Freedom from religion

[ksbluesfan]

Here is an opinion piece that appeared in the Kansas City Star on Saturday.

Click Here

No guarantee of freedom from religion
By CHET HANSON

Is our freedom from God or from man?

Are we, or are we not, a people given to the understanding that “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights”? Did our founders not declare that freedom did not come from man, but from God? For if “man” (government) grants rights, cannot man also revoke them?

If liberty is from God, then who among us has the legitimate power to deny the very mention of that Creator in the public square?

Secularism, the drive to eliminate God from that public square, has conquered Europe and is becoming a powerful force in America. The secularist first needs to eliminate the importance of God in the minds of the people, because God’s laws are immutable and absolute. But in the absence of God’s morality, “man” can fill this vacuum with any social engineering the anointed desire. It’s a tempting approach, but the problem is that man’s nature doesn’t change. The passion for power over others has not waned.

The authority for driving God from our nation is the claim of a wall of separation between church and state, but this phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. These documents do guarantee us freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion.

We all agree we are not, by law, a Christian nation. But are the roots of American greatness firmly embedded in the nutrients of the Judeo Christian belief system, and is our continuing greatness dependent upon them? Would removing the Judeo Christian influence be a positive or a destructive force?

True, we are a melting pot. But as Samuel P. Huntington, Harvard professor and chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, argues in his book Who Are We? there is an important difference between settlers and immigrants.

Settlers arrive first, set the tone through culture and make the laws. Immigrants come later, attempt to fit in, and contribute. The original settlers, the English Protestants, set America on her course to greatness. It was the English Rule of Law, coupled with the Protestant emphasis on individual responsibility to God and neighbor, self-reliance, and tolerance for the beliefs of others, that made possible the vision of individual freedom.

We have welcomed many immigrants of various faiths. Secularism is also an immigrant, but its god is man. Over the last 50 years this ideology has crossed the seas and gained momentum. Its proponents seek to make America a better place by deconstructing the God-based principles responsible for our freedom — prosperity and replacing them with a more flexible model based on the wisdom of man and not of God.

The secularists contend that America would have come about without God’s precepts. They believe, in spite of all the history to the contrary, that man can be a moral creature without God. Many believe man is evolving into a higher being. If all that is so, where is the nation with its roots in secularism that is equal to America? And if we are evolving, please explain why this last century is the bloodiest on record.

On Oct. 11, 1798, founding father John Adams said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion … our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

My goal in this series is to encourage Americans to know who we are, how we got here and that America is vulnerable. This is our America — protect her.

Call me crazy, but hasn't the US Supreme Court consistently upheld "Freedom from religion"?

I plan to send a response to the KC Star citing Abington Township School District v. Schempp, Lemon v. Kurtzman and other cases. Constitutional law isn't my field, so any suggestions would be appreciated.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I didn't realize the original settlers were English Protestants. I guess the Native Americans don't count?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I didn't realize the original settlers were English Protestants. I guess the Native Americans don't count?

Nope.

Their cultural ascendancy was brushed away by expansion west. It wasn't America, and there weren't any Americans, until the settlers from Europe showed up and called it that, and then called themselves that. The aboriginals didn't have the kind of vision the newcomers did.

The Amerinds did not form a cohesive polity. It cost them. In their defense, given their means, it was sorta hard to see it coming the way it did.

DR

 

[corplinx]

Was this gem from World Net Daily or the Washington Times?

 

[UserGoogol]

Call me crazy, but hasn't the US Supreme Court consistently upheld "Freedom from religion"?

I plan to send a response to the KC Star citing Abington Township School District v. Schempp, Lemon v. Kurtzman and other cases. Constitutional law isn't my field, so any suggestions would be appreciated.

Even though the article makes reference to the founding fathers, it seems to be more a philosophical argument than a legal one. Pretty standard conservative arguments: "Inalienable rights can only come from God," and "Our culture is Christian, and we ought to preserve that culture." I don't agree with them, but the fact that the Supreme Court also disagrees with them doesn't exactly refute his point.

 

[LawnOven]

Nope.

The aboriginals didn't have the kind of vision the newcomers did.

The Amerinds did not form a cohesive polity. It cost them. In their defense, given their means, it was sorta hard to see it coming the way it did.

DR

Yeah?

What about the Iroquois Confederacy ?

