Catholic blogger: Catholics, don’t waste money on pro-life efforts
It ought to be clear by now that Western culture is insufficiently healthy to sustain a political solution to abortion. Therefore, it is counter-productive to pour our resources into the effort to achieve such a solution.
We must use our resources far more wisely than that.
~ Dr. Jeff Mirus (pictured) explaining the futility of pro-life efforts since Roe v. Wade, Catholic Culture, November 19
Michael Voris of Church Militant.TV forcefully expresses a similar sentiment.
[HT: Catholic Bandita]
Nov.28, 2012 6:00 am |
Quote of the Day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I think Voris was saying that political efforts would be futile without changing the culture first, or alongside legal efforts. I didn’t think he was saying that those efforts shouldn’t be made, or are counter productive. And I agree. The laws follow the culture. We have gay marriage in some states, and eventually it will be enshrined in federal law, because homosexuality was first normalized on TV.
Thanks for the hat-tip, Jill. I stopped funding the entertainment industry by cutting off cable tv. I think it’s better to cut off their funding than to stop funding anything that seeks to do good in the world.
More white flag-ellation here. I appreciate the election didn’t go our way in November, but get a grip. Should we have never made a political stink about partial-birth abortion? Did banning tax-funded abortions not save hundreds of thousands of lives? Think about how successful those efforts were. How did our culture get here in the first place? Did progressives never pursue political change? They failed miserably on health care in the 1990s, did they hang up their bureaucrats and tuck their tails under their legs? I read his article and it’s way off base. One of the largest pregnancy centers in Michigan receives almost as much funding as prolife political efforts, I don’t think they are being ignored. This is not a cottage industry Dr. Mirus, you just have sour grapes because your website isn’t well-funded despite your article being followed by a fundraising appeal. I appreciate than education is important, but in a republic where our responsibility is voting our values, political action goes hand in hand with education and we should not abandon efforts because we didn’t win total victory yet. Dr. Mirus needs to explain to us how ceding our government authority to Planned Parenthood and NARAL is supposed to paradoxically help end abortion.
Agreed. 40 Days for Life has done more to fight abortion than 40 years of politics. Our nation is in a spiritual crisis. As Jamie Foxx revealed recently, there are many who worship Obama as a god. Foxx wasn’t joking, and the audience wasn’t joking when they wildly applauded his statement that Barack Obama is Jesus Christ. The Obama presidency is an extremely dangerous cult of personality, which really explains why so many people defend Obama no matter what, and turned out in droves to vote for him against all logic and decency.
There is no god but God. This message needs to be proclaimed to those who have forgotten it.
I think both Jeff Mirus and Michael Voris have valid points. The fact that Christian women get 65% of abortions shows that we, as a whole, are clearly failing as followers of Christ. Our non-political efforts need to be beefed up. I recently read somewhere that the no-show % at an abortion clinic goes as high as 75% when there are people praying outside. In general, the people at my parish do not want to be involved in anything “political”, yet when we do a collection for the local pregnancy center they are exceedingly generous.
I agree with one of Jeff Mirus’ ending thoughts: “This is the time for Faith and family, evangelization and the formation of Christian culture.” But I don’t think it’s the time to abandon political efforts to reduce abortion. When the laws of our country are unjust, how can we not be working to rectify that?
And, yeah, the fundraising appeal at the end of the article left a bad taste in my mouth.
“and to offer practical service to any and all who, increasingly ill-served by a bureaucratic pagan State, may turn to us in their need.” is also a good point.
John, your quote should be a quote of the day!!
Foxx wasn’t joking, and the audience wasn’t joking when they wildly applauded his statement that Barack Obama is Jesus Christ. The Obama presidency is an extremely dangerous cult of personality, which really explains why so many people defend Obama no matter what, and turned out in droves to vote for him against all logic and decency.
Good point, John. I see this attitude in my coworkers and its strange and frightening. They absolutely idolize him. I’ve told a few people of my dislike for Barky, but if it became wide knowledge I wouldn’t be able to work here anymore, seriously I went to Thanksgiving dinner at a friend’s house who lives in the ‘hood. It’s a shame she lives in such a bad neighborhood, becayuse she’s a very nice person. Her husband was talking about all the abandoned buildings and shuttered houses and said “Obama is going to fix this.” I felt like saying “well, why didn’t he fix things during his first four years?” but of course I didn’t .
Seeing how people worship this man — and I do mean worship him — I can see how the Antichrist will come to power.
I liked CatholicVote.org’s response:
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=38778
Pro-life political work has been successful, and we need both social and political efforts to work in unison for life.
Thanks for that link Andrew. Thomas makes some really excellent points:
“What does Mirus think is protecting all of these pro-life initiatives, especially the continued existence and survival of pro-life pregnancy centers and the right of the Church and Catholics to engage in pro-life activities? Successful pro-life political efforts to pass and defend pro-life laws and protections!”
“If we decide to step back, sit down and wait for the culture to spontaneously promote pro-life, pro-family, pro-religious freedom laws without ourselves proposing and promoting them, we shouldn’t be shocked if they never, ever, ever happen. Instead, if we asymmetrically disengage the same forces now fighting us on pro-life will move on to their next target: religious freedom and the civil rights of Christians.”
I’m inclined to largely agree with Mirus.
We’re in a fight for the existence of this nation over the long term; I have to say that, for the most part, we’ve essentially lost the battle thus far.
If we can say that we’ve saved thousands of lives, I have little choice but to acknowledge that we’ve LOST millions more. If we’ve succeeded in aiding the existence of Crisis Pregnancy Centers, we’ve failed too many times in allowing them to operate without the “pro-choice” side dictating the terms by which they may operate. If we can say that we’ve defunded Planned Parenthood in a few cases, we must concede that Planned Parenthood HAS received TONS of money from the government in the first place and remains the nation’s largest abortion provider.
If we would protest that we’ve had faithful politicians out there for decades, fighting a good fight, we must concede that we’ve had more politicians who couldn’t vote with a conscience directed by precepts of faith.
I also think it worth noting that in my lifetime, any occasion that we debate the options for reducing unintended pregnancy, we never seem to get anything remotely related to chastity education instilled in society. We’re always left being forced to tolerate “safe sex” education.
We can only breathe political sunshine onto this situation so far. After that, we need to admit that we’ve essentially been beaten to a pulp.
“The Obama presidency is an extremely dangerous cult of personality, which really explains why so many people defend Obama no matter what, and turned out in droves to vote for him against all logic and decency.”
But what explains the behavior of those who criticize him no matter what and who vote against him against all logic and decency?
You guys can’t even see past your own disillusions
Fantastic article, Andrew!
We can’t give up or hand the abortionists victory just because we’re a little blue about the election. There’s a lot of value in both what Mirus and Thomas Peters have to say. I wish I were articulate enough to blog regularly. Press on, for there are both souls and lives to save. Constantine wasn’t only unfluenced by his mother (go Mom!!) but also by the guidance of Eusebius. He was won over by both love and intellect. We may not be able to convince the Obamateur fans, but we need to be strong and ready to take them in when they wake up from their delusion.
And as long as we’re on the subject, let me give a quick lesson in Catholic teaching about the anti-christ: When St. John was on Patmos, he was writing about Emperor Nero. Nero was the anti-christ to whom he referred. In the first few centuries AD there was a popular activity of turning names into numbers. Archeologists have found writing on the walls of places that translate like “I love the woman whose number is 442!” We need to evangelize not only pagans and non-believers, but also fellow Christians who may want to give up because they are misreading “signs.” We need to be strong for their sake, too. Often, people turn away from their religion when times get tough and they become disillusioned with their dogma. We need to sing them back home again.
Many generations have thought they were living at the end times, but seriously, humans aren’t going anywhere. Well, they are: we’re going forward. God didn’t create such a large universe so we could sit on our pretty little rock and whine. Press on! One of the reasons the abortionists have been such sore winners is because they know, THEY KNOW WE ARE MAKING GAINS.
I think the pro-life movement is undergoing its “Windows Millennium” moment, when without forward thinking, Microsoft adapted quick-fixes and patches as their flagship release. In the end, the result was an unworkable mess.
Pro-lifers have not thought forward enough, and considered recent Supreme Court rulings in-depth enough to gauge what will happen in Roe v. Wade is overturned. “It will return to the States” is what they say. But they fail to realize that overturning Roe MUST be accompanied by a severe limiting of Federal power and the Commerce Clause.
However, once a State outlaws abortion post-Roe, there is ample precedent now, and future caveats to Federal powers, that neither that State nor the Federal Government would have any powers whatsoever to regulate or stop women traveling to other States where abortion is legal. Entire businesses could be set up for women in Nebraska wanting an abortion to hop a flight to New Jersey to have it done. In what State would a crime have been committed?
Right now as we speak, a woman desiring an abortion post 20-22 weeks in Arizona, Florida, or many other states can call up Planned Parenthood in another state where it is legal, make an appointment and fly out with minimal risk of prosecution. After Roe is overturned, there would be 0% chance any state anywhere could prosecute anyone involved. The Pro-life cause has no idea how the Supreme Court will rule on the right to travel and the “Privileges and Immunities” clause of the Constitution with respect to abortion. Overturning Roe first based on State’s rights already decides how the SC must rule, which is there is an unrestricted right to travel to forums with laws one likes or needs.
Same sex marriage proponents thought forward enough and came up with a brilliant strategy. They staged a anonymous call to the police of a domestic disturbance, the police show up and kick in the door to find two men having sex. The situation was tailored so that the Supreme Court really had no other choice but to rule that anti-sodomy laws just went too far.
My question is why isn’t the Pro-life cause setting up its own “test cases”. Have someone stand 4 feet over the Arizona border inside California with a sign that says “Need an abortion after 20 weeks, call 555-555-5555”. Or have a pregnant woman in Arizona tell lots and lots of people she is heading to Washington DC for an abortion at 29 weeks. She tells her doctor, flies a banner on her car ect.
At least those cases would be decided and be precedent before you go and grant unrestricted travel rights and 100% eliminate State’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Hal,
I think it’s more accurate to say that we don’t feel bound by the various illusions that President Obama and his followers have put forth.
I have yet to see him–President Obama–propose anything that resembles reasoned thought or decency.
Dave,
I think your points quite poignant. I think, however, we’d best realize that most women likely will not be taking flights to acquire abortions. In the case of Nebraska, they’d be FAR more likely to simply drive across the river to Iowa. Women in other states likely will do similarly.
Dave,
We’re having trouble with anti-incrementalists who don’t understand that a law oftentimes really isn’t just A law, but a bunch of different little court cases all built up into decisions which then ultimately make one case matter MORE. I think it’s because so many are constitutionalists who just want a constitutional amendment passed (I’d like one, myself), but the way things are now, our current reality, is that this was all carried out through the judiciary, so it’s how we have to operate until something like a sweeping constitutional amendment would be feasible.
Dave, you are getting too far ahead of yourself. I don’t think there will be a way to stop people from traveling from one state to another for abortions, period. The goal of overturning Roe v. Wade isn’t to end abortion overnight, it’s to start back at square one. Some states will make it illegal, others will not. Gradually all the states or a critical mass will need to become prolife, then we pass a Constitutional amendment. Then you have your 50 state solution. Until then, there is no silver bullet there unless you erase jurisdictions and turn states into prisons that only allow travel within the union for specific reasons, for example if Montana wanted to forfeit their highway money and change the drinking age to 18, Idaho couldn’t imprison Idaho residents traveling to Montana for a drink. In the same way the US doesn’t arrest Michigan teenagers in Canada for taking advantage of a lower drinking age. Abortion is not like marriage or contracts. I understand you are thinking along the lines of marriage, but contracts and crimes are separate matters. Montana and Idaho may have different contract laws and how they are honored between states matter, but Idaho can’t imprison Montana business owners for tax evasion if they set up their enterprises to take advantage of lower taxes there.
Dr. Mirus’s essay oozes with envy of those who have tried to fight abortion in the political arena, and I take great offense personally and even more so on behalf of the many pro-lifers whom I admire.
I have some advice for Mirus and his ilk:
(1) Envy is a sign of self-hate. Do you hate yourself for your failures in action or basic omissions? Please look to yourself or at least to abortion proponents before you look to your fellow pro-lifers when spewing your venom.
(2) Why do so many abortions occur? Because it is legal. If it were illegal, abortion would be dramatically reduced.
(3) What is the United States of America if it is not a nation that supports the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? It is very difficult for other pro-lifers and myself to tease apart love of unborn children, their parents, siblings and grandparents from love of country. This is what makes abortion and politics go hand in hand.
(4) Finally, it became quite obvious to those of us putting our ears to the ground in the months prior to the election that people–church-going liberals in particular–were angsting over their innate pro-life beliefs and their ambivalence about voting for Gov. Romney.
So, please allow me to call out the neglected political discussion since Obama’s re-election. Here it is: Rick Santorum would have won this election. Sen. Santorum would have garnered enough pro-life Democratic votes to win. Economic libertarians would have broken for Santorum despite his flaws, from the libertarian perspective (not from mine). Santorum would have won because he believes in his truths as much as Obama believes in his falsehoods.
As it is, Dr. Mirus is absolutely correct in heralding our nation as having become predominantly a mission field. However, this mission field must be harvested by God’s Grace and our prayer, time and tears. There is no harm with continuing to send our treasure to any pro-life group of our choosing or even in using our treasure to support a new generation of pro-life activists, perhaps in a third party, such as the Tea Party.
Meh, I think we need to be careful of anyone who comes out saying “THIS is what we should do as a pro-life movement, not THAT!!”
because, you know, the way that abortion will finally be conquered will be from a bunch of different avenues. Pro-lifers need to examine themselves, see where their gifting and passion lies, and work to overturn abortion using their own gifts. For some people, that’ll be politically. For others, that’ll be in a more personal venue, like helping and education women. Everyone is different, and abortion won’t be going away just by focusing on one single type of tactic.
Personally, I think we need to combat abortion wherever we can, and shine the light of truth for the whole culture – and world – to see.
Marianna Trzeciak – yes, thank you for your words. Well stated.
“It ought to be clear by now that Western culture is insufficiently healthy to sustain a political solution to abortion” – well that’s obviously wrong. It has been achieved.
I guess reality bites.
While Dr. Mirus makes some valid points, I am glad 19th century slavery abolitionists did not draw the same defeatist conclusions he does, ie, that “it is counter-productive to pour our resources into the effort to achieve such a (political) solution.”
Interesting take.
I’ve always wondered what the response would be to a weekend question of: “Pretend that abortion will always be legal – that no legislation could ban it. What should pro-life people do to lower rates and promote a culture of life if legislation isn’t possible?”
That is an excellent question EGV! Since the US is not a theocracy, what activities do christians undertake to try to get more people to embrace their faith and attend church? Could there be some comparative strategies there?
“Pretend that abortion will always be legal – that no legislation could ban it. What should pro-life people do to lower rates and promote a culture of life if legislation isn’t possible?”
Jill should totally make this a weekend question! You might actually learn something ExGOP. Are you unaware that maaaaaaaaany pro-lifers are involved in life-saving work that has nothing to do with politics?
