Third Party & Independents: Archives

• The current religious leadership is for the most part beyond horrible. Falwell, Swaggart, Robertson, etc are more concerned about advancing the faith for power of some kind, sometimes political and other times, personal. Are they a result of the beliefs of Christianity or are they abhorred by many in the faith? If they are abhorred by those in the faith, how are they so powerful? It’s the same issue when examining the ever declining quality of presidential candidates in the country, are we settling? As a result, are they advancing for power or for the best of the faith and the community they profess to serve, even the godless ones?

i think the people you name are a direct result of the society’s demand that religion must ‘evolve’ to be relevant. IMO, most start out with good intentions (much like politicians) only to fall prey to the many temptations in power.

• The Fear Factor. There is a large number of believers who follow their faith simply because they are either afraid of being punished with ‘eternal damnation’. Is this a good motivator to follow the faith and its tenets?

i have never heard any believer say they follow religion out of fear… though i have heard this many many times from people who have rejected faith. i think the outcome (fleeing) declares fear is a terrible reason to ‘follow’ a religion. For Christians willing to pick up a Bible, it is explicilty written that fear is antithetical to faith.

• Hedging Bets. Worse then the people who believe from fear are the ones who follow their faith simply as a way to cover their bases. The thought process, “If I am wrong, no big deal. If I am right, I won’t pay for it in the afterlife”. As a result, they do the minimum they feel they need to do to ensure their place in case there is a god, then act selfishly the rest of the time, sometimes even more so than they normally would to overcompensate. I’ve been presented with this particular argument many times by those wishing to convert me to their religious beliefs when they see their normal line of persuasion isn’t working (usually, believe in the word of god because the word of god says you should).

Another poor motivator. If they don’t know, then they don’t believe and pretending otherwise is just that, pretense— aka hypocracy.

We have to accept the fact that we could be wrong in our own dogmatic beliefs. I’m not saying we should abandon them, especially ones that are embraced through long examination and critical thought. I am saying, however, that we should be willing to accept that we are wrong when presented with overwhelming evidence or critical thought no longer sustains our beliefs.
You have to ask yourself, are you willing to do this?

i have and i do. Years ago i had dismissed Christianity altogether as a worthless, social club full of hypocrites and gone to Buddhism. i have found that life is good at throwing curve balls— especially when you think you finally have things lined up. ;)

Posted by: jo at September 30, 2005 04:02 AM

For example, the United States again is the only prosperous democracy where religion is really popular and we’re the only nation among prosperous democracies to have really high murder rates.

I’m suprised he (Gregory Paul) didn’t link this more related to lack of gun ban than religion popularity… Strange.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at September 30, 2005 06:08 AM

Rhinehold:

In the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, churches and religiously affiliated organizations have been instrumental in helping those displaced. This would seem to fly in the face of Paul’s assertions. In times of need, churches and charities provied enormous amounts of time, energy and money to the helpless. This would be the same kind of outcropping as a result of religous views that Paul seems to denounce.

Secondly, its important to not confuse the message with the messengers. Messengers can be flawed, but this does not mean the message itself is flawed. It could be, but logically does not have to be. Some assume that since Jimmy Swaggart failed to live up to the message that he preached, the message itself must be flawed. Poor logic to do so.

I believe that my faith is correct. Well, of course I do!!. If I thought it were incorrect, I wouldn’t believe as I do, now would I? But…I also maintain that it is MY belief and that others do not necessarily need to believe as I do. Others are free to believe as they choose, but they are not free to force me to change MY beliefs. As an example, I believe racism to be wrong….but there are those who disagree, those who don’t see certain things as racism, those who minimize it etc. They are free to believe as they choose; I am free to consider their beliefs to be wrong.

I don’t believe that “hedging one’s bets” does anything. I believe that God wants us to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as our savior. If the relationship is based on a “hedged bet”, it falls short of a being such a relationship. I do not claim the authority to know what is in someone’s heart. I DO believe that God may determine that some who claim to be Christian are not, and possibly that some who make no such claims actually are. That’s not for me to decide.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 30, 2005 08:20 AM

“Wow. That really flies in the face of the argument of those who feel that only Christianity can save America. How is this possible? Shouldn’t the stringent rules of Christianity dictate that their followers be more caring, more loving to others, less debauched and less violent than the godless heathen that avoid the mysticism of a Sunday visit to god’s house?”

What are you saying? Are you saying that more people who commit crimes are Christians than non?

Most people look to their own religious leader in their own community NOT to those you mentioned.
If you are worried about a religion that could become a ‘state’ religion your pointing out the wrong one. Christians are not disciplined enough. They don’t require all the followers to read the same verses and sing the same songs at the same time each week. They do not require their local churches to follow strict guidelines on how to write their sermons. People are not ostracized if they can’t make it to church for a week or two or even a year or two.
Be careful. While focusing your fear on Christians, something else is bound to sneak up on you.

Posted by: bugcrazy at September 30, 2005 08:44 AM

Great article. As a christian I’ve been worried about the way I see christianity going lately. Seems to some christians christianity has become more about power than humility, more about indignation than service, more about self righteousness than love.

I am convinced of my faith. But I am equally convinced that it is my affair and mine only. I do not want the government or school system meddling in that private part of my or my kid’s life, nor do I see a need to push those private beliefs on others.

Some forms of christianity lately has been focused on turning their critical eye on the world instead of turning it inward. I guess it’s just easier that way.

Posted by: chantico at September 30, 2005 10:10 AM

It continues to amaze me how our founding fathers, all Christian, understood the very real dangers of the willful insertion of religion into politics — yet how many of today’s self-professed Christians belive that this country is going to hell in a handbasket on the belief that this country is becoming more “Godless.”

For example, Thomas Jefferson asserted this to the Danbury Baptist Association on Janury 1, 1802:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the 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.”

…Yet people like Pat Roberson, who stated the following, continue to take us away from the wisdom of Jefferson and into the abyss of intolerance by stating that only Christians and Jews are qualified to hold public office:

“Individual Christians are the only ones really — and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.”

More importantly, look at history. When a rigid theocracy (or desire thereof) becomes the preferred rules of governance, tyranny results. The Taliban results. The Inquisition results. Even now, the insurgency in Iraq is not politically motivated, but religiously motivated. Sunni insurgents are killing other Iraqis whom the Sunnis do not view as upholding strict teachings of Koranic law. To them, these other Iraqis (and us) are religious infidels who must be disposed of.

While we’re at it, let’s also look at Hitler. In a speech to the Reichstag on March 23, 1933, he stated:

“The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them.”

…thus the Holocaust was religiously justified, according to this twisted logic. Yet as odious and unbelievable this belief is, how far away from this line of thinking are we today, with so much idiotic, hateful hypocrisy coming from the religious right?

Please, please consider Jefferson’s first line again: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God…”

Man and HIS God. Not man and YOUR God, which is what today’s ultra-right conservatives are pushing. To them, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Confucianism, etc. — which have all been around far longer than Christianity — are false religions, and forcing that very belief upon us is the ultimate in religious hypocrisy. has. In fact, to paraphrase a Buddhist parable, there ane many paths but one destination. And as long as the religious right, which is neither, refuses to understand that, we as a country will continued to be pushed into a “preferred” religious path — which only leads to tyranny and intolerance. Why is this so difficult to understand? God IS great. God IS good. God IS a personal belief, and the sooner we stop trying to legislate religious narrowly defined Christian morality for the masses (no pun intended), the better off this country will be.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at September 30, 2005 10:20 AM

bugcrazy,

“They don’t require all the followers to read the same verses and sing the same songs at the same time each week. They do not require their local churches to follow strict guidelines on how to write their sermons.”

Christians can’t even agree on the type of God they worship.

Some see God as a loving, caring deity.
Others see God as vengefull, full of fire and brimstone.

The kind of God that would send a hurricane to destroy a city.

Posted by: Rocky at September 30, 2005 10:30 AM

Rhinehold-

Certainly religion/faith/spirituality is not the only way to ‘save America’. However, ideally, this may be one route to a more peaceful existance. Consider the teachings of Christ from Luke 10:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied.

To those more well-versed in scripture, they will recognize this teaching as one that Christ repeated. His teachings were that all of the Jewish Law was summed up in these two commandments: Love God with everything you have, and Love your neighbor as yourself.

The more individuals in our society who would commit themselves to following more closely these guidelines of Christianity, the more peaceful our society would become. (I don’t know that this supposition requires justification.)

In the face of these two commandments, your points about rules, leadership and the attitudes of Christian followers become moot, as it is clear that the individuals to which you refer are not following the commandments very closely. (Which is not to say they aren’t trying.)

Now, in no way can one judge the heart of another. However, by the fruits of one’s labor they may be recognized. (This is also taught by Christ.) If you perceive that someone’s actions do not respect these two commandments, you may infer that the individual is not behaving in accordance with the Christian ideal. You may not infer, however, the degree to which this person intends to adhere to that ideal.

Now, forcing these ideas on anyone will not result in a desire to follow them. The commandments can only be followed if the individual desires to follow them, and the extent to which they are followed again relies solely upon the desire of the individual. As we all know, you cannot force anyone to desire anything. This reveals the problem with how some Christians approach their desire to share what they have. (This is not to say they aren’t well-intentioned.)

