pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (07/06/83)
While it may be true that this country is not founded on the Christian Religion, The influence of Judeo-Christian principles on our forefathers cannot be ignored. There is strong evidence that they believed in absolute standards for the laws of government and that these standards were based on the Bible. George Washington instituted the practice of swearing on the Bible when he took the office of President. Back then, swearing on the Bible was not the meaningless ceremony it is today. When someone swore on the Bible, he was giving those present the assurance that his conduct in office, or on the witness stand in court, would adhere to the moral and ethical principles contained therein. Atheists, on the other hand, adhere to no external standard for the judgement of their conduct. Therefore, in matters of public interest, there is no assurance that their actions will be in the best interests of others and no standard to judge whether their conduct is right or wrong. There have been those who have done heinous things in the name of Christianity, but the Bible exposes them for the hypocrites they are. As for Atheism, we would do well to remember that everything Joseph Stalin did in his "purge" was legal. The law of Russia was his own. The influence of Christian men like John Locke, John Witherspoon, and William Blackstone on the framers of our Constitution cannot be ignored. John Locke's fundamental concepts of unalienable rights, government by consent, the social compact, and the right to resist unlawful authority were drawn primarily from the scriptural principles contained in "Lex, Rex or, the Law and the Prince", published by Samuel Rutherford in 1644. John Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister and educator who signed the Declaration of Independence and was a member of the Continental Congress from 1776 to 1779 and from 1780 to 1782. Many of Witherspoon's students reached positions of eminence in the Constitutional Convention and in early U.S. history. They included James Madison (often called the father of our Constitution), Aaron Burr, 10 cabinet members, 21 senators, 39 congressmen, and 12 governors. [Rousas J. Rushdoony, "This Independent Republic", p.3]. Madison was especially influenced by Witherspoon. [Richard B. Morris, "Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny" (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), p. 192]. Madison defined "religion" (as used in the First Amendment) as "the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it". [James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance on the Religious Rights of Man" (as cited in Donald Manzullo, "Neither Sacred Nor Profane", p. 71 and Michael J. Malbin, "Religion and Politics", pp. 21,22]. The First Amendment was not intended to also secure "freedom *from* religion" as many atheists allege. Between 1765 and 1770 the English jurist William Blackstone published his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" which, by 1775, sold more copies in America than in England. Blackstone took it as self evident that God is the source of all laws, whether they were revealed in Scripture or or observed in nature. Many lawyers considered Blackstone's commentaries to be all there was of the law. The concept of a "wall of separation between Church and State" is nowhere found in our Constitution. It was expressed in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists and Congregationalists in Danbury, Conn. in 1802. In this letter Jefferson seems to be assuring them that his own religious views (Deistic) will not be used to hamper their religious freedom (he was running for president at the time), i.e. the government would not interfere with their religious practices. In 1805, in his Second Inaugural Address, Jefferson said: "In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General [federal] Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." As the founder of the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson recommended that students be allowed to meet on campus to pray and worship together. ["Regulation of the University of Virgina", Oct. 4, 1824, ch. 2, sec. 1] He was the author of the first plan of public education adopted for the city of Washington, which included the Bible and the Isaac Watts Hymnal as the principle books to teach reading to students. [J. O. Wilson, "Public Schools of Washington", vol. 1 (Wash., D. C.: Columbia Historical Society, 1897), pp. 5,9]. Jefferson also didn't have much to do with the writing of the First Amendment. He was visiting Paris at the time it was written. Jefferson understood the "wall of separation" as a means of protecting the church from government manipulation. This concept has been reversed and is now used in our legal system to remove Christian thought from the ideas presented in our educational system. Those who are interested in studying further the contention that Judeo- Christian principles profoundly influenced our government's formation should read "The Second American Revolution" by John Whitehead (David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1982). Whitehead is an attorney, specializing in constitutional law, practicing in Manassas, Va. The book is a critical analysis of the changes that have taken place in the principles upon which our government operates. These changes are so basic and so subtle that Whitehead contends that there has been a *second* American Revolution which has undone the work of the first. The book is well researched. Paul Dubuc #