Lrning – I’m 100% completely aware of that – I was proud a church we went to had a dresser ministry and partnered with a local women’s shelter to provider a dresser full of baby things to new mothers. I think there are a lot of economic policies that make sense as well.
100% agreeing that it goes on – just wondering if the legislation fight wasn’t there, what works and what doesn’t and where would pro-lifers go with their actions?
Dr. Mirus should put down the remote control and back away from the TV and the computer. The mainstream media has him brainwashed. Although losing the national election was certainly disappointing, we have seen more success in the pro-life cause during the last few years than at any time in recent memory. According to LifeNews.com, 32 states have enacted abortion restrictions in the last two years alone, and in 2011, a total of 92 laws were passed restricting abortion, breaking all previous records. In the first six months of this year, 39 additional laws were enacted, continuing the pro-life trend. Currently, 30 states have Republican, pro-life governors or governors-elect, a 60% super-majority.
We are winning on the practical front as well. Life Dynamics.com tracks the number of surgical abortion mills in the United States, which once stood at over 2,000, but is down to less than 700 currently. In contrast, the number of crisis pregnancy centers offering free ultrasounds and long-term help to women is estimated at 2,200.
Through the prayers, fasting and hard work of 40 Days for Life and people like Abby Johnson, hundreds of babies are saved during every prayer campaign, more clinics are closing, and people are leaving the abortion industry every month. And although the mainstream media will never acknowledge the numbers, each year in January, over 400,000 Americans put their private lives on hold to participate in the March for Life in Washington, DC, usually on one of the coldest days of the year.
We are indeed winning the political, practical and most importantly, the spiritual battle against abortion and the culture of death. Quit with the whining and the demagoguery Dr. Mirus, and join the fight.
There’s a faulty (and I think unconscious) assumption running through both Voris and Mirus: that politics/legislative activism is separate from other avenues of activism. The fact is that we are citizens of a republic and as such have a God-given duty to act in the public square. We sin if we walk away from that, abdicating our duty. It’s not “either/or” but “both/and”. We simply need to double down – on all fronts.
LOL. One day society will be a consensus that openly and willingly fights life for the lives of the unborn. It just takes concerted educational efforts over extend periods of time and we will win support of others one person at a time. Deep inside a huge majority of society will fight to protect the lives of children in the womb… they just need to be awoken one person at a time. Preach the Good News!
Marianna,
In no small part because of your comments, I re-read Dr Mirus blog. I must comment that I’m hard pressed to understand why you or anyone else would take offense at any of it.
In terms of this Presidential race, I had hoped that Santorum would win the GOP nod, but he didn’t. Whether because of subtle intolerance or bullying by the GOP or because people didn’t wish to hear anything at all related to moral precept, the party didn’t choose Santorum. Once the choice for Romney had been made, I did what I could to support him, but I must comment that many levied legitimate criticism against him. He WAS awfully wishy-washy about his support for pro-life laws; he WAS awfully squishy about too much. While watching the 2nd and 3rd debates, I truly got the impression that he (Romney) WOULD be a lesser of two evils, not a stubborn and passionate Pro-Life Conservative.
Given the rumblings I’ve heard before the election and since, I have no idea if I’ll be able to vote for the GOP again. If I do, it’ll mostly be a result of being unable to find anything else better. I may actually seriously consider the Constitution party or someone else, merely because they may be more concerned about subjects I think need addressed. ..By the way, I do not presently see any real difference between the Tea Party and the GOP Establishment. For the most part, the Tea Party has struck me as being mostly the more passionate and fiery part of the Republican Party, but they don’t appear to have any more concern for morals than the Establishment GOP demonstrates.
If you want to declare that we’re winning, I must ask you to define what “winning” really might be?
We may have caused some abortion clinics to shut down, but at least one has opened up. In a few cases, Planned Parenthood has opened up a megaplex where they expect to do abortions a LOT. We can’t settle for a smaller number of clinics, we need to eliminate the practice on the whole.
..And let’s not forget, whether most of the nation supported it or not, the PPACA–commonly known as ObamaCare–will be taking effect within the next two years. Whatever gains we might think we’ve made in terms of clinic shut-downs or Hyde Amendments, we’re going to see those gains disappear pretty quickly as PPACA becomes fully implemented.
I think Dr Mirus aimed to remind us that if we wish for political efforts to have any impact, they must be backed by a HUGE populace that’s willing to insist that law be changed. For most of these past 40-60 years, we haven’t seen the faithful populace of this nation demonstrate the stubborn nature that we’ll need to have to transform this nation again.
Keep in mind, while we’ve made a few incremental gains in the abortion war, we’ve lost many other battles that’ll ultimately undermine what we’ve accomplished. When we have a culture as steeped in seeing man, reason, or logic as it’s “god” as much as we do, most of the legal precepts that might’ve aimed to curb evil..won’t accomplish much. We’ve already seen time and again how “providers” may skirt carefully around or through provisions related to rape, incest, or other excuses, thereby justifying their continued abortion practice regardless of the intent of law.
Dr Mirus commented that we ought to redirect our efforts in favor of life in no small part because we need to accomplish a major overhaul of the moral stature of this nation. Before we can expect to see abortion terminated, we’ll need to provoke people into living lives very differently from what has become commonplace. No law that we might eventually succeed in ramming into place will accomplish much good if the society overall has an obsession with convenience and lust.
“or because people didn’t wish to hear anything at all related to moral precept” – I think you’ll find it was because people didn’t want santorum’s particular version of moral precept John, and the GOP knew it.
“I do not presently see any real difference between the Tea Party and the GOP Establishment” – then why did tea party candidates who displaced establishment candidates lose in places where the establishment candidates had been quite secure?
“we’ll need to provoke people into living lives very differently from what has become commonplace.” – well that ain’t gonna happen. People don’t easily give up what they have John.
“I think you’ll find it was because people didn’t want santorum’s particular version of moral precept John, and the GOP knew it.”
Yes, I noticed. ..Which means the GOP doesn’t really have the nerve to make a stand on moral concerns, so much as it desires to hold and wield political authority.
Between Santorum, Akin, and Mourdock, the GOP COULD have forced the Democrats into a position of explaining why abortion–murder–should be allowed. They didn’t. . Instead, the RNC actually tried to force one of those candidates out of the race. I’ve never been so disgusted with leadership.
From these and from other occasions, I get the distinct impression that the GOP doesn’t honestly care all that much.
“..then why did tea party candidates who displaced establishment candidates lose in places where the establishment candidates had been quite secure?”
Because too often, establishment candidates rely too heavily on technical explanation of economics; even with a semester of college Economics in my education, half the time I can only barely make sense of what they say. ..Or they make plain they “moderate” their views to a degree. Tea Party candidates, however, tend to be MUCH better with articulating, explaining, and promoting conservatism; they aid the average person in “getting it”. People relate much more easily to them.
And therein still lies the problem.
For all that I prefer Tea Party candidates in general, they still don’t focus much at all on the moral and social issues that plague this country. ..Or if they do, they tend to lean in a direction I can’t support in good conscience.
“..well that ain’t gonna happen. People don’t easily give up what they have John.”
Says who?? I’m not aware of any law that says we must be content with status quo. I have long felt that if we would be bothered to first tell people what morals really should be, THEN provide inspirational example of how we COULD do things differently, I think we could transform this nation.
But we won’t accomplish any of this by abandoning core moral principles.
Very interesting response John.
“Which means the GOP doesn’t really have the nerve to make a stand on moral concerns” – a losing stance I’m afraid John. Just how badly did you want to lose the election?
“so much as it desires to hold and wield political authority.” – situation normal I’d say.
“the GOP COULD have forced the Democrats into a position of explaining why abortion should be allowed.” – easy, because 80% believe it should be legal in at least some cicrumstances.
“Instead, the RNC actually tried to force one of those candidates out of the race” – that would be the one who lost then? Come on John, the gop knew what would happen after he spouted the crazy.
“I get the distinct impression that the GOP doesn’t honestly care all that much.” – only about gaining power probably.
I think the tea party candidates did poorly precisely because of their economic, moral and social positions. And I think it’ll get worse for them at the midterms.
“I’m not aware of any law that says we must be content with status quo” – you are of course quite right. Society tends to progress. Womens vote, removal of anti-miscegenation laws, decriminalization of homosexuality and abortion.
“if we would be bothered to first tell people what morals really should be,” – should? Whose ‘should’ John?
“abandoning core moral principles” – I don’t think we have.
Very interesting responses indeed, reality.
You think the GOP helped itself with looking at polls about 80% of Americans favoring abortion in some cases and following suit? You think they succeeded by abandoning controversial candidates? REALLY??
Those changes in society that you laud didn’t happen by chance, nor by genuine choice. Let’s say that a poll had been run in 1940 about abortion, same-sex marriage, drug use, prostitution, “safe sex” education, school prayer, or something else. Let’s say that the results of such a poll would’ve demonstrated that some 80-95% of Americans disapproved of changing any of the above practices. It appears to me that those who detested the status quo didn’t let a few polls get in their way.
They LED.
They did whatever they felt they could do or needed to do in the interest of changing society. Depending on the issue, they arguably took anywhere from 15 to 30 years, or even 50. But they won. ..Or at least, they persuaded enough people over time to change their minds to cause laws to be changed. (For all that I’m forced to respect their efforts at leading, I cannot in good conscience endorse the changes they brought about. I’m actually pretty appalled by some of what has gone on.)
They LED.
If you think the Republicans have done well, I think you’d best look again: Rush Limbaugh speculated that some 3,000,000 Republicans simply failed to vote on election day. It’s quite possible that they didn’t vote partly because they didn’t trust Romney, but ALSO because they saw genuine moral cowardice at the top.
Had the RNC wished, those “crazies” you refer to could easily have been molded into fiesty, effective partisans for causes of life and economic freedom. Had the RNC wished, they COULD have spearheaded a campaign and an agenda by which moral and economic sanity might be restored. Instead, the GOP mostly ran for the intellectual bomb shelters, demonstrating grave moral cowardice.
I think if the GOP wants to have a say in national politics for much longer, they’ll need to be much stiffer about advocating for moral conduct, especially regarding the Right to Life, the virtue of chastity, the ill of homosexual behavior, AND the value of serious, conservative, economic principles.
If not, they may lose what influence they have. ..And/or many of us will go elsewhere.
Frankly, I’m a bit shocked at the negative reaction to Mirus’ article. First, Jill is significantly distorting his article with her headlines: “Catholics, don’t waste money on pro-life efforts.” If you actually read Mirus’ article, it said nothing of the sort. What it did say was that putting political solutions first is an ill use of resources and a wrong ordering of priorities.
Then, someone else somehow concluded that Mirus was “envious” of political pro-lifers…huh? I have no idea how she came to that conclusion.
My wife and I have been involved in pro-life work for two decades now. We have sidewalk-counseled, engaged in rescues, helped with adoption organizations, and prayed in front of abortion mills more times than I care to count. Yet we are in complete agreement with Dr. Mirus. We should not abandon political efforts, but we are foolish to put our hope in them.
Let me just give a recent example. I saw so much energy from pro-lifers recently to elect Mitt Romney. People went door-to-door, led campaigns to convert Obama supporters, wore t-shirts, participated in phone campaigns, and generally expended vast amounts of energy to try to elect a nominally pro-life politician.
Yet, in all my years of pro-life work, I have seen very few pro-lifers who will go to the mills regularly to pray and sidewalk counsel (getting 10 people at a mill is considered a great turnout). I see even less who spend time on evangelization – going door-to-door or trying to convert people to Jesus Christ. Usually when asked, they are too busy.
So we are willing to inconvenience ourselves greatly to elect Mitt Romney, but do little to nothing to bring people to Christ or to go to a mill to directly save a little one from death?
Based on my own experience, I can just say ‘Amen’ to Dr. Mirus and Mr. Voris.
Jeff Mirius is also the one that advocates backing “the church” whether you personally disagree w/the chruch or not. Then he defends himself by saying a POLITICAL victory is important for the CHURCH. He has lost his VCII mind – maybe he should take a sabbatical and read the Gospels, i.e. Jesus’ words and ACTS concerning ‘political’ victories – he was mocked, spit on and crucified by the political powers and specifically rejected “political” solutions to the problem of personal salvation.
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=928
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=929
CatholicCulture.org is also against Priests for Life & Fr. Frank Pavone – being one of the first to pile on (not noticing 2008 & 2011 were both U.S. presidential election times) and question Pavone’s “victory:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=923
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=923
Voris IS taking a sabbatical – a St. Pat’s week long cruise w/”Fr.” Z.
Unfortunately, all three of these Ann Landers Pundits shill for charity to support their ”Catholic” advice while two at least state there is no duty to do something about the 3,400 babies murdered a day. As Voris recently remarked “God is taking care of them.”
Wonder if their tune would change if Voris, Miris and Fr. Z were suddenly to be torn apart in the safety of their own homes and their remains stuffed in a black plastic bag and put out for the trash. Hopefully, we’ll never find out, but I have a counter recommendation: if you are contributing to support their iivory thrones, email them to get a job and divert your funds to pro-life groups like Susan B. Anthony, ALL, etc.
btw Jill Stanek does not do the Quotes of the Day.
So she is not “distorting” anything.
Hi John.
“You think the GOP helped itself with looking at polls about 80% of Americans favoring abortion in some cases and following suit?” – no, they simply realised that too many people would have been aghast at the crazy that akin and mourdock spouted.
“You think they succeeded by abandoning controversial candidates? REALLY??” – they would have done worse if they hadn’t John.
“Those changes in society that you laud didn’t happen by chance, nor by genuine choice” – no, not by chance. But I disagree that it wasn’t by ‘genuine choice’. People became informed. They came to realize that some of the reasons for the way things were had no justifiable basis, so they changed their position.
“but ALSO because they saw genuine moral cowardice at the top.” – I think that rather than seeing ‘moral cowardice’ they were unhappy because they didn’t see what could be termed as ‘moral extremism’. That is a subjective position of course.
“those “crazies” you refer to could easily have been molded into fiesty, effective partisans for causes of life and economic freedom.” – John, I think that would have led to an even worse result for the gop.
“advocating for moral conduct, especially regarding the Right to Life, the virtue of chastity, the ill of homosexual behavior, AND the value of serious, conservative, economic principles” – I honestly think that would be a policy platform disaster for the rnc. The ‘ill of homosexual behavior’? Not a vote winner John.
“And/or many of us will go elsewhere.” – where?
Reality, you seem to miss a particular point: Politics, at it’s core, comes down to who defines the narrative of an issue or a set of issues. Regardless of the level, whether it’s a race for a city council slot, for a Senate seat, or for the Presidency, politics really comes down to a battle about who defines the issues most effectively for the populace and why. Whatever the moral stature of an issue may be, the candidate who can provide a vision that people will follow most easily will tend to win.
If you wish to insist that Republicans would’ve LOST all the more vigorously if they had focused as much on social issues, I contend that the would’ve WON a great deal more if they had engaged in the battle in the first place. Throughout this election–and I think the last several–the GOP has barely said a word of substance about most social issues. They’ll make it sound OK for the purposes of what a pro-life group wants to hear, but if pressed, they almost always retreat into something pretty equivocal. They fear losing “moderate”, “independent”, or even Democratic votes, so they fail to take a leader’s role.