 

[Admiral]

Personally, I'm more in favor of eliminating the "public square" altogether.

Consider that the larger government gets, the harder it is to have both freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

 

[Phil]

Here is an opinion piece that appeared in the Kansas City Star on Saturday.

Click Here



Call me crazy, but hasn't the US Supreme Court consistently upheld "Freedom from religion"?

I plan to send a response to the KC Star citing Abington Township School District v. Schempp, Lemon v. Kurtzman and other cases. Constitutional law isn't my field, so any suggestions would be appreciated.

Perhaps you could disect each paragraph in your response. There seems to be many errors in each statement, and a critical deconstruction might put a swift end to this person's "series".

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah?

What about the Iroquois Confederacy ?

How much of America did they have? How much could they keep? How much did they keep? History moves forward, you might want to ask the Greeks and the Arabs about that regarding Anatolia and Turks: it's called Turkey, now, since the new residents so name it.

How does "Iroquois" = "American." It doesn't. Iroquois = Iroquois.

You even point out that this was the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois were one of HOW MANY tribes and nations?

Put another way, did Geronimo or Powhatan give a flying fart about the Iroquois?

DR

 

[ksbluesfan]

Even though the article makes reference to the founding fathers, it seems to be more a philosophical argument than a legal one. Pretty standard conservative arguments: "Inalienable rights can only come from God," and "Our culture is Christian, and we ought to preserve that culture." I don't agree with them, but the fact that the Supreme Court also disagrees with them doesn't exactly refute his point.

I guess I see your point, but since the founding fathers designed the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and they interpret the establishment clause to allow for freedom from religion, doesn't that dispute his premise?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I guess I see your point, but since the founding fathers designed the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and they interpret the establishment clause to allow for freedom from religion, doesn't that dispute his premise?

It seems even more basic than that.

The language of the First Amendment addresses both freedom of worship, and freedom from an official state religion, in the same paragraph. This is even before the Supreme's got involved.

DR

 

[UserGoogol]

I guess I see your point, but since the founding fathers designed the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and they interpret the establishment clause to allow for freedom from religion, doesn't that dispute his premise?

Ah, I somehow skipped over the part of the article where he says "These documents do guarantee us freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion." (Despite that being in the fricking title of this thread.) You're totally right, then.

 

[LawnOven]

How much of America did they have? How much could they keep? How much did they keep? History moves forward, you might want to ask the Greeks and the Arabs about that regarding Anatolia and Turks: it's called Turkey, now, since the new residents so name it.

How does "Iroquois" = "American." It doesn't. Iroquois = Iroquois.

You even point out that this was the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois were one of HOW MANY tribes and nations?

Put another way, did Geronimo or Powhatan give a flying fart about the Iroquois?

DR

I'm not talking about the OP I'm talking specifically about some of the claims you made in your post. Which is why I quoted you. Such as:

The aboriginals didn't have the kind of vision the newcomers did.

and

The Amerinds did not form a cohesive polity.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not talking about the OP I'm talking specifically about some of the claims you made in your post. Which is why I quoted you.

And I answered you, but you don't seem to have grasped where your reply was irrelevant to TM's initial sally, and my reply to it.

The Amerinds includes "all of them," not one or two tribes, or nations. Do you now understand my reply better?

The Amerinds, as a "macro" group, did not form a cohesive polity. The various nations and tribes did not have a shared vision of one nation (no surprise) and so they were very susceptible to conquest, partly due to their own rivalries, and partly due to a myriad of other factors.

TM's "Native American" myth is an all inclusive category, which I answered, while you chose a narrow, localized example from hundreds of tribes and nations across America.

Your comment was thus not on topic, or rather, on derail, since you failed to address the lack of Amerind polity posited in TM's and my derailing comments.

I am done with this derail. It's zero value added to the OP anyway.

DR
(Hmm, maybe DR stands for De Rail. )

 

[LawnOven]

So "America" sprung up over night?

 

[Darth Rotor]

So "America" sprung up over night?

No, where did you get that idea? Ever hear of Thomas Jefferson, and his continental vision?

Want to look at a map, and see if his vision was achieved?

DR

 

[Art Vandelay]

This article repeats a bunch of fundie claptrap.

Are we, or are we not, a people given to the understanding that “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights”? Did our founders not declare that freedom did not come from man, but from God?

