(Prolifer)ations 7-26-11
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN and Kelli
As always, we welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- Live Action notes statements made by abortionist Richard Grossman, a Quaker who works at a Catholic hospital in CO when not performing abortions at Planned Parenthood. Among Grossman’s outrageous comments:
The reason I perform abortions is because I’m a Christian….
Personally, I believe in the strength, intellect and fortitude of women. When a woman says a fetus is a person, I think it is one. I believe the woman empowers the fetus.
- The FRC Blog recommends Jeffrey Kuhner’s recent Washington Times commentary on Obama’s “wider culture war against Christian values.”
- Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, responds to the Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons’ suggestion that euthanasia via “palliative sedation” be legalized:
Since the proper use of sedation techniques and the proper use of large doses of analgesics is not euthanasia, therefore the Quebec College must be suggesting that everyday Quebec physicians abuse the proper use of palliative sedation and abuse the proper use of analgesics.
If this is true, then how does the QC expect that euthanasia, if legalized, would not be abused?
- Moral Outcry points out that pro-lifers cannot be silent about abortion without being complicit:
Injustice demands a voice. That’s why the issue of abortion is not something we can privately hate but publicly tolerate. It is controversial. The pro-abortion (called pro-choice) culture has made it seem that only an intolerant hater could be 100% against abortion.
- Big Blue Wave comments on an article by noted feminist and liberal activist, Naomi Wolfe, who seems to have discovered what social conservatives knew long ago: pornography has detrimental effects on the sex lives of men.
- Abstinence Clearinghouse points to places that offer help those with pornography addictions.
- Accepting Abundance writes of the devaluing of the feminine in our culture and around the world – the “feminists’ worst nightmare” brought on by their own efforts.
- Ethika Politika takes the ACLU to task for insisting civil liberties are being violated by colleges who won’t allow single sex dorms or dorm rooms.
- Culture Campaign discusses the covert creation of animal-human hybrids undertaken by various labs for years without public knowledge:
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.
“Personally, I believe in the strength, intellect and fortitude of women. When a woman says a fetus is a person, I think it is one. I believe the woman empowers the fetus.”
ARRRRRRRGGGGHHH!!!! This will always be my least favorite thing that choicers ever say.
I disagree that obama is perpetrating some sort of “wider culture war against Christian values.” He is ensuring the separation of church and state by not allowing all decisions to be made on religious premises. He does not act ‘against’ religion, he acts against it creating a quasi-theocratic state.
It’s no surprise that Kuhner would take the stance he has. It’s a case of ‘well he would say that wouldn’t he’.
“subsidizing free birth control violates the conscience rights of devout Christians, orthodox Jews and Muslims. It compels them to have their hard-earned taxpayer dollars go toward funding behavior that their religious faiths condemn as sinful and an abomination” – aw shucks, and what of those of us who are forced to subsidise beliefs and practices which we don’t agree with.
“especially, the “morning-after” pill, whose use is a possible form of abortion” – which is legal. It’s permissable, not mandatory.
I actually agree that pornography can have a detrimental effect on the sex lives of some men. This means that it also can have a detrimental effect on the sex lives of some women. It’s a difficult topic though. At what point does something become pornography? To what extent is something pornographic? What level or amount of preventative or restrictive controls can or should be put in place? It’s really not simple.
I’m trying to be as objective as I can here…but I think that article in the Washington Post “wider culture ware against Christian values” is one of the worst, more poorly thought out articles I’ve read in a while. He builds his entire argument on a lot of things that are simply untrue or are wild guesses. It made me sad that I’ve lost those two minutes of my life I devoted to reading that and I feel sad that somebody at FRC blog actually recommended it.
My understanding is that the constitution affirms the right of the state TO CREATE an established religion without federal interference if the residents of that state wish to do so. The federal government can’t establish a religion but the individual states could. It’s unfortunate that the federal government is twisting that around and misusing their power to prohibit the free exercise of religion – exactly what the government was supposed to be prohibited from doing in the first place. The federal government has its hands in WAY too many cookie jars. The gov’t was never intended to be this huge and all-powerful.
First amendment to the Constitution:
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.
How is the federal government acting to “prohibit the free exercise of religion”?
I was responding to the whole idea of the government supposedly not having an “anti-religious” sort of agenda going on. There’s really no “separation of church and state”. It’s a states’ rights issue, and I don’t think the federal government has the right to step in.
