The Nation's Pulse
Anti-Christianity: A Textbook Case
“How Christian Were the Founders?” the New York Times asks.
We Texans are a mess, you bet. First, we send you George W. Bush, then we try to write the textbooks for all you non-God-fearing rabble.
A New York Times Magazine cover story by Russell Shorto (Feb. 14) puts the latter matter under the magnifying glass. Our “$22 billion education fund,” Shorto explains, “is among the largest educational endowments in the country. Texas uses some of that money to buy or distribute a staggering 48 million textbooks annually — which rather strongly inclines educational publishers to tailor their products to fit the standards dictated by the Lone Star State.”
Here’s the State Board of Education, then, considering how hard it might press publishers to emphasize the nation’s Christian origins — suggesting, according to Shorto’s summation, “that the United States was founded by devout Christians and according to Biblical precepts.” If you don’t at least suspect the reaction of New York Times readers to such an affirmation, you don’t know the first thing about New York Times readers. The nearly-unanimous reaction, in reader replies to the magazine piece: : Yowwwwwwwwwwwwwww! — a collective shriek of injury and indignation.
A few excerpts before I move on to the substance of the matter:
“These people are dangerous. Has Sarah Palin spoken for them yet?”
“These people are scary.”
“Can’t we simply return Texas to the Mexicans and terminate this national embarrassment? Why is Texas still part of the Union?”
“Fanatics and demagogues…”
“Jesus would have thrown the book at these phonies.”
“There seem [sic] to be an unlimited supply of lunatics in America.”
Now what I really enjoy here is the lofty tone — the note of unruffled curiosity concerning a difference of viewpoint that gentlemen and ladies might wish to inspect if not necessarily respect. Yes, indeed: the hope for reconciliation and the reign of reason! The truth is, nothing so surely drives the secular-minded around the bend as does the assertion that for the last two millennia Western civilization lived by religious suppositions other than theirs.
These people really don’t like Texans or Christians either one — a taste I would hold to be sacredly guaranteed them but for the introduction into this context of such a word such as “sacred.”
Here’s what I am going to suggest: the attitude of secular hatred, or just plain old everyday contempt, for Christian viewpoints, right ones or wrong ones, is the explosive matter in fusses such as the New York Times Magazine starts over…over not very much, really.
None of which is to say the religious bloc on the Texas education board has its side of the controversy down letter perfect. There doesn’t seem much evidence to the effect that the founders were prayer partners who believed themselves to be establishing a kind of church-nation. Then as now, there was a lot of diversity even among Christians. As Mark A. Noll, a prominent scholar of evangelicalism, writes, “Most of the leading founders were sincerely religious persons. At the same time, the most influential among their number practiced decidedly nontraditional forms of Christianity.” The most religious of them were likelier to operate on the basis of political axioms instead of “the special insights of faith.” On the eve of the revolution, the famous Dr. Benjamin Rush of Philadelphia had complained that “religion is at a low ebb among us…Vice and profanity openly prevail in our city. Our sabbaths are boldly profaned by the most open and flagitious enormities…Our young men are wholly devoted to pleasure and sensuality…” Hardly the best argument, some of this, for brushing in halos on the founders’ portraits.
Why, then, the conservatives of the Texas education board as state fair midway targets for liberal baseballs — two bits a throw? It’s the condition the liberals themselves unconsciously prescribed when, in the aftermath of the U. S. Supreme Court’s decisions outlawing bland prayers in public schools and elsewhere, they politicized the faith question. It was a kind of reverse reversion to the status quo of post-revolutionary times in certain states with established churches. Legislatures had eventually dropped those taxpayer-supported establishments. In time that wasn’t good enough. Where churches and the state once overlapped, ministers now had to take their prayers and rituals out of public view with a haste and thoroughness that — to church members — called into question the truth of their teaching. It was insulting. Did secularists of the ACLU stamp think the religious were going just to kneel there and take it?
About the Author
William Murchison, a Dallas-based columnist for Creators Syndicate and author of Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity (Encounter Books), is completing a biography of John Dickinson..