Contrast, if you will, the actions of those who might be described as “Democratic operatives” or those who’ll support them with the actions of “Republican operatives” or those who’ll support THEM in the last 50 years: As of probably 1950, most of America probably leaned pretty conservative. But beginning in the 60’s especially, that began to change dramatically. Why? Not because people became truthfully informed–I’d say the populace actually became LESS educated on many subjects–but because someone persuaded them to believe that they had “evolved” from a “medieval” frame of mind, especially one educated by religious precept. Those who lean leftward assumed leadership roles in music, in movies, in schools, in any arena where they could provoke people to listen. The more rightward leaning types..well, in some cases, you might argue that they went to Nashville and produced music that I like, but for the most part, we haven’t heard much from the more conservative side of the house.
Except in politics, where it’s really too late.
Over the past several years, I have come to consider that voting for Republican candidates may not be a terribly effective approach to accomplishing anything. Oh, they usually at least SAY that they hold to more virtuous morals, but when bills finally make it to the floor, they’re almost always “adjusted” so as to be palatable enough to garner votes. Such things must be done at present because the other side has succeeded in persuading people that left-leaning candidates will do a better job.
Where will I go for elections? I haven’t decided yet, but I may look into the Constitution party. It may be that they don’t wield any particular political influence, but I’m not convinced that I’d be losing much. I tried voting for a fairly weak candidate both in 2008 and 2012; though my candidate won in 2000 and 2004, I did not see the principles that I would follow receiving much emphasis. Arguably, my vote for a Republican candidate has not had a worthwhile impact in 20 years.
If candidates believe that they can effect worthwhile change if they but win an election by whatever means they can, they’ll merely wield power for awhile, but be too worried about holding office.
If the GOP wants me to get interested in voting for them, they’ll need to stand on principle and show me that they intend to fight day in, day out, in the trenches of routine life, for the principles that I value the most.
Regrettably, the GOP often DOES come across as being mostly concerned about allowing the wealthy to remain wealthy and to heck with anything else.
That’s not a good frame of reference to inspire anyone.
John, you keep lamenting the way things have gone. You suggest a number of reasons as to why this may be so. I tend to agree with most of the reasons you describe.
The difference is that you also lament those very reasons, the causes, for the way things have gone. I don’t. Nor do a great many other people. It would appear that you are among a diminishing number of people who cling to the ‘moral imperative’ that you do.
I’m afraid that if the gop did pursue the course of action you advocate they would achieve even worse results. The overwhelming majority of ‘western’ or ‘first world’ nations do not see non-marital relationships, abortion, homosexuality etc. as sins or being indicative of moral turpitude.
I think you sum up the whole situation quite well when you say “they’ll need to stand on principle and show me that they intend to fight day in, day out, in the trenches of routine life, for the principles that I value the most.” – there simply aren’t enough people who value the principles that you do to vote that way. If the gop did assume such a stance, the cries of ‘theocracy!’ would ring to every corner of the nation.
“Regrettably, the GOP often DOES come across as being mostly concerned about allowing the wealthy to remain wealthy and to heck with anything else” – well that’s true too.
Reality,
As I read your latest comments, I find I’m struck by something: I think you highlight precisely the ideas that Dr Mirus elaborated.
Yes, if the GOP took the approach to public policy that I’ve advocated, I can pretty well guarantee that screams of “THEOCRACY” would scream out from sea to shining sea. They already have. Certainly Republicans would risk losing what power they have. They already do. On the other hand, a thoughtful and stubborn leadership corps could easily turn that charge on itself. Many people in this nation see the world as they do because they’ve been taught thus by..Democrats and others. If the GOP wished, however, they COULD begin raising a myriad of questions about why anyone assumes that the “experts” are correct about anything. They COULD regain power, and paasionately so, if they’d dare to challenge the apparent status quo that Democrats enjoy.
Dr Mirus seems to me to have suggested that we should focus much less effort on political and legal solutions. I don’t remember for sure now, but I think he hinted at more effort in demonstrating how life COULD be, not merely focusing on what we “must” settle for legally right now.
I think the GOP leadership would be wise to listen.
Nobody really wants to follow a worn out and tired fellow who has no vision aside form saying, “Well, at least I’m not that other guy!”.
I will say, if the GOP doesn’t get its act together pretty soon, it may begin to slide into obscurity. I’m more concerned about saving lives, saving souls if possible, and saving this country if I can help doing so. If the GOP must fall into ruin for that to happen..I don’t elect candidates to office merely so they can pat themselves on the back for wielding power for a few years. I elect them to accomplish something worthwhile for the nation, the State, or both.
Pontius Pilate allegedly only dealt with Christ for perhaps as long as 12 hours or so. That’s all the time it took for him to abandon any moral principles he might’ve believed, enough to allow for a man to die. Except for die-hard historians, I don’t think anyone knows of Pilate for anything else.
If the GOP isn’t careful, they’ll follow the same path.
Hi John,
“On the other hand, a thoughtful and stubborn leadership corps could easily turn that charge on itself.” – how could they do that and to what end?
“Many people in this nation see the world as they do because they’ve been taught thus by..Democrats and others.” – whether I agree with you here or not, maybe the point is – is that necessarily a bad thing? What is the alternative? That we are taught by the church and ultra-conservatives? To a large degree people seem to have made their choice.
“they COULD begin raising a myriad of questions about why anyone assumes that the “experts” are correct about anything.” – from my observation, this gets tried every so often. Topics such as global warming, homeosexuality etc. Also from my observation, the efforts to decry the ‘experts’ are soon exposed as simply a failure to accept the facts. The alternative propositions are exposed as fundamentally flawed.
“They COULD regain power, and paasionately so, if they’d dare to challenge the apparent status quo that Democrats enjoy” – aren’t the dems simply reflecting the status quo that people have chosen?
“how life COULD be’ – I think that that may be a paradigm which has been largely spurned.
“if the GOP doesn’t get its act together pretty soon, it may begin to slide into obscurity’ – it may be too late. They are talking about chasing the latino vote. Yet the latino vote is already starting to move more to the ‘left’ socially; and their family size is actually starting to abate, this will lead them even more to the ‘left’.
Perhaps the gop need to define themselves almost as a new party, a third way?
Good Evening, Reality,
I must admit to being a bit shocked by some of the comments you offer. I can’t imagine how most of what you seem worried about really presents that much difficulty.
How might the GOP counter the charge of theocracy and why? Very easy: Insist on a consistent definition of what “religion” IS, then demand to know why the efforts to force “religion” from public life are not, themselves, inherently based on a religious point of view. You can’t define one set of beliefs and actions for one people as “religion”, but a different group of beliefs and actions for another people as “not religion”. Logically, either both sets of ideas MUST be religion, or both sets must be NOT religion.
Why? Because our current state of affairs poses insanity. not justice. ..And, incidentally, once people realize that values must come from somewhere, they may begin to realize that we can’t continue as a society if we don’t agree to traditional values. Our nation will tear itself apart at the seams if we try to defy objective Truth.
You seem to object to learning any values from a church or from ultra-conservative sources. This view seems quite problematic to me: Most of the values we live by originally CAME from a church of some sort. They didn’t simply spring up out of nowhere. Why would you object to hearing from one church or another? We hear from churches and from the practitioners of various faiths all the time. We also hear the counterpoints from those who loathe churches and organized religion.
Why would we set about to intentionally, completely ignore one of those voices? Why would we thrash the First Amendment like that?
..It would also be helpful if we had a workable definition of “church” and “ultra-conservative”. I have no idea, really, what you mean by these terms.
When it comes to experts, I have yet to see an expert who defends abortion, gay marriage, or whatever who doesn’t ultimately demonstrate their own stubborn bias. Science does not have all the answers, but too many “experts” insist on spouting off based on this or that study which supposedly proves something. Most of these studies prove only that an “expert” can creatively interpret data or neglect to mention something important. Most “experts” are merely educated to say what they think you want to hear.
As far as “how life could be” being an idea that many have spurned, well, what’s new? If the Democrats have gained power by what the people have “chosen”, perhaps it’d be wise for the Republicans to finally get in the fight and demonstrate how the Democrats have been exceedingly narrow.
Outside of talk radio and like efforts, I have barely seen the Republicans engage the nation at all. If they’d talk intelligently about various economists, various theologians, and actually show some guts and knowledge, I think we might be surprised by how much people would grow skeptical of Democrats.
If Republicans would define themselves as a party bent on moral belief and conduct, if they’d begin to portray themselves in the media that way, heck, if they’d start running TV ads to explain their ideas more clearly, I think they could transform the nation.
If they don’t, well, the people will live on.
Somehow.
Hello again John. Quite a bit to chew on there. I shall do my best to provide succinct answers which address without becoming a thesis.
“Insist on a consistent definition of what “religion” IS,” – would we also need to ask which one?
“then demand to know why the efforts to force “religion” from public life are not, themselves, inherently based on a religious point of view” – religion is not being forced from public life. The US is not a theocracy but some elements of religious influence have made their way into places they were never meant to be.
“You can’t define one set of beliefs and actions for one people as “religion”, but a different group of beliefs and actions for another people as “not religion”” – how about the fact that one is based on faith and a god and the other isn’t?
“Because our current state of affairs poses insanity. not justice.” – we’ll just have to agree to disagree there John.
“ ..And, incidentally, once people realize that values must come from somewhere, they may begin to realize that we can’t continue as a society if we don’t agree to traditional values.” – ah, ‘traditional values’. Whose John? From which era? Under whose auspices? See the problem.
“Our nation will tear itself apart at the seams if we try to defy objective Truth.” – what would you define as ‘objective truth’? On the face of it I don’t think there is such a thing. So I’d be interested if you can shed a different light on it so that I may reconsider my position.
“Most of the values we live by originally CAME from a church of some sort.” – thats not true. Do I need to expand?
“They didn’t simply spring up out of nowhere” – that is true. There’s the start to the answer.
“Why would you object to hearing from one church or another?” – I’ve been hearing from them for nearly six decades.
“We hear from churches and from the practitioners of various faiths all the time.” – yes, we still do. They haven’t been excluded.
“We also hear the counterpoints from those who loathe churches and organized religion.” – as it should be.
“Why would we set about to intentionally, completely ignore one of those voices?” – because we no longer believe in or agree with what they say.
“Why would we thrash the First Amendment like that?” – hang on, they have the right to speak it, not to force others to live by it. Vast difference.
“..It would also be helpful if we had a workable definition of “church” and “ultra-conservative”. I have no idea, really, what you mean by these terms.” – good point, I’d be very keen to hear your definition or description John.
“I have barely seen the Republicans engage the nation at all. If they’d talk intelligently about various economists, various theologians, and actually show some guts and knowledge, I think we might be surprised by how much people would grow skeptical of Democrats” – I agree. Although subjectively, I don’t often find that their positions can be spoken of intelligently. And that really isn’t just a puerile dig John. Things like ‘trickle down’ theory are utter tripe.
“If they don’t, well, the people will live on.” – they always have John, they always have.
“I shall do my best to provide succinct answers which address without becoming a thesis.”
I think it’s a little late for that. We’ve already battled enough to write a very short one.
“‘Insist on a consistent definition of what “religion” IS,’ – would we also need to ask which one?” Probably not. I think most people understand what is meant by religion. We routinely celebrate many different religious traditions in this nation. All rightfully have a say in forming the ideals and policies of the nation.
‘“then demand to know why the efforts to force “religion” from public life are not, themselves, inherently based on a religious point of view” – religion is not being forced from public life. The US is not a theocracy but some elements of religious influence have made their way into places they were never meant to be.’
By this, one would practically be forced to declare that this nation WAS a theocracy up until about 1955 or so. ..Which creates a bit of a problem.
One would think that if religious influence should never have been an influence in public life, that the lawyers and citizens who created and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would’ve known it. They certainly rebelled when the government started taxing whiskey, didn’t they? So, now we’re going to argue that close to 3 dozen Presidents of the United States presided over a theocracy? And we’re going to say that the better part of 2 dozen Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States got it wrong by failing to correct them? REALLY?? Even if you might detest the views of one President or another, surely a Chief Justice would see a problem well before 1955. Yet they didn’t seem to have object. Odd that.
Your view seems to me rather more a conspiracy theory than a viewpoint that Americans have actually routinely embraced.
I notice too that the effort to remove prayer from schools, remove creches, crosses, and various other symbols from public lands, NONE of these ever originated with petition drives to solve any particular difficulty that any community or state ever faced. No, most efforts to ban crosses, prayer, and bibles have been initiated by people who’re either very angry that the general populace dares to believe in a Supreme Being or else are insistent that the aforementioned groups of lawyers got it wrong somehow.
..And somehow, it has become an act of bigotry to wear anything in school that even hints of belief in something besides human reason.
We don’t take orders regarding the Constitution from a group of angry folks who simply despise hearing about religious precept, reality. We’ll respect your right to speak, but don’t be surprised when we insist on praying in public, whether you like it or not.
“how about the fact that one is based on faith and a god and the other isn’t?”
The fact is, reality, you HAVE a god, you simply refuse to admit to it. Your god appears to be human reason. Many certainly behave as though the life they live should surely be dictated by that, not by any alleged medieval idea.
“Whose John? From which era? Under whose auspices? See the problem.”
Only a problem when you insist on making one. We’ve always been a nation motivated by a Judeo-Christian philosophy; the Jewish advocate for Jewish ideals, the Protestants advocate for Protestant ideals, the Catholics advocate for Catholic ideals, and everyone else advocates for the various ideals they believe in too. I know of no reason why we should be afraid of admitting to our nation’s proud religious heritage. ..And now we need to listen also to a growing population of Islamic influences and/or neo-Pagan. I think it odd how people throw tantrums about “theocracy” while they live in a nation whose daily routine has been dictated by religious principles since before the Constitution was ratified.
“thats not true. Do I need to expand?”
Yes. Merely demonstrating that some ancient culture might’ve lived by some of the same precepts doesn’t prove much, not outside a passionate intolerance for Christians anyway. If you wish for me or others to cease and desist, you’ll need to prove that the average citizen in America has always been motivated by something other than Biblical principles. I think that’ll be VERY difficult, if only for the reasons I laid out above.
‘“Why would you object to hearing from one church or another?” – I’ve been hearing from them for nearly six decades.’
OK. Well, if you’re sick of hearing from churches, I’ve been hearing from militant secular, atheistic, agnostic, or pagan influences for most of 25 years, and I’m sick of THEM. So, we all pretty much have a need to tolerate hearing attitudes that we detest. ..Welcome to my life, friend!
‘“We hear from churches and from the practitioners of various faiths all the time.” – yes, we still do. They haven’t been excluded.’
Not entirely by choice though, I think. *grins* We simply won’t shut up! Funny you’d admit that you still hear from churches a lot. I’ve been genuinely disgusted by Catholic bishops who don’t wish to be bishops and speak firmly in public. Such a disappointment.