jj@rabbit.UUCP (07/07/83)
Paul Dubuc's comments concerning religion, the Bible, and the Constitution of the United States demonstrate (whether or not he belongs/subscribes to the MM ) some of the most criminal uses of sophistry put forth by the so called "moral" majority. His statements equating atheism with Stalin rank right up there with Adolf Hitler's equating of inferiority with Judaism. His use of rhetoric, comparing unrelated philosophies to the deliberate detriment of those he disagrees with, could also be taken straight from Hitler, or from Stalin, for that matter. I'm glad that the man studies history; I rather wish that he'd learned more than rhetoric from it. I'm going back to net.flame where we've been having a non-flaming and perfectly reasonable argument about several more important subjects: economy, the use of military, bombs, kindness, altruism/INFORMED self interest, etc. I give up on net.religion. AMEN Hate mail will cheerfully be used to embarass the sender, rabbit!jj #
smb@ulysses.UUCP (07/07/83)
Although Jefferson may not have written the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, he was instrumental in writing the Bill of Rights of the Virginia constitution -- one of the earliest official acknowledgements of religious freedom in this country. The colonists who fled England because of persecution were rarely interested in freedom for others; they simply wanted to be the ones doing the persecuting. Nor can we accept the word of the Founding Fathers as the last word on liberty. The government they created was based less on the notion of individual freedom than on delegating powers to the state governments, as opposed to the Federal government. The Bill of Rights is primarily a set of restrictions on Congress; it's only in the last century or so that the Supreme Court has held that most of those strictures apply to state governments as well. In the early 19th century, religious restrictions on who could run for political office were common; Catholics, for example, were generally barred from participation. Others excluded were women, blacks, the poor, etc. My point here is that our concept of democracy has changed considerably, generally loosening the rules and permitting greater individual freedom. There is no reason to treat the Federalist Papers as revealed truth. The idea that atheists can't be trusted, because they don't answer to any higher authority, goes back at least to Thomas More's "Utopia". The government of this land permitted complete freedom of religion *except* to atheists; the reasoning he gave was that since they held no fear of divine punishment in the Hereafter, there was no inner check on their behavior. Unfortunately, that sort of reasoning assumes far too much. For one thing, it assumes that religions are compatible. Nonesense! Behavior required by some is prohibited by others. Example: Islam, Baha'i, and some Protestant denominations prohibit wine; Judaism and Catholicism require it for certain rituals. One precept of Baha'i is the equality of men and women -- but to fundamentalist Jews, Moslems, and Christians, women are most certainly not equal. I could go on, but I think you see my point. A more serious objection is that too many people seem to turn to their Scriptures to justify their beliefs, rather than basing their beliefs on the Scripture they claim to follow. I consider slavery to be the height of immorality, but many Southerners cited Biblical justifcations for their behavior. Were they sincere? Some of them undoubtedly were -- in saying that they believed this interpretation. Which do you think came first? Finally, the notion that people are incapable of adhering to an ideal that wasn't handed down from On High is simply wrong. For one thing, the concept that humans are inherently weak (or evil), and can only be controlled by a Divinity or fear thereof is a thoroughly Christian notion, and one I don't happen to subscribe to. Yes, Stalin was evil -- but so was Torquemeda, and he didn't think he was being hypocritical. I've said enough for now, I think.... --Steve Bellovin
pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (07/08/83)
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Paul Dubuc's comments concerning religion, the Bible, and the
Constitution of the United States demonstrate (whether or not he
belongs/subscribes to the MM ) some of the most criminal uses of
sophistry put forth by the so called "moral" majority.
Is this any way to discredit my argument? What did you find in what I
said that was actually false? I could classify the above statement as
a perfect example of the tactics (whether or not you have read/subscribed
to the Humanist Manifestos I & II) used by the humanist elite to categorically
discredit the views of anyone who espouses a biblical world view. But
what would that prove? I am willing to give credit to anyone who espouses
the truth regardless of their religious or political beliefs. It's not
good reasoning to discredit the source or propounders of and argument without
considering the argument itself. I tried to support my views with
references to historical materials. But all you do is *label* it as rhetoric.