Letter to the Editor View all comments (121) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by William Murchison
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/16/anti-christianity-a-textbook-c
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
S.L. Toddard| 2.16.10 @ 7:21AM
"First, we send you George W. Bush"
George W. Bush is a blue-blood Connecticut Yankee, for all his growing up in Texas.
Stuart Koehl| 2.16.10 @ 9:12AM
I doubt that the Left would have despised him so much had that been true. He was hated by the East Coast establishment precisely because he "went native".
Otis, my man!| 2.16.10 @ 10:29AM
I am a conservative, born and raised in New York. That makes me the black sheep in my Liberal New York family. My relatives still live there, although I have long since moved away. But everytime I return I can confirm there is no people they hate more than Texan Christians. It is the primary reason New York Liberals despised G.W. Bush and the reason he could do no right in their eyes.
But New York is in decline and Texas is on the rise so their is nothing to fear.
Otis, my man!| 2.16.10 @ 10:30AM
Yes, I meant "there."
wwwexler| 2.18.10 @ 1:31AM
But, Otis, I thought liberals were TOLERANT! They said so, right?
Alan Brooks| 2.16.10 @ 6:30PM
If not for the war (which will be bigger than all other wars incl. WWI and WWIII (Cold War was WWIII) Bush might have been remembered as being in the 2nd tier of POTUSes.
What might have been doesn't count , naturally; but why can't Toddard and his ilk be fair about this?
Because that would be asking too much of them.
Alan Brooks| 2.16.10 @ 6:32PM
... that ought to have been have been WWII & III, but WWI counts, too.
Point is, the current war is the Big One-- not WWII.
victor| 2.17.10 @ 12:43AM
A Brooks:
"Toddard and his ilk be fair about this?"
Toddard and fair should not be in the same sentence, but ilk fits Toddard like a glove, a much better fit than the OJ glove, don't you think?
BTW GW will be near the top tier, once Schlessinger, Goodwin and Dallek are gone to their well deserved reward.
Copyleft| 2.16.10 @ 8:38AM
Yes, let's make this a Christian nation. We can see numerous examples of how well theocracies have turned out for the principles of freedom and justice.
After all, the founding fathers were "just kidding" when they mandated a separation of church and state, right?
Stuart Koehl| 2.16.10 @ 9:34AM
I doubt you understand what "theocracy" actually means, for there have been very few of these in actuality, and none except perhaps Iran in the world today.
The Founders varied in their degree of religious observance, but most of them in fact were very conventional in their beliefs; almost all of them, including Jefferson, simply assumed what today we call "Judeo-Christian" values, and every last one of them believed that a moral society was essential for the success and survival of the Republic, and that religion belief was the best mechanism for instilling a sense of morality and guaranteeing moral behavior. When the people have internalized virtue and self-discipline, then only very limited government is needed; the more the people are prey to their passions, the more extensive and intrusive the law.
Today, the United States is by far the most religious of the Western democracies, and the overwhelming majority of Americans express some belief in God. Though a large number of Americans do not subscribe to a particular Church or denomination (which was always very much the case in non-conformist America), most describe themselves as Christians of one sort or another. This belief should be reflected in our culture, our laws, and our attitudes.
Growing up as a Jew in New York City, and attending public schools, we began each day with a prayer. In retrospect, it was a rather bland, non-denominational statement, but it served the important purpose of reminding us little savages that there was something transcendent and more important than ourselves, that there was an objective source of right and wrong, good and evil.
Back in the day, Catholic kids got to leave school early on Wednesdays for first communion and confirmation classes. Jews got off for Rosh Hoshanna, Yom Kippur and Passover. We learned about each other's beliefs, we learned each other's songs and stories. And the result was not proselytism or oppression, but real toleration: I believe this, and you believe that, and we can respect and live with our differences.
The Left will have none of that. Everyone must believe what they believe, and deviant opinions must be suppressed. Any religious expression offends them, and the only real sin to the Left is saying things that offend the Left.
Which is, of course, why the Left is in the sorry situation it is today: in their efforts to ensure that they are not offended, they have managed to offend just about everybody else. In their desire to enforce tolerance, they have been utterly intolerant themselves. In their attempts to free us from the shackles of religion have merely imposed their own secular religion upon us.