I’ll stop preaching now. The point is that a lot of the points you make are refuted when you view individuals who more closely follow the teachings of their spiritual belief system.

Posted by: AParker at September 30, 2005 10:41 AM

Mr. Magoo, that’s a good Jefferson quote. To put it in context, the Baptists were being persecuted at the time by the more numerous Protestent sects. The persecution of Mormons and Catholics would come later. I’m a big believer in “the wall” between church and state, and keeping it up is one of the great achievements of this country.

Interesting piece Rhinehold.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 30, 2005 10:47 AM

I’m suprised he (Gregory Paul) didn’t link this more related to lack of gun ban than religion popularity… Strange.

Well, it doesn’t fit is the problem. There are free democracies that have similar gun ownership and far far fewer deaths and violence than the United States. For example, Switzerland requires gun ownership yet have one of the lowest murder and violence rates of any country. Also, the lower the gun ownership limitations in locations in the US, the lower the violence/murder rates. And in Kennesaw Georgia, where gun ownership was made a requirement, the crime rate plummeted. So, it sort of blows that as one of the possible reasons for the current societal ills out of the water, doesn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 30, 2005 11:40 AM

In the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, churches and religiously affiliated organizations have been instrumental in helping those displaced. This would seem to fly in the face of Paul’s assertions. In times of need, churches and charities provied enormous amounts of time, energy and money to the helpless. This would be the same kind of outcropping as a result of religous views that Paul seems to denounce.

I don’t see anywhere where Paul is saying that faith isn’t full of good intentions or always fails in that regard. All he has done is recognize that whlie the US is one of the most religious developed countries it is also one of the violent and dysfunctional. I’m the one who is trying to examine why that could be.

Secondly, its important to not confuse the message with the messengers. Messengers can be flawed, but this does not mean the message itself is flawed. It could be, but logically does not have to be. Some assume that since Jimmy Swaggart failed to live up to the message that he preached, the message itself must be flawed. Poor logic to do so.

No one is doing that. I am pointing out that despite the message, despite the tenets of the faith suggesting one thing, the opposite is happening. Now, why is that?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 30, 2005 11:48 AM

Rhinehold,

“I started finding that basically, the more people believed in God in the western world, the worse off the society was in numerous aspects.”

I feel that religion being so subjective can be manipulated and in some cases twisted to someones advantage at the expense of those that do not share their views.
Religion is a private matter. Those who want government and religion to merge are looking for a way to gain power not spread spirituality.
Religion is a great mask for bigotry. Look at history.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at September 30, 2005 01:04 PM

Even in the time of Jesus, there were folks whose vision of religion was narrow-minded, and those whose faith was just for show.

What’s changed is that civilization has been altered radically by technological progress. We are having to distill old ideas to their essential cores, and reconstructing the old ideas in new forms. That is making the problem of faith in today’s world one of integration.

We need to recognize that we lack the context to interpret the bible literally. We know much the ancients didn’t, live in a world whose pace and complexity would leave the inhabitants of older times slumped against the wal babbling with smoke coming out of their ears.

The meaning of the bible and other holy works will always be relevant. The question is whether our appreciation of that meaning will be such as well.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2005 01:46 PM

I’m curious, if this Gregory S. Paul is the known paleontologist, what experience he brings to make this study valid in the first place.

Unless it is a different Gregory S. Paul, I find it interesting that a known dinosaur expert would be a credible source on religion.

I’m also not sure that history demonstrates what he is stating, as it seems to me the main problems with religions has not been the existance of religion but when people have been forced to follow one that they did not agree with. So it would not belief in God that would be the issue, it would be the belief that no one should be forced to convert to another religion at the behest of a power that would be the issue.

Our country would not have been founded had it not been for the persecution of those who wanted to be able to practice their religion rather than the one that was being imposed on them. It is their courage in wanting to be able to worship as they believed rather than a failing of Christianity that caused this. I realize it’s popular to try to blame religion, however, I don’t see it play out as he states if you take a closer look at history.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at September 30, 2005 03:00 PM

Yes, as detailed in one of the links, he was trained as a palentologist. He has been working in the area of sociology recently.

I find it interesting that a known dinosaur expert would be a credible source on religion.

1. There is no reason to assume he wouldn’t be, I was originally trained and worked as a nuclear reactor operator but am now an expert in MS System Administration. People do change their focus from time to time and it doesn’t mean that the data they are using as a basis for their study is wrong, though their interpretation could be (which is true of even experts in their fields, always check the sources…)

2. Why would he have to be a credible source on religion when the study is a sociological one? Since he was not attempting to discern what about religion was causing his findings, only making observations based on the data he was able to collect and coallate.

I don’t think anyone is out to TRY and blame religion, I just found it curious that a trend in the factors taken into account by the study led to this conclusion. The fact that it was posted in a Catholic journal leads me to believe that it wasn’t preconceived to be an ‘anti-religion’ piece. He says:

his interest in evolutionary science prompted him to look at whether there was any link between the religiosity of a society and how well that society functioned

That’s it. What we DO with this information and how we examine it is important here. As I stated, many who are religious are going to dismiss it out of hand. Others will embrace to say something it isn’t. The rest of us need to study and figure out why it is that such a religious country could be so dysfunctiona.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 30, 2005 03:23 PM

Anyone can comment or research Rhinehold, however each of us has our own area of expertise. I can talk about brain surgery and research it however if my area of expertise is history it stands to reason that a real brain surgeon would be a more credible source than I am.

Having seen the discussions this study has caused on other message boards, I have to say it is being used as a way to justify those who do not believe in religion. As “OH LOOK see we told you how bad believing in God is”. I’m not saying you are doing that but that is what is being done and it is not accurate.

But I have a different view of history, I don’t believe Jefferson’s letter should have been used by the Supreme Court as evidence that the founding fathers wanted a “wall of separation”. I feel if that is what the founding fathers would have wanted they would have addressed it in the Constitution. They gave us freedom of religion not freedom from religion in my view.

We all try to justify our own positions, that’s human nature. I believe differently that you do on this, but I feel it is just as wrong to force my religion on you as it would be for you to try to take my religion away from me. I view attempts to discredit religion and God the same as I would view attempts to force a certain religion.

I am not dismissing this out of hand, however I am not embracing it as being totally true because I feel history shows a different picture. I also have to look at intent and how this piece is being used. It is the same as the research that stated babies do not feel pain until well after the first trimester, it ended up not being accurate, but it created the impression that since babies could not feel pain at that stage that abortion should be more acceptable.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at September 30, 2005 04:28 PM

Good piece Rhinehold,

I think part of the dysfunction is that we try too hard to legislate morality. We cannot force the population to be moral. Being religious does not equal being moral.

Abortion, gambling, pornagraphy, homosexuality, drugs & alcohol. These are immoral to some, but not all. We either have to ban them and say their are bad for society or legalize them (or keep legal)and say they are personal issues.

We live in a repressive society where we have a large portion of the population screaming about morality, for no other reason then to push their own beliefs on others. Why not let people make their own decisions, why not be more open and except the fact that some people like to drink, gamble and watch others have sex. If they didn’t why would Las vegas exist.

If we truly are the land of the free, then maybe we should let others be free to do what they want on their own time, even pray to who othey want.

Maybe it’s just our Puritan background?

Posted by: monkeywreks at September 30, 2005 04:36 PM

Religion taking over is nothing but show.
BOTH sides want to use their personal beliefs to dictate how people live their personal lives.
Conservatives believe God’s law should be respected while running a country.
Liberals believe a government, run THEIR way, IS God.

Posted by: kctim at September 30, 2005 04:40 PM

Rhinehold
The current religious leadership is, for the most part, beyond horrible. Falwell, Swaggart, Robertson, and many others are more concerned about advancing the faith for power of some kind.

And it’s people like these that give Christianity a bad name and they’re NOT my leaders. It may not be very christian lke, but I wish they would just shut up and disappear.

Sometimes it’s political and other times, personal.

Usually it’s for the money.

Are they a result of the beliefs of Christianity or are they abhorred by many in the faith?

No, the’re not the results of Christian beliefs.
And there are a lot of christians that feel like I do about them.

If they are abhorred by those in the faith, how are they so powerful?

Because a lot of so called christians think they’re the gratest thing sense the resurection.

Rocky
Some see God as a loving, caring deity.
Others see God as vengefull, full of fire and brimstone.

If you have a Bible I would sugest you read it. I think you’ll find that he is both. He’s a loving, caring God to those that love and serve him. He is also a vengefull God on those that don’t.

The kind of God that would send a hurricane to destroy a city.

He sent fire down from Heaven and destroyed Sodom and Gormorrah. So if he wanted to he could send a hurricane to destroy a city. I’m saying that’s what he did with New Orleans or Boulxi. Pat Robertson cann’t even say that for sure.

I was raised in a Southern Baptist church and became a christian at the age of 11. I have never doubted my faith in God, but at one point in my life I questioned everything the Baptist taught and looked into the teachings of other faiths.
The more I questioned Baptist doctrine and the more I looked into the doctrines of other churches the more I found I believed what the Baptist teach. I’m not Southern Baptist anymore but I’m still Baptist. I’m a member of an independant Baptist church and am totally secure in my beliefs. I’m not saying you have to be Baptist to be a christian. I know several good christian people who are not Baptist. And I know some Baptist that are not good christians.