His statements
equating atheism with Stalin rank right up there with Adolf Hitler's
equating of inferiority with Judaism. His use of rhetoric, comparing
unrelated philosophies to the deliberate detriment of those he disagrees
with, could also be taken straight from Hitler, or from Stalin, for
that matter. I'm glad that the man studies history; I rather wish that
he'd learned more than rhetoric from it.
I try not to equate any religion or belief system with a particular person.
I used Stalin as an example to show that mass murder is not hypocritical
to atheistic belief. Who considers Stalin to be a hypocrite?
Atheists like to point to things like the Spanish
Inquisition to degrade Christianity. I think that in doing so they are
only pointing out the hypocrisy of certain "Christians". I did not mean
to imply in my article that all atheists would be mass murders given the
chance. What bothers me is the way many atheists are trying to give
atheism the credit for the establishment of a relatively good form of
government by asserting that Christian Theism has very little to do with
the principles on which our government was founded. The twisting of
the "wall of separation principle" is a good example. Thomas Jefferson
is portrayed by them as being hostile to Christian Theism when, in fact,
he was not. I don't see any way around the idea that our government
was formed on Judeo-Christian principles. To set up a theocracy would have
been a mistake, but I think there is plenty of evidence that the Founding
Fathers did accept biblical principals as a basis for government.
Is this embarrassing to atheists?
As for countries that operate on atheistic principals, there are plenty
of present day examples. But who expounds on their virtues?
Well if you think all of this is just more rhetoric--fine. You can
ignore it. I definitely do NOT subscribe to many of the Moral Majority's
views. But I don't swallow the news media's presentation of it as
being totally realistic either. They have done a good job of totally
discrediting the organization it the eyes of the public, so that, anything
they espouse is categorically rejected. So all they need to do to
show something to be "stupid" or "dangerous" or "extreme right wing" is
to show that the Moral Majority supports it. I think you have used
the same tactic here. I hope I can devote much less time in the future
to answering responses like this.
Paul Dubucjj@rabbit.UUCP (07/09/83)
Dear Paul, Since I don't seem to be able to mail to you, here goes. You complain about my labeling your argument as empty rhetoric, while not taking any account of your subject matter. Believe what you may, but stating two unrelated facts next to each other will not convince me to believe it. For your information, I firmly believe that a person's internal ethos is not closely related to their religious beliefs. While it is true that people with some styles of personal ethos will find religion (without naming any one) compatible, it is not necessarily true that those without any religious belief must have any particular type of personal ethos. It is just as true that people who have an individual stance opposed to the intent of religious belief (regardless of which particular type) may use religion as a platform from which to exercise their particular (to me) perversions. The particular tactic that I so strongly object to in your first (and to an extent in the first part of your second) article with this title is the association of a particular viewpoint, in this case atheist, with something generally agreed to be undefendably dreadful. I wrote my reply in the same argumentive style (in case you didn't notice) partly to emphasize the illogic of the style. As to the subject matter concerning the intent of the authors of the constitution, I am willing to allow your position as a matter of argument. I do think that it's not an important point at this time in history, given the evolution of the US and world's culture, as the authors of the constitution were acting in the style of their culture, and acting with their cultural biases. I do not object at all to your arguing this subject, however I have a strong and quite well developed aversion to argumentitive tactics that use deliberately generated emotion to cloud the rational (including religious) discussion. I have studied history myself, in parts, and I have concluded that such argument tactics have led to most of the major wars and atrocities of the last 2000 years. Some examples: The rise of Adolf Hitler (of course) The death of Ceasar The Bolchevik (sp) revolution The rise and reign of Idi Amin The death of Christ The persecution of the Jews The persecution of the Christians The Crusades The Roundhead Rebellion against the Stuarts The Shah of Iran The current state of affairs in Iran The Khymer genocide (in Cambodia/Kampuchia<sp>) The persecution of blacks in the late 1800's-present The Islamic/Hindu strife in India/Pakistan/BanglaDesh (Thank you, mother england) The Irish Revolution (still going on, ditto the above comment) This list could go on for about another 50 lines or so, just off the top of my head, each line showing some atrocity that was furthered by a populace drunk on emotional rhetoric, of which the main content was guilt by (emotional) association. I don't think that you intended any such thing to happen, I merely can't tolerate that particular kind of argument. A firm unbeliever in ORGANIZED religion. rabbit!jj
tim@unc.UUCP (07/09/83)
[Submitted on behalf of Pamela Troy]
Atheists ... adhere to no external standard for
the judgement of their conduct. Therefore, in matters
of public interest, there is no assurance that their
actions will be in the best interests of others and no
standard to judge whether their conduct is right or
wrong.