And, of course, all this is done in the most incredibly snide and condescending manner, which ensures that their message will be well received by us rubes.
It's not Dale Carnegie, but liberals seem to think it can win friends and influence people.
MOS was 71331| 2.16.10 @ 11:28AM
A hearty "Amen" to Stuart Koehl! Well said, sir. I agree with every word.
George F| 2.16.10 @ 3:14PM
Stuart Koehl. Thank you for a very insightful comment. In trying to control society, the left not only comes across as intolerant but horribly ill mannered and crude.
Etiquette Man| 2.16.10 @ 4:21PM
Thank you, Mr. Koehl. Very well said, sir!
I, too, grew up in New York and learned tolerance as a result of being surrounded by other children of different backgrounds whose songs, traditions, and beliefs I learned to appreciate, if not emulate.
(It was also great fun spinning my classroom-made dreidel while singing "Dreidel, dreidel, dreidel, I made it out of clay, and when it's dry and ready, oh! dreidel I will play!")
True toleration and mutual respect are alien concepts to most on the left.
Al Adab| 2.16.10 @ 6:26PM
I hadn't thought of the Dreidel song in many years, thanks for the memory.
Baruch atto Adoni eliheinu ho olom b'rie dreidel.
D Betts| 2.16.10 @ 7:10PM
Growing up, I too went to school where being in a different faith was not an issue. In fact, by allowing open expression of faith, I would have to say the schools I attended during my elementary school years fostered a deeper respect towards those of different faith. Heck, my best friends were second generation Russian Jews, and from them I learned a good amount of their faith and practices. Their parents ended up being my family's orthodontists. In addition, the school didn't have any issue with setting up religious plays for the adults to watch while the students performed them. In fact, most of them were about famous religious people, from Budda to Solomon, the story of Noah's Ark, and things of that sort. Not to mention one of my teachers was a devout Muslim, I just wish she wasn't so pushy with making us eat our vegetables when we brought better and healthier food...
KyMouse| 2.17.10 @ 9:33AM
At the private school I attended during my childhood, each homeroom began the day by reciting in unison from Psalm 19 -- "May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable in Thy sight, O Lord my Strength and my Redeemer."
Not a bad way for kids, or adults, to start their day.
MikeF1| 2.16.10 @ 10:12AM
You may want to check your history. The Founding Fathers never, in any official document, or in any minutes or comentaries on the Constitutional Convention, disucssed or mandated the concept of "separation of church and state". The idea of the "wall" came from a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. His comment was that he did not believe that the state should mandate the Episcopal denomination or prohibit the practice of the Baptist denomination. However, Jefferson, as an anti-federalist, believed at his core that the Constitution prohibited the federal government from any jurisdiction in religious matters and that these, including the choosing of a state denomination, were relegated to the individual states. Jefferson believed that the foundation of the country was Christianity. He believed that the central government was prohibited from dictating anything relative to religious practice and that any laws or pronouncemnets in this area was a matter for the individual states. There is no concept of separtaion of church and state anywhere in our founding documents. It is an aberration that was wrongfully created in the Everson case in 1947.
Otis, my man!| 2.16.10 @ 11:18AM
MikeF1
Not exactly.
See my comments to Sandra below.
Cheers!
Otis, my man!| 2.16.10 @ 10:37AM
The founding fathers were much better educated than people are today. Thus, well versed in Scripture, they knew the meaning of "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."
A knowledgable Christian understands that a theocracy CANNOT be imposed on the Secular and would not craft a Government that would even try to do so. That is why Christian founding fathers crafted the concept of Separation of Church and State, and why it wasn't the other way round.
Jeremiah| 2.16.10 @ 11:16AM
Well, Copyleft, you might have a point if the founders had actually done such a thing.
What the First Amendment says is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
If you read the Constitutional debates, one of the startling things that comes out at you is that one of the primary reasons this amendment passed was because several states DID have established churches - and they wanted to make sure the federal government had no jurisdiction over religion whatsoever. Thus CONGRESS shall make NO law...
