conservative republicans or both, there is no credence whatsoever to the claim that their actions can be, and often are, religiously biased. Got it, José Feliciano.
Posted by: Mister Magoo at August 24, 2005 03:41 PMkctim,
As I said in my post, the Declaration of Independence was a very different document than the Constitution. The former was an indictment and written to explain the moral justification for a treasonous revolution; it had no force of law. The latter, on the other hand, created the fundamental laws of our nation.
Using religion to justify the morality of your actions is never a problem; using it to create or govern a country is always a problem.
And if you want to find where religion is excluded from our Constution, suggest you check out Section VI:
“… but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”(In addition to the First Amendment, of course.) Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at August 24, 2005 03:54 PM
William Nash,
I agree with Stephen. To make it a little more simple, evolution is not the same as a tornado assembling a Camry, or putting a bunch of watch pieces in a bag, shaking it, and having a complete watch. Evolution is more like shaking the bag with the watch pieces in it, then checking to see if any have fallen in the right place. If they have, they are glued together and the bag is shaken again. You can see how this process could assemble a watch in a short time, maybe a few years of shaking. Imagine that over hundreds of millions of years and you can see why evolution is not so farfetched.
By the way, the one doing the gluing does not have to be God. The reason its called natural selection is because it is selected by nature—the parts that work go on, they are selected by their continued existence in the face of destructive forces.
I don’t want to disrupt the thread, I’ve just had that analogy in my head for a while and I wanted to put it down.
MM
“there is no credence whatsoever to the claim that their actions can be, and often are, religiously biased”
I’m sure some are biased but I don’t see where they have won or that anything has been forced onto us.
Chuck
“The former was an indictment and written to explain the moral justification for a treasonous revolution; it had no force of law. The latter, on the other hand, created the fundamental laws of our nation.”
I know the difference, thx though.
The Danbury Speech had no force of law either, but that is primarly where we get the phrase “seperation of church and state,” right.
“Using religion to justify the morality of your actions is never a problem; using it to create or govern a country is always a problem.”
Therein lies the problem. The left see’s everything the right does and equates it to the latter, when most of the time it is the former.
“And if you want to find where religion is excluded from our Constution, suggest you check out Section VI”
OK, you don’t have to be religious to hold office, got it.
So where does it say you can’t be religious or use the morals instilled in you by religion, allow those morals to guide your decisions or profess your faith, while holding office?
kctim-
Just because some Democrats voted to outlaw gay marriage doesn’t contradict the fact that it was ovewhelmingly supported by the religious right. Many Democrats oppose gay marriage because of their own personal religious beliefs.
The same thing is true for abortion, stem cell research, the Schiavo case, and “Intelligent design.” These issues have been supported OVERWHELMINGLY by the religious right.
In the town that I live in, the religious right recently made an acrimonious, divisive attempt to force the local school district to rename “Winter break” to “Christmas break.” They wanted ALLL the taxpayers of our school district (including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others) to pay to name a school break after a Christian hero. They were outraged at the suggestion that it be named Kwanzaa(sp) break or Hanukka(sp) break on alternate years.
Stephanie-
You said “Scientific fact is rare, mostly it’s scientific theory. What scientific fact disproves the creation myths?”
1. Scientific “fact” is rare because science follows a strict methodology that requires objective proof of something. Until that kind of proof is universally accepted, a “theory” remains a “theory”. Gravity is also a “theory” and is about as widely accepted as evolution.
2. Would “Intelligent design” REALLY result in one of God’s spokemen calling for the assassination of the leader of a foreign country?
3. Which creation myth are you talking about? There are lots of them, and they often contradict one another. In fact, if you look up the definition of the term “myth” you’ll see that it’s usually defined as a “story”, and is almost never classified as factual.
So the question you asked above makes about as much sense as asking someone to use string theory to prove that Zeus never existed.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 24, 2005 04:57 PMEB
Most Americans, regardless of political views, oppose gay marriage because of their own personal religious beliefs.
So its not really a “far right” conspiracy then.