So atheists are untrustworthy! I can't wait until this is adopted
as public policy. Tell me, Mr. Dubuq, how will this be put into
practice? In a court of law, will a Christian's word be automatically
taken over an atheist's? Or maybe atheists should be barred from
running for public office. After all, there is no assurance that
their actions will be in the best interests of others in such matters.
If I sound angry it's because I am. It happens that my father is
an atheist. It also happens that he served a term as mayor for a
fairly large city in the south, served, I might add, with competence
and honesty, while the Southern Baptist who preceded him was convicted
on several felony charges. It seems that this Christian, who swore on
the Bible that he would execute his duties faithfully and honestly,
stole a considerable amount of money from the city while he was in
office. A man is not made good by the fact that he believes in a
divine being.
I resent your assumption that because my father does not believe
in Hellfire, and does not live by a set of ancient rules, he is more
likely to lie, cheat, and steal than a Christian. As a child, I was
taught by this Godless secular humanist that lying, stealing, and
cruelty are wrong, not because I'll be sent to Hell, but because these
things make the world an uglier, more dangerous place. I was taught
to be kind, not because I would be rewarded, but because caring for
others makes the world a little better. I was also, by the way,
taught that it is contemptible to assume someone is stupid or evil
simply because of their religious views -- or lack of them. This type
of intolerance is one of the lowest forms of bigotry, and responsible
for a large portion of the suffering in our history.
There have been those who have done heinous things
in the name of Christianity, but the Bible exposes
them for the hypocrites they are. As for Atheism, we
would do well to remember that everything that Josef
Stalin did in his purge was legal. The law of Russia
was his own.
In this paragraph you reveal a rather self-serving double
standard, on which Tim has often commented to me in his dealings
with born-again Christians. You ask us to separate bad Christians
from good, acknowledging only the good ones as true Christians. Then,
in the next sentence, you imply that because Josef Stalin called
himself an atheist, his actions represent the natural consequences of
atheism. In your reply to rabbit!jj you ask, "Who considers Stalin a
hypocrite?", a question which reveals a remarkable naivete and
ignorance. The answer is, thousands of Communists, who revile the man
for his brutality. When Stalin is thrown up to them, they are very
likely to say "There have been those who have done heinous things in
the name of Communism, but the works of Marx expose them for the
hypocrites they are." I have known many Communists who have insisted,
"Stalin wasn't a real Communist", and their point is as valid as yours
is about what constitutes real Christianity. As for the "atheism" of
Communist countries, from what I have seen, it is not so much atheism
as the worship of the state. Communism, as practiced in the Soviet
Union, is a rigid creed which rivals Christianity in its dogmatism and
aggression. Like many Christians, there are Soviet Communists who
believe in world domination (which Christians call "world
evangelization" when referring to their own plans) and who are
convinced that they and they alone have cornered the market on truth
and morality. There are, I know, dogmatic atheists, but most atheists
ask only to be left alone. They object to being forced to support a
religious doctrine with their taxes, and they do not like it when
their children are targeted as infidels and bombarded with religious
propaganda by well-meaning teachers and friends.
When people start talking about the U.S.A. being a Judeo-Christian
nation, many of us start wondering what, exactly, our place would be
in such a country, and it frightens us. Recently I asked a born-again
Christian with the Maranathas, who, like you, believe that this
country was founded as, and should now be, a Judeo-Christian nation,
what my place would be in their proposed world. It was impossible for
me to get a straight answer out of him, so I'll ask you, Paul.
(1) As a woman living with a male out of wedlock, would I be subject
to criminal prosecution?
(2) As a member of the Georgian Church of Wicca, a pagan group, would
I be able to practice my religion without worrying about losing my
job, my home, or my children?