‘“Why would we set about to intentionally, completely ignore one of those voices?” – because we no longer believe in or agree with what they say.’
YOU may not believe what they say, and many millions of others with you. Sadly for you, there’re still many millions of us who DO believe what they say. And we have every intention of making ourselves heard.
‘“Why would we thrash the First Amendment like that?” – hang on, they have the right to speak it, not to force others to live by it. Vast difference.’
Except that we HAVE been forced to live with “safe” sex education in schools, laws being passed to allow a school to give a girl contraceptives without her parents knowledge or permission, as well as laws dictating that we may not pray in public because someone insists we’re wrong.
Your vast difference essentially amounts to what you’ll recognize as being wrongfully imposed. Nothing more.
“good point, I’d be very keen to hear your definition or description John.”
I asked you for yours. I’d like to see if you can define these terms without inherently branding much of public life as something we could condemn by your apparent view thus far.
“Things like ‘trickle down’ theory are utter tripe.”
I’ve heard such charges before. Little problem: Government can only provide funds for various efforts by levying taxes or fees. Such taxes and fees can only be levied if someone earns an income somehow. Said income typically can only come from a job, but that job can’t exist if the business that creates that job can’t earn enough money to pay the pachecks, rent, and related concerns.
You don’t have an economy if you don’t have some trickle-down.
(Before you go there, remember that the Soviets and their subordinates tried central planning in Asia and Eastern Europe for most of 70 years. It didn’t work out too well.)
Now then, all this has been very interesting, but I regret that I must mostly bow out for now. I DO have a job that I must attend to much of the time.
Greetings John. I don’t think of us as having battled. I think we are trying to esxplain how and why we see the world from our differing viewpoints.
“I think most people understand what is meant by religion.” – I do tend to agree with you.
“All rightfully have a say in forming the ideals and policies of the nation.” – yes, all viewpoints have a say. None at the cost of another if at all possible.
“By this, one would practically be forced to declare that this nation WAS a theocracy up until about 1955 or so” – not at all John. It was simply that the social mores of that age were more aligned with the religious dogma. ‘In god we trust’ wasn’t even added to banknotes until about that time. Evolution wasn’t the main scientific field taught in schools because until then it hadn’t been proven to the extent that it clearly demonstrated the flaws in creationism.
“the lawyers and citizens who created and ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights would’ve known it” – they did. I find that a lot of the more evangelical folk ‘play’ with what was actually written and what was intended, if one studies the people and their words behind those documents.
“3 dozen Presidents of the United States presided over a theocracy……2 dozen Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States got it wrong by failing to correct them? REALLY??” – no, not really. What went on was just the reality of the age. People were simply too scared to speak out and enough people with strong religious convictions were in positions of power for things to be run in the manner they saw fit.
“Your view seems to me rather more a conspiracy theory than a viewpoint that Americans have actually routinely embraced.” – no no, no conspiracy theory. It’s just that what americans routinely embrace has now changed.
“I notice too that the effort to remove prayer from schools” – poeple are still allowed to pray. It’s just inappropriate, and (has always been) unlawful to conduct mass prayer at events such as graduation ceremonies and football games.
“remove creches, crosses, and various other symbols from public lands” – well the constitution says.
“NONE of these ever originated with petition drives to solve any particular difficulty that any community or state ever faced.” – probably because those communities were of one flavor, and anyone who didn’t like what was happening was simply too scared of being ostracised or worse.
“by people who’re either very angry” – why is this allegation constantly made? It isn’t true. It is ‘your side’ who get angry when the illegalities are pointed out.
“..And somehow, it has become an act of bigotry to wear anything in school that even hints of belief in something besides human reason” – I must disagree with you there. Someone wearing an “I love jesus” t-shirt shouldn’t be told to remove it. Someone wearing a WBC type t-shirt however, should.
“Human reason” – what do you define that as John?
“We don’t take orders regarding the Constitution from a group of angry folks who simply despise hearing about religious precept” – of course not. But neither should anyone else have to take yours. And again, I find it is the religious fundamentalists who are the angry ones, every time their unjustifiable ‘christian privilege’ is restrained.
“don’t be surprised when we insist on praying in public, whether you like it or not.” – you have every right to. Just not as an assumed right in theatres where it is not constitutional to do so, such as school or council meetings.
“The fact is, reality, you HAVE a god, you simply refuse to admit to it.” – are you really going to lob that one in? Really?
“Your god appears to be human reason.” – if my god is human reason then there are as many gods as people. A vast myriad of them.
“Many certainly behave as though the life they live should surely be dictated by that” – no, not dictated. Guided and ever changing, according to knowledge constantly gained. So those god/s would have to change almost daily.
“Whose John? From which era? Under whose auspices? See the problem.”
Only a problem when you insist on making one” – ‘traditional values’ John. The ones that say that women can’t vote? The ones which say that black can’t marry white? The ones which teach creationism rather than science? The ones that jail homosexuals? I’m not creating the problem, the problem is exactly as my questions outlined – whose, from when, guided by who?
“they live in a nation whose daily routine has been dictated by religious principles since before the Constitution was ratified” – that simply isn’t true John.
“you’ll need to prove that the average citizen in America has always been motivated by something other than Biblical principles.” – what is required here is an understanding of where those ‘biblical principles’ draw their roots from, how ancient cultures, lore and mores provided the knowledge and understanding that those ‘biblical principles’ are based upon. Even the 10 commandments aren’t an original piece of work John.
“So, we all pretty much have a need to tolerate hearing attitudes that we detest. ..Welcome to my life, friend!” – salute!
“Sadly for you, there’re still many millions of us who DO believe what they say.” – I’m not overly sad about that John.
“And we have every intention of making ourselves heard.” – that’s fine, Be heard. Just don’t act in a way which impedes or represses those who don’t agree with your worldview.
“Except that we HAVE been forced to live with “safe” sex education in schools” – would you object to students being taught hygiene? What’s the difference, forearmed is forewarned as they say.
“as well as laws dictating that we may not pray in public because someone insists we’re wrong.” – you can pray in public. You just can’t assume that you can take over an event and conduct something which is not totally inclusive.
OK, ‘church’ and ‘ultra-conservative’. – to me a ‘church’ is a gathering of folk of a particular strand of faith with a belief in a god or gods; who worship, pray and to some extent at least, live their lives according to the dictates of some annointed entity.
An ultra-conservative (depending on whether we are addressing their political or religious traits) is someone who believes that non-marital sex is hellbound, that homosexuality is a perversion, that any level of taxation is inherently destructive, that government should keep right out of peoples lives (until they see something they don’t like, then they scream for intervention), and those who simply cannot accept that people don’t live life their way.
“You don’t have an economy if you don’t have some trickle-down” – are you aware of the ever-widening gap between rich and poor John? Which has taken place while tax rates for the rich have fallen? 50 years ago the boss of an organisation earned 10 times what a base worker earned. Lets say maybe even 50 times. Nowadays they earn 100’s if not 1000’s times more. And yet it is regularly the ‘regular joes’ who say “no, its wrong to make them pay more taxes”. Incongruous!
Fair taxation and a strong social fabric is NOT tantamount to socialism, communism or central planning. Why is there always such alarmist overreacting.
I have a job too John. I employ me. Just me. Usually I can do almost no work if I feel like it and a lot when I feel so inclined. I’m lucky. It provides roof and food and thats about all, but thats all I want or need nowadays. I also live a lifecycle which doesn’t adhere strictly to 24 hours. It provides great flexibility and freedom.
P.S. I have bookmarked this page on my computer so I can get it up without having to troll through archives on Jills’ site.
Oh my! Well, I can agree that I understand your overall frame of reference much better now, reality. I’m distinctly reminded of the views that I heard expressed through three years of college; UN-L’s administration certainly behaved as though they’d set about “freeing” all us ignorant students from religious lunatics. I recall actually taking them fairly seriously for a few years.
I think you and academia have a serious problem: You CAN find numerous examples of religious abuses throughout history. You can NOT find clear proof that the people never REALLY believed what they professed, but feared the tyrants of religious leadership of the day. We have never been a nation of cowards, reality. Not outside of the loathing and prejudice of those who positively despise organized religion. I might point out that if we HAD been thus, the Revolution against Britain, Shay’s Rebellion, and various other disputes could never have come about. Nor could anyone have ever inflicted the Boston Tea Party. A people who’ve been harassed, bullied, and intimidated into submission will not be capable of these actions. They’ll be too busy remaining out of sight of their lordly overseers.
I have no doubt that at various times, various persons have argued against allowing any religious influence into the public square. Certainly Ben Franklin would’ve been amongst them. On the whole though, we have no proof that the general populace ever embraced such views. Seems to me that if the frame of mind of the nation had been as you insist, the First Amendment would not have been caused to read as it does.
I have yet to examine the Federalist and Antifederalist papers thoroughly enough to know whether they debated the subject while deciding whether to ratify the Constitution or not. I suspect they likely did. It’ll be interesting to read what they said.
By the way, for the record, though you may wish to insist otherwise, your definition of “religion” applies quite readily to every single “nonbeliever” about. In spite of well over 100 years worth of effort, we still have no workable proof that human beings evolved from rocks or apes, nor do we have credible evidence that human beings developed moral codes on their own. All we have is the outrage of who wish to make believe that no belief system can possibly come from any form of Supreme Being. We’ll listen, we will not change our ways to satisfy your angst.
I find it interesting that you focus first on sex when it comes to defining “ultraconservative”. You could’ve picked economics, the size and scope of government, or something else. No, you chose sex. In my lifetime, those who argue against religious precept in public life ultimately either demonstrate a desperate desire for unhindered sex, or else they demonstrate an outrage that the nation did not choose absolute religious pluralism from the get-go.
How very revealing that ultimately, your effort against faith finally comes down to desperate desire for sexual license. ..How every predictable.
Other concerns:
“You just can’t assume that you can take over an event and conduct something which is not totally inclusive.”
We have no obligation to “celebrate” the religious views of 49 people out of 100, especially when the outraged 49 mostly express hatred or loathing for the religious sentiments of the other 51. If we, as a nation, choose to believe in something different from what a minority believes, the 49 dissenters will simply need to live with their own outrage. Don’t expect 51 to change their lives merely because you insist on being offended and pissed off.
“Even the 10 commandments aren’t an original piece of work John.”
You’ve made more or less the same assertion 3 or 4 times now, reality. Yet you cite nothing in the way of credible evidence to make your case. I notice you didn’t even address who taught morals to Hammurabi when I asked. In this sense, it matters very little whether the God of the ancient Hebrews wrote them, or if they came from Baal, Ra, Zeus, or Thor. What DOES matter is that most people live by these precepts, they DO–rightfully and rightly–believe they came from God in Heaven, and they DO expect that society will be ordered according to these precepts. Notice that we don’t even feel any compulsion to honor the Great Spirit in society, even though most native tribes would claim to follow that ideal, not Judeo-Christian principles.
“– you have every right to. Just not as an assumed right in theatres where it is not constitutional to do so, such as school or council meetings.”
Millions of Americans, numerous Supreme Court Justices, and countless lawyers have flatly disagreed.
‘“Many certainly behave as though the life they live should surely be dictated by that” – no, not dictated. Guided and ever changing, according to knowledge constantly gained. So those god/s would have to change almost daily.’
Yet in spite of ample evidence that embryonic stem cell research has netted pretty much nothing of value to medical cures, while more adult stem cell research has netted quite a lot, even so, those who advocate for abortion insist that a cure for something is lurking right around the corner.
If that’s not a form of faith, I don’t know what you can call it. Maybe madness.
BTW, for what I’ve seen, the non-believing factions DO change their god almost daily. I’ve learned to use several different terms to describe what amounts to essentially the same concept. Such wouldn’t be needed if the liberal side didn’t seem to need to change its immediate belief system so much.
BTW, I’m well aware of the gap between wealthy and not. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate how forced income redistribution has ever caused most people to come out of poverty. A few have benefitted, sure, but not even close to the whole of the people. And for what it’s worthy, I’ve known enough impoverished people to recognize the greed they pose too. They’re not as easy to blame, but you’d be gravely mistaken to insist that they have much more worry about others than do the wealthy.
“Nowadays they earn 100?s if not 1000?s times more. And yet it is regularly the ‘regular joes’ who say “no, its wrong to make them pay more taxes”. Incongruous!”
Only incongruous if you assume that all people must receive the same wage for differing roles. Only if you essentially ignore the economics that’ve come about from human nature and insist that one group of people “deserves” to succeed because of whatever reason you trump up.
If you think the wealthy don’t pay taxes, I think you’d need to carefully examine the actual state of the nation. President Obama nailed Mitt Romney for having said that 47% don’t pay taxes; unfortunately for the President, the remark came about based on actual records of tax revenues collected. Romney was right: Some 47% of the populace actually DON’T pay net taxes; they may even get refunds. If you examine actual tax revenues collected, you find that the wealthy pay far and away more in taxing than do the middle class or the impoverished. It makes sense really: You can’t tax money that doesn’t move; you can’t tax a transaction if a transaction doesn’t occur.
In short, even if you make the wealthy man and the poor man pay the exact same tax rate–we don’t, the wealthy man winds up paying a much higher rate–you’ll still wind up receiving more revenue from the wealthy man than from the poor man. It happens because the rich man has more money subject to being taxed, therefore he winds up paying a larger amount.
No matter what we do, the wealthy always wind up paying much more in taxes because they’re simply the only ones about who CAN be taxed. When you raise taxes, you decrease the amount of money they can invest in business, so the number of jobs available winds up going DOWN, not up.
I agree that fair taxation doesn’t constitute socialism. I wish we would institute a tax regiment that WAS fair, or at more fair than now. I think we’ll need to cut back severely on government spending first though. We spend metric tons more on alleged social safety nets than is wise. We won’t survive as a nation if we have too many people living off government payments, not on wages from labor.
Ultimately, the answers to most of these difficulties will be better education. Not better education in terms of sex ed, taxes,and allegations of what’ll work. No, I mean education in how money and business actually work. Education in how the human body actually functions naturally.
Hard to tell when that’ll happen, or if it ever will.
Hi John. Sorry, I simply don’t have the time to provide a worthwhile response today. One of my clients has requested an urgent job (ironic given what I said yesterday!). I have undertaken a small amount of research regarding part of what you have written and I will return tomorrow.
Hello there John!
“You can NOT find clear proof that the people never REALLY believed what they professed, but feared the tyrants of religious leadership of the day.” – maybe not, unless I spent some serious time perusing autobiographies from the past. And it wasn’t the ‘tyrants of religious leadership’ I was referring to, it was peers. Ostracised, barred from the ‘club’ etc. You would have to admit that there wasn’t 100% belief, yet people didn’t speak out. Why?
“Seems to me that if the frame of mind of the nation had been as you insist, the First Amendment would not have been caused to read as it does.” – more on that in a moment.
“your definition of “religion” applies quite readily to every single “nonbeliever” about” – how so?
“we still have no workable proof that human beings evolved from rocks or apes,” – of course not, we didn’t evolve from rocks or apes.