Can you give me some examples army_wife?
army-wife,
In fact, no where in the Constitution is there any mention of the seperation of church and state.
Realty, let’s see, by saying Christians can’t communicate their beliefs without being in danger of a ‘hate crime’, by saying private citizens can’t pray or speak about their beliefs in public, by saying it’s ok to fire a Christian who does pray, speak, publish something about their beliefs on their own free time, by saying parents can’t exempt their children from government funded endoctrination that is contrary to their beliefs, by refusing to let military chaplins pray in the name of their God/god, by refusing to prosecute employers who discriminate based upon religion, etc, etc, etc. ‘Separation of church and state’ a phrase not in the consitution by the way, was never meant to mean that government must follow the religion of secular humanism/atheism and that all people could only express religious beliefs/live their religion behind the church doors or behind their own doors.
One’s religion is not a mask that a person is free to remove at will. It is something that must be part of one’s every action. It should not be expected that we hide our faith, if we have one, as if it is something offensive.
Well Jespren, you provide a fine list of examples. My observations have been however, that in cases I have seen which match your examples it has been more a case of the religious attempting to force their beliefs and practices on others.
“Christians can’t communicate their beliefs without being in danger of a ‘hate crime’ ” – yet Westboro are still allowed to do their thing.
“private citizens can’t pray or speak about their beliefs in public” – like mass prayers at graduation ceremonies? Trying to introduce creationism into science textbooks?
“parents can’t exempt their children from government funded endoctrination that is contrary to their beliefs” – heard of homeschooling? Or religious schools?
“by refusing to let military chaplins pray in the name of their God/god,” – not forcing non-christians to attend prayers isn’t refusing to allow prayer.
“by refusing to prosecute employers who discriminate based upon religion,” – ahem. Excuse me?
“was never meant to mean that government must follow the religion of secular humanism/atheism and that all people could only express religious beliefs/live their religion behind the church doors or behind their own doors.” – what an exaggeration! Not being allowed to proselytize in certain arenas or introduce faith-based legislation does not prevent people practicing their beliefs.
RCJC, I would not want you to ‘hide’ your faith. I support your entitlement to practice it. Just don’t attempt to inculcate it into society and legislation. That’s theocracy.
Just wanted to say hi to Hal. I am too lazy to scroll through a 330 comment post. :)
It is always great fun here, Hal. You know that.
My understanding is that the constitution affirms the right of the state TO CREATE an established religion without federal interference if the residents of that state wish to do so. The federal government can’t establish a religion but the individual states could…
Well, by that logic, states would be free to issue whatever laws they wished restricting freedom of speech, press, and assembly. But they aren’t. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I assume that’s because the Constitution’s supremacy clause limits states’ abilities to restrict rights and freedoms delineated in the Constitution.
You’re correct that the Constitution does not contain the words “separation of church and state,” but the Constitution does say that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” meaning both federal and state offices. That effectively prohibits the establishment of a state religion. It protects Christians from the people who have traditionally persecuted them: other Christians.
I think it is a little crazy that in some countries, the hardships that Christians face is that they are physically beaten and even killed – and in the US, our biggest gripes are that crosses in the middle of the desert can’t be kept up (even though we’ve spent millions in the courts trying to fight for them!).
I’m a Christian, and I have no issue praying whenever I want to my God.
I’m going to pray right now.
Done – and nobody did anything to stop me. :-)
Reality,
Yes, the Westboros can, but there have been several instances of people getting arrested for talking on a street corner, handing out flyers on public property, or being threatened for preaching from the Bible. The most egregious example I can remember off the top of my head is a state example. 3 men from a local church in CA were reading the Bible in the empty parking lot outside the closed DMV. They were arrested for ‘distrupting business of a government building’ and told by the cop ‘you can’t just read the Bible anywhere you want’.
Or how about a valedictorian told she couldn’t say that her belief in God helped her be a better student? And whose microphone was sumarily turned off when she went ahead with her speech (despite that her classmates protested for her rights). There is nothing remotely illegal about a singular person saying a prayer aloud in the hearing of others or mention God, yet that is exactly what is being subverted.