If you don’t like religion get a Bible and read the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You’ll find that your in good company.
JESUS DIDN’T LIKE RELIGION EITHER!

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 30, 2005 04:55 PM

Kctim,

Conservatives don’t think god’s law should be respected, they think their version of god’s law should be everyone’s law.
They use religion to be sanctimonious bigots.
You folks continue to put out the myths that liberals don’t believe in god because we respect the seperation of church and state. Liberals don’t support our troops because we don’t support the war.
It’s old and unfounded but that hasn’t stopped you before so keep the myth alive and keep restating it. The number of people who are buying it are dwindling.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at September 30, 2005 04:56 PM

A thoughtful piece, Rhinehold.

Maybe Gregory Paul found a correlation between religion and bad acts:

I started finding that basically, the more people believed in God in the western world, the worse off the society was in numerous aspects.”

However, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. In other words, we do not know whether it is faith itself that causes these bad things. Maybe it is the way some people use faith for their own ends that brings these terrible situations.

I say, each person is entitled to believe as he or she pleases. But NOBODY should be allowed to force any other person to follow the tenets of his or her religion. This is what I call freedom of religion.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at September 30, 2005 05:14 PM

Andre
Yes, a myth, much like the one used by the left about the right being all racists. The lefts lies and whining about bigotry are also tiring and the number buying into it are as you say, “dwindling.”

Conservatives don’t think god’s law should be respected, they think their version of god’s law should be everyone’s law.
Liberals believe a government, run THEIR way, IS God and should be everybody’s caretaker.
I have no problem whatsoever wording it that way.

And actually, as an atheist, I could care less if liberals believe in God or that govt is their god.

As far as the troops, its not that “you don’t support the troops if you don’t support the war.” That is nothing but an excuse used to avoid the real reason why people believe liberals do not support our troops.
It is in the way liberals do things and the manner in which they say them, that make us believe you do not support our troops.
We could care less if you support the war. Hell, we already know where liberals stand when it comes to war and America, especially if its a Republican in the Whitehouse at the time.

Posted by: kctim at September 30, 2005 05:21 PM

Paul,

We agree completely. :)

And I bet you’d never see the day… LOL

Personally, I think that trying to fit everyone into the same religious code is the main problem. Let’s take gambling for example.

Some people can not gamble, they have a compulsive personality that will destroy themselves and their loved ones if they were to do so. Others enjoy gambling responsibly and it gives them a way to enjoy themselves, blow off steam and get a thrill that gives them a rush that is beneficial to their way of life.

*IF* we try to force one group or the other to live the other’s way, one of them is going to cause destruction in the society. However, if we allow people to follow their own personal morality, AS LONG IT DOESN’T PREVENT OTHERS FROM DOING THE SAME, then we can ensure that we all are well adjusted and happy.

Of course, the is the main basic view of Libertarians like myself. And it also clashes with those on both sides of the political landscape who are more interested in trying to shoehorn others into their personal brand of beliefs.

Which is the main reason I think that we find the results that the study has shown. Different people need different sets of conduct that allows them to be who they are as long as they don’t infringe on another’s rights to the same. Yet, that seems like a foreign idea, doesn’t it? I personally think that this is the view that our country was founded on, the classic Liberalism that was practiced by our founding fathers…

But maybe that’s just me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 30, 2005 05:26 PM

Paul
“I say, each person is entitled to believe as he or she pleases. But NOBODY should be allowed to force any other person to follow the tenets of his or her religion”

What about forcing any other person to follow the “tenets” of his or her personal beliefs?
Doesn’t religion help create these personal beliefs?
What is the difference between a religous person telling me how to live my life and people using the govt to tell me how to live my life in the way they think I should?

Posted by: kctim at September 30, 2005 05:31 PM

Christians, by definition, have only one leader. One who, by the way, never promised an easy time here on earth, especially for his followers.

The implication that Falwell, Swaggart, Robertson, et al, are leaders of all Christians is a little like saying Michael Moore is a leader of all Democrats or that Louis Farakhan is a leader of all African-Americans.

Evangelical Christians are, by definition, those who feel compelled to tell others about the gospel (literally the good news) of Jesus, in the hope that they also will become Christians. This is done in the spirit of one friend trying to help another, not as some sort of sinister plot to undermine society.

I didn’t intend to write a Christian primer here, but I think it’s important to drop the generalizations and false assumptions when we’re discussing these issues.

Posted by: Owl Creek Observer at September 30, 2005 05:42 PM

What is the difference between a religous person telling me how to live my life and people using the govt to tell me how to live my life in the way they think I should?

And how exactly are liberals using the government to tell you to live your life?

It is in the way liberals do things and the manner in which they say them, that make us believe you do not support our troops.

Could you please tell me how the way liberals convey their message about the war that gives you the message that we don’t support our troops? I’d really like to know.

In regards to religion, I believe that religion is a personal matter that the government should not intercede in; if government can make decisions based on Christianity, what can stop the government from basing its decisions on any other religion that conflicts with my Christian beliefs or the beliefs of my children in the future, should a different relgion gain a majority in the United States.

Posted by: Warren P at September 30, 2005 08:30 PM

P.S., Craig, the point of Earle’s indictment is being missed by most. Money laundering is illegal if it is drug money, Enron off the books money, or Adelphia’s never on the books money. To Earle, myself, and many others, the money laundering that is going on by the two major political parties is just as illegal. The Mafia beat the feds again and again on their money laundering until the Ricco statutes came into play. The Mafia’s money laundering prior to the Ricco statutes was just as illegal as after the Ricco statutes took place.

This is the same deal with money handling by TRMPAC. It was undermining our country and its political system before the TRMPAC and DeLay indictments, and it will continue to be so whether or not DeLay is convicted of conspiracy to circumvent Texas laws. There is a bigger issue here for Earle, and the folks who believe in his work, and that is going after corrupting politicians and their agents. DeLay is just one of more than a dozen Earle has gone after, and he has been very successful with few exceptions.

The real deal here is Earle putting the money corruption in national headlines and in the forefront of voter’s minds. That is the larger act, battle, and consequences. DeLay is instrumental in this effort only because of his name recognition. If his name were David Remer, who the hell would care if David Remer was corrupting the political process. But this is the majority leader of the ruling party in one of two of the federal government’s Congressional bodies whose purpose is represent the people, the Constitution and all of the laws which emanate from it.

People with big names should not attempt to play cute with the intent of people’s laws. DeLay did, and the people through their representative, Ronnie Earle, are going after him for it. And that is just. And hopefully justice will prevail for the people in eradicating this corruption of the people’s government by the wealthy and powerful who act as though the laws and their intent were made for other people.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2005 01:06 AM

On following the tenets of the faith:

This past January, OhayoCon (an anime convention in Ohio) shared the convention center with a Christian youth outreach group.

One of their ministers decided to dress up as a homeless man and hang out near the food court, to see how the various sermons of charity and goodwill were influencing his flock. Much to his surprise, the Christians (despite being a far more populous group) ignored him. The anime fans, however, kept buying him food and talking to him.

The same event, in regards to how leadership affects organized groups:

(note: anime fans have no more organized leadership than fans of any other genre, such as jazz, football, or cooking)

On Friday, the costumed anime fans were being sneered at and accosted in the halls to be told about the Word Of The Lord.

Friday night, another of their ministers (not the “homeless” one on the food court) came out to his flock wearing a Dragonball Z shirt, admitted to being an anime fan, and informed them all that Jesus would be out in the halls asking people about their costumes and talking to them for a while, rather than just preaching.

Saturday, the Christians were much more polite and interested in the anime fans as people rather than freaks who needed to hear the Word.

By Monday, the group’s site discussed their outreach convention, referring to the minister as “an angel” and the anime fans as “the disenfranchised” and “the lost” — which is highly insulting.

Posted by: Joanna at October 1, 2005 01:39 AM

David, advocating campaign finance reform is well and good, but you miss the point of why Earle’s actions are so objectionable.

Your description of his mission would make perfect sense if he were involved in a people’s petition or a drive for legislation, but that’s not what he’s up to. As he has done for a long time, he is trying to advance his cause with selective prosecution of political opponents when he thinks they are not adhering to the spirit of the law even if they are adhering to the letter of the law.

If the speed limit is 65 and you think it should be 55, you don’t advance your cause by hauling people into court on criminal charges for driving 65. You especially do not do that to political opponents for whom you have a known vendetta and then go around making fund-raising speeches advertizing the fact.

Delay’s organization found and exploited loopholes in finance laws, just as Democrats, Republicans, and yes, Independents are all doing, in large part because the laws are so vague and so often unconstitutional in their abridgment of the first amendment. To suggest that indepenents and third parties are somehow above this is factually wrong. Ralph Nader, to cite just one example, has been in trouble for funneling money between his activist organizations and his political campaigns, and certainly you must know about Lyndon LaRouche, who seems to spend more time in jail than out of it.