“nor do we have credible evidence that human beings developed moral codes on their own.” – so all the evidence of successful societies which didn’t adhere to any god isn’t enough? What about the fact that even those cultures which did claim to derive their moral codes from their god/s, have god/s that you would deride as non-existent. And they’re all much older than the abrahamic versions.
“All we have is the outrage of who wish to make believe that no belief system can possibly come from any form of Supreme Being.” – That’s not where I see the outrage coming from.
“I find it interesting that you focus first on sex when it comes to defining “ultraconservative”. You could’ve picked economics, the size and scope of government, or something else. No, you chose sex.” – are you kidding? Did you read what I wrote?
“An ultra-conservative (depending on whether we are addressing their political or religious traits) is someone who believes that non-marital sex – Religion – is hellbound, that homosexuality is a perversion – Religion, that any level of taxation – Government/Taxation is inherently destructive, that government – Government should keep right out of peoples lives (until they see something they don’t like, then they scream for intervention), and those who simply cannot accept – Religion that people don’t live life their way.” – you disappoint me John. I didn’t predict that, silly me.
“If we, as a nation, choose to believe in something different from what a minority believes, the 49 dissenters will simply need to live with their own outrage.” – bull**it. Prayer belongs in the home or the church, not in the public square. More on that in a moment.
“you cite nothing in the way of credible evidence” – try starting with the egyptian book of the dead John.
“it matters very little whether the God of the ancient Hebrews wrote them, or if they came from Baal, Ra, Zeus, or Thor. What DOES matter is that most people live by these precepts, they DO–rightfully and rightly–believe they came from God” – do you believe in Ra or Zeus John? No? Didn’t think so. So you’d agree they didn’t come from those gods. That means they were generated by society as a self-preservation instinct and were purloined by those who wanted power, decreed as being from someone only they had communication with.
“Millions of Americans, numerous Supreme Court Justices, and countless lawyers have flatly disagreed.” – ah, now we are here. I suggest you check out a bit of what the ACLU have achieved lately. How they have had courts agree with their cases – based on the first amendment – against certain schools and councils. Here are just two, from one little source.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/newsheadlines/2012/01/court-rejects-appeal-over-prayer-at-public-meeting/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2012/05/judge-bans-the-distinctly-christian-lords-prayer/
Seriously? You choose one miniscule part of medical science, within all the fields of science, in an attempt to say that change doesn’t achieve anything?
We obviously have differing understanding of taxation and differing views of what’s fair and what’s not fair.
“Not better education in terms of sex ed, taxes,and allegations of what’ll work.” – what, you see no value in sex-ed?
“Allegations of what will work” – well I could say the same about your approach to matters John.
“Education in how the human body actually functions naturally.” – I studied biology at high school, I’m sure they still teach it.
“Hard to tell when that’ll happen, or if it ever will” – I see nothing wrong with whats out there now John.
“I was referring to, it was peers. Ostracised, barred from the ‘club’ etc. You would have to admit that there wasn’t 100% belief, yet people didn’t speak out. Why?”
Perhaps they didn’t care that much, reality. Witness the different reactions of two non-believing West Point cadets from our present day: One will quit because he can’t stand the religious sentiment present at the school, or so he says. The other acknowledges the existence of such a sentiment..and apparently doesn’t have a problem.
Besides, others who WERE bothered by such problems may have formed their own clubs and what-not and discerned other means to address problems. Notice that Catholics and LDS faithful both suffered persecutions at one time or another in our history. Both groups found ways to work their way free of others’ abuses without resorting to throwing religious sentiment out of the public square.
“your definition of “religion” applies quite readily to every single “nonbeliever” about” – how so?
Let’s look at the definition you provided:
“a gathering of folk of a particular strand of faith with a belief in a god or gods; who worship, pray and to some extent at least, live their lives according to the dictates of some annointed entity.”
I was about to admit that perhaps those of a secular/progressive/rationalistic/whatever bent may not gather in the sense of an explicit manner like a church service.
Except they DO, effectively, do just that! In the last 15 years, I’ve heard of various groups of people who in the military, in politics, in general life, who gather together or who communicate with each other frequently to share their sentiments regarding what they don’t believe in, what they believe in instead, what they think the country or their group of people should do as a result, and so forth. Some even have some relatively well-prescribed customs or rituals regarding how they’ll go about conducting themselves. ..And I haven’t even mentioned the ACLU, Americans for the Separation of Church and State, and various like-minded groups!
Certainly they’ll insist that they don’t believe in any god of any kind, but they DO express particular values. AND..fulfilling another part of your definition, they most definitely DO make efforts to order their individual lives according to the principles the group agrees upon.
No group could exist if they didn’t. Those values must come from somewhere. If you wish to insist that such things came from society, then I would argue that society as a whole IS their god. Thus why I commented that they worship human reason, if nothing else.
What’s more, if someone demonstrates disagreement with them, they’ll very often argue passionately to make their case.
So, while I’m sure that you or another can insist that religion must involve obvious worship of a particular god, I would declare that such an approach primarily exists as an excuse for why “non-believers” should be allowed to insist they don’t believe in any particular religion. They do. As a society, we simply won’t admit it. To our detriment.
‘“I find it interesting that you focus first on sex when it comes to defining “ultraconservative”. You could’ve picked economics, the size and scope of government, or something else. No, you chose sex.” – are you kidding? Did you read what I wrote?’
Yes, I did:
‘An ultra-conservative (depending on whether we are addressing their political or religious traits) is someone who believes that non-marital sex is hellbound, that homosexuality is a perversion,…’
So, in spite of the fact that you mention both extra-marital sex AND homosexuality, both concerns that relate mostly to..sex!..you’ll insist maybe that you didn’t focus on the subject.
‘Government/Taxation is inherently destructive, that government – Government should keep right out of peoples lives’
In all the years of the New Deal, Great Society, or all the welfare outreach we can muster, we can’t demonstrate any particular trend effected by government that has reduced poverty, cured the sick, or freed anyone from any serious problem. Quite the opposite. We have more people dependent on government than ever, we can’t cure whole hordes of sick people because we have no money to pay a doctor to cure them WITH, and many people insist that government has a need to know if you own a gun, though why such knowledge is needed has never been properly explained.
..And now government wants to tell me that I must pay for someone else’s sex life, even if I consider such an act baldly immoral. I’m told that I need to stay out of someone’s bedroom, yet they keep finding ways to yank me back in. ..Republicans haven’t done so well in addressing this.
If you’re thinking that
“..we didn’t evolve from rocks or apes” That’s an interesting admission. Where do you proclaim we came from?
“so all the evidence of successful societies which didn’t adhere to any god isn’t enough?”
Define both “successful” and “society that didn’t adhere to any god”. As noted above, a “god” need not necessarily be a named deity, but simply a concept that everyone generally follows. I’m not acquainted with any society that didn’t have some form of belief in something. Please name at least three.
“What about the fact that even those cultures which did claim to derive their moral codes from their god/s, have god/s that you would deride as non-existent. And they’re all much older than the abrahamic versions.”
I’m not sure how that correlates to anything relevant. Regarding the existence of other gods, re-reading of Exodus, paying attention to the plagues and why those particular plagues occurred might be worthwhile. Those particular plagues didn’t occur by happenstance.
I’m not at all following why the age of a belief would be important. If Christianity is about 2,000 years old, Confucianism, Judaism, Buddhism, Wicca, Shamanism, Druidism, I believe these ARE far older. ..And for all we know, the belief in the Lakota Sioux, Blackfoot, or other tribal Great Spirit may be just as ancient. ..And most people in our the US, most of Europe, and some of the more developed parts of Africa and South America could care less. It doesn’t seem to me at all germaine to this discussion.
‘“All we have is the outrage of who wish to make believe that no belief system can possibly come from any form of Supreme Being.” – That’s not where I see the outrage coming from.’
No, you’ll only admit to “outrage” or dissatisfaction if you see people acting on their view that all persons have a right to pray in public and fighting against efforts to ban such conduct and belief. More about that in a moment.
“Prayer belongs in the home or the church, not in the public square.”
I and millions of Americans firmly disagree and are beginning to fight back.
“..try starting with the egyptian book of the dead John.”
I’m not an Egyptian, ancient or modern, and I have no cause to be concerned about what the Egyptians believed. BTW, you’ll need to remind why this is relevant; I remember challenging you to explain why people actually believe in “Thou shalt not kill” or similar concepts, but demonstrating that some ancient culture believed it too doesn’t precisely prove much.
Unless of course…
“That means they were generated by society as a self-preservation instinct and were purloined by those who wanted power, decreed as being from someone only they had communication with.”
Says who?
Yes, I know YOU do, and possibly so do many others. I know of no cause for why the rest of us should be bound by such notions. If you choose to refuse to believe in any Supreme Being, that’s your look-out. Society as a whole has no obligation to behave accordingly.
I gather you can only see power, manipulation, greed, and willingness to abuse others as the cause of ANY form of organized religion. You seem to have made up your mind first, then sought any workable evidence to back your claim, and reject anything that disputes it. As mentioned earlier, that essentially IS blind faith, though in your case, perhaps closer to a belief in nothing or too much faith in human reason.
“I suggest you check out a bit of what the ACLU have achieved lately. How they have had courts agree with their cases – based on the first amendment – against certain schools and councils.”
Sadly, the case you cite only comes as the latest in a looong string of ACLU lawsuits, mostly aimed at hounding people who dare to believe something different from the ACLU and a comparative few complainers.
THIS is the outrage I referred to earlier. Again, I understand that you’ll insist that the US is a secular nation, so such things never should’ve happened. You insist on seeing manger scenes, public prayer, and other acts and beliefs as efforts to oppress people. Problem is, most of America does not agree, nor has it ever. Oh, that’s changing quite a little these last 30 years or so. Thanks to ACLU or other group bullying and harassment, and thanks to the Justice Dept refusing to understand the First Amendment, many people have been led to believe that Christians are ignorant fools or whatever.
Again, I highlight the fact that, prior to Madeline O’Hare being outraged enough to demand her view being imposed–and the Blackmun Court imposing its view of America on everyone–nobody really had that much trouble with pray in public.
It’s only because a comparative few can’t tolerate other people’s beliefs in public that we’ve had any angst over the fact that anyone dares to pray or exhibit articles of faith.
“you see no value in sex-ed?”
Well, considering that most educators are only barely allowed to mention chastity at all, if they’re allowed that much latitude, and considering that unwed birth rates have not fallen appreciably since such “education” began, but have sky-rocketed instead–as have the number of procured abortions–I’m hard pressed to explain the value of this topic in school.
“I studied biology at high school, I’m sure they still teach it.”
Yes, but I suspect half the class already knew quite well how the birds and the bees worked by the time we studied it. Either from firsthand knowledge or from parental explanation. I HAVE heard of “Reproductive Education” suggestions that explain what little really is necessary about penis, vagina, sperm, and egg. Sadly, such an approach doesn’t seem to hold the favor of the education world. They’re too busy pushing condoms and such.
“I see nothing wrong with whats out there now John.”
I do. I see little reason why we must make believe that every kid will certainly “do it”, nor why we must make believe they need help learning about contraception. It’s not hard to find. Those who push such programs will make a huge fuss about a woman’s right to choose, but for some reason, parents can’t possibly be trusted to decide when to talk to their kids.
Reality,
While it’s certainly been interesting, I’ve already dedicated more time to this debate/discussion than I readily have time to give. So, here’re some thoughts or observations that hopefully will bring what I need to say to a close for the moment:
Based on the discussion thus far, we should be able to agree that we have (at least) two approaches to interpreting the First Amendment. One approach declares that Freedom of Religion means that the State may not require all persons to believe or attend a particular house of worship, nor may the State forbid anyone from expressing religious views they may hold, nor may the State forbid public expressions of faith. A second approach insists that the nation has always been secular, that religious precept has no place in public life, and that nobody truly lives by principles that human beings haven’t developed and instituted. As a result, the State should never allow for public expressions of faith of any kind, precisely because such idiocy and ignorance should always be dismissed as..idiocy and ignorance. Such a view would also require that law may never rightly reflect such nonsense.
I have done what I can to remind you that even non-believers tend to conduct their lives according to religious precepts, which would tend to undermine the idea of a secular nation. You’ve insisted that such ideas come from society at large, not from any Supreme Being. When I’ve challenged you to demonstrate how such principles came into wide use, you’ve referred to a possible panoply of ancient societies, but nothing specific; while I don’t know what motivates this lack of particular knowledge of the roots of society’s norms, I can roughly guess that you might reply that we simply don’t know. You would seem to suggest that one or another power-hungry fool in some society imposed HIS will by physical force, thus beginning some form of religion. This view–or similar ideas–strike me as being stubbornly cynical regarding the character of the human race at large. According to this, we’ve only more recently “evolved” into a more enlightened form of human existence, though oddly, I’ve never seen any workable explanation for when such an evolution took place, or why.
I must also caution you that ultimately, most of these suggestions don’t appear to come from any particular form of NEED for alternate explanations; they primarily come from a will to reject religion outright, mostly because admitting that a religious precept has merit would require changing somebody’s lifestyle and view. Somehow, that’s considered some kind of social sin.
I find that immensely ironic: Because fairly small groups of people don’t wish to admit that any act or idea could be less than perfect, they’ll do almost anything to impose their own LACK of moral precept on society as a whole, accusing others of “intolerance”. They’ll routinely deny that their own approach is, itself, incredibly intolerant, but will instead insist that they’re right. If challenged, they’ll essentially re-interpret law and trash the views of others in an effort to over-rule the well-reasoned objections people might raise.
On the whole, I’d say that if you wish to believe that we’re a secular nation and religious folk need to simply “grow up and deal with it”, I’d say that millions of us disagree and we’re quite willing to tell you that it’s YOU who need to “grow up”.
I suspect many will find it quite aggravating that we “religious nuts” won’t change our tune, but many others will wonder why the non-believing factions insist on being so fussy over rather little.
I think many of us will ultimately look at the Preamble to the Constitution, notice that it declares that the Constitution aims to arrange for domestic tranquility, common defense, and like public concerns, and we’ll notice that the various efforts to impose secularism on the populace–whether the populace wish it or not–would seem to be the primary disruption to that same domestic tranquility. We’ll also notice that law doesn’t rightly lead, so much as it reflects society’s will. If we may not constantly oppose efforts to ban religious expression by force, neither will we willingly tolerate such efforts, but will find other ways to sustain our view of religious freedom.
If that means there’ll be less than calm in the nation, well, that’s why we have political debates.
Getting back to the original point of this posting, I’d say that Dr Mirus has highlighted a notion that many of us have come to embrace: We’ve been entirely too quiet on the cultural front, so the political state of the nation is not prepared to admit to religious ideals. We may need to be much less concerned with immediate political efforts, much more concerned with driving the culture that ultimately dictates law.
If most people might be persuaded that religious efforts have a place in the public square, we’ll see much more law reflecting the moral virtue we’d see lived daily.
With luck, we’ll manage to accomplish this BEFORE the nation implodes.
Looks like its time to summarize to an extent John. What started out as an exchange of ideas as to why things are as they are and whether the pertinent elements are positive or negative has become your extolling of the right of christian privilege to pervade all levels of governance and society, while I have tried to explain why that is not so.