This amendment was specifically designed to make sure the federal governement kept its nose out of the matter entirely, exactly the opposite of how it is interpreted by liberal intellectuals like you today.
Actual Constitutional scholars, even the liberal variety, concede that that is what it means and if this is where it ended, all those federal court rulings, congressional acts and executive orders regarding religion would have to be vacated, as the federal government would have no jurisdiction over religion whatsoever. What these scholars affirm is that it was the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, which opened up the door to federal meddling in what, until then, was a state matter.
It really gets wearisome having to correct all you leftists with attitude on what the actual Constitution says and what the actual Founders said about these things in convention when they were debating over them. It is even more wearisome listening to you smugly dismiss your betters as rubes for knowing what you don't bother to study but pretend to know. Here's a tip: If you want to play intellectual, you might try actually reading the material you regularly spout off about.
Adheeb| 2.17.10 @ 10:56AM
Amen!
JP| 2.16.10 @ 12:01PM
"After all, the founding fathers were "just kidding" when they mandated a separation of church and state, right"
CopyCat,
You flunked American History for Dummies. Read the 1st Amendment this time, and concentrate on where the prohibition was explicitly focused -nope, not the churches or the individual state, but Congress.
And writing textbooks that mention God does not lead to a theocracy. And if you have a bone to pick, try visiting the communities around Dearborn Michigan. But then again, you Leftists have a problem with Christianity only.
Al Adab| 2.16.10 @ 2:38PM
Here lies the problem of our current governmnet. "Congress shall make no law..." absolutely, however they have designated that power to a plethora of agencies which promulgate rules having the force of law. Many of those are within the executive branch. The voters have no recourse against the agencies.
We have become a government of paid professional managers who invent new rules every day. Read the Federal Register for an education. There exists a very real seperation of powers issue as Congress has, and continues to, relegate its legislative authority to the executive agencies.
Until and unless we defubnd these, very expensive, agencies, there is little hope to recapture the spirit and the actuality of our Liberty. We are in fact ruled by an unelected , self perpetuating managerial elite not unlike the academician eunuchs who ran the Chinese empires.
Conan the Grammarian| 2.16.10 @ 2:13PM
Copyleft, you dumb@$$, the founding fathers didn't mandate a separation of church and state. Show that phrase in the Constitution to me.
Alan Brooks| 2.16.10 @ 6:37PM
What do we have to lose, CopyLeft? everything from publik skools up to the IRS is dysfunctional.
Right now-- and I personally go by now, not speculating on 25 or 50 years from now-- we would have little or nothing to lose by de-separating Church and state.
Son Of Sam | 2.16.10 @ 7:22PM
copyleft, why don't you show me where exactly in the constitution it says ANYTHING about a "wall of separation"? Could it possibly be that it doesn't damned well exist? And that the phrase itself comes from an offhand remark penned by Jefferson in a private letter to a friend?
Just so its understood, even by you copyleft, I am not and never have been, either a Texan or a Christian. However, I have far more repect for either of those groups in general than for a pack of hand wringing bed wetting crybabies who fear that we'll be ruled by the Ayatollah if we dare to admit the historical fact that the Founders were almost unananimously Christian and were guided in their actions by the principles of their faith.
stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.samadamssos.bravehost.com/
Franklin| 2.16.10 @ 8:50AM
Copyleft:
Where in the Constitution does it say "seperation of church and state"?
The First Amendment:
"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".
Also, who is "they" and what did they "mandate"?
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.16.10 @ 9:15AM
Great article!
Thanks for the glimpse, Mr. Murchison....and the chuckles.
Franklin,
...you know better than that! Communists, (pardon the shorthand), have always depended upon re-writing history, (read "lie" about history), to further their "present truths".
Yeah, we get a lot of yankees moving here. They straighten right up the first time they lay on their car horn... and get a six-gun up their snout. Shortly after that, they discover they really like it here.
They like the politeness, and they like the warm welcome... especially when they whip out the tried and true "I got here as fast as I could" line.
Uh...leave the jerks up there please.