Posted by: sanger at October 1, 2005 01:48 AM

The fight in the schools?
Science has not proven Darwin and the Creationism theory as defined in the schools suggest that ‘GOD’ is a scientist and we are his experiment — it goes against no separation of church and state if you look at ‘GOD’ as a scientist.
Religion does not really look at us as an experiment but if they want to call it creationism they have to accept the fact we may be an experiment.
When I was in school I had a teacher who suggested that our universe could be no more than a cell on a fingernail of an enormous being that may look something like us - a giant for example - and when it was time for his fingernail to be broken off or cut off it would be the end of us. This held true for our own fingernails - each one could have several universes of beings we do not consider that are about to be destroyed when we cut our own nails.
The point is - we do not know.
Creationism is a theory the same as Darwin had a theory. Our students, our children, should be afforded all options and come to their own conclusions.
This is no more than the extremes trying to have their way when it comes to all of us.

Posted by: dawn at October 1, 2005 02:18 AM

Joanna:

It appears to me that you are attempting to show that Christians, or at least one particular group of Christians, can be hypocritical. And of course, there are hypocritical Christians, just as there are hypocritical atheists or doctors or lawyers or teachers.

I claim Christianity as my personal belief, and admit to often not reaching the goals set forth in my belief. This makes me human.

I’m not sure about your point about the homeless man, though. I don’t ever give money to homeless people I see. I wonder whether some of the supposed homeless that I see (namely the ones with the cardboard sign begging at the heavily travelled street intersections) are truly homeless.

What I HAVE done is to offer to buy food for them, believing that if they are truly hungry they will accept the food. I don’t want to give money simply to allow them to potentially misuse it on alcohol etc, which often happens.

I do give money to charity, though, rather than to individuals. My belief is that it is much better to try to solve the overall problem than it is to give a few dollars to one individual. Were you to see me for just a few moments, you might believe me to be a “hypocritical Christian” who was unwilling to help, but you wouldn’t see the whole picture in context.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 1, 2005 07:33 AM

“And how exactly are liberals using the government to tell you to live your life?”

Oh, I don’t know, maybe by forcing me to support their social programs, even though I disagree with what those programs do.
Forced diversity, so I think of people in the same way they do.
Try buying a gun sometime.

“Could you please tell me how the way liberals convey their message about the war that gives you the message that we don’t support our troops? I’d really like to know.”

How would you feel if you were called an oppressor or murderer?
But wait, thats what your calling Bush, not the troops right? Well, if they believe in their mission, then they believe in what Bush does.
They believe in their mission over there but yet, the left says it is illegal and unjustified which in turn makes them criminals.
Criticizing their every effort and refusing any of the good that has come from their actions also isn’t very supportive.

“In regards to religion, I believe that religion is a personal matter that the government should not intercede in”

But they do intercede and quite regularly at that. Why do you think alot of religious people hate the aclu so much? Its not keeping them seperate that many object to, its the getting rid of religion that they don’t like.

Posted by: kctim at October 1, 2005 11:00 AM

I noticed that no one made any comments about Owl Creek’s post. Know why? He’s right.

Swaggart doesn’t speak for me. Robertson doesn’t guide my religious beliefs. Only I speak for me. Only I determine my religious leanings…and I did that a long time ago. How?

Science.

Science taught me that the first life on this planet was a single-cell organism. That single-cell organism was the result of “just the right” mixture of oxygen, “just the right” mixture of nitrogen, “just the right” mixture of trace elements, “just the right” mixture of heat, humidity, and “just the right” mixture of (etc., etc., etc.).

In other words…either:

a.) We are the biggest accident or freaks of nature that have ever happened in the history of the universe…or

b.) There is a higher being.

You figure it out.

Maybe no one figured this out, but if you were to rip the book of Proverbs out of the Bible and just read that, you’d know how to live your life. Hey, you could even cross out every reference to God…and still have a manual to live your life by.

Of course, you can’t take everything in Proverbs in a literal sense. Much of it is figurative. Remember “spare the rod and spoil the child”? (That’s not in Proverbs, but a lot of people like to think it is.) There are actually people out there that think that means to take a 6 foot stick (rod) and beat your child with it. Can you believe there are people stupid enough to believe that?

But I digress.

What I’m saying is this. I believe what I believe not because of some “whim” or because I’m “frightened”. I decided what I believe because of long and deliberate thought…and because of this, no one is going to persuade me differently. My belief in what I believe is absolute.

Now, as to “Seperation of Church and State”.

Has anyone here EVER studied history?

Q1): When was the Constitution written?

Q2): How long was that after King Henry VIII declared the Church Of England the “official” (Governmentally approved) church of England?

Q3): How many fractures in English society did that cause (One fracture was to result in religious fanatics being deported…”Puritans”, anyone?)?

Q4): When the Contenental Congress wrote the Constitution, they were ex-citizens of what country?

Q5): When the Constitution was written, do you think they remembered what happened when a church was declared the “official” church of the government?

Look. Seperation of church and state is not…repeat…NOT meant to keep “manger scenes” off of courthouse lawns. It is not…repeat…NOT meant to keep the 10 Commandments out of courthouses. It is not…repeat…NOT meant to keep God out of the Pledge of Allegence.

It is meant to keep congress or the president from ever stating that a certain religion will be acceptable and all other religions will be outlawed.

Period. End of story.

History tells you why certain provisions of the Constitution were put in place and for what purpose. Just read your history books.

History will tell you exactly why the Bill of Rights contains what it contains.

It strips government of the powers that the King of England exercized all too frequently.

Got History?

Posted by: Jim T at October 1, 2005 12:27 PM

Owl Creek
Christians, by definition, have only one leader. One who, by the way, never promised an easy time here on earth, especially for his followers.

HOW RIGHT YOU ARE

The implication that Falwell, Swaggart, Robertson, et al, are leaders of all Christians is a little like saying Michael Moore is a leader of all Democrats or that Louis Farakhan is a leader of all African-Americans.

Robertson, Swagart, and Falwell ARE the leaders of some Christians (like the churches they pastor) But ONLY GOD is the leader of ALL Christians.

Evangelical Christians are, by definition, those who feel compelled to tell others about the gospel (literally the good news) of Jesus, in the hope that they also will become Christians. This is done in the spirit of one friend trying to help another, not as some sort of sinister plot to undermine society.

And they will NEVER force their beliefs onto anyone else. Wish I could say the same for those that don’t like Chriatians.

I didn’t intend to write a Christian primer here, but I think it’s important to drop the generalizations and false assumptions when we’re discussing these issues.

But I’m afraid that those that hate Christians won’t.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 1, 2005 12:56 PM

kctim:
“forcing me to support their social programs, even though I disagree with what those programs do.
Forced diversity, so I think of people in the same way they do.”

So what you’re saying is you don’t believe in ideas such as “form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquilty”, or “promote the general Welfare”.

“How would you feel if you were called an oppressor or murderer?
But wait, thats what your calling Bush, not the troops right?

Right. It was the president who rushed this country into a pre-emptive war of occupation on a faulty intelligence. With the appearance of the Downing Street Memos, there is absolutely no doubt that he deliberately put our troops into harms way by lying and “fixing the facts around the intelligence”. Also, in defiance of International Law, this administration at the highest levels sanctioned the Torture of prisoners that our military holds captive.
Because of these things, he should be Impeached, because as Commander in Chief of our Military and the leader of this nation, he has committed an act of Treason against We the People and has broken with the International Law of the Geneva Convention, (which we were bound by honor to uphold when we signed on to it). And, he has committed an act of illegal war and occupation against a foreign country.

“Well, if they believe in their mission, then they believe in what Bush does.”

It matters not what our soldiers think individually or whether they believe in their mission — they took an oath to follow the orders of their superiors all the way up the chain of command. But their Commander in Chief did not honor their service to this country, instead, he has betrayed them — yet, until he is removed from his command, they must still follow his orders whether they agree with the war and the occupation of Iraq, or not.

“They believe in their mission over there but yet, the left says it is illegal and unjustified which in turn makes them criminals.”

No, they are not criminals, they are soldiers doing what they are honor bound to do - follow orders, even when and if they are being used as pawns by men who illegally and unjustifiably sent them into war.

“Criticizing their every effort and refusing any of the good that has come from their actions also isn’t very supportive.”

People like me have supported our troops by raising money for the armor they need to stay alive while fighting, and by doing what they cannot do while bound by their oath — protest against this war, demanding that the government put an end to it and bring them home.

“In regards to religion, I believe that religion is a personal matter that the government should not intercede in”

“But they do intercede and quite regularly at that. Why do you think alot of religious people hate the aclu so much?”

The ACLU is not part of the government. They are a legal organisation that petitions the government on behalf of the people for a redress of their grievances.

“Its not keeping them seperate that many object to, its the getting rid of religion that they don’t like.”

The ACLU takes cases in defense of religious groups, as well as on behalf of those who feel that religion is being forced upon them by others or trespassing into our laws. Those who demonize the ACLU only do so out of ignorance, because they are not a partisan political entity. Their sole mission is to defend the U.S. Constitution — most especially, the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting the 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.”