Or interjecting science into science textbooks? There is no (nationwide or large scale) organization that wants ‘creationism’ taught in public schools. We just don’t want a deeply flawed theory to be taught as fact and any competing evidence buried or rejected out of hand because it sheds unfavorable light on humanists pet theorum.
Or military chapels told at voluntary breakfasts and services that no one is forced to attend and who everyone knows a chaplin will be opening to not end a pray in ‘Jesus name’ or address it to ‘Father God’ or ‘Jesus’. Again, the mere notion that someone might hear something they disagree with is not illegal.
Yes, I have heard of homeschooling and private schooling, and I think Christians who send their kids to public school and deluding themself, but should someone of any religion be forced to pay extra or withdraw their kids from ‘free public education’ to avoid their children being agressively ostricized (I speak from 1st hand experiance) for their beliefs?
Or like the nurse who was fired for refusing to help in an elective, non-emergent abortion and the justice department refused to follow their own guidelines for religious/concientious (sp?) Objections and refused to discipline the hospital for firing her?
Every single peice of legislation is faith based, why should atheists be able to put forth their faith based legislation when Christians aren’t? Why can environmental gaiaist, secular humanists, socialist, etc put forth legislation and not anyone from theistic religions? People always vote their beliefs, but secular humanist want Christians to ignore their beliefs when they vote.
Furthermore the Founders of this country, and it’s heritage is Judeo/Christian in it’s morals, almost all the laws that existed in the land for it’s first couple hundred years were based upon those morals. The Consitution was as well. People have a right to redress the government and to put forth legislation to a populous vote. My religion says to obey human government (when it doesn’t directly contradict God’s law), so I would be remiss in my beliefs, and fail to practice them, if I *don’t* vote my religous beliefs, protest within the legal limits, and help/petition for legislation that aligns with those beliefs.
It is patently absurd for anyone with a passing knowledge of history to suggest that the government was supposed to be or should be free “from” religion.
I sometimes wonder if people think of the phrase: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and, subconciously at least, think that the government should show no respect for a religious institution.
“Respecting” is quaint English for “about”.
Thomas Jefferson, himself a big proponent of states’ rights, talked of “separation between Church & State.”
Not saying that the “Founding Fathers” didn’t have, variously, their own religious feelings, but you gotta remember that those old boys were sick and tired of many of the influences of religion in Europe, and looked to do what they considered a better job with the US.
Doug,
Thomas Jefferson also attended church services held weekly in the main room of the Hall of Congress. And he had no problem with states requiring attendance in good standing to a church for people to hold city or state office, he, like the others of the time, just thought it wrong for the federal government to say *which* church denomination or sect you had to belong to. More over in his famous letter that contains the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ he was afraid that the government might infringe upon the church, not the other way around and reiterated that the government must give way to the church and be influenced by her. Jefferson said that our government was only fit to rule over godly men and that children should be taught God and religion above all else. He also believed that the citizens should elect Christians into office to lead them (and said as such).
“empty parking lot outside the closed DMV” – government land? Was there anything else going on there or were they reading the bible out loud to a crowd?
“Or how about a valedictorian told she couldn’t say that her belief in God helped her be a better student?” – I have read about a number of these cases in recent times. It would generally appear that rather than just wanting to thank god on a personal level, their aim is to lead the assembled in prayer.
“saying a prayer aloud in the hearing of others or mention God, yet that is exactly what is being subverted.” – no, it’s attempting to lead groups in prayer in inappropriate gatherings or venues which is prevented. Like attempts to conduct group prayers before council meetings.
“There is no (nationwide or large scale) organization that wants ‘creationism’ taught in public schools” – er, you are obviously lacking information. There are.
“a deeply flawed theory to be taught as fact” – the science which is taught in schools is proven and evidential, not conjecture or theory. “any competing evidence” – there isn’t any, it’s only belief.
“voluntary breakfasts and services that no one is forced to attend” – what, like non-christian defence personnel who were restricted to barracks if they didn’t attend a christian event?
“agressively ostricized (I speak from 1st hand experiance) for their beliefs?” – there is a significant difference between holding and practicing a belief and proselytizing and coercing others to participate or be denigrated. How about Bachmann’s old school where parent-driven student proselytizing and ‘anti-gay-prayer’ has contributed to several suicides?
“Every single peice of legislation is faith based” – that is so wrong it’s not even funny.