“two non-believing West Point cadets… he can’t stand the religious sentiment…the other…apparently doesn’t have a problem.” – gee, imagine that. Two people having differing viewpoints regarding a situation which is inherently wrong. I see some wackjob came out and declared West Point a ‘religious institute’.
I find myself regularly amused by faithists who claim ‘you are your own god’ and ‘atheism is a religion too’. It’s so obviously a defensive strategy. Athiests don’t possess or practice any ‘belief’ with the permanency and exclusion of other concepts that the religious do. The diversity of atheists also precludes what could be defined as a ‘church’. A boy scout troop displays greater levels of group think than atheists.
“they most definitely DO make efforts to order their individual lives according to the principles the group agrees upon.” – I find that to be complete rubbish. Do you have anything to support your claim?
“I would argue that society as a whole IS their god.” – how does that work? All I see is the faithists constant striving to plant the imprimatur of god on whatever they can.
“Thus why I commented that they worship human reason” – worship? Perhaps you’d better define what you mean by ‘worship’ for me.
“What’s more, if someone demonstrates disagreement with them, they’ll very often argue passionately to make their case.” – as do you John.
“So, while I’m sure that you or another can insist that religion must involve obvious worship of a particular god, I would declare that such an approach primarily exists as an excuse for why “non-believers” should be allowed to insist they don’t believe in any particular religion” – sorry John, that just sounds like the old ‘god is everything, god is everywhere, you really do believe in god you just don’t admit it or recognise it’ line. Its pathetic to the point of insulting peoples intelligence.
You asked what I meant by ‘ultra-conservative. I did so. The fact that it includes factors regarding sex as well as religion, politics and economics doesn’t negate it. I don’t like the way that ultra-conservatives try to judge and control other peoples sex lives, particularly in regard to things such as homosexuality. Its not up to you to wish it wasn’t part of how I see ‘ultra-conservatives’.
“..And now government wants to tell me that I must pay for someone else’s sex life” – and I still pay for other peoples religious lives. Its called democracy.
“..we didn’t evolve from rocks or apes” That’s an interesting admission. Where do you proclaim we came from?” – come off it John. It’s no ‘admission’. It is only the creationists and such who claim that evolutionary theory says we descended from apes or evolved from rocks. It is either dire ignorance or dishonesty when they do so. Do you also claim there are no transitional fossils? Are you a YEC John? Humans and apes come from a common ancestor, we are not descended from apes (you already know this though don’t you). The ‘rocks’ part you’ll have to explain, I don’t know what you’re talking about.
“I’m not acquainted with any society that didn’t have some form of belief in something” – that would psobably be because you don’t want to be John. Just type ‘ancient tribes without gods’ into your favorite search engine and behold.
Daniel Everett, 57, a linguist in the Departmental Chair of Languages, Literatures and Cultures at Illinois State University – they have shown me that there is dignity and deep satisfaction without the conmforts of heaven or the fear of hell, and of sailing towards the great abyss with a smile.
the natives americans of the Northwest now collectively referred to as the “eskimos” Whether or not they ACTUALLY had a religion of some kind is a fact forever lost to history because the Europeans who “met” and “civilized” them were CONVINCED they carved totem poles to “worship” the “spirits”. It was a hundred years later before serious academics did an accurate translation of the languages and discovered that totem poles were carved “stories” or legends and Family histories or genealogies that the Inuit people “Honored”
certain Pygmy tribes found in Africa were observed to have no identifiable cults or rites. There were no totems, no gods, no spirits. Their dead were buried without special ceremonies or accompanying items and received no further attention
But none of that will matter to you anyway John. You’ll just claim that they got what they ahd and did what they did from your god, they just didn’t admit it or acknowledge it. Just like the rocks and apes scenario.
“Prayer belongs in the home or the church, not in the public square.”
I and millions of Americans firmly disagree and are beginning to fight back.” – then you are in for some serious disappointment.
The 1st amendment states – Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As the courts are showing us, the events which have taken place in the ‘public square’ for so long, the things that you mourn for, only took place because of tacit agreement, not because they were legal or constitutional. Since the population has become more diverse that tacit agreement no longer exists.
“I have no cause to be concerned about what the Egyptians believed” – this would be your ‘la la la la la’ moment in regard to one of the myriad of sources of societal constructs and mores which the 10 commandments were derived from, rather than being the instigator of.
“If you choose to refuse to believe in any Supreme Being, that’s your look-out. Society as a whole has no obligation to behave accordingly.” – nor has it any obligation to behave according to what you believe.
“You seem to have made up your mind first, then sought any workable evidence to back your claim, and reject anything that disputes it” – no John, I was a faithist. But the harder I looked, the less I found that was based in truth, prooof or reason. So then I explored the opposite. Here I found knowledge, reason, logic, truth, proof and sense.
“mostly aimed at hounding people who dare to believe something different from the ACLU and a comparative few complainers” – not so. Imagine a high school graduation ceremony. There is a diverse body of students. They are there to celebrate grauation. There is no justification, let alone constitutional right, for the expression of christian invocations or prayer.
“I understand that you’ll insist that the US is a secular nation” – well its either that or a theocracy. Laws based on the bible or laws based on ongoing democratic concensus, which is it John?
“You insist on seeing manger scenes, public prayer, and other acts and beliefs as efforts to oppress people.” – no, I don’t John. The history here is that non-christian groups said that they should also be entitled to space in that infamous ‘public square’. The faithists didn’t like that. Game on.
“Problem is, most of America does not agree, nor has it ever. Oh, that’s changing quite a little these last 30 years or so.” – which brings us back to where we started. The world is changing John, like it or not.
“Thanks to ACLU or other group bullying and harassment” – pointing out christian privilege as unconstitutional is not bullying and harassment.
“and thanks to the Justice Dept refusing to understand the First Amendment” – I think they are finally understanding it correctly and honestly.
“many people have been led to believe that Christians are ignorant fools or whatever.” – no, not ignorant fools, just unable to accept what is and isn’t constitutional.
“nobody really had that much trouble with pray in public” – yeah, and nobody really had much trouble with blacks being treated like second class citizens, along with women.
“unwed birth rates have not fallen appreciably since such “education” began,” – unwed birth rates are higher in states where ‘abstinence education’ is the predominant form of ‘sex-ed’.
“I HAVE heard of “Reproductive Education” suggestions that explain what little really is necessary about penis, vagina, sperm, and egg.” – what do you actually mean by this, that ignorance is bliss?
“bring what I need to say to a close for the moment:” – thats perfectly fine John. I accept that you have other things to attend to. Although I must say I often find this happens when people of faith find they are unable to mount any convincing arguments.
“the State may not require all persons to believe or attend a particular house of worship, nor may the State forbid anyone from expressing religious views they may hold, nor may the State forbid public expressions of faith” – correct, except that it also means these things must not occur to the exclusion of others.
“the State should never allow for public expressions of faith of any kind” – not so. Again, it means these things must not occure to the exclusion of others.
“I have done what I can to remind you that even non-believers tend to conduct their lives according to religious precepts” – no, you have attempted to claim that this is the case. You have failed to prove so to any degree.
“You’ve insisted that such ideas come from society at large, not from any Supreme Being.” – indeed.
“When I’ve challenged you to demonstrate how such principles came into wide use, you’ve referred to a possible panoply of ancient societies” – an actual panopoly.
“I can roughly guess that you might reply that we simply don’t know.” – or is it that you don’t want to know?
“You would seem to suggest that one or another power-hungry fool in some society imposed HIS will by physical force” – no I didn’t. I did not mention ‘physical’ force.
“This view–or similar ideas–strike me as being stubbornly cynical regarding the character of the human race at large.” – does the term ‘dictators’ mean anything?
“According to this, we’ve only more recently “evolved” into a more enlightened form of human existence” – I’m sure you’re aware of the rapidly increasing rate of change and increased scientific knowledge since the second half of the 20th century.
” though oddly, I’ve never seen any workable explanation for when such an evolution took place, or why.” – because its an evolution, not a revolution. Why? Knowledge.
“most of these suggestions don’t appear to come from any particular form of NEED for alternate explanations; they primarily come from a will to reject religion outright” – oh John. Atheists don’t start from a ‘will to reject religion outright’. We start from the realisation, a gradual dawning, that religion just isn’t ‘delivereing’ on any level. So then we search for the truth, for reasons, for causes, for evidence, for understanding. Thats when we find the real explanations.
“their own LACK of moral precept on society as a whole” – tut tut John. That’s simply an unjustifiable aspersion.
“accusing others of “intolerance”.” – yet it is those of faith who consistently attempt to have everyone live according to there precepts, whilst atheists are happy to let faithists live their personal lives according to their beliefs. I’m quite happy for you to go to church, read your bible, and live according to your moral code. Yet it is you who would stop others from having the same level of freedom of personal choice.
“they’ll essentially re-interpret law” – er no. Its just that the law is now being interpreted correctly. It is no longer being interpreted under the guise of christian privilege.
“and trash the views of others in an effort to over-rule the well-reasoned objections people might raise.” – if they were ‘well-reasoned’ then perhaps they’d be agreed to by more people.
“I suspect many will find it quite aggravating that we “religious nuts” won’t change our tune” – not at all. Its only aggravating when you try to sing it at my party.
“but many others will wonder why the non-believing factions insist on being so fussy over rather little” – is that meant to be funny? You really think that stopping two people who love each other is ‘rather little’, along with all the other impediments you would place in the path of peoples freedoms?
“We’ll also notice that law doesn’t rightly lead, so much as it reflects society’s will.” – that’s what generally happens.
“If we may not constantly oppose efforts to ban religious expression by force,” – there are no efforts to ban religious expression. Just theocracy.
“neither will we willingly tolerate such efforts” – it’s been noted.
“but will find other ways to sustain our view of religious freedom.” – you already have them.
“If most people might be persuaded that religious efforts have a place in the public square” – sounds like the struggle underway in Egypt right now.
“we’ll see much more law reflecting the moral virtue we’d see lived daily” – which moral virtue? Whose moral vitue? Why?
The nation is not going to implode.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Ahlquist
Christian love
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/12/07/why-standing-up-for-your-rights-is-important/
Ostracising by peers
Reality,
“Although I must say I often find this happens when people of faith find they are unable to mount any convincing arguments.”
“We start from the realisation, a gradual dawning, that religion just isn’t ‘delivereing’ on any level. So then we search for the truth, for reasons, for causes, for evidence, for understanding. Thats when we find the real explanations.”
“if they were ‘well-reasoned’ then perhaps they’d be agreed to by more people.”
Them’s fightin’ words where I come from!
LOL! OK, not really, but I think you’ve posed arguments that’re seriously lacking. Essentially, your arguments center around two key concepts: 1. God or another Supreme Being does not exist. 2. Under the Constitution, the United States has always been a secular nation.
Based on my own background in logic, in science, in history, and what I know of research standards, your arguments to back your claim do exceedingly poorly.
On the first, you deny the existence of a Creator, but fail miserably at properly explaining the origins of earth and man otherwise. While numerous experiments have been conducted related to seawater and lightning causing amoeba, science can’t prove how complex organisms came to be. Next, though you’ll cite the existence of various societies, you don’t quite explain how these societies came to be, nor how they derived their values. Considering how you seem to consider yourself highly educated, you seem weirdly unable to demonstrate a competent reason for why earth or humans should exist in the first place. I can’t declare faith explanations for existence to be incorrect based evidence this flimsy.
For the second, if the United States had been intended to be a secular nation as you suggest, I should be readily able to find evidence either of a nation founded on secular principles from the beginning, or evidence to prove imposition of religion afterward. I find neither. I see no evidence of any religious group imposing its will on everyone else and requiring everyone to live by it. I find that people have lived by faith-motivated principles since well before the Constitution. In terms of the founding under the Constitution, I can find quotes from Alexander Hamilton regarding his disquiet about faith in public; mostly he’s concerned about the consequences of overly sectarian dispute, essentially too many faith traditions jockeying for the same space. I’m not acquainted with any effort to have barred religious sentiment from public life entirely, though I’m thinking the notion must surely have been considered.
On the whole, your overall attitude seems to be that because you and various groups of non-believers object to faith in public, that we should fail to understand the plausible origins of man AND we should believe that faith expressions in public are illegal.
I don’t see any evidence that you or others have ever truly convinced the populace that this is so. I only see efforts to ban religious expression from public life because you, the non-believing crow, say it shall be so.
THAT strikes ME as tyranny.
I don’t want to get involved in this one but I just had to say something about this…
“Based on my own background in logic, in science, in history, and what I know of research standards, your arguments to back your claim do exceedingly poorly.
On the first, you deny the existence of a Creator, but fail miserably at properly explaining the origins of earth and man otherwise. While numerous experiments have been conducted related to seawater and lightning causing amoeba, science can’t prove how complex organisms came to be.”
This is an extremely poor argument for faith, considering scientific advancement. You seem to advocate that because scientific theories aren’t satisfactory in explaining the world to you, that means that we are unreasonable for not following your equally (at least in my eyes) unproven faith. I reserve judgment as an agnostic though I don’t think the evidence looks great for Supreme beings, and I believe most atheists are atheists because they believe the evidence already supports no God. Religion isn’t offering us much besides tradition, and tradition a lot of us disagree with on top of that.
Basically, it’s no more crazy to not believe in God, even without scientific evidence to explain the minutiae of everything about our origins, than it is to believe in God based on faith and what you have decided is proper logic for you.
“Them’s fightin’ words where I come from!” – touche! En garde! :-)
Hi John, I think Jack has given us a very concise and accurate portrayal of my position – thanks Jack.
In addition, given your background in logic, in science, in history, and research standards, you would recognise the consistent back-pedalling the church has had to undertake as the sciences draw ever nearer to extinguishing any possibility of god. Thus we have the creation of intelligent design to accomodate what science has proven with the original biblical creationist claims.
“a competent reason for why earth or humans should exist in the first place” – does there need to be one?
“I can’t declare faith explanations for existence to be incorrect based evidence this flimsy.” – yes, well. I think there’s more, and ever-increasing, evidence for science based causation than supreme being causation.
If the constitution et al was intended to depict and guide the nation as you imply, then other faiths would be banned and everyone would be forced to adhere to christian faith and doctrine.
“I see no evidence of any religious group imposing its will on everyone else and requiring everyone to live by it.” – thats not for lack of trying is it now John. Repeated attempts to stick creationism into the science curriculum. The resistance against marriage equality. Indeed, the struggle needed to decriminalize homosexuality! Prayer in classrooms and at the opening of public meetings.
“I find that people have lived by faith-motivated principles since well before the Constitution” – I don’t. I find that people lived by principles which faith reflected.
“you and various groups of non-believers object to faith in public” – I’ve explained this to you John.
“that we should fail to understand the plausible origins of man” – doesn’t really cause me an issue unless you try to pass that failing on to school children.
“AND we should believe that faith expressions in public are illegal.” – not at all. Again, I have explained this to you.
“I only see efforts to ban religious expression from public life because you, the non-believing crow, say it shall be so.” – the disallowal of christian privilege and invocations pervading all levels and functions of society at large is not banning religious expression from public life.
