As is his style, he provides not a shred of supporting information to make his point... so.. I re-state what I've said many times and shred his point for him..
That as a very interesting post. It contained quite a few topics that could be broken out into their own posts. I'll take a stab at them, "constructively".And then he goes on to claim that science reinforces, rather than rebutts, biblical text.
Oh.. and Anderson Cooper is gay, just in case you weren't aware... not that it means anything in terms of the CNN report.
Steve really nailed the idea of not distinguishing between religious flavors, as that truly is the idea behind the nation's inherent secularism and the Establishment Clause. Nobody seeks to "silence" Christianity nor give Islam some sort of elevated status. To liberals, it's all the same, and does not belong in government or publicly funded activities. Not only that, but non-religion is just as valid as religion.
I don't know how many ways to say this, but we tend to think radical Islam is crazy, and we don't want to "embrace" it, nor give it any more credence than we would radical Christianity. You keep writing the converse over and over and I'm not sure why. Maybe you could link to some story where liberals are "embracing" Islam into the American public arena?
realizing that whatever we do in regards to the war on Islam there will continue to be more jihads.
I think that's significant in that I don't believe you've said that so plainly before. You are at war with Islam itself. Clearly, the United States is not, as President Bush has made that plainly clear many times.
Essentially, you view it as the 10th Crusade, however nobody is really fighting for your side. The current war is a "war on terror" and not a "war on Islam".
Still, there are some 1 billion Muslims world wide, and reason would assume that the "jihadists" are a tiny sliver of that population. I prefer to recognize the issue as a problem with radical religion and not the religion itself.
the Constitution's so-called seperation of church and state, which, of course, is not constitutional in the first place if you study it)
The Establishment clause is very clear. The intent of the "founding fathers" is clear. The Supreme Court has defended America's secularism at every opportunity.
And I know I've written this a few times, but have you actually read the Federalist Papers? Have you studied the character of founders? Do you understand that 7 of the 9 were not even Christian? I'm not sure why that issue can be debated?
We revere the founders, and rightly so. They understood the danger of fundamentalist religion and wrote a brilliant document in the Constitution, completely devoid of religion. Seriously, do a word search on the text of the Constitution and look for the word "Jesus". Then look for "God". Neither is anywhere to be found in most important document in the history of government. What is found is in the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, written by a Deist (Jefferson), explicitly to define America's secularism.
I take it you disagree with Thomas Jefferson? It's clearly an argument to make if you want to disagree with him, but it's not proper to change his intent. His view is in the Constitution. Yours is not.
you have to admit that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values
I'm afraid that's not the case. In fact, only 2 of the 10 commandments are even law in this nation. Don't kill. Don't steal. As Steve mentioned, these are universal laws, not specific to Christianity.
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
That quote from Jefferson is why I call my blog, The Infidel Express. It's pretty clear.
Are you familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli?
"As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Messelmen, --and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries"--Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, Article XI, written by Joel Barlow (USA diplomat) and Hassan Bashaw (of Algers), late during George Washington's second term and later ratified by President John Adams.
So anyway..
If you look at the Federalist Papers, you'd know that the founders saw ancient Sparta and renaissance Venice as the best models for government. Those two systems were chock full of checks and balances preventing any single entity or president from making reckless policy. The founders didn't like Athens as a model either--they saw a series of demagogues rousing the mob to war with disastrous military and financial consequences.
The bible only enters US law to the extent that it influenced English common law, and even there it's part of a hodgepodge including Roman, Viking and Norman law. In other words, it's of very limited importance.
The truth is, there is no basis for a constitutional government in the bible, or any religious document for that matter. Religious institutions throughout history generally aren't very friendly to a democracy.
liberals will tell you it was based on secularism, and then will use Turkey's drive to be secular as an example
Yes, we will, and we'll do things like substantiate the claim as I have done. As for Turkey, it's not a "drive to be secular". It is already secular and has been since 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire . The Muslims are attempting to hijack the government now however. The same is being done in secular India where the Hindus are attempting to take over.
I'm curious your information source disputing America's secular form of government? It would be interesting for me to read because everything that I've seen points to the opposite. Heck, "In God We Trust" did not even appear on the currency until 1956. You'd think in a religiously established government, "God" would appear in it's most important documents.. heck.. even on the money. But alas..
I'd also be extremely curious to see the story on the "proof of wandering Jews". Can you provide a link?
I LOL'd.
No comments:
Post a Comment