If they had wanted to say "God", would they have not said "God"? It's quite hypocritical to harp on the fact that the exact phrase "wall of separation between church and state" doesn't appear in the XConstitution, yet freely replace "Creator" with the much more sepefic term "God".

If liberty is from God, then who among us has the legitimate power to deny the very mention of that Creator in the public square?

Yet again, fundies are repeating the lie that secularists are trying to ban the mention of God

Secularism, the drive to eliminate God from that public square, has conquered Europe and is becoming a powerful force in America.

Secularism is not the drive to eliminatet God from the public square, it is the idea that government should not become entangled with religion. And governments in Europe are much more entangled with religion than in the US. Is the writer so ignorant as to not know about the Church of England? Or the myriad other Official State Religions throughout Europe?

The secularist first needs to eliminate the importance of God in the minds of the people, because God’s laws are immutable and absolute.

Yet another fundie talking point: equivocate between "secularists" and "anti-God". Secularists are not anti-God, in fact most of them are Christians. They simply don't think that government should be getting involved in religion.

The authority for driving God from our nation is the claim of a wall of separation between church and state, but this phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

For the fourth time, the author repeats the lie that this is about getting rid of God, then adds another tired olkd bit of fundie dishonesty. The idea that government should not endorse religion is based on the fact that the Constitution says that they government should not endorse religion. The "wall of separation" is merely an explanation of what that means, and it's dishonest to suggest that because a restatement of principle does not appear, the principle has not been established. Other phrases that do not appear in the Constitution include "jury of one's peers", "equality before the law", and "you can't smack someone upside the head with a 2x4 just because they write incredibly dishonest opinion pieces apologizing for theocracy". Would the author like to get rid of these priciples, too?

But are the roots of American greatness firmly embedded in the nutrients of the Judeo Christian belief system, and is our continuing greatness dependent upon them?

Since, given pretty much any position, one can find passages in the Bible both agreeing and disagreeing, such a question is rather meaningless. The "Judeo Christian belief system" encompasses everything and nothing.

We have welcomed many immigrants of various faiths. Secularism is also an immigrant, but its god is man.

No, it's not. And secularism, in his formulation, is not an immigrant, but a settler.

Over the last 50 years this ideology has crossed the seas and gained momentum.

Yes, that's right. Fifty years ago, we all lived in a magical land of rainbows and sunshine, and everyone was Christian. Secularism was a foreign concept, and unheard of in America.

They believe, in spite of all the history to the contrary, that man can be a moral creature without God.

And Christians continue to believe, in spite of all the history to the contrary, that man can be a moral creature with God. The Holocaust, the Stalinist purges, the Armenian massacre, all happened in which the majority of the population was religious.

If all that is so, where is the nation with its roots in secularism that is equal to America?

Uh... America itself?

My goal in this series is to encourage Americans to know who we are, how we got here and that America is vulnerable. This is our America — protect her.

No, your goal is to support your bigoted, ignorant, dishonest, and inconsistent worldview through tired old propoganda and distortion of the truth.

 

[slingblade]

Nope.

Their cultural ascendancy was brushed away by expansion west. It wasn't America, and there weren't any Americans, until the settlers from Europe showed up and called it that, and then called themselves that. The aboriginals didn't have the kind of vision the newcomers did.

The Amerinds did not form a cohesive polity. It cost them. In their defense, given their means, it was sorta hard to see it coming the way it did.

DR

I have to say, that's a pretty good way to put it.


Now, my brain just does this, and my fingers have to type it. Forgive them both, for I am not responsible for them (), but......doesn't the way you put it, as correct as it feels to us both, put the "blame" on the Amerinds? Or at least not put much responsibility on the Europeans?

Sorry. Maybe I'm expecting too much from the Europeans. If only they had had the Prime Directive back then.....

 

[Tony]

Since his whole premise is based on his assumption that god = creator, his argument is fallacious before he even makes it.

And he is showing just how ignorant he is with this line of BS:

Secularism, the drive to eliminate God from that public square...

 

[ksbluesfan]

I considered addressing the hypocracy of the idea that the US is a Christian nation, but when we started rebuilding Iraq, it was important that they should be a secular nation. Since the author didn't mention Iraq, I thought I wouldn't bring it up. He presented enough faulty logic to attack without getting nasty.