Franklin| 2.16.10 @ 1:54PM
Ken,
Yea, I know. But I am tired of letting statements like his just go. I want to make him answer to what he says and explain how a letter became a "mandate" that we must follow.
By the way, I live up here in Minnesota (NO - I did NOT vote for Franken-stine and neither did the majority of the state - we were ACORNed!)
Lived here and in Michigan all my 58 years, and I'm almost ready to live in a warmer climate now that AGC will be the next hysteria!
Actually, I'd love to live where you get a shotgun up your snout to make you behave! I would LOVE to see that! Hey, wouldn't mind it happening to me - I'm sure I've picked up some bad habits up here. hehe.
wwwexler| 2.18.10 @ 1:35AM
Good for you, Franklin! Keep riding Copyleft/Lib Reader. I'm sick of liberal lies, too.
2Anglico| 2.16.10 @ 9:35AM
The notion of "separation of church and state" is another "emanation or pneumbra" seen wafting about the Supreme Court. It, like the RIGHT to abortion on demand, is nowhere to be found in the text of the constitution.
I can just hear George Washington advocating for mommies to be allowed to kill their unborn babies, can't you?
wwwexler| 2.18.10 @ 1:36AM
Right. It's NOWHERE in the Constitution, Jefferson mentioned it in one of his letters.
Stupid liberals.
simon templar| 2.16.10 @ 9:48AM
"The most religious of them were likelier to operate on the basis of political axioms instead of "the special insights of faith."
-May I respectively suggest to the author that you read, Original Intent, by David Barton and then rewrite your article. Your article was definitely onto something in regards to the Left. ..but somewhat missing in your understanding of how are founders faith played a role in the formation of this nation. many of there political concepts and axioms were drawn from the Bible as well as the classics. They did not seek a theocracy but firmly believed that this nation was founded on religious principles and that it should be a major driving force in both peoples private and public life as it would make for both an enlightened society and good citizenship. The book is based on 5000 personal letters written by the founders during the revoltution and after it. The letters contain thousands of religous references and arguments outlining their thoughts about how their faith played a significant role in the development of the republic and its institutions.
Joe| 2.16.10 @ 10:11AM
Copyleft, as usual, you know nothing of history. The founders did not put anywhere in the constitution "separation of Church and state". Go back and read it again with new glasses.
Copyleft| 2.16.10 @ 11:18AM
As usual, Joe, you misread. I never said those exact words were in the Constitution, as you pretend. I said the founders mandated a separation, which they did.
A Christian nation would be the opposite of a free country; thank God we'll never have one here!
Ryan| 2.16.10 @ 11:44AM
What countries without Christian beginnings are free?
Simon Templar| 2.16.10 @ 12:11PM
Your level of ignorance, deception, and misrepresentation is really astounding. In one short paragraph of your commment, you provide the basis for a whole book on the role and history of religion in American society and the falsehoods and revisionism of the AntiAmerican Left. The founders never MANDATED a seperation nor did they believe that a christian nation would be the opposite of a free country. Your "seperation of church and state" has so perverted the realm of political discourse and political life that private citizens graduating valedictorian can not be allowed to mention their faith in their graduation speeches. This WAS not the intent of our founding fathers! Let me remind you the second half says congress shall make NO laws restricting or prohibiting the free expression of religion.
Franklin| 2.16.10 @ 1:44PM
Copyleft,
Don't know if you saw my response to you, but I asked you to answer this question:
>Where in the Constitution does it >say "separation of church and state"?
>The First Amendment:
>"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".
>Also, who is "they" and what did >they "mandate"?
Your response to another post answered my first question:
>“I never said those exact words were in the >Constitution, as you pretend. I said the founders >mandated a separation, which they did.”
You also answered the first part of the second question; who the “they” were:
“I said the founders mandated a separation, which they did.”
So now please answer the last ½ of the last question:
What did they “mandate” and now I’m adding an additional question:
What exactly is this “mandate” (a law? A standard? A suggestion? A rule?) and where can we find this mandate?
Conan the Grammarian| 2.16.10 @ 2:27PM
Copyleft, you dumb@$$, where did the founders mandate separation of church and state