“why should atheists be able to put forth their faith based legislation when Christians aren’t?” – they can, then people vote.
“People always vote their beliefs, but secular humanist want Christians to ignore their beliefs when they vote.” – so is someone hovering over you in the voting booth? Just because your beliefs don’t win doesn’t mean democracy has failed.
“almost all the laws that existed in the land for it’s first couple hundred years were based upon those morals” – again, not even funny.
“People have a right to redress the government and to put forth legislation to a populous vote” – yes they do but you obviously get upset when yours doesn’t get up. So do I when mine doesn’t.
“It is patently absurd for anyone with a passing knowledge of history to suggest that the government was supposed to be or should be free “from” religion.” – the palin/bachmann school of history maybe.
Nice little piece about Jefferson’s personal habits and beliefs but they are irrelevant to constitutional reality and legislation.
I think that those who are capable of making an impact would be aware of that Hans.
Reality,
I’ve always had a more memorable name than Jimmy or Bobby, but I believe you’re comments are meant for another memorable name: Jespren. :)
But anyway…
I think it’s safe to say you made up the worst possible angle for each point Jespren made. Three men holding a Bible study in an empty parking lot outside the DMV? No, not in a lone car or the nearby grass, they must be standing shouting out passages in hopes of a passer-by.
A valedictorian thinks God guided his or her excellence? Why, they must be breaking out in an old time revival meeting!
But I think you really struck out on the subject of creationism. As Jespren said, most don’t insist on it being taught as an alternative but equally possible theory. It would just be nice if many of the holes in evolutionary theory were discussed.
The virtual impossibility that non-life can become life (it’s really not any more feasable than Dr. Frankenstein sewing together body parts, adding electricity, and viola! A new life.).
The digital computer-like sophistication in the simplest virus or microbe.
The impossible luck that, after the impossible luck that chemicals become living cells, creatures overcome the deadliness of their mutation not just for the next generation, but for each one for millions of generations until the mutations finally become useful. Not a millstone around their neck.
The skull of a woodpecker is like a jackhammer. How did it evolve? Each of millions of generations could only find bugs in slightly less rotting logs until it could drill hard wood?
An antelope can only find most vegetation at a slightly higher level for millions of generations, until it becomes a giraffe? And where did all those other proto-antelopes and camels go and luck out with their food supply?
Check out any animal show. They are all perfectly adapted to their living conditions. They are dead-ends and you can’t explain how they got there by “survival of the fittest”. More like “serendipity of the luckiest.”
We all know how easy it is lose plants and animals we try our best to care for. That billions of species could flourish for billions of years with the luck of a lottery winner every generation is just incomprehensible.
Oh, and carbon dating? That assumes that cosmic radiation has been unchanged over hundreds of millions of years.
Evololution is all about conjecture and theory.
Only the last sentence was for you Hans, in response to what you had said. The rest was indeed for Jespren. I should have clarified but I thought my responses to quoted remarks made that obvious.
I gave real responses to Jespren’s points. I really don’t see what you’re trying to infer.
“No, not in a lone car or the nearby grass, they must be standing shouting out passages in hopes of a passer-by” – is this meant to mean anything?
“A valedictorian thinks God guided…” – did you actually read my response?
“creationism……….equally possible theory” – except that it’s not. There is no scientific evidence for it.
Yawn.
Yes, the incident outside the DMV is meant to mean something. You’re the one who asked if they were reading the Bible to a crowd. I didn’t see any indication of that.
These valedictorian cases have not been about leading the audience in prayer. They are merely trying to point out the world-view that got them there.
The lack of evidence for evolution is the evidence for creationism. Either the physical and biological universe came about on it’s own or an Intelligence guided it.
Hans/Jespren -
What other theories of the beginning of the universe would you like to see taught in schools? Native American views on creation as well?
If you showed up at a graduation ceremony, and the student started talking about his Islamic belief, would you be 100% okay with that?
What if a newly elected Senator wanted to put his hand on his holy book – the book of Mormon or the Koran? Cool with you?
Or what religious symbols for what religious groups should be allowed on public property?