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2005 01:13 PM

Adrienne
The ACLU takes cases in defense of religious groups,

Name one case.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 1, 2005 03:54 PM

I am pointing out that despite the message, despite the tenets of the faith suggesting one thing, the opposite is happening. Now, why is that?

Rhinehold,

Why are language arts and sciences taught in primary classrooms every day while the arts less frequently? American society places less importance on liberal arts. Are there more businessmen or musicians in America? Our children have for generations been taught that not only are the tenets of the Christian faith unimportant; but, in modern society they have no place at all in public life. Self indulgence is out of the closet, Christianity is in. Pleasure and greed are idolized in American society; selfless sacrifice and responsibility are disparaged, even demonized. (Or in Donald Trump’s words, “Stupid, stupid, stupid.”)

Our nation as a whole, religious or otherwise, preaches winning first, individuality, self-reliance etc. i have often heard the BBC refer to us as a ‘meritocracy’. Our schools teach to look after ‘number one’ first, THEN after you have been satisfied you can look to others for your social needs.

First goal (american secular) is to get the funds, power whatever.. THEN they can help, aid, give. This is opposite of what Christ told the rich young ruler.. FIRST he was to give away all he had to the poor, FIRST we are to take care of others, THEN our own interests.

This is clearest in the business world where ‘success’ is black and white— or red; but is present in most every area from sports to the arts. Power, through influence, financial or other, is the secular god, the only god allowed in American public life.

Corporations strip employees of benefits to increase their own standard of living and write off charitable giving as an accepted PR cost of doing business, all the while feeling morally upright for their actions which cost them not a thing. Hollywood markets titillating violence and sex; then promotes benefits and concerts for gun control and battered women— great publicity, failed morality.

The marketting of and to our basest appetites is in our schools, streets, parks, etc. No place is immune to the corrupt marketting of american capitalism. And heaven forbid values of faith be seen in public.

The result is unabashed oppression by companies, individuals, groups and governments…
with progressives chanting and screaming on stages and street corners for government to take the responsibility for being moral
and christians chanting and crying in prayer closets for understanding and a ‘pass’ on their lack of practicing what they preach.

IMO, Robertson, Falwell et al with their prosperity preaching and ‘seed faith’ promises are no different than state lotteries in their exploitation of the disenfranchised. How can the end justify the means if the means moves ‘the end’ further down the road? Who buys lottery tickets? WHo gives to televangelists but shut ins and the poor who have had all other opportunities taken from them. One might have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than winning the lottery; but for a lot of people, those are the best ‘odds’ they have. Taking from the poor to give to the poor or educate the poor is ludicrous, imnsho.

Another problem we can see in the courts today, is that we cannot legislate our morality, secular, christian or otherwise. Before any law is passed it is riddled with loopholes to guarantee the futility of the exercise; before any program established, inroads built into it for corruption. Our parties, politicians and businesses get their power by feeding its own immorality; then passing the blame and bill to our society.

Bottom line, America is weak because her people are weak. What strength remains is but a skimcoat cracking and crumbling so that now even the world is finally able to recognise what we have for decades: America is not a super power. America is no longer a land of opportunity. America is no longer a Christian nation. America is full of sin, weak and vulnerable. “Bring it on.” (and they thought Hussein arrogant in his bravado.)

Maybe Gregory Paul found a correlation between religion and bad acts:

I started finding that basically, the more people believed in God in the western world, the worse off the society was in numerous aspects.”

But NOBODY should be allowed to force any other person to follow the tenets of his or her religion.

FWIW, the west became ‘The West’ and has as its very foundation the forcing of personal dogma on others. Americans still cling to this, left as well as right. The right wants the government to recognise their religious supremacy, the left wants the government to recognise their religious supremacy. Neither is willing to compromise and actually observe the separation between the church and state. They each want to build their own wall.

Of course, the is the main basic view of Libertarians like myself. And it also clashes with those on both sides of the political landscape who are more interested in trying to shoehorn others into their personal brand of beliefs.

Which is the main reason I think that we find the results that the study has shown. Different people need different sets of conduct that allows them to be who they are as long as they don’t infringe on another’s rights to the same. -posted by Rhinehold, *emphasis mine(jo)

It shouldn’t be foreign to Christians.

* WARNING * * WARNING * * WARNING *
*Some readers may find the following content objectionable*
*Reader discretion is advised*

——————————
——————————

As the post concerns both faith and Christianity, i feel it appropriate to include biblical references which address that the ‘rule’ (or religious discipline/’set of conduct’) of a Christian has personal and corporate aspects just as one’s relationship with God is both personal and corporate.

Rom 14:13-14;19,20
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother’s way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean… Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

1Cr 6:12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

1Cr 10:23-24 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s [wealth].

Parker, you said

Now, forcing these ideas on anyone will not result in a desire to follow them. The commandments can only be followed if the individual desires to follow them, and the extent to which they are followed again relies solely upon the desire of the individual.

i agree and think you have strong biblical support.

Col 2:4 I say this in order that no one may delude you with beguiling speech.
Col 2:8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.
Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath.
Col 2:17 These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Col 2:20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations,
Col 2:21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch”
Col 2:22 (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines?
Col 2:23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. *RSV

——————————
——————————

i also have a problem with the premise that individual European and other nations in the study qualify as legitimate comparisons to the US. It’s like comparing single apples to an entire basket of mixed fruit. (yep, americans are fruity and totally mixed up! lol ) Consider:

• stable, established and homogenous language and culture
  
• with narrow geographic/climate variances
  
• minimal national, regional or world defense costs (financial or societal)

vs

• continual immigration and integration/melding of widely divurgent cultures and languages
  
• with geography considerations ranging from tropical to arctic, desert to rain forest
  
• monumental national, regional and world defense costs (both financial and societal)

IMO Canada comes closest to being a reasonable comparison and even then they have not born the population density or world military burdens which, imo, might markedly influence societal factors of violence, mortality and disease.

Europe had a very bad century where the US needed to defend, support and protect her interests as well as our own. As she has regained her footing, US leadership, and to some extent popular opinion, shifted from moral responsibility and sacrifice for brothers to arrogant leadership and control over them. Unfortunately, as popular opinion struggles to correct itself, our corporations, fearing loss of power, have allied with European and multinational corporations to co-opt this immoral power and undermine the peoples and governments of both the US and Europe. While the short-term looks dire, i have confidence that the strength of our peoples will in the end rein in these insatiable rogue global players.

Europe is now following (and having to also grapple with) our racial/cultural diversity, self-reliance, and international cooperation. (Okay, our once held and hopefully soon to be re-established principle of cooperation ;) i think it would behoove us to follow Europe in cultural development and support. i personally do not think Europe has so much suppressed religion -save France- but rather has ignored it. The progressives in america however seem intent on taking the French route of suppression of religious expression rather than the allowance for both its expression and the freedom of others to ignore its expression.

Individuality and freedom is wonderful, yes; but a true culture cannot exist in the isolation of single households. Even Hillary concedes that it takes at least a village. For a Christian culture to exist, there must be the freedom to express that faith (as constitutionally protected) within our public spaces. In other words, we need room to freely express ourselves just as gays and others demand freedom to openly express themselves. French culture is not German. Swiss culture is readily distinguished from Irish, and Irish from English. Quebec vastly differs from Alberta. This country was founded

We need to allow more freedom by allowing more room and self governance options to the different cultures constituting our once united, now splintered country. This is where i hope for the reestablishment of state’s rights— and further down the road for states to also make allowances for cultures within their own borders such supporting China Towns, Greenwhich Villages, Little Havana’s Native American Lands, the Amish etc. Puree all the fruits and veggies of the world and we wind up with a foul tasting soup… but little slices tossed together in harmonious combinations provides a nice salad bar. Let us live and let live. Allow each of us to choose the culture in which we want to live and raise and educate our children. New England is not Appalachia is not Texas hill country, is not southern California.

Posted by: jo at October 1, 2005 04:28 PM

Ron Brown:
Re: ACLU defending religious people or groups.
“Name one case.”

Some of the cases over the past three years:

1. Aug. 8, 2005 PORTALES, NM — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico today announced that it has succeeded in freeing street preacher Shawn Miller from the Roosevelt County jail. Miller was arrested last April after Portales police claimed he was yelling at passing cars, although Miller maintains he was merely “preaching the word of God.

2. June 1, 2005 PHILADELPHIA — In Pennsylvania’s first court interpretation of the state’s Religious Freedom Protection Act, a city judge has ruled that a devout Muslim firefighter who refuses to shave his beard on religious grounds cannot be fired while his legal case continues.

3. December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

4. November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

5. November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

6. August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

7. July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

8. June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

9. June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

10. May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

11. March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister’s right to preach on sidewalks.

12. February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

13. October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

14. July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

15. April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

16. January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church’s right to run “anti-Santa” ads in Boston subways.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2005 04:48 PM

A few observations.

1. The outpouring of help and aid to the victims of Katrina and Rita from many faith based operations is a testament to those who live their New Testament faith. Hard not to see the value in that.

2. The frustration and anger coming from other Christians seems to me to be more a reflection on their own faith than on the ‘liberals’. I’m guessing they are more the Old Testament types. Lots of good retribution and punishment for the ‘wicked’ there. I think that’s what they really want. My head on a pike because I don’t go want to promote such irrational ideas as Creationism in public schools. BTW, I don’t subscribe to a belief in a conscious supreme being though I agree with just about every single thing that Jesus said and did.