I’ll agree with the ID debate and who mainly supports it, but the others are not only supported because of religion.
“They wanted ALLL the taxpayers of our school district (including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others) to pay to name a school break after a Christian hero”
Are you equally offended that ALLL the taxpayers are forced to pay in order to teach and celebrate kwanzaa in public schools? Or how about islam, a religion, so that the children may better understand our enemies?
I doubt it.
Christmas is just a word and for the majority of kids it means two things, no school and presents.
Christmas break or Winter break, the ONLY ones who care what its called are the ones with political axes to grind.
kctim-
Most Americans, regardless of political views, oppose gay marriage because of their own personal religious beliefs.I never said it was any kind of “conspiracy”. Why are you putting words in my mouth?
So its not really a “far right” conspiracy then.
I’ll agree with the ID debate and who mainly supports it, but the others are not only supported because of religion.Again, I didn’t say that they were suported ONLY because of religion. I said that the issues were supported overwhelmingly by the religious right.
Are you equally offended that ALLL the taxpayers are forced to pay in order to teach and celebrate kwanzaa in public schools? Or how about islam, a religion, so that the children may better understand our enemies?I’m offended when ANY faith insists that taxpayers fund ITS symbolism to the exclusion of other faiths.
Christmas is just a wordSo are Kwanzaa and Hannuka. So why object to calling it either of those?
Christmas break or Winter break, the ONLY ones who care what its called are the ones with political axes to grind.Exactly. Thanks for making my point for me. It was the RELIGIOUS RIGHT who brought up this issue. So you must agree with me that they have a political axe to grind. Posted by: ElliottBay at August 24, 2005 05:59 PM
“Why are you putting words in my mouth?”
I’m not. Magoo and myself were going back and forth, then you started posting.
“I said that the issues were supported overwhelmingly by the religious right.”
And I say not always.
“I’m offended when ANY faith insists that taxpayers fund ITS symbolism to the exclusion of other faiths”
Glad you agree kwanzaa and islam should not be taught in our schools.
“So are Kwanzaa and Hannuka. So why object to calling it either of those?”
I don’t and give any kid a few weeks off for either and they will love em.
“So you must agree with me that they have a political axe to grind.”
YES!!! And it all started when they were forced to change the name to Winter Break and now they want the Christmas name back.
All the PC crap always comes back and bites you in the ass.
I went to school from 1980-1993 and the break was always referred to as “Christmas break”.
Now it’s suppose to be some new thing? Give me a “break” will ya!
once infected with the religion virus, the mind loses reason, logic and debate.
It’s true our country was founded on the basis that any person can believe what they want.But you have to be a total idiot not to see that there is a God,if this were true how would we be here He is the ultimate designer,for example lets say that there are all the parts to Honda civic laying in a junk yard and a tornado comes through and it blows all the parts into the right places,how likely is that to happen 0% chance ask anybody that and they will tell you it’s imposible.Now lets say the earth got put to gether in the same mannor a couple of stars blow up here and there and the particalls somehow make an earth and plants,water,an o-zone layer if people tell me that the civic being blown togther is impossible then why am I going to believe that the Earth could be assembled in the same mannor as where nobody believes that the civic got blown together by a tornado.So that suggests a designer,God would be the only logical answear for this because every thing that happens on earth has design,what about before earth there had to be a designer for that too.Because without a God there would be no earth no universe no debate right now about whether or not there is a designer or there isn’t because with out one we wouldn’t be able to tell who is right or wrong.Now I know you Lib’s like the subject of intelagent design just as much as most growm men like to kicked whee the sun don’t shine because it completly goes against the Libral mindset beacuse the Bible is about morals which is something that most Lib’s lack or are to busy trying to destroy them.
Perfect message, no? And just frothing over the brim with morals.
kctim-
You put the words “a far right consipiracy”, which I did not say, in your response to me. I didn’t say that or imply it. But you put the words “far right” in quotes, as though I had said them.
I think you either “teach” all religions, or you don’t “teach” any. And what do you mean by “teach”?