“THAT strikes ME as tyranny.” – there ain’t no tyranny going on.
Across the years I have observed that there is nothing like the christian faith which purloins, usurps even, the cultures and various god-worshipping practices of humanity throughout history and claims it to, in one way or another, indicative of and belonging to their ‘one true god’.
The never-ending cycle of justifying whatever happens, to whoever, in whatever circumstances simply whittles away at any credibility.
The sheer, overwhelming number of non-evidential claims such as healing through prayer and ‘miracles’ merely appear sadder by the day.
Question for you John. If we applied the same regulatory restrictions to religion that we do to alcohol, particularly in regards to age, how many people do you think you would see in churches?
Good Morning, Jack, Reality,
As I read through your comments, I’m struck by something: Each time I attempt to offer you an opportunity to properly make your case or prove your point, any time I attempt to offer a critique that any reasonable person should be able to handle, I’m receiving comments back that essentially declare that I must be completely wrong about everything because you disagree. In any normal argument or debate, if you disagree, either you provide functional evidence for why you think your opponent has erred, or else you offer a counter-proposal. In either case, both sides provide acceptable evidence, results of research conducted, or some form of acceptable testimonial to prove the point.
I’m having a horrid time getting you to engage in this manner.
I commented once that non-believers seem to act about the same as believers in many ways. What I’ve seen in return is an insistence that the values we live by have always been in society. Strangely though, when I request particular examples, I get responses that’re pretty much all over the map.
So, perhaps it’ll help if I’m a bit more clear: If we are to assume that the values we hold dear either in culture or in law have always been present, then I should think that these values would be pretty clear and pretty consistent. What I’ve seen proposed..strikes me as anything EXCEPT clear and consistent.
For example, I’m given a hint that humans and apes have a common ancestor AND I’m told that Creationism has been mostly debunked, which at least suggests a view toward evolution, or a preference for a scientific explanation for the world. Yet when I notice that evolution and other sciences haven’t been proven in any way to be terribly conclusive, let alone possible, I’m effectively told that I’m the only one who cares. Odd. Though I don’t know the faith breakdown of archaeologists or other scientists, I CAN say that most seem to a fair degree. Yet there they go, looking for evidence to back the idea that humans evolved from something, looking for evidence of earth’s origins, or doing research into how the earth came to be in its present state. I don’t seem to be the only one for whom the current state of knowledge won’t suit. I don’t believe I’ve ever stated that I thought Creationism sufficed; just as well, because it doesn’t for me and I’m fairly skeptical of Intelligent Design. At least not in the forms I’ve seen presented. One usually poses too strict an insistence that earth came about in precisely six of our currently recognized days. I simply don’t see the evidence to back that claim. I don’t believe Genesis to be intended as a historically provable account of exactly how creation happened. It aimed to provide proof that God created in particular. Not the time table.
Then again, the moral ideals that societies might proffer doesn’t seem terribly consistent. On one hand, I’m sarcastically told that Africans probably didn’t appreciate being enslaved by evil, white oppressors. Yet for some reason, I don’t see an objection to the slavery inflicted by the Egyptians, the Incas, the Mayas, the Romans, or any other society. I see an angry swipe raised against evil Europeans for the fact that the Inuit of (now) Alaska have mostly died off, taking their culture with them. Same is hinted for the tribes of the (now) Northwest US. Oddly though, again, I see no angst raised against the notion that various tribes on various continents have inflicted death and malaise on each other.
We can’t have a society in which it’s OK to kill a man at the same time as it’s OK to not kill him. Either we must end his life..or not. Same goes for slavery: We can’t enslave a man at the same time as we honor his intentions for his own life. We must either enslave him or not. As well, we can’t honor a man’s property rights at the same time as we authorize stealing from him.
Our society must have a clear distinction between what is wrong and what is right. And why one is wrong and the other right.
If we’re going to assume that the values we live by have always been in society, you need to demonstrate how they’ve been consistent enough with each other among societies for us to be willing to follow suit. I haven’t seen such a case yet.
Then we come to the problem of American handling of religion.
I would think that if America had intended to be a secular nation, those who had a hand in writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, also those who LIVED in the early years under the authority of these documents, they must surely have discussed these matters and made some decisions about the path to take.
Yet I see no evidence of any city Ordinance, state Statue, or congressional Act, not even an Executive Order from the President related to such concerns. I find no evidence of a Supreme Court ruling either. In spite of this, I’m apparently STILL intended to think this nation has always been secular.
Please show me your evidence to make your case.
I had an interesting conversation with a few folks earlier tonight..er, last night, I guess. I asked the two gents present at the time if they’d heard of any such concerns. Though none of us could remember any formal legal act, one of the gents commented about how the original Congress–the one that wrote the Declaration of Independence–prayed before they began each day. Apparently though, the Constitutional Convention did not. I’m told that Ben Franklin proposed that they SHOULD pray. I think it interesting to notice that, while at least a small majority decided that THEY would not pray, even so, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not explicitly forbid anyone ELSE from praying.
I haven’t finished with the Federalist or Anti-federalist Papers yet, but it appears to me that the matter HAS been debated fairly rigorously. Seems to me that when they wrote the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, they COULD have forbidden prayer and other religious involvement in public.
They did not.
Rather difficult to declare that a secular state has been the norm. This nation might be said to have begun about 1776; the Supreme Court ruling on school prayer came around 1955 or so, And now we’re almost into 2013. So, doing the math, I get a nation that’s arguably about 237 years old; the nation’s Court declared after 182 years only that TEACHERS could not lead prayers in school. Not only that, but President’s STILL typically swear their Oath of Office on a Bible, even though there’s no mandate that they do so. ..And to date, I have not heard of any serious proposal from any non-believing group to set up much of anything in the public square. Unless it’s primarily a political protest to demonstrate how angry they are that Christians won’t check their faith at the door.
I would suggest too, reality, that the above pretty well kills your assertion of Christian privilege. You don’t get to change routinely accepted practice merely because the practice makes you mad and because you wish to reinterpret the laws of the land. We don’t have an obligation to change how we understand law merely to satisfy the intolerance of a comparative few who can’t be bothered to honor the wishes of the majority of people. We don’t change practice to satisfy your loathing for someone else’s ideals.
As to your question related to regulations regarding alcohol being applied to churches, you’ll need to explain yourself quite a little. I see only apples and oranges here. If we restrict the use of alcohol to those over 21 because we, as a society, perceive various health and judgement risks involved, I see no connection at all with a parent taking their child to church. Keep in mind, the law does not dictate that a parent may not allow an underaged person to drink alcohol in their own home. Not typically anyway. The State only cares if that child proceeds onto public areas and creates problems, either by driving drunk or by other misconduct. So too would it not make any sense for the State to attempt to restrict persons under 21 from attending Church. For that matter, neither would it make sense to insist that everyone under 21 MUST go.
At the very least, such restrictions or mandates would pretty baldly violate the First Amendment. Even if you could demonstrate that such things have happened, I’m not sure what you’d really prove.
Methinks thou doth protest too much John ;-)
“In either case, both sides provide acceptable evidence, results of research conducted, or some form of acceptable testimonial to prove the point.” – where in particular do you find what I have furnished lacking? I must say I haven’t actually seen what I would call evidence from your perspective John. Research? Just god claims.
“the values we live by have always been in society. Strangely though, when I request particular examples, I get responses that’re pretty much all over the map” – would the logic you spoke of not indicate that there is ample evidence that societal mores and laws are not rooted exclusively in christianity? There have been many cultures over many tens of thousands of years. Some had god/s and religion, some didn’t. Some made ritual sacrifices, many didn’t. The ancient historical texts predating the bible all display similar codes which enabled various civilizations to function. These are what eventually became represented by the alleged 10 commandments.
“these values would be pretty clear and pretty consistent. What I’ve seen proposed..strikes me as anything EXCEPT clear and consistent.” – they are John. Don’t kill, don’t steal and don’t nick off with your neighbors wife. The historic and archeological records show consistency. Its out there, all you have to do is open your eyes.
“I’m given a hint that humans and apes have a common ancestor” – a ‘hint’, seriously? There is a whole raft of evidence for evolution John. Its just a matter of whether you deny it or not.
“AND I’m told that Creationism has been mostly debunked, which at least suggests a view toward evolution, or a preference for a scientific explanation for the world.” – as indeed it has. If you seek out the evidence, and the debates that occur, you will find that creationism is nonsense.
“Yet when I notice that evolution and other sciences haven’t been proven in any way to be terribly conclusive, let alone possible,” – you are wrong, they have been.
“I’m effectively told that I’m the only one who cares.” – now I think you are being disingenuous. There are many people who accept the word of the bible over all the evidence. They care.
“Odd. Though I don’t know the faith breakdown of archaeologists or other scientists, I CAN say that most seem to a fair degree.” – what?
“Yet there they go, looking for evidence to back the idea that humans evolved from something, looking for evidence of earth’s origins, or doing research into how the earth came to be in its present state.” – you’ve got it round the wrong way. People observed things, found artifacts, fossils, evidence, whatever, which didn’t fit with the concept of creationism. Questions were raised, hypotheses were proposed, testing undertaken, verifications achieved, peer reviews conducted and from this theories were developed. These theories were and are continuously tested and developed. Ones which fail the test do so because further scientific knowledge provides clarification. The answer is never god. And don’t even think about trying that old canard ‘its only a theory’. Gravity is only a theory. The fact that you live because you breath is only a theory. A theory is the best evidenced and repeatable cause for an event. As I said, if it is updated, improved or replaced, it is never god which becomes the new answer.
“I don’t seem to be the only one for whom the current state of knowledge won’t suit” – no, you’re not. But that’s because there will always be people who refuse to accept the evidence even when it overwhelms their worldview.
Some Americans have known, identifiable ancestors who either inflicted or suffered slavery of the Africans. It is relatively recent history. The Egyptians etc, conducted their slavery thousands of years ago in a different world. There is a direct current link in one case, not the other. No one claims that what the Egyptians etc. did in regard to slavery was good though do they?
“We can’t have a society in which it’s OK to kill a man at the same time as it’s OK to not kill him” – agreed. Lets end the death penalty then.
“Our society must have a clear distinction between what is wrong and what is right. And why one is wrong and the other right.” – we do. As you would know, it does change over time and between cultures however.
“In spite of this, I’m apparently STILL intended to think this nation has always been secular.
Please show me your evidence to make your case” – its called the first amendment and the associated precedence and case law which goes with it. As I said, its either secular or its a theocracy, which is it?
“they COULD have forbidden prayer and other religious involvement in public.
They did not.” – no, they didn’t. Why do you display this constant denial or refusal to understand that you can pray in public. No one is stopping you. I’ve explained what cannot take place and pointed you in the direction of the case outcomes supporting this.
“the nation’s Court declared after 182 years only that TEACHERS could not lead prayers in school.” – I informed you earlier that tacit agreement does not mean that something is legal and constitutional.
“Not only that, but President’s STILL typically swear their Oath of Office on a Bible, even though there’s no mandate that they do so.” – because if they didn’t some fundie wackjob would put a bullet through their head in about three seconds.
“And to date, I have not heard of any serious proposal from any non-believing group to set up much of anything in the public square.” – what would you expect?
“Unless it’s primarily a political protest to demonstrate how angry they are that Christians won’t check their faith at the door.” – can’t say I’ve seen many of those, have you?
“You don’t get to change routinely accepted practice” – what, like not allowing women to vote? Or blacks to marry whites? I do if it isn’t legal or constitutional, and apparently the courts agree.
“merely because the practice makes you mad” - finding situations to be wrong and/or unfair or having the practices of others unjustly forced upon me certainly doesn’t make me happy.
“and because you wish to reinterpret the laws of the land.” – er. no. They are simply being interpreted and applied correctly whereas they previously weren’t.
“We don’t have an obligation to change how we understand law” – we have an obligation to understand and intepret law correctly. That is what is finally starting to happen.
“merely to satisfy the intolerance of a comparative few” – you speak to me of intolerance? Do you support gay marriage? I support straight marriage, I even had one.
“who can’t be bothered to honor the wishes of the majority of people.” – like when women couldn’t vote? Or have bank accounts? It is only those wishes which are unfairly imposed or downright illegal which will not be honored.
“We don’t change practice to satisfy your loathing for someone else’s ideals.” – nor do I John.
The alcohol analogy was a rather poor one which only caused confusion John.
What I actually mean is:
if people were not provided with information regarding god/s and/or religion/s until they were 21 years of age, but were as well educated as possible in all the other usual fields, how many do you think would actually choose to embrace and practice faith?
Reality,
You offer a case essentially based on moral relativism, evolution, and an insistence that this nation failed to interpret the First Amendment properly until about 1955.
You are welcome to declare that no Supreme Being exists, that evolution explains the world, and that the nation has only begun to understand the First Amendment’s meaning if you wish. You are not welcome to deprive someone else of their right to offer alternative ideas or to endorse them if they so choose.
Nor do you have the right to reinterpret the First Amendment to suit your preferences.
In a democracy, if you don’t vote or challenge a law as it stands, you don’t get your way. You seem to agree that the populace, the Congress, the President, and the Judiciary tacitly agreed that religion in public wasn’t a problem. In other words, you seem to agree that all parties that had a concern had their say, they argued pretty vigorously about it, and the end result was that..nobody saw adequate problem for the best part of two centuries. Tacit agreement IS law, even if you wish to state otherwise. Just for kicks, keep in mind that courts have, in many cases, recognized live-in couples as “married” for the purposes of taxes, primarily because they couldn’t find any reason why not. The actions of millions of Americans for well over a century would seem to suggest that law did not forbid allowing leaders to pray in public or allowing prayers at various public events.
I think it odd that people would grouse about the Constitutional character of Christian expression, or that of other faiths. Never once have I seen a nonbeliever offer any alternative notion in the public square, unless they set about to make a political statement. I think it noteworthy too that, whatever various people may have felt regarding religious expression, prayer as a matter of course for the public WAS the effective law of the land until an angry atheist decided that her son couldn’t possibly be allowed to hear an alternate point of view.
Seems that, even though numerous groups of people had already created private institutions to handle education and other needs, precisely because they disapproved of public offerings, this lady felt the compelling need to insist that the rest of the nation HAD to be wrong, precisely because SHE and her fellow nonbelievers HAD to be right.
Law has been interpreted quite properly from the beginning of the nation, reality. It’s only in the last 60 years that we’ve felt compelled to reinterpret daily life to satisfy a few who insist that the majority got it wrong.
“Tolerance” in this case has become an excuse for very grave INtolerance.
“…if people were not provided with information regarding god/s and/or religion/s until they were 21 years of age, but were as well educated as possible in all the other usual fields, how many do you think would actually choose to embrace and practice faith?”
Funny you should ask that, reality.
As it happens, I technically grew up Catholic. I say “technically” because we went to Mass each week, I went to “church-school” (as I called it) before Mass, I went to a Catholic high school. I was an altar server for a few years. However, because our local diocese had closed the only Catholic elementary school in town, I attended elementary school for K-6. I must admit being slightly startled around 5th grade or so, when I first read about plate tectonics and/or evolution. I had already learned just enough about faith to be a tad suspicious of both theories.