Reality, headed to bed after my last post so sorry for the delay (and thanks Has)
While a few cases of the valedictorian may have been a wish to pray outloud, I specific one I refered to was just exactly as I refered it. Valedictorians must submit their speech for review to make sure it doesn’t contain questionable material (usually meaning sexual or foul language). She thanked various teachers, her parents, and her relationship with God for helping her be a good student. She was told to remove her reference to God. Her classmates heard about it and showed support for her, so she went ahead with the speech. The administration turned her microphone off and ordered her off stage, despite calls from tha audience for her to continue. There was some threat of withholding her diploma, but it didn’t (thankfully) last very long. Even *if* a valedictorian got up and their speech was a prayer, there is *still* nothing wrong about that. Seeing or hearing someone else practice their religion is not something you are protected against. Again, it is freedom *of* religion, not *from* religion.
The 3 men were quietly reading their Bible in a voice loud enough to be heard by their group of 3 close together only. They were not trying to ‘preach’. The lot was empty, the building closed. And the parking lot of a government building is considered public land, not private.
As for leading a group prayer being ‘inappropriate’ how can something specifically and explicitly practiced and allowed by the writers of the Consitution be forbidden by it? Do you think liberals today somehow understand the document better than it’s creators?
‘Restricted to base’ you mean like, they signed up for a volunantary military service with rules and such, how *dare* they! Military personell are restricted to base as a matter of course, that they have an *option* to attend a breakfast, dinner, talk, service, etc is just that,optional. But no, I wasn’t actually refering to that. Rather a recent occurance where a chaplin opening a off-base, 100% voluntary breakfast open to current and retired servicemen with a prayer was told he couldn’t use the words ‘in Jesus name’, ‘Jesus’ or ‘Father God’, but had to address the prayer to a generic ‘God’ and close it with ‘amen’. So as not to offend anyone who might be praying to a different god. Which if expressely forbidden by Christianity. We can not lead or participate in prayers to any or other gods. That he couldn’t address his prayer to his God and needed to be ‘open’ to the fact that his outloud prayer might be interpreted by someone else in the room as a prayer to someone other than Jesus or Father God is distinctly against his religion, and interfers with the religious practice of a CHAPLIN for heaven’s sake.
I am a Biblical creationists, and an apologetics practioner, as such I am well familiar with the large, nation or world-wide creation science community and science ‘activists’ trying to change certain existing status quos in the secular establishment. None of them advocate for teaching ‘creationism’ in the classroom. It would be stupidity to try to mandate a teacher teach something she knows nothing about and/or disbelieves. What we *do* want is the evidence, and there is _a lot_ of it, that counters evolution as fact presented and teachers who don’t believe in the religion of evolution to be able to offer scientific evidence and critical thinking to their students. I’ll give an example. In high school biology we had to do a project on the horse evolution theory that lined up all the supposed transitional forms in the horse lineage from the little rat-like creature to the modern horse. That’s fine, it’s good to know some people believe that actually happened. But what isn’t good is that it was put forth as proven truth that one animal led to another, which is only suposition that has many faults. Those transitional forms were found all over the world, some of them in *only* certain areas. Some of them are compatriates even according to evolutionary time scale (meaning an anscestor and what they supposedly turned into both lived at the same time) some of the anscestrial forms are *only* found along with (time wise) their supposed later forms. What’s more, while the general overall appearance tell a good story, each form is distinct and complete and the number of ribs jumps wildly and suddenly between the different types. In otherwords creature A lived right along creature C and had 19 ribs, while creature B only lived in area X and had 23 ribs, while creature C has 17 ribs, and creature D is found worldwide alongside A, E and F and has 19 ribs. Etc. (This is an example using generals, I don’t remember which creatures in the horse series jump ribs, overlap, or are worldwide verses area specific, I used A, B, etc because I don’t want to look up the scientific names, I will though, if you want) Such things would lead any critically thinking person to question that A lead to B to C to D etc, but that isn’t taught in school because it reflects poorly upon the *theory* of evolution. My segment on human evolution included ‘links’ that have been known hoaxes for decades (like piltdown man who was ‘discovered’ in 1912 and found to be a hoax in 1953, yet there it was in a 2001 year science class right along with other ‘proof’ that man evolved)
And no, most of the time at least, no one is hovering over the ballet box, but when Judeo/Christian morals get confirmed by a vote of the populous it frequently gets overturned by leftist activist judges. Let’s take a brief tour shall we? Abortion on demand? Activist judges, never voted on by the populous, the majority are against it. Homosexual ‘marriage’? Activist judges, ever state that has voted about it has voted for traditional marriage. Divorce on demand? Activist judges, at the time of it’s overturning (fault-divorce) the majority of the populous disagreed with no fault divorce. Comprehensive sex ed? Same thing, the majority of voters disagree with it. Condoms for kids? Majority disagrees. Etc, etc, etc. In fact very few ‘liberal’ morality changes have taken place through democratic process, almost all have used the court system. The notion of ‘then people vote’ is anathama to liberals!