In the school district where I live, it has been Winter Break for at least the last 30 years. The people who tried to FORCE the change were the religious right. Don’t try to blame anyone else.
Posted by: ElliottBay at August 24, 2005 07:29 PMRE:
Without God or religion as a guiding force it’s much easier to promote immoral laws and practices. What kind of immoral bills would you like to see passed?
My question is:
Whose morals are the basis of what’s immoral?
Let me pose a hypothetical: A man or woman is completely atheist & has absolutely no morals. In fact this person actually hates the name of God & hates Christians. This person is elected to the office of Senator. When he or she takes office, they work very hard to introduce legislation that would completely take the name of God away from the country. Legislation that would cause the Bible to be erased from the nation & only evolution to be talked about, with absolutely no mention of creation.
Is it okay for this person to do this?
Let me ask another question of those on the left: could you give me the definition of a Christian. In fact, if I were an atheist, how could I become a Christian?
Perplexed
OKAY. I have a question. Since we are discussing God/religion and politics and the impact it has upon us. And please correct me if I’m wrong because I am NOT from Iraq or the middle east…IT IS “MY UNDERSTANDING” THAT …IN THEIR RELIGION…they bombed our towers because we bombed their towers (Beirut)BECAUSE their religion requires them to do whatever is done to them. For example if they are given kindness - they return it. However, since we have killed now 100,000 of their women and children …their religion requires them to kill our women and children…MY QUESTION IS TO ANYONE WHO IS MIDDLE EASTERN TO INFORM ME IF THIS IS CORRECT? And if this is true…then until we cease fire…it will never end>Correct?
Posted by: Annie at August 24, 2005 08:22 PMIs it possible for the Senator I talked about to not allow his personal beliefs to be come part of the decision making process he was elected to do?
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at August 24, 2005 08:24 PMAnnie:
Islamization of the world by the year 2501 Is it possible? By: Ramesh R. Desai
Islamisation means conversion of a country or a state or a region’s legal system to Islamic (or Quaranic or Sharia) law. Islamisation of the world means 50% of the world population living under Sharia law…
Once a region is muslimised, Muslims demand for a separate country or a region for themselves, e.g. Pakistan and Bangladesh and now a demand for independent Kashmir. Once a country is muslimised, Islamists demand for Islamic or Quranic or Sharia law…
In either case, (whether muslimised or Islamised) the Muslim majority decimates the minorities by any and every means. Through physical, social, judicial, financial, legal, extra legal, religious, personal, familial or brute force duress, they either convert or drive out or kill the minorities
The reason for this inexorable march towards Islamisation is the quaranic order for all Muslims to establish one and only one nation under the rule of Allah on this earth if not the universe. Christianity is also a monotheist religion but Christians have well developed and learned the concept of separation of church and state while that concept is totally foreign to Islam. True, some people say that Islam is a religion of tolerance but those who do not, i.e. the Islamic fundamentalists seem to have much more power and control over the large Muslim population. So-called moderate Muslims either do not have enough power or guts or ability or willingness to oppose the fundamentalists. That may be due to constant threats of punishments or fatwahs from these fundamentalists. Or it may be due to the fact that in their hearts (of moderates) they too believe in one nation under Allah and they either acquiesce fundamentalist activities and/or covertly support them. In any case the moderate voice is totally silenced and the march towards Islam continues to go on.
What do you think their goals are?
Perplexed
Posted by: Perplexed at August 24, 2005 08:46 PMvague,
“Facts in science can be rolled into theories.”
So, you take the facts and extrapolate (read that: make things up) to determine what the facts support, this becomes a theory. Theories are then disproven and replaced. My question was: “What scientific fact disproves the creation myths?” You cannot answer that, because none does.
“Though I know it will anger many think of a politician who has an occasional drink.”
I don’t find you analogy applicable, but you guessed that.
“Show me the intelligence in the design of our fragile existance.”
We exist, which is a miracle or, from a scientific perspective, highly improbable.