3. The intense need for someone else to believe as you do seems like a real weakness to me. Can we get past this point? It is not workable folks. Hello? Just to end this, why don’t you be big and begin to believe as I do?

4. Actions speak louder than words. Look at how you live.

5. Different people have different needs. People obviously choose different churches (or whatever) to fill that need. Is that a weakness? Should we all adhere to a single faith idea even if it doesn’t fit the particular hole in our life that we are trying to fill?

6. Job! What’s up with that? Dude was faithful to a fault. God just blasted the guy to make a bet with Satan? Someone explain that to me.

7. I had a secretary who made the statement that if I didn’t believe in God or an afterlife couldn’t I just go out and rob and kill and maim without retribution. Go wild. Her statement had an effect. I responded by saying that seeing things that way, I was very happy that she found a good home in her church. I didn’t want to get robbed or killed or maimed by her.

Posted by: Rick at October 2, 2005 08:47 AM

Rick,

Uhhh…dude…uhhh…I think you need to stop and think about what you just said.

You said:

The intense need for someone else to believe as you do seems like a real weakness to me.

OK…I understand. Then you went on to say…

My head on a pike because I don’t go want to promote such irrational ideas as Creationism in public schools.

So…you have an “intense need” for me to believe that Creationism is “irrational”. Huh? Is that it?

Then you said…

Actions speak louder than words. Look at how you live.

So…you have an “intense need” for me to live in a manner specially approved by you?

One question…and this one question only.

Do you have a mirror?

Posted by: Jim T at October 2, 2005 02:12 PM

Jim T

“So…you have an “intense need” for me to believe that Creationism is “irrational”. Huh? Is that it?”

he is just stating that he believes creationism is irrational. never once did he say he had an “intence need” for you to believe it is irrational.

“Then you said…

Actions speak louder than words. Look at how you live.
So…you have an “intense need” for me to live in a manner specially approved by you?”

he said “look at how you live” he was just pointing out that some people don’t practice what they preach. never once did he say that you needed to live in “a manner specially approved by” him. in fact he even said in his observation
number 5 that he doesn’t feel every one needs to share his views

Posted by: voice of reason at October 2, 2005 04:47 PM

Jim T.,

OK, the use of the word irrational is offensive to you. I apologize. But isn’t the ‘belief’ in Creationism a matter of faith over scientific evidence. That is what I am getting at.

AND… I am not trying to get you to believe anything. The presentation of scientifically collected evidence is not off-limits now is it?

Perhaps we should just discontinue any discussion of the origins of the world and its organisms in school. I have no emotional investment or attachment to a specific idea regarding such. My point was that Creationism IS a religious belief and as such belongs in that realm of society.

So, I do not have an intense need for you to believe in the “Theory of Evolution”. I have no ‘belief’ in that theory. It is just a scientifically derived attempt to explain how things are what they are. It really won’t affect me or others that much.

And I have no desire to enter into your life and tell you how to believe. My rights to swing my fist end where your physical body begins. Likewise, your rights ends where they conflict with mine.

I think where we would disagree is in our definition of what our rights are. If I was a Muslim, would I be right to try to make you subscribe to my religious convictions, even if I thought it would be in your best interest and in the best interest of our society as a whole? How would you feel if I (with the best intentions, mind you) forced you to swear to Allah before you were issued a marriage license? Or testify in court? How would you feel if I tried to ‘help’ our society by teaching the basic tenets of Islam to your child in school?

Now on your side, you see Creationism as a real possibility or perhaps a fact based on your honest belief in Scriptures. Fine. But isn’t that different than taking observations from nature and trying to make sense of those observations?

Perhaps you will not see that there is a difference between an attempt to explain nature through the scientific method and investigation and trying to rectify the state of nature through a religious belief. But let me assure you, I am not trying to get you to subscribe to my ‘belief’ system.

The last resort will most likely be that some discussions, such as the origins of life and how it came to be in the state it is now, will be off-limits in schools. So be it.

Posted by: Rick. at October 2, 2005 05:05 PM

Still others are certain that only religion can keep our society from anarchy and push the bounds of the Separation of Church and State daily. Is there a way to determine which is correct?

Sure, it’s really very simple.
Anyone can do anything they want, as long as they don’t infringe upon the rights of anyone else.
Leading/forcing/coercing (what ever you want to call it) a captive audience (e.g. in a public school, court, government, or other public setting, etc.) to participate in any oath, pledge, or prayer is inconsiderate. Anyone who can’t understand why doesn’t respect the rights of others, and you’ll soon discover that arguing about it is about as productive as arguing with a fence post. Don’t waste your energy. There’s a very wise reason why wise men wrote the 1st Amendment 214 years ago (1791). They understood all too well the persecution, ostracizing, whispers behind their back, and the exclusion from social affairs and business; simply for having different (or no) religious beliefs. They understood all too well about the dangers and motives of those that insist on institutionalizing religion, putting it in oaths and pledges. They understood that government should not restrict or prefer any religion. Yet, 214 years later, too many are still hanging onto the dark ages. They’ll hatefully tell you to shut-up and don’t participate if you don’t want to, but rest assured, you’ve now been labeled an un-believer. They’ll hatefully tell you to go live somewhere else when if you don’t want to participate. Beware of those that insist on public participation (e.g. public schools, courts, government, etc.) and institutionalization of religious oaths, pledges, and prayers, because those that choose to quietly not participate, will suddently find themselves being discriminated against. Wise men learned centuries ago that religion should not be forced onto to people, because it’s not only inconsiderate…it is dangerous.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 2, 2005 07:56 PM

Yet, 214 years later, too many are still hanging onto the dark ages. They’ll hatefully tell you to shut-up and don’t participate if you don’t want to, but rest assured, you’ve now been labeled an un-believer. They’ll hatefully tell you to go live somewhere else when if you don’t want to participate. Beware of those that insist on public participation (e.g. public schools, courts, government, etc.)

So believers have your clearance to remain in America and pay taxes and serve at your whim so long as they don not participate in your schools, courts or government, eh? THOSE places are only for ELITES.

Yeah, right, real progress.

Posted by: jo at October 2, 2005 08:18 PM

“So what you’re saying is you don’t believe in ideas such as “form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquilty”, or “promote the general Welfare”

All of this according to who’s views? Is a person’s views any less valid because they get them from a religion? Aren’t conservative and liberal thinking much like a religion?
One side says I should live my life according to how GOD thinks is the best way and the other side says I should live my life according to how THEY think is best.
Is it really either sides business? NO!

“The ACLU is not part of the government. They are a legal organisation that petitions the government on behalf of the people for a redress of their grievances”

No, they are not part of govt, but their actions affect govt actions. They also act only on the behalf of some of the people, mainly the left. They have a leftist view of our country and use these when selecting which cases to argue. IF they were really there for ALL of us, then why do only half of us see them as being neutral?
Is it ignorance, as you say, or is it because they truely are biased?
Their actions speak for themselves.

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

I do not recall any modern law that is trying to establish a religion nor one which has tried to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Nowhere does it say freedom FROM religion. If the left and its aclu would quit trying to terminate religion, I guarantee they would get alot more votes.

As far as the troops, we both know for a fact that a soldier does NOT have to obey an unlawful order. They are not bound by oath to break the law.
If a soldier believes in what he is doing and you say his actions are illegal, you are calling him a criminal.
If the lefts actions are viewed as unsupportive by the troops, should the left not take steps to correct that?

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2005 10:45 AM

Rick,

Read my first post above. You’ll see why I believe what I believe.

Science taught me to believe in Creationism. Yes, science. Read above.

As for teaching Creationism in school…why should we teach the “Thoery” of Evolution and not the “Theory” of Creationism?

Why should we take the Big Bang “Theory” as fact and state the the Creationism “Thoery” is rubbish.

Be careful, now. The word “theory” is another word for the phrase “we don’t know”.

Sure, all evidence “points” to this or that being true…but the word “theory” must preceed or follow and set of statements that you can’t prove to be absolutely true. Hence…

Big Bang “Theory”
“Theory” of Evolution
“Theory” of Creationism.

Any postulation that includes the word “theory” must inherently be looked upon with a jaundiced eye. And to say that the “Theory” of Evolution or the Big Bang “Theory” has any more weight than the Creationism “Theory” is absurd.

Why?

Theory = I Don’t Know…And I Can’t Prove It Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.

Is Evolution the absolute truth? No…because it can’t be proven.

Is the Big Bang the absolute truth? No…because it can’t be proven.

Is Creationism the absolute truth? No…because it can’t be proven.

Then the question remains.

Why teach any of it as if it were the absolute truth?

The disclaimer “I’m going to teach you this…but I can’t prove any of it to be true” needs to be added and stressed when teaching anything that includes the word “theory” in it.

Posted by: Jim T at October 3, 2005 11:27 AM

Jim T

In science a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them. Scientific theories are formulated, developed, and evaluated according to the scientific method.

this is what seperates the theory of creationism from the theory of evolution. evolution is supported by observable facts. creationism is not.