Show me a single example of a piece of legislation that is *not* faith based on a belief system? You might not find it funny, but it is true that the legal system of the US is based in Judeo/Christian beliefs and nearly all laws were based upon these morals.
In elementary school, during an ethics debate on why we found murder wrong and under what circumstances would we change our actions (specifically, “would you dump toxins in a river if you knew it would kill people?” “What if you were given $1million to do it? Or if your grandma’s life would be saved by it?” Etc.) I was the only kid in the class that refused to say i’d kill even after all the ‘personal benefit’ extenuating circunstances were adding. I was asked ‘why not?’ I (started) to answer, (remember *I* was asked and this was a segment about personal ethics) “because my belief in God says” my teacher interupted me and snapped ‘shut up and sit down, we don’t talk about that in school’. That is neither the 1st, last, worst, nor only such instance where I was 1) dismissed from class 2) told to be quiet 3) told that was not a valid answer and I had to redo the assignment 4) told I would get a failing grade if I didn’t change my response to an answer that was supposed to be about personal ethivs, beliefs, or opinions 5) been spoken rudely or inappriopriately to by a teacher 6) threatened with withholding of my diploma/interference with college scholarships, etc. If you don’t think Christians are agressively ‘discriminated’ against in public school (or the workplace) just for speaking or ‘walking’ their beliefs even if the prostylize no one or force no one to listen, it’s because you are either willingly blind to it, deluded, or incredibly sheltered/niave (or you think they deserve it for the social ‘sin’ of being an Christian who actually *believes* Christianity.)
I know this has been very disjointed and maybe didn’ut mention all points, but it’s getting really long and it’s very difficult to go back and forth on my cell. So for that you have my apologies and I hope I didn’t leave out something too important.
Three men holding a Bible study in an empty parking lot outside the DMV? No, not in a lone car or the nearby grass, they must be standing shouting out passages in hopes of a passer-by…
They were shouting at the line of people waiting for the DMV to open, but filmed at an angle that did not show them. The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FruQO8qaw9c&feature=player_embedded. Note that the pastor explicitly says that their intention was to preach to “all the people that congregate there.” You can decide for yourself whether they were speaking only loudly enough to be heard by each other.
Army_wife:
Much of what you say about Jefferson cannot be supported by evidence. In some cases you might be confusing John Adams and Jefferson, and in others you might be using spurious quotations. Please document your sources. In particular…
“and reiterated that the government must give way to the church and be influenced by her.”
No, he didn’t. The letter is right here: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html It does not say that the government should be influenced by the church.
And he had no problem with states requiring attendance in good standing to a church for people to hold city or state office,
I would like to see your evidence for this. It particularly conflicts with the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, which Jefferson wrote. Among other things, the statute says that “We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever…; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”
That says that someone’s religious attendance can have no bearing on their ability to hold office.
Ex-Gop,
I would like to see science, the scientific method, and critical thinking taught in school. Teach that some scientists believe in Uniformitarianisn and therefore believe the earth to be very old, other believe in a changing system and therefore believe the universe to be (comparitively) young. Fossils exist, and it makes sense for them to be gone over in a physical science class, but fossils don’t come with a sticker that has it’s age listed. Instead some scientists measure certain chemicals within the fossil and, using a Uniformitarianism understanding of radioactive decay reach these ages, other scientist, however, don’t believe that to be a valid age because radioactive decay has been shown not to be a constant under certain circumstances. You can teach pundit squares and genetics (invented by a Biblical Creationist btw) without ever mentioing molecules to man evolution. You can teach mutations and natural selection (both of which are losses of information, the exact opposite of what evolution needs) without getting into evolution OR creation. Just teach the facts, not the assumptions. There is a great quote by an evolutionist, when asked ‘what do you know for sure about evolution’ answered “it shouldn’t be taught in high school”. By the way the intro to my evolution segment in biology was a long, new age-y video that went over the various Native American creation stories and then segwayed into ‘now we know better’ and started in on evolution. Ironic.