“Most of our DNA is junk…”
Why? Because we haven’t figured out what it means yet?
“…deseases ravage us…”
Which we perpetuate by the way we live and which Jesus the Christ healed with His own hands.
“…we are violent creatures trying to force our beliefs on others…”
We have free will, and we are violent in many ways, not just when we force our belief on others.
“If an omnipotent being were to design us he could do a better job.”
Not if he wanted to save us too.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 24, 2005 09:17 PMvague,
“I would never wish to take away anyone’s rights.”
So, stop proposing that people with religious faith can’t exercise their faith in politics.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 24, 2005 09:23 PMChuck,
“… but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Yeah, and right now both sides are putting Roberts through religious tests to determine whether or not he should hold office. The Reps to determine that he should hold office if he has faith, and the Dems to determine that he should not hold office if he has faith. Both are wrong. His qualifications should determine whether he’s eligible, but since few if any are willing to do that, I guess the whole of the administration and the Congress should be scrapped then, huh?
Posted by: Stephanie at August 24, 2005 09:29 PMI hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country,
we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again
and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!
— Rev. Jerry Falwell
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no
religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation
is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived
from faith…. We need believing people.
— Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933
A person does not have to believe in any god to have a good moral compass.
RE:
Let me pose a hypothetical: A man or woman is completely atheist & has absolutely no morals. In fact this person actually hates the name of God & hates Christians. This person is elected to the office of Senator. When he or she takes office, they work very hard to introduce legislation that would completely take the name of God away from the country. Legislation that would cause the Bible to be erased from the nation & only evolution to be talked about, with absolutely no mention of creation
This arguement is a worst case scenario, athiests do not hate christians, in fact, most athiests actually support free exercise of religion. (in your church, home, heart and family)
The problem comes in when non-private (public) areas become influenced by a particular belief or special interest.
Let me pose this question to the people of faith who are trying to influence the public sector.
Why would you want something so personal and special to you to be soiled by the nastiness of politics?
Stephanie-
If God had wanted us to find him through knowledge and not through faith, he would have given us advanced science years ago. Instead, he gave us religion.
Stephen,
“If God had wanted us to find him through knowledge and not through faith, he would have given us advanced science years ago. Instead, he gave us religion.”
I have no dispute with that statement. But, I will counter it with these questions:
1) If God created the universe by “designing” the science we understand (and using science we have yet to figure out) and guiding it to the conclusion he wanted (i.e. us), how could have explained this in the language available to the early Jews?
2) How is it that we are supposed to take the book of Genesis as a literal interpretation of how God created the earth when Moses, who wrote the book, got the information through the folklore of his people, or probably the Midians?
Now, I haven’t investigated this “Intelligent Design” thing. But, I came to the conclusion early in my religious studies that the Bible (or any other religious texts) is only as reliable as the language that is used. Creation is a complicated thing. If a potter struggles to describe how he created a vase within the linguistic limitations of his native tongue, or (better suited to you) if an author struggles to describe, even though he or she may very well be a “master of words,” how it is s/he conceived the idea for his or her novel, then how would you expect an ancient civilization to understand how God created the universe?
I have never been able to accept any religion at face value. However, I have faith that God exists. I have faith that God loves all the people on the earth. I have faith that we are not the only creations God has made in this universe. If I need religious counsel I’m much more likely to read C. S. Lewis, then to listen to a televangelist or radio show. And I’m even more likely to read the Bible or the Book of Mormon. IMO, people who let other people tell them what God means or what he wants, instead of studying and praying, are needlessly risking the corruption of their faith. However, to say that a person who consults a religious text (ANY religious text) should not be able to use that text to help him or her determine how to vote is totally against the idea of freedom of religion and is a thing I find completely morally repugnant.
Now, I don’t claim to understand God. However, I have had prayers answered. I have gotten guidance through prayer. And, I have not always liked the answer I have received. I do not use God as back-up for my own intentions. But I do use prayer and the answers I receive to help determine how I vote. And I am much more likely to vote for someone else who does as well.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 03:01 AMWow Stephanie, were do I start? There are so many facts like fossils of ancient members of our genus. We can see evolution occur; the earth is older than any creation myth states by a huge factor. Diseases strike innocent children, not just hedonistic adults.