(3) If I were to be imprisoned for breaking a law, would my chances of
parole be determined by whether or not I was a "good Christian girl"?
Would I be forced to undergo Christian counseling?
(4) Would I be permitted to run for public office, or teach in the
public schools?
(5) Would my children be forced to participate in Christian religious
services, such as prayer to Jesus, in the public schools? How can you
guarantee that school prayer is "voluntary" if a teacher tells my kid
he'll go to Hell if he doesn't participate? Isn't it likely that the
voluntarism will be a sham? If my child does not take part, how can
you insure that he won't be targeted by a Christian teacher and
subjected to pressure to convert?
I am quite serious in wanting straight answers to these questions.
What sort of country are you trying to make?
Nothing I read in the Bible reassures me about the methods
employed by Judeo-Christian proselytizers. The Bible, especially the
Old Testament, contains many examples of abominable brutalities
commited in Jehovah's name, with the approbation of this all-merciful
God. I suggest you read Numbers, Chap. 3l, Vrs. l5-l9. The history
of Moses is just the story of one massacre after another, with entire
cities put "under ban", that is, killed, men, women, and children.
That charming old song, "Joshua Fit the Battle of Jericho", is about a
battle in which every living inhabitant of the city was butchered.
Yet Moses and Joshua are not "exposed as hypocrites". On the
contrary, they are still revered today as great religious leaders!
Now about the "hypocrisy of certain Christians". The evidence
suggests that witch-burners such as Torquemada and Judge Hathorne were
quite sincere in their belief that what they were doing was in the
best interests of the souls of the people they destroyed. If, as
Christians believe, Hell is the worst fate which can befall a person,
then nothing done to the body in this world can be as bad. The motive
for the witch and heretic hysteria was not, as some have suggested,
the seizure of the accused person's goods. Most of the people
persecuted were too poor to make this worthwhile.
The logic of the Inquisitors went something like this: It is our
duty, as Christians, to prevent our brethren from going to Hell, by
any means possible, since nothing is worse than eternal damnation. It
is our duty to ensure that, once a heretic has converted, he does not
relapse into error. In many cases, the only way to ensure this is to
send the convert to Heaven as quickly as possible after conversion.
Inquisitors are not inconsistent in their application of Christianity,
and no hypocrisy is involved. All too often they are motivated by
misguided altruism, and the assumption that true Christians, since
they are guided by God, can do no wrong.
What I am trying to say is that too many Christians seem to be
guided by unsound assumptions about people of differing beliefs. As
the child of unbelievers I have had to live with these assumptions,
and I know how destructive they can be. Sincerity does not guarantee
justice or even truth. It is a dangerous and irresponsible thing to
assume that because someone does not worship the same god, they are
more evil, untrustworthy, or even more unhappy than you are. It is
this concept which has destroyed Ireland, Lebanon, Iran, and countless
other civilizations throughout recorded history, and probably before.
Pamela Troy
__________________________________________
c/o The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hilllaura@utcsstat.UUCP (07/10/83)
Pamela Troy writes:
(2) As a member of the Georgian Church of Wicca, a pagan group, would
I be able to practice my religion without worrying about losing my
job, my home, or my children?
*DONT* move to Ontario if you are not a Christian and are under 13 and
expect equality under the law. Be careful where you live in the States
as well; a Judge friend of mine says that the laws are the same in several
American States. He is on vacation right now, or I would phone him and ask
him to tell me which ones he knows about.
You may have to worry about more than your job and your home. (If you
are under 13 I assume that you wont have children). The Ontario Law
has virtually declared "open-season" on non-Christian children, unless
they are willing to perjure themselves.
Here is the scandelous piece of legislation. If you or I were asked to
testify in a court of law we would be given the choice of "Swearing on
the Bible" or Clearly stating the we were going to tell the Truth. If
you are a child under thirteen, you do not have this option. You must
swear on the Bible. In addition, you must pass a test which makes it clear
that you know that you will go to HELL if you tell a lie. You will
get examined on this at court, and often cross-examined as well. This
is the law in Ontario. If you do not pass this criteria, then the charges
are dropped.