“Science taught me that the first life on this planet was a single-cell organism. That single-cell organism was the result of “just the right” mixture of oxygen, “just the right” mixture of nitrogen, “just the right” mixture of trace elements, “just the right” mixture of heat, humidity, and “just the right” mixture of (etc., etc., etc.).”

your “scientific” reasons for believing in creationism stated above are not valid. yes it’s true that there is exactley the amount of oxegen, nitrogen and trace elements for HUMANS to exist however if the amount of oxygen, nitrogen and other trace elements were diffrent then there would be a DIFFRENT LIFE FORM existing. so pretty much no matter what some life form would exist.

Posted by: voice of reason at October 3, 2005 12:12 PM

Voice,

Oh, yes…I do see your point. However, if there weren’t the EXACT proportions of all of the above, then NO life would exist here. Not just some other form of life.

The conditions to support life here had to be astoundingly, absolutely, mind-boggingly PERFECT for any life at all to develop here.

Therefore, I go back to my original statement above.

Either we are the result of the most far-out, freakish accident of nature…or there’s something else…some other force at work here.

It comes down to this. Either you have “faith” in scientific explainations…or you have “faith” that a higher force or power exists.

Odd how science AND religion both call upon you to have “faith” without absolute proof, huh?

Posted by: Jim T at October 3, 2005 01:43 PM

It seems to me that no one can pass a law or dictate a requirement about what I “believe”. The law may regulate how I believe (i.e. not go to church or forced to go to church), but not what. It also seems to me the basis of religious belief is faith. Faith is by definition, “belief without evidence”. Why then, all the fuss? As a Christian, my faith and beliefs would not be changed based on some governmental dictate. The manner by which I believe or worship may be impacted, but at the end of the day, this doesn’t or shouldn’t change one’s internal belief system. For example, If as a Christian I was banned from going to church, it wouldn’t change my belief in Christ. This is evidenced by the enormous amount of religious faith existing in the USSR over the course of the communist era although it was constitutionally an atheistic country.

Conversely as an athiest, my lack of belief would not be changed based on the same governmental dictate. Believe what you will. Teach your children and the ones you love what you believe. That’s all that really counts anyway.

As to the teaching of creationism in schools, sure, go ahead and teach it. But you can’t teach it as science. Science focuses on proof or falsification based observation of evidence. There is no evidence of Creationism other than the assumption that the world/universe is so complex that it begs a Creator. Evolution is not a black or white issue either but there is one big difference: It can be tested. Even some creationists or ID’ers acknowledge evolutionary changes in species. Is it absolute truth? Who knows? However, we can observe and test whether components of evolution are falsifiable. Therefore, it meets the requirements of being called science. Creationism is not falsifiable, therefore doesn’t conform to the definitions and explanations of science.

Teach creationism in a comparative religion, philosophy, or humanities course where “truths” can be dicussed and debated without calling them science.

Posted by: Dennis at October 3, 2005 02:21 PM

jim t you said

“The conditions to support life here had to be astoundingly, absolutely, mind-boggingly PERFECT for any life at all to develop here.”

there are approximetly 20,000,000,000,000,000
planets in the known universe(this number is probally quite low as it uses a 2 planets per stellar system estimate). even if we were to say that only one in 1,000,000 plantets can support life(and that estimate is quite conservative) then there would still be 2,000,000,000 planet capaple of producing life.

be sides you are overestimating how exact the chemicals need to be in order to produce life.

i also wouldn’t call believing in a scientific explanation faith. however if you insist on doing so there is still quite a diffrence between having “faith” in a rational explanation and having faith in something with no evidence.

Posted by: voice of reason at October 3, 2005 04:36 PM

kctim,

Ah, there is that brick wall again…
Right now, I’m mentally spray painting graffiti all over it! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2005 04:49 PM

Great article Rhinehold.

I think some of the folks who posted earlier misunderstand the difference correlation and causation. Paul isn’t saying that religion causes societies’ ills, he’s saying that they tend to exist together. Perhaps the ills of society are what cause the increase in religious activity, and not the other way around. From the evidence it can be inferred that society needs religion to function in the face of today’s modern problems.

If a kid watches a violent TV show and commits an act of violence what can we infer? That violent TV causes violent thought/actions? Perhaps. Could it be that violent children tend to watch violent TV? Perhaps. In this case, like in the original article, we cannot establish a causal relationship only a correlational one.

This article is NOT an attack on religion, merely an observation of society.

Posted by: Christian at October 3, 2005 04:53 PM

Jim T.

First, your understanding of what constitutes a theory is inaccurate. This false definition of theory is usually the first bullet out of the arsenal when fighting modern science on this issue. Please learn a tad more about what scientific investigation and testing is all about.

Theories are usually built on much observation and though they are by definition subject to change upon the collection of more data, they are often substantially formed enough to give reliable nformation. Case in point - Atomic Theory and the Theory of Relativity. Theories both, but quite workable to make things happen. Witness the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - both nearly leveled by a ‘theory’.

Finally, life most likely began as a chemical chain of amino acids with relatively weak center bonds which were, astonishingly enough, able to replicate their counterpart when they split. So “life” didn’t just pop out of nowhere. It took a long, long time… and yes, it does seem quite miraculous. But we must press on to find out what most likely occurred. Squelching research and investigation into this area because you’ve already decided what happened is not very productive to my way of thinking.

And no, I’m not forcing you to believe it.

Can you imagine if we quit investigating meteorology and what affected weather patterns because some religious leader in our past had decided that God made the rain, snow, hurricanes, etc. and that’s that. End of discussion! Where would we be if we feared to find out about the Earth and it’s organisms???

Finally, why does the idea of evolution preclude the existence of God or a supreme being? As far as I know, no reputable scholar is trying to disprove the existence of a supreme being. Unless of course you consider the support of evolution as work to disprove the existence of God. I don’t see things that way, but some may. I cannot fathom why. I mean, no disrespect, but I literally cannot fathom why one precludes the other.

Posted by: Rick at October 3, 2005 05:16 PM

I know how you feel Adrienne.

Posted by: kctim at October 3, 2005 05:34 PM

The 1st Amendment is the wisest Amendment of the Constitution.
And it was written centuries ago.
But, still today, many don’t respect or understand it.
Fortunately, I do think most Americans get it.
Otherwise, we’d be in big trouble.
So, this is not our biggest problem.
We’ve got many other pressing problems that
need our attention: home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/PressingProblemsFacingTheUS_NoBackLinks.htm

Posted by: d.a.n at October 3, 2005 10:31 PM

Look. Seperation of church and state is not…repeat…NOT meant to keep “manger scenes” off of courthouse lawns. It is not…repeat…NOT meant to keep the 10 Commandments out of courthouses. It is not…repeat…NOT meant to keep God out of the Pledge of Allegence.

It is meant to keep congress or the president from ever stating that a certain religion will be acceptable and all other religions will be outlawed.

When I start seeing the figures of Hindu goddesses prominently displayed in courthouses, or reading Wiccan references (“Mother Earth”) in the pledge of allegiance, I’ll agree with the above statement.

Posted by: steve at October 5, 2005 03:31 PM

The state of religion:

Wrest from Judeo/Muslim/Christian practices the basic social ethics each has co-opted over time in order to bolster the appearance of authority, give them back as inheret civil rights, and you have 3 very depleated practices. Wrest from them also this masquerade called “faith” and replace it with the very equal synonymns of assumption, guess, supposition, hear-say as they are, and they are much further depleated. And mainly remove the fear, the coercive engine that drives each practice, and what is left?

Thus reduced, honest thought sees a tattered and bloody fabric, history’s sad wardrobe sewn only with magical thread. They had a civilizing effect, these ‘religions’ yes, but are today irrevocably mired and a tiresomely repeated root cause of conflict.

Tolerance? Of course, but more tolerance still must be given discovery, rational thought and critical thinking. In this way we can move with alacrity to the future with great respect for the past, but without the now obvious conflict within these woefully outmoded practices.

Progress in affairs of state is only slowed by supposition and magical thought. Freedom of religion without freedom from religion is not freedom.

Posted by: Blogical at October 18, 2005 11:02 PM

I spent 109 days in jail. I know that there are misguided Street Preachers (like Saul before he was Paul). I read that JESUS was a friend of the sinner. How can we win anyone if we are yelling at them? JESUS said the world is already condemned.
ACLU Defends Portales Street Preacher
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, August 4th, 2005
CONTACT:
Peter Simonson, Executive Director, ACLU of New Mexico at 505-266-4622 or (cell) 505-620-0775
Portales—Some deft legal work by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico succeeded in freeing street preacher Shawn Miller from the Roosevelt County jail yesterday. Portales police arrested Miller for disorderly conduct on April 17th because allegedly he was yelling at passing cars. Miller maintains that he was merely “preaching the word of God.”
ACLU Executive Director Peter Simonson said, “Mr. Miller has a guaranteed right to stand on a street corner and proclaim his faith in God to all who pass by. He wasn’t harassing or intimidating anyone. He certainly should not have spent time under lock and key for such a minor incident.”
The ACLU became involved after Miller’s wife, Theresa, sent a letter requesting assistance. She and her two children had been with Miller on the day he was arrested. He was preaching in the lot of an abandoned gas station that is commonly used by street vendors. “I was preaching the word of God and not hurting anybody,” said Miller.
The ACLU’s defense of Miller produced an unlikely collaboration with the American Family Association, a group that is at times at odds with ACLU positions. Attorneys from both groups consulted with each other and Miller, working together to defend him on First Amendment grounds.
“Both organizations are highly principled in their philosophies and policy positions,” said ACLU Staff Attorney George Bach. “Where those principles overlap, we are eager to collaborate.”
Miller was released on bond and still faces charges of disorderly conduct, in addition to resisting arrest.