I stand by my statement about not wanting to infringe on anyone’s rights, but there is no right when it begins to affect others negatively. Teaching creation myths as equal to science does harm, banning or censoring books or music affects everyone. I do not want to get rid of religion, I just do not want your narrow closed minded set of values to control my life.
Atleast you know that the creation myth is that, a story not a factual account, that puts you well ahead of many, it is a step.
Posted by: vague at August 25, 2005 09:06 AMBut I do use prayer and the answers I receive to help determine how I vote.
I pretty much base my decision on which candidate doesn’t come off as a complete jackass idiot in the presidential debates… Although, God did help me decide how to vote on a redistricting referendum and a city budget audit.
Subject: Politics (argh!)
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”
Sir Ernest Benn (1875-1954), publisher and public speaker
AP,
“I pretty much base my decision on which candidate doesn’t come off as a complete jackass idiot in the presidential debates…”
I vote for most, if not all, elections now (for which I’m eligible), and while there is usually a lot of news available for the presidential candidates, other candidates can be very obscure. Sometimes I have only tidbits, intuition and prayer to go on.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 05:37 PMvague,
Call me a skeptic if you like, but have you ever watched how they “find” these fossils? Not the most scientific approach to obtaining evidence. Even some archeologists compare it to sculpting.
Besides that…I do believe the creation myths (and I do mean all of them) are just stories to appease uninformed people about their origins. I take science seriously; I just don’t value it as highly as many in our society do. The thing about science is it always creates more questions then it answers…which isn’t so very different from religion. People have faith that the “facts” science has proven today won’t be disproved tomorrow, or that if they are they will disproved in a way that somehow explains why we assumed the original “fact” was true. However, that is not always the case.
Basically (and in this I am representing myself and only myself), I believe there is a God who created the universe, who created all the physical laws that we live by, and who has made Himself quite obvious in His design if we could only see it. Except we can’t, because humans are still far more ignorant about the universe and how it actually works than most are willing to admit. Admitting ignorance is scary. Admitting we have little control over our lives is scary. Admitting that many of us really don’t know a practical way we can make all our lives as good as we can imagine they could be is scary. So, we try, always falling short, because of our natural limitations.
I believe we exist so that we can learn and grow. In order to learn, we must struggle. In order to struggle, there must be difficulties we can overcome and difficulties we must accept. Humans will always fail to live up to their potential, and those who try and still fail merit forgiveness. Those who throw up their hands and say “things are so bad I might as well be bad too” are, IMO, lost.
This is what I believe. I don’t ask you to agree with me. I don’t even ask you to care. But, I do want you to understand that when I comment about science, it is not because I believe it is without merit or without intrinsical value. It is because I recognize that science as we know it is not perfect and I recognize that it is not even a perfect model of study. Over time, with the thoughts of some of our most brilliant people adding to it, science will steadily improve and we will understand more. One or two hundred years from now, some of the things we accept as facts will be complete foolishness to our decendants. And yet, we must continue to teach ourselves and strive to discover more, or we will never understand more than we do now and our children will understand even less if we do not share what we know, recognizing that they very well may prove us wrong.
To explain what I’m talking about in regards to science: You ask an average somebody of Jesus’ time what the smallest particle is and they’d probably tell you sand or salt or a speck. You ask an average somebody today and they would probably tell you an atom. If they are a little more educated they might describe electrons, protons and neutrons. If you ask someone who has a little more interest in the matter, they may try to tell you about quarks and antiquarks. Perhaps if you talk to a physicist they may even be able to describe something smaller than quarks (if it has been discovered, I don’t know about it).