In effect this says that if you are a child, an atheist, or a pagan, or
even a Christian who believes that God will forgive you if you are truly
sorry for your sins then you are not able to prosecute people who rape
you, assualt you, or even those you witness stealing property from yourself
or others, without perjuring yourself.
Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura
ps to send mail to unc I am using "utcsrgv!cornell!unc" as a path.
so far, I havent received any mail back from anyone at unc. Is this
still a valid path?
Lauratim@unc.UUCP (07/10/83)
It was only a matter of time before one of these "we should be a
Judeo-Christian nation" people started laying their silly line on us.
It is interesting that this same person, Paul Dubuc, also believes
that evolution is a religion, and that secular humanists are trying
to destroy the moral underpinnings of this country. In any case,
here's my contribution to the issue.
To begin with, I want to point out that IF the founders of the
United States HAD wanted to make a country based on Judeo-Christian
principles, then they would not have so carefully avoided any mention
of the Bible, God, or Christ in the Constitution. There are NO such
references, anywhere in the Constitution. It would certainly not have
been unpopular to include such things, so if they had had such
intentions, we would have some solid and unmistakable evidence of it.
Enough said on this matter.
While it may be true that this country is not
founded on the Christian Religion, the influence of
Judeo-Christian principles on our forefathers cannot
be ignored. There is strong evidence that they
believed in absolute standards for the laws of
government and that these standards were based on the
Bible.
And why is it that it can't be ignored? Paul doesn't bother to
fill us in on this detail. Even if they did believe this (and I have
already demonstrated otherwise), why does it need to be considered
today? Presumably, Paul wants this to be used as evidence for
changing American government so that it explicitly refers to Judeo-
Christian belief. (For instance, by teaching Judeo-Christian
principles in public schools.) My feeling is that regardless of the
Founding Fathers' intentions, we know that this would be a mistake
today. The countries which have the most repressive governments
and/or the most terrorism are those in which religion plays a major
role in the conduct of the government. You can provide many examples
for yourself if you watch the news. (I should mention that I consider
Soviet Communism a religion.) So from a pragmatic viewpoint, it would
clearly be a mistake.
Atheists ... adhere to no external standard for
the judgement of their conduct. Therefore, in matters
of public interest, there is no assurance that their
actions will be in the best interests of others and no
standard to judge whether their conduct is right or
wrong.
Claiming adherence to a particular set of scriptures is also no
guarantee that a person will act in anyone else's interests. Again,
there are tons of cases in the news that prove this. There is no
assurance that ANYONE, ANYWHERE will act in everyone's best interests.
On the other hand, most of the atheists I know are friendly,
personable, and far, far more tolerant than many Christians.
There have been those who have done heinous things
in the name of Christianity, but the Bible exposes
them for the hypocrites they are. As for Atheism, we
would do well to remember that everything Joseph
Stalin did in his "purge" was legal. The law of
Russia was his own.
Oh Lord, how many times must we be subjected to that "They aren't
REAL Christians" crap? Paul, I assume you reject Communism. Further,
I assume that this is because of the actions of those who call
themselves Communists in the real world. What if I said "They aren't
REAL Communists"? The Christians who massacred the Palestinians in
the Lebanese camp a few months ago were led to it by their religious
beliefs. The people killing each other in Ireland are doing it
because of their Christian beliefs. The Inquisition was motivated by
Christian belief, and Torquemada's law was his own. And so on. When
evaluating a belief system, it is just as important to see what it
leads to in the real world as it is to see what its supposed ideals
are. Also, I see nothing in the Bible that exposes these people as
hypocrites. How much of the Pentateuch have you read, anyway? That
God has a long history of encouraging intolerant slaughter.
The First Amendment was not intended to also
secure "freedom *from* religion" as many atheists
allege.
That statement is rather frightening, Paul. You are declaring
your intent to force your religion on atheists whether they like it or
not. Can you really justify this sort of blatant intolerance on the
grounds of your religion? If so, that's another count against it, and
certainly sufficient reason to keep it out of the laws of this (or any
other) country.
Between 1765 and 1770 the English jurist William
Blackstone published his "Commentaries on the Laws of
England" which, by 1775, sold more copies in America
than in England. Blackstone took it as self evident
that God is the source of all laws, whether they were
revealed in Scripture or or observed in nature. Many
lawyers considered Blackstone's commentaries to be all
there was of the law.