Making a long answer very short, I think our churches most likely would be packed within 50 years, provided that our clergy would actually preach what the Church teaches, not merely some happy, fluffy rubbish that makes..various groups happy.
For what it’s worth, we’ve already DONE what you suggest: If you read the Acts of the Apostles, you see that nobody had any education in Christian doctrine before adulthood. It literally did not exist before then! Even so, millions of people came to faith.
Now, I can guess that you’ll declare that these were mostly the “ignorant, unwashed” peasantry of the time. For what it’s worth, some were.
You should know though, many were not.
Augustine of Hippo, for example, pretty much rejected almost everything related to faith that his mother tried to instill. He behaved like a fairly typical youthful Roman citizen, even fathered a child out of wedlock. Ultimately though, his mother’s faith caught up with him. He couldn’t deny the Truths of the faith. He ultimately felt compelled to repent of his conduct. We know his today as St Augustine, the bishop who wrote Confessions–which explains much of his faith journey–and The City of God–which offers analysis of why the Roman Empire fell and how the Heavenly City was coming into being.
While G.K. Chesterton was not, to my immediate knowledge, an atheist to begin, he too struggled with faith. He ultimately became Catholic and wrote Orthodoxy, among MANY other works. Finally, if you tune in to EWTN at the right time, you might catch Marcus Grodi’s program, The Journey Home, in which Grodi interviews various persons from various faith traditions who ultimately became Catholic.
Point is, reality, whether faith is presented to people as young children or as allegedly mature adults, many people come to faith either because they’re not satisfied with the answers from science or because they simply can’t deny the Truths involved with faith.
By the way, a fellow by the name of Lee Strobel wrote a series of books about HIS faith journey. As he went about trying to prove faith wrong and evolution right, he found too many questions that science couldn’t answer adequately, but faith COULD.
So it’s quite possible, I think, that even if you succeeded in refusing to allow children to hear about God, but educated them with the science and philosophy of the day, I think it quite likely that many would embrace faith as adults and the church buildings would need to be expanded.
They already have.
(FWIW, much of the lament I’ve heard in the last 20 years regarding the Church’s interaction with the world has declared that the hierarchy aren’t sticking to the faith nearly enough. I’m having more and more trouble declaring this to be wrong.)
Pardon me, reality, I forgot to mention a point a few minutes ago:
In the last 15 years–since I turned 23, in other words–I’ve been enraged many times by what I DIDN’T learn either from school, either Catholic or public. I recall being particularly infuriated about 2005. I was watching a show with Archbishop Sheen on EWTN when he talked about various psychologists. I paid extra close attention because I had learned about these subjects during my first year of college. I was infuriated when I saw the original broadcast date. You see, I had NOT learned anything useful about general psychology from Catholic sources all the way through high school. But if I took psychology in the spring of ’94, the program that Sheen did of this was..’54. Since I was watching the program on EWTN, the tapes obviously still existed.
Yet we had not seen these broadcasts in high school, not even in Theology class, where it might’ve made the most sense.
MAN, was I mad!
I felt like I’d spent lots of money on private school tuition for nothing.
I’m still annoyed by that sort of thing, but there’s little I can do about it right now.
Grrrr!!!!!!
Hm, so much wrong. Why do you repeatedly use pre-suppositions as a foundation for trying to advance your claims?
“this nation failed to interpret the First Amendment properly until about 1955.” – actually its more that they didn’t interpret it at all. Then the cases started. And as we have seen, it simply hadn’t been adhered to but is now.
“You are not welcome to deprive someone else of their right to offer alternative ideas or to endorse them if they so choose.” – you can offer, you can endorse. You just can’t implement that which is wrong.
“Nor do you have the right to reinterpret the First Amendment to suit your preferences.” – certainly not. It is the role of the judiciary to interpret. And we can see whats happening there can’t we, its finally being done accurately.
“you seem to agree that all parties that had a concern had their say, they argued pretty vigorously about it, and the end result was that..nobody saw adequate problem for the best part of two centuries.” – no, I agreed no such thing. There were no vigorous arguments, it was just a cultural norm, even if it was legally and constitutionally wrong.
“Tacit agreement IS law” – absolutely not. What a fundamentally false claim. Just so wrong.
“courts have, in many cases, recognized live-in couples as “married” for the purposes of taxes” – this is what is known as precedence. When a situation arises for which there is no specified law, other cases and similar situations are compared and argument made as to the validity of application.
“would seem to suggest” – sure, it may seem to suggest.
“that law did not forbid allowing leaders to pray in public or allowing prayers at various public events.” – the law hasn’t changed. Prayers to open public meetings are against the first amendment, public prayer isn’t. Will you ever get that?
“I think it odd that people would grouse about the Constitutional character of Christian expression” – what constitutional character of christian expression? There is no such thing.
“Never once have I seen a nonbeliever offer any alternative notion” – what would you have us offer, open air university science classes? Short biology explanations to open public meetings?
“in the public square, unless they set about to make a political statement.” – all groups do that to some extent, yours included.
“prayer as a matter of course for the public WAS the effective law of the land” – no it was not the law of the land, effective or otherwise. It was simply allowed to occur because people were too scared to speak out against it.
“an angry atheist decided that her son couldn’t possibly be allowed to hear an alternate point of view.” – there are plenty of opportunities for her son to hear an alternative point of view. The problem is being forced to participate in the practice of that alternative point of view.
“Law has been interpreted quite properly from the beginning of the nation, reality.” – Usually yeah. But as I said at the start, much of what we are discussing here was never interpreted or tested until recently. So your claim falls a little short.
“It’s only in the last 60 years that we’ve felt compelled to reinterpret daily life” – its called change John. Advancement. Release from the shackles of hypocrisy and unwarranted influences based on myth. Its taken place for a whole lot longer than 60 years.
“to satisfy a few who insist that the majority got it wrong.” – no, to stop people being forced to live in a way that they do not wish to nor is there any justification for them being required to do so.
“Tolerance” in this case has become an excuse for very grave INtolerance.” – it is your same christian ‘tolerance’ that had to be overcome for the current accurate, equitable and just application of factors such as the first amendment to be correctly interpreted and applied.
From what you say, and from what I know, I don’t think we can be at all accurate about how many people would or wouldn’t be open to faith if they heard nothing of it until reaching 21.
My opinion however, is that if people were educated about physics, chemistry, biology, maths, language etc, they could quite well find the concept of faith rather an odd thing.
“If you read the Acts of the Apostles,” – you offer this as evidence? To me?
“they simply can’t deny the Truths involved with faith.” – I find no ‘truths’ in faith. I doubt a young, educated adult who hasn’t been indoctrinated would either.
“he found too many questions that science couldn’t answer adequately, but faith COULD.” – I would suggest he has issues. Anyone who finds faith to have more, or better, answers than science has already chosen faith.
“I think it quite likely that many would embrace faith as adults and the church buildings would need to be expanded” – I heartily disagree :-)
“much of the lament I’ve heard in the last 20 years regarding the Church’s interaction with the world has declared that the hierarchy aren’t sticking to the faith nearly enough.” – oh yes please. I could almost pray that they would do so. Lets hasten the extinguishment.
‘“this nation failed to interpret the First Amendment properly until about 1955.” – actually its more that they didn’t interpret it at all. Then the cases started. And as we have seen, it simply hadn’t been adhered to but is now.’
That’s quite a stretch, reality. One does not need a court case to interpret the law. One need only follow the law as they understand it to accomplish “interpretation”. We have seemed to agree that arguments for and against religious occurred both during the ratification process AND as the People debated the Bill of Rights. They do not appear to have declared that political leaders, schools, or other authorities would be barred from presenting religious ideals in public, nor from instituting them into law. If they’d wished doing so, I think they would have made such an approach pretty explicit.
If we are to assume that no interpretation occurred prior to 1955, we must demonstrate that the populace feared reprisal of some sort for rebelling against the status quo. Neither you nor anyone else have competently demonstrated a massive repression of anyone. If anything, American history shows that the People fought with each other over MANY concerns, religious interpretation included.
..And for kicks: If you want to find a group of cowering masses, you’d be better off looking at the alleged power-mongers, the slave owners. I’ve generally understood that some Southern states actually passed laws forbidding black people–mostly assumed to be slaves–from being educated in any real manner. They, the slave owners, feared a deadly uprising from educated slaves. ..One does not fear a figure who has taken to cowering in the corner….
So…now we have the charge that believers have been indoctrinated to believe in fairy tales and myths. If they’d been educated in math, science, humanities, and the like, they wouldn’t believe in God or Supreme Being because they wouldn’t find truth in it. Uh huh. Have you paid any heed at all to our education system? A brief review of Wikipedia demonstrates that States have compelled attendance in schools for believers and non-believers alike as early as 1852, with the last state instituting similar law in 1917. Though you might quibble about the US Dept of Education having only been legally sanctioned as a Cabinet position in 1979, I should think you must concede that we’ve had lawyers, engineers, doctors, businessmen, and numerous other educated roles active in society for close on 100 years. We could never have gone to the moon or discerned how to pay for such an effort if we didn’t.
Then too, if we’re worried about how much of a subject receives attention, I might remind you that the average high school student spends a minimum of 30 minutes each day, 5 days each week, studying Algebra, Geometry, often Calculus, History (American and World), Chemistry or Biology (or both), American Literature (where they definitely are NOT reading Bibles), and some form of philosophy. Those are MANDATES, reality. States can lose funding if someone can prove they haven’t followed these requirements. So the average student has no choice but to spend at least 2.5 hours each week studying these various subjects. In comparison, there’s no law requiring anyone to attend church services or study faith, but the average church service might be said to last about 1 hour.
So you REALLY intend to tell me that students have been indoctrinated in faith, even though they’ve been required by law to spend at least TWICE at much time studying your preferred subjects as they might be required to spend on faith subjects?
That charge doesn’t hold up very well at all!
BTW, I see no reason why I shouldn’t mention a Biblical resource. If you REALLY believe that people should have the right to pursue the free exchange of ideas, I should think we have the right to offer those ideas we think reasonable, true, and proper. You wanted to know what would happen to churches if nobody ever knew about faith prior to age 21. I offered you distinct example of how a huge mass of people over the age of 21 HAD been offered an education that very clearly did NOT include faith in a particular god. Don’t forget, the early Church wasn’t exclusive to Jews, but also made plenty of room for the citizenry of Rome. There’s even a cited case of a debate between Peter and Paul about whether older Jewish customs and laws needed to be applied to new Christians or not. They determined that new Christians aimed to fulfill the New Covenant, so the old covenant mandates didn’t apply.
And, while we can’t precisely declare that the Romans had AS extensive a knowledge of the sciences–that didn’t happen until many centuries later, ironically because Christians became curious–we CAN admit that they did have SOME knowledge of medicine and other concerns. Plenty enough to cause educated persons to have cause to be skeptical of Christian claims.
And yet they came to the Church in droves over time.
Yes, I think we have ample cause to think churches would survive in our present age.
..And again, a marketplace in which all may present their ideas DOES require that Judeo-Christian principles be allowed at the table, same as any other. Given that no person has an obligation to honor or live out principles they don’t believe in, at leats not outside of ensuring general public safety, AND given the numbers of Christians and Jews, I would anticipate Judeo-Christian principles being relatively dominant. Since Most views dissenting from this will most likely not see majority status because the majority of people simply won’t take them seriously enough.
“One does not need a court case to interpret the law. One need only follow the law as they understand it to accomplish “interpretation”.” – oh yes, we’ll all just make it up as we go along in ways which suit us shall we? Your interpretation, mine or some neo-nazi’s?
“They do not appear to have declared that political leaders, schools, or other authorities would be barred from presenting religious ideals in public, nor from instituting them into law.” – then you seriously misunderstand the first amendment. As has been demonstrated in recent court decisions.
“the populace feared reprisal of some sort for rebelling against the status quo. Neither you nor anyone else have competently demonstrated a massive repression of anyone” – given the sheer volume of the spite, bile, vitriol and actual threats made against people involved in contemprary cases (such as Jessica Ahlquist) we can only imagine how much worse it would have been decades ago.
“So you REALLY intend to tell me…” – er, John, you’ve written two long paragraphs in an attempt to rebut something I didn’t propose. All I said was that if students received the education they do now, minus any mention of religion, what might the take-up rate of faith be.
“I should think we have the right to offer those ideas we think reasonable, true, and proper” – except for the fact that they lack any evidence.
“I would anticipate Judeo-Christian principles being relatively dominant. Since Most views dissenting from this will most likely not see majority status because the majority of people simply won’t take them seriously enough” – what you and so many others fail to acknowledge is that judeo-christian principles aren’t the origin, the cause or the foundation, they are one of the outcomes.
A quote I came across John:
“God’s wishes are cited in efforts to deny abortions to raped women and civil marriages to same-sex couples. In our country God doesn’t merely have a place at the table. He or She is the host of the prayer-heavy dinner party.”
Reality,
All you’ve really done with these last comments is provide yet another rehash of your point of view, but you’ve offered nothing in the way of new evidence to substantiate your claims.
I think most of us are well aware of the views of the court system. Many of us have come to understand that various nonbelieving factions have likely tried for a long, long time to persuade others to abandon religion in public. Failing to succeed in that manner, they appear to have turned to the Judiciary and academia to impose their views on America, whether America wished it or not.
I notice that all of the “legal precedent” you can cite essentially comes after 1955, and even then, it only comes when some extreme minority complains that we’ve all missed the boat with the First Amendment. In the name of “freedom of religion”, we’ve banned schools from praying together, we’ve banned students from hearing anything besides secularism, we’ve banned any display or text that even hints at a notion of a Supreme Being. If the schools are intended as a “marketplace of ideas”, we’ve failed horribly. It’s not possible to have a free exchange of ideas if one group can declare what shall be admitted as “possible” and not.
You complain about hatred directed against Jessica Ahlquist. Seems to me you have very selective vision. Judging by the article, Ms. Ahlquist had already fomented a good deal of what I could readily describe as “hate” herself. Her lawsuit only won because the court decided to settle for “legal precedent”. They apparently felt no need to remember that all people have the right to hear a differing viewpoint.
On the whole, most nonbelievers seem to be wholly incapable of tolerating anything they don’t like, but will resort to any means deemed necessary to see their way made a mandate. Those who howl the most about “suppression of belief”, referring to the lack of faith in secularism, have themselves inflicted the most suppression of many things.
Now, it’s been interesting and fun, but I’ve taken copious amounts of time in an effort to help you see differently. I’ve neglected many other concerns that I should be addressing. ..And, partly because of the time of year and the nature of my job, I’m beginning to hinder my ability to accomplish my job well; every time I type these last few days, my fingertips begin to bleed ever so slightly.
You seem entrenched in your views in a way that seems to me partly motivated by a particular anger directed against those who tried to educate you in faith in earlier years. I wish I had time to explore that trial, but I’ll need to leave that to God, I think.
I do hope you’ll have some cause to reconsider your view.
I’d love to help, but for now, I must bow out.
God Bless.