Whereas, by the time my children are my age, they may know that the theory of quarks has been completely disproved and has been replaced by something else. And it goes on and on, until finally, someday, we might find that what the universe is made up of is merely conscious thought or something equally unexplainable with our current scientific knowledge. And this is why, at least in my own mind, my faith in God does not conflict with my faith in science. I see science as the logical pursuit to understand the complex and wonderful creation God has made.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 06:20 PMStephanie-
His design, I would say, hides in plain sight, and we will never find it, because we don’t have the faculties to interpret it. A dog looking at a letter not only can’t understand the letter markings as symbols, but can’t even think in a linguistic fashion to be able to interpret them.
I don’t follow the literal interpretation of the bible. The red flag on this is that one person says one thing when doing a literal interpretation, but another might say something very much different. Human language can be treacherous in describing the world. I don’t trust it to fully describe God, or man’s relationship with God.
On the subject of paleontology, They have their own forensics at work. They map the geologic strata, grid, radio-isotope date, and carefully extract the bones form their resting place.
Once they’re out, I imagine there are all kinds of tests they can do. It’s not all guesswork.
As for paradigm shifts, I think they must be accepted with the careful understanding that many of the main scientific principles of our time have survived years of challenges, and that because these laws are supposed to map to something real, the correlation of them is not random. Some explanations will do a better job than others. In fact, that’s the very point. Theories don’t succeed theories arbitrarily forever. There are tests and procedures to keep things down to Earth. ID rejects those in favor of the fulffilment of their agenda.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 25, 2005 11:01 PMStephen,
I don’t disagree with what you just wrote, except for the ID part, and only because I honestly haven’t looked into it. I have no interest in sneaking the Bible back in the schools. My arguement as to the Bible’s place in the schools, is if religion is going to be discussed it should be all the major religions (and minor ones practiced in the area) to further understanding of the interrelational dynamics between cultures. Teaching any particular religion in school should be left to privately funded schools.
Posted by: Stephanie at August 25, 2005 11:17 PMRichard Dawkins has a book out called The Blind Watchmaker, which explains how evolution really works. His book is fairly illuminating about the subject.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 25, 2005 11:56 PMkctim
A lot of water has gone under the bridge here since my last post about religion in govt. Much of what I would have said has been covered. I’ll just add one thing:
When I said that our founding fathers clearly did not want religion in our govt., I was referring to the amendment that was previously stated, that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.” This means that religion cannot be considered when making a law. Not establishing in the sense of starting one up. It means that religion, as an establishment, cannot be a part of the congressional process.
To prove my point, I refer you to Jefferson’s letter regarding the separation of church and state, which has been mentioned in this forum. His explanation,
“Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts”
(Of course I know you’re aware that he was one of our founding fathers.) Most of them agreed with this concept. A few did not.
But the point is, no one is denying an individual’s right to worship and live by their religious principles, and even allow their religious principles to affect their working life, as long as they are not contrary to the constitution.
So what we are talking about here is that our government should act without regard to any religion. Not that an individual in government cannot be a religious person. The difference may seem subtle, but is there.
I think our founding fathers knew what they doing when they separated church and state.They knew by doing so it keeps peoples rights to worship in any manner they see fit protected against people trying to force their religious views on others. I look at all the times in history that governments used genicide to try to get rid of certain religions by not letting government and religion become intertwined it has kept that from happening here. I mean lets face it even in our society today religion and politics are 2 things that bring out the worst arguements.I do think schools should teach religions just to give children the morals they no longer get at home. I don’t think that anyone religion should be taught but all the major religions of the world and even the minor ones need to be introduced to our children. The religions of different countries are directly connected to their culture and geography. Take our american indians the beliefs they had were directly connected to there food source and other things that were visible in their enviroment. I had a witch give me the best deffinition of religion I’ve ever heard she said ” religion is like langauge its how god is able to communicate with diffferent people” I’m southern baptist and I was taught witchs are bad but after studing there religion they are bound by karma to do only good things.I would have always been afraid of them had I not met one that was kind enough to explain there beliefs.Fear is why we hate or jealousy if humans would work on learning about things instead of just hating people because they are different then we all might be closer to what God wants from us in any relig