I would have adsolutely no problem with a student talking about how Islam helped him in his life/school/growing up. Or Wiccanism, or Satanism, or Athiesm. I’m not offended by the notion that other people believe differently than I. There is a great quote: a liberal is someone who believes all people have a right to their beliefs, and then are outraged to discover that other beliefs exist. I hold no such surprise or outrage. My only annoyance with an outspoken Wiccan in my high school, was that *I* got told to shut up while she was praised for having the courage to share the basis for her ethical beliefs (which is, annoyed with the teachers on my behalf, not on her behalf or with her)
If a newly elected *anything* didn’t believe in the Bible why on earth would I want them to use it to swear by? Of course a Muslim should use a Koran, a Mormon the Book of Mormoms, etc. The whole *point* is they are swearing on their convictions and under threat of their belief system should they oath-break. The reason the Bible is traditionally used is because in the early years of the U.S. nearly everyone sworn into office was a confessing Christian. People are supposed to be sworn in with what they believe to be the Ultimate Authority invoked by placing their hand on the Bible. If you don’t believe the Ultimate Authority to be found in the Bible it would be useless and pointless to use it to swear upon.
There is no problem with any public display of any religion. If a local Buddhist temple wants to set up a shrine to hold an open-to-the-general-public cerimony on a holy day (or just to attrack attention to their temple in a membership drive) on public ground, be that the public park or the community lawn out front of City Hall that’s not only a-ok, it’s what ‘freedom of religion’ means. *I* won’t attend, although it’s possible I may watch briefly from a distance if I stumbled upon it, but I’m not offened that *some* people may want to attend. And I acknowledge it as a valid and indeed intelligent and logical place to hold such a public gathering. And if my church put on such a thing I wouldn’t be offended if the Buddhists wanted to stand at the edges and offer a ‘Be one with Christ or one with Everything?’ Pamphlet to people who were coming or going.
I repeat: freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The documents of this land and the Founders of this land never intended religion to be shut out of the public eye or out of the government. They intended for no *one* religion to get special treatment. Which means that if person A wants to post an Athiestic poster in the school hall, they can, and person B can post a Shinto one, and person C can post a Quaker one, and person D can post a Evengelical one, etc. Right now the Athiest can post his religious beliefs, the Shinto might be able to if he addresses it from a ‘cultural heritage’ standpoint, the Muslim one probably could just because people are too nervous to be called discriminitory towards Islam to forbid it, but the (various flavors of) Christian one would get suspended for trying. That’s not freedom of religion, and it’s not holding all religions legally equal.
Hi Carla. Thanks for the greeting. Seems like our friends are more polarized than usual.
This is a bit off topic, but I am sick of hearing about what a wonderful person Thomas Jefferson was. He was a pedophile who had an affair with his wife’s half sister, Sally Hemmings, starting when he was middle-aged and she was fourteen. Even though he had children by her, she was sold to the University of Virginia upon his death. He was basically a white supremacist, even though he had sexual relations with a woman that was part black. George Washington had slaves, but at least they were set free after his death.
Most of these founding racists fathers (except for maybe John Adams) to quote a famous rapper, don’t mean _______ to me.
Hey Carla, which post has 330 comments? This I’ve got to check into :)
Nevermind, I found it, 352 comments & counting. I’ve been reading the thread for the last hour (yes it took me that long to get through all the comments) and all I can do is shake my head.
Y’all should listen to the This American Life episode “Godless America” (a podcast can easily be found on thisamericanlife.org under the “Radio Archive” section) or read the book “The Godless Constitution”. I found them both to be particularly enlightening (for both sides) when it comes to what the founding fathers wanted for religion and this country’s future.
HI Hal,
Polarized is one word for it.
I don’t like it when my friends get their feelings hurt. I don’t like it when they have said their piece and continue to get trodden on and told exactly what someone else thinks THEY are. On that we should all agree.
Hi Rachael.
:)
That was simply the most ridiculous thread that has ever existed. I actually wish I could delete half the sarcastic stuff I wrote, really let my temper get the best of me.
How is the federal government acting to “prohibit the free exercise of religion”?