Have you considered that this was written in England directly
before the founders of this nation rejected the English government? I
guess not. In any case, the mere fact that someone back then said the
same thing that you're saying now is not evidence for the validity of
your beliefs. Also, please see below, where you claim that an
argument's validity is independent of its source and supporters.
The concept of a "wall of separation between
Church and State" is nowhere found in our
Constitution.
Perhaps you haven't read the Bill of Rights, Paul, but it contains
a little thing called the First Amendment, which begins as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; ... "
The principle of separation is there as clear as day. The fact
that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear verbatim
does not mean that their principle is not there. If you can't
restrict or respect something, that makes you pretty separate from it,
wouldn't you agree?
As the founder of the University of Virginia,
Thomas Jefferson recommended that students be allowed
to meet on campus to pray and worship together.
Well, surprise, surprise, surprise! It may shock you to know that
I, too, support students' freedom in this regard, so long as no tax
money is spent and the facilities are made available to those of all
faiths, including atheism. I do not see how you feel that this shows
that Jefferson wanted for there to be explicit references to the Bible
in our government.
[Jefferson] was the author of the first plan of
public education adopted for the city of Washington,
which included the Bible and the Isaac Watts Hymnal as
the principle [sic] books to teach reading to
students.
Well, if that's true, Jefferson acted in error. However, we
should note that Jefferson's Deism was the subject of much public
controversy, and he was at times forced into positions that would make
it clear he was not against Christianity. It is entirely possible
that he was obliged to do this or be branded a non-Christian, which
was just as effective then in ruining any possibility of election as
it is in many places (particularly the Presidency) now.
Before I finished this article, there was other reaction to Paul's
article. Paul saw fit to respond to rabbit!jj's response:
[From jj] Paul Dubuc's comments
concerning religion, the Bible, and
the Constitution of the United States
demonstrate ... some of the most
criminal uses of sophistry put forth
by the so called "moral" majority.
[From Paul] Is this any way to discredit my
argument? What did you find in what I said that was
actually false? ... I am willing to give credit to
anyone who espouses the truth regardless of their
religious or political beliefs. It's not good
reasoning to discredit the source or propounders of
and [sic] argument without considering the argument
itself.
I would agree with Paul in this case. However, Paul himself would
not. Since when do fundamentalist Christians (like Paul) believe that
the value of an argument is independent of its source? They believe
it when it is convenient, but when you start to criticize Biblical
assertions, they invariably fall back on "Believe it because it's in
the Bible." For Paul to make these statements is simple hypocrisy.
Later, our Mr. Dubuc says:
I try not to equate any religion or belief system
with a particular person.... I did not mean to imply
in my article that all atheists would be mass murders
given the chance.
Just in case you've forgotten, here is Paul's original statement:
Atheists ... adhere to no external standard for
the judgement of their conduct. Therefore, in matters
of public interest, there is no assurance that their
actions will be in the best interests of others and no
standard to judge whether their conduct is right or
wrong.
He then quoted Stalin as an example of this principle. Again Paul
employs what cannot be described as other than casual self-
contradiction, which is to say hypocrisy. It is clear enough that
Paul DID in fact mean to equate atheism with immorality.
In his article, Paul Dubuc has presented us with an elaborate
sophistry whose origin is in knee-jerk pro-Christianity. I am
offended by this abuse of the freedom given us by the nature of the
net, but if there were no possibility of abuse, it would not truly be
freedom.
______________________________________
The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillhutch@dadla-b.UUCP (07/11/83)
In reply to rabbit!jj's assertion that personal ethos is not related to personal religious beliefs - Please explain why you think this. I personally think (from experience and observation) that a personal ethic can be developed from religious belief just as well as from any other influecnces. It apparently cannot be developed without a cultural context of some kind, as far as I can see. In any case, as an example, my own personal ethical system was sharply modified when I changed my religious beliefs. My moral stances were less modified, from my viewpoint. (Shall we get into the differences between ethics and morals?) Steve Hutchison Tektronix Logic Analyzers