And in two newspapers:


My wife, our two children, and I had been going for three months to this same abandoned gas station without any incident. We were simply having a quiet Bible study on Sunday morning. The bank across the street is closed. There are two churches (Baptist & Methodist) on opposite corners from us. There is a minimal amount of car traffic and no pedestrian traffic. We are NOT there to be heard. We are simply there trying to let our light shine. We are NOT yelling at anyone because there is no one around. Sure, cars pass and see us, but there is no way we are disturbing them since we are 15 feet away from the sidewalk. This police officer decided to pick on us that day for some unknown reason. Officer Smart, Officer Wilson, and an animal control officer were in the parking lot adjacent to us at about 9:45 and they stayed for about 20-30 minutes. Then they all left. A sheriff’s deputy watched us for about five minutes a week before that day. Many police cars had driven by throughout the previous months WITHOUT incident. Officer Smart then came back at 11:05. I went over to him and extended my hand and said, “What is the problem, officer?” He said, “You need to tone it down.” I said, “I am preaching to my family and we are not bothering anyone. This is free speech and you can not stop me.” He said, “We have been getting phone calls about you pointing and yelling at cars.” I said, “I was not yelling at cars and was not pointing and I was not bothering anyone. This is free speech and you can not stop me. If you have a problem with me being on this property, I will go to the sidewalk.” He said, “I do not have a problem with you being here, you just need to tone it down.” I said, “If you are going to arrest me, I am going to go to the sidewalk because it is public property.” So I went to the sidewalk (for the first time). By this time, Officer Wilson arrived. Officer Smart looked at Officer Wilson as I was walking away to the sidewalk and they both shrugged. I was standing on the sidewalk looking at the officers. Officer Smart said, “Come back here.” I did not want to get arrested for trespassing, so I stayed where I was. I said, “No, I am staying on the sidewalk because it is public property.” He then came towards me. I have seen the TV show “COPS.” I thought it best to get on my knees and put my hands in the air to show that I was not resisting arrest. At this time, a University police officer also drove up. So, there were three police cars at this abandoned gas station, obviously causing much attention and causing people to rubberneck. Officer Smart came and handcuffed me and took me to his car. I said, “There are drug dealers and bars in this town and people getting killed, but that’s ok, I’ll gladly be arrested for preaching the Gospel.” When I got to his car, I asked, “Why am I being arrested?” He said, “For disorderly conduct and obstruction. You can not walk away from me if I am asking you questions.”
************************************
Here is a list of disputable statements that Officer Smart made in his statement of probable cause when he arrested Shawn on April 17:
(1) Officer Smart states that at approximately 1105 hours he was dispatched to 2nd St. and Ave C in reference to a subject “yelling” at vehicles driving by:
—Officer Smart’s statement does not mention anything about being at the self-pay gas station next to where we were earlier that morning; he doesn’t state why he was there at that time: was he dispatched, or was he there out of his own choice?
—Was Officer Smart dispatched as a result of a 911 call? Is there a recording of the call or can a transcript of the conversation be obtained?
(2) Officer Smart states Shawn was “standing in the area”:
—What area exactly was Shawn standing in?
(3) Officer Smart states Shawn appeared to be attempting to call out to vehicle occupants as the drove by:
—Shawn was facing Matthew, Michelle, and me as we sat in a semi-circle in our folding chairs facing him. The three of us had our backs to 2nd St. and Shawn was facing the street, but we were between him and the street. Officer Smart would have been able to see that Shawn was talking to us because he pulled into the abandoned gas station parking lot right next to where our chairs were positioned and where Shawn was standing. Officer Smart would have been able to see that we were interacting with Shawn as well as Shawn talking to us.
(4) Officer Smart states he attempted to advise him of his presence:
—How exactly was he attempting to advise Shawn of his presence? Shawn was aware of Officer Smart’s presence; Shawn had walked over to Officer Smart’s police car when Officer Smart got out of his car.
(5) Officer Smart states he repeatedly told Shawn to calm down and listen and Shawn continued to get louder with his objections each time Officer Smart tried to discuss the issue:
—What was the issue that Officer Smart was trying to discuss with Shawn?
—The only thing Shawn told Officer Smart was that he had the right to free speech and he had the right to preach out on the streets.
(6) Officer Smart states Shawn walked back to the curb:
—Shawn had never been at the curb to have walked back to it; Shawn has never stood on the curb during any of our street meetings.
(7) Officer Smart states that Shawn continued “yelling” out at vehicles:
—There were only two things Shawn said when he was standing on the curb and both statements were to Officer Smart:
1) He told Officer Smart he had the right to preach on the sidewalk because it was public property;
2) When Officer Smart told Shawn to come back to where he was, Shawn told Officer Smart that he would stay on the sidewalk because it was public property (in Officer Smart’s statement, he doesn’t even mention this part of the conversation with Shawn)
—Shawn did not yell anything out to the vehicles that were passing; his comments were only directed at Officer Smart.
(8) Officer Smart states that he once again advised Shawn to stop and at that point he got down on his knees and began waving his arms above his head:
—Shawn got on his knees and raised his hands over his head as soon as Officer Smart took a step toward him to let Officer Smart know he was not resisting him or anything. Shawn was not waving his hands over his head; and the only thing he said when he got to his knees was that he had the right to preach on the sidewalk.
(9) Officer Smart states that as Shawn’s actions were disrupting the flow of traffic he advised Shawn if he did not stop he would arrest him and Shawn’s reaction was “I don‘t have to listen to you”:
—Officer Smart never told Shawn that if he didn’t stop he would arrest him; Officer Smart just walked over to where Shawn was on the sidewalk, got out his handcuffs, and arrested him.
—As previously stated, the only thing Shawn said when he was on his knees was that he had the right to preach on the sidewalk.
Two other quick points concerning Officer Smart:
(1) Officer Smart did not read Shawn his Miranda Rights; you can see that on the arrest report and Shawn has stated that he was not read his rights.
(2) Officer Smart does not mention his conversation with me: after he arrested Shawn and put him in the back of his police car, Officer Smart handed me Shawn’s keys and told me Shawn was being arrested for obstruction. He said when someone complains, he has to do something about it. I told Officer Smart that Shawn was not yelling at the passing cars; the four of us were simply having our bible study out here on the streets. Officer Smart then told me he had no problem with us practicing religion on the streets but people can’t walk away from him when he’s talking to them. From my standpoint, it appears that Officer Smart got mad that Shawn walked away from him to the curb. Shawn told him he was walking to the curb as he walked away, and Shawn walked to the curb so he wouldn’t get in trouble for trespassing again since the trespassing charge in January was not yet cleared up. I did not tell this to Officer Smart at the time; I don’t know if it would have helped if I had.
Trial date set for street preacher
Tony Parra: PNT Staff Writer
Tony_Parra@link.freedom.com
The trial of a Portales street preacher accused of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest has been set for Jan. 27.
Shawn Miller, 33, was arrested on April 17. Roosevelt County Magistrate Court Judge Jane Martin is presiding over the case and presided over Miller’s pre-trial conference on Wednesday afternoon.
Miller was released in early August from the Roosevelt County Detention Center after more than three months in custody. He posted a $3,000 appearance bond.
Miller is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Portales Police Department officer Charles Smart was dispatched at 11:05 a.m. on April 17 in reference to a subject yelling at passing vehicles.
Miller repeatedly told Smart he didn’t have to listen to him because he was preaching the word of God and wasn’t doing anything wrong, according to the police incident report. Miller walked away from the police officer and continued yelling out at vehicles when he was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
Authorities have said Miller’s preaching was creating a disturbance to passing motorists, and he was arrested because he did not give a responding officer any opportunity to remedy the situation.
On Wednesday, Miller said he doesn’t believe he was treated fairly during his arrest. He said he had to sit in jail for 109 days.
“If it wasn’t for the ACLU, I’d still be in jail,” Miller said. “The whole thing is a joke. I thank God for my wife. I give my wife a lot of credit for believing in me. She kept calling and e-mailing the ACLU.”
Miller has at times held a sign and preached on the Roosevelt County Courthouse in front of Portales City Hall. Miller chants his messages to drivers on First Street. He said his sign reads, “Where is God in Portales?”
“We have constitutional rights,” Miller said. “I was not doing anything. I wasn’t bothering anybody. I had never been arrested until I got to this town.”
Miller said jail wasn’t a “pleasant” place to be in, but he kept his faith in God.
“The whole experience concerned me,” Miller said. “God revealed himself to me while I was in jail and encouraged me. God has blessed me and my family.”