How about by requiring Catholic hospitals and medical personnel to dispense abortifacients and contraceptives and to perform sterilizations? Or requiring religious employers to choose between paying for insurance plans that provide the above mentioned and providing no health insurance for their employees (and be fined under the Obamacare mandate)?
@JackBorsch – everyone lets their temper get away occasionally and I don’t remember you being that bad in your comments. Either you weren’t that far over the line or else too much online debate has obliterated my line.
many of the first colonists were fleeing from the Church of England, wanting to be able to practice their own faith. The founding fathers set it up so everyone could feel free to practice their own faith. Maryland was the ONLY colony/state in those early years where people of MY Faith Tradition, Catholicism, were free to practice without PERSECUTION, One of my favorite Saints (Elizabeth Ann Seton) moved to Maryland after her own conversion so she could practice without fear.
They didn’t want a Church of England to take OVER is what they didn’t want.
CT: don’t forget forcing people to participate in abortions with threats of being fired if they have personal or moral objections!
“Maryland was the ONLY colony/state in those early years where people of MY Faith Tradition, Catholicism, were free to practice without PERSECUTION”
Maryland wasn’t the only state. My state, Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams, a Puritan dissenter who believed in the right of an individual to practice whatever religion they wanted. We are the site of the oldest Synagogue in the country. Catholics were never persecuted here. Neither were Quakers and others who were hassled in Massachusetts Bay Colony including Mr. Williams who founded our “lively experiment.” And despite the high percentage of Catholics, we are still, proudly, pro-choice.
The video appears to show the preachers admitting to turning up where crowds of people are going about their business and proselytizing. I wouldn’t be happy about any group staging such activities if I was in a group waiting to conduct personal business.
“The lack of evidence for evolution is the evidence for creationism” – that is simply hilarious!
Jespren, a school graduation is not an appropriate venue to proclaim personal testements. What if a valedictorian proclaimed “I thank marijuana for allowing me to be relaxed enough to deal with the stresses of study and preventing panic attacks”?
“As for leading a group prayer being ‘inappropriate’ how can something specifically and explicitly practiced and allowed by the writers of the Consitution be forbidden by it?” – like I keep saying, there is a difference between practice and prosletyzing in the public domain. There is plenty of church land for people to practice and preach on. I don’t want anyone shouting stuff at me while I’m in a queue.
“So as not to offend anyone who might be praying to a different god. Which if expressely forbidden by Christianity.” – so christianity rules supreme over everything does it?
“None of them advocate for teaching ‘creationism’ in the classroom.” – are you kidding? You are either extremely ill-informed or playing with the truth.
The rest of your words on creationism versus evolution are confused and lacking in factual equivalence.
If you want christianity to drive the political and legislative agenda then perhaps it’s time to delist it as a religion and register it as a political party.
“The reason I perform abortions is because I’m a Christian….
Personally, I believe in the strength, intellect and fortitude of women. When a woman says a fetus is a person, I think it is one. I believe the woman empowers the fetus.”
Richard Grossman, a pp abortionist who works at a Catholic hospital in CO when not performing abortions at Planned Parenthood.
=====================================================================
Gross-man and b o must both use the same tranlation of the ‘book’.
The electronic version where they edit, cut and paste, insert and delete til they have fashioned a ‘god’ in their own convoluted and perverted image.
But I still want to see the chapter and verse where they say ‘woman’ is delegated the authority to empower a growth in her body, not unlike a tumor or parasite, to become HUMAN.
Grossman’s absurd theology/biology is just one more stunning bit of evidence that humans are ‘stupid’.
CC says: July 27, 2011 at 6:46 pm
“My state, Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams, a Puritan dissenter who believed in the right of an individual to practice whatever religion they wanted.”
=====================================================================
Was Roger Williams tolerance of diverse religious/philosophical viewpoints unqualified enough to allow for the ‘free choice’ for slavery, prostitution, homosexuality, child sacrifice and burning of witches at the stake?
How long did the women of Rhoed Island have to wait under Mr. Williams libertarian stewardship before they were allowed to vote, own property and hold political office?
Hi Carla! Thanks for the greeting! :)
And we’re proud of all the New Englanders that are working hard to defund Planned Parenthood.
Abortion advocates are ever in my prayers: May your hearts soften toward the vulnerable.