I meant to give the final tally and discuss last week's Dakota Voice poll (or "quiz" for those sensitive about the word "poll") last night, but I picked up a nasty bug sitting in the cold Friday while my children enjoyed some ice skating.
Also had a grueling day yesterday with some unexpected and unpleasant developments that had me running from about 1:30 am for something like 18 hours, with just a few pauses and a couple of cat-naps in there.
The question was:
The phrase that in America there should be a “wall of separation” between church and state appears in:
Most got it right, but there were a few very misinformed answers, especially those who thought it was in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
Here's how the answers broke out:
George Washington’s Farewell Address (1%)
the Mayflower Compact (4%)
the Constitution (6%)
the Declaration of Independence (3%)
Thomas Jefferson’s letters (84%)
Indeed. "Separation of church and state" appears only in Thomas Jefferson's letters, specifically a letter to some Baptists in Danbury who were concerned about erosion of religious liberty.
Jefferson's letter, dated January 1, 1802, said in part:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Interesting that secularists and God-haters should use a letter intended to assure a group of Christians of religious liberty should be perverted to attack the very religious liberty the letter defended.
Even more interesting (and sad) that the First Amendment, which prohibits government interference in the free exercise of religion, has been perverted to quash free exercise of religion.
All the more proof that free people must be diligent and alert people, if they want to maintain that freedom. In a fallen world, there is never a shortage of evil men on the lookout to diminish freedom.
The new poll/quiz is up: What does the Tenth Amendment provide?
4 comments:
Bob,
You're making some sweeping generalizations here. Assuming that your interpretation of Christianity is the correct one, and that anything else is a rejection of God (which as you've said elsewhere could qualify as hating God), the secularists and God-haters you're talking about include:
Muslims
Jews
Hindus
Mormons
Wiccans
Shintoists
Buddhists
Jains
Sikhs
Jehovah's Witnesses
and of course atheists, agnostics, skeptics, naturalists, etc. (insofar as these schools of thought can be considered religions unto themselves)
I agree with your conclusion - it's sad that a lot of people exploit the First Amendment to stifle other people's religious expression. But what you can't (or won't) realize is that many atheists/agnostics/skeptics want the same thing you do: to express their religious beliefs freely and without censorship. But when they do, you get all worked up and say that they're just "attacking" your god.
Well, if that's true, then every time a Hindu goes to temple, he's attacking your god. Every time a Jehovah's Witness walks door-to-door handing out tracts, she's attacking your god. Heck, a Muslim attacks your god five times a day when he prays toward Mecca! Are THEY perverting the First Amendment to attack the very religious liberty that document was meant to defend?
If a group of American Muslims gathered in your town with banners and loudspeakers proclaiming DEATH TO THE INFIDELS! ALLAH IS THE ONE TRUE GOD!, would you respect their First Amendment right to do so? If we truly are a free people, you would. After all, they are just stating what the Qur'an says. (Sort of reminds me of how Christians often say, "I'm not trying to offend you, I'm just stating God's Word.") Who are you to censor them?
Now, if that same group of Muslims converted more and more people to Islam and grew to the point that Christianity became the second largest religion in America, would you still think that Muslims were attacking your religious freedom? Would you try to stop them? If you say yes, then we really do not have religious freedom in this country at all. And the sad truth is that we don't.
What the First Amendment should really say is this: "Americans are free to believe whatever they want and to express those beliefs without restriction...just as long as Christianity stays on top." Maybe then we could finally admit the obvious, which is that America is a Christian theocracy. Maybe not officially, but certainly de facto. We may talk about how all faiths are respected and sanctioned equally in America, but at the end of the day, you can only be accepted and valued as a real American if you're a Christian (and a conservative Christian at that). Jews are welcome, Muslims are welcome, Hindus are welcome...just as long as they stay in the minority.
And if it seems like Christianity's numerical superiority is being threatened, the evangelicals will rally together, indoctrinate more people to their religion, and see to it that Americans think the way Christians want them to think, behave the way Christians want them to behave, and vote the way Christians want them to vote. Because if you're a Muslim living in America, you are under the umbrella of Christianity, and the Christian fascists will prevent you from changing that.
So in the end, you're no different from those "God-haters" who attack religious liberty. If you care to disagree, then go ask a Muslim how he feels every time you say his god is a barbaric myth. In fact, go ask all two billion of them.
No, only in your simplistic, God-hating logic does a Jew or Hindu going to temple constitute an attack on God.
Since the early days of America, we have had freedom to worship the god (or God) of our choice in the manner of our choice. And every generation until the last two or three has recognized that the United States is a Christian nation founded by Christians on Christian principles...which includes the recognition that the state cannot mandate authentic worship of any particular deity.
If Muslims want to demonstrate, they have a First Amendment right to do so. Though if they seriously advocate violence against the innocent, they may be breaking the law--law that exists for a reason that even you should be able to grasp.
When people practice their own religion, they are not necessarily attacking other religions or attempting to censor other religions.
Secularists, however, have been on a 60-year campaign to erase Christianity from the public square, constituting a blatant and aggressive attack on religion.
One of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," is it not? That means that if we worship any deity but Yahweh, we are committing a sin, which is always an offense against God. Since my logic is too simplistic and God-hating, please explain how a Hindu (I never said Jew, you did) going to temple and worshipping false gods like Vishnu and Shiva does not violate the Second Commandment and therefore does not constitute an attack on God.
And since you seem to shy away from every comment I make about how you should go talk to a Muslim, it makes me wonder if you know or have known any Muslims at all. You should, because I think it would be eye-opening for someone as self-assured as you. Imagine surrounding yourself with people who believe you hate their god, and who look at you with the utmost pity as they shake their heads, saying, "Poor Bob, if he only knew the Truth, maybe he would reject his false worldview and accept Allah as the one true God." You wouldn't convert, of course, but at least you'd learn a little humility: you are not the only person in the world who is absolutely certain that his religion is right.
I believe I said before that God give us the freedom to believe him, or to follow other gods, including the god of self. There are eternal consequences to be paid, but we have that freedom in this life.
Surely you aren't as obtuse as your questions and objections would otherwise indicate. I really don't believe you are. However, your pathetic attempts to justify license and rejection of God with attacks on God's truth really get old after a while. As much as I enjoy hearty debate, I'm really losing interest in responding to you at all.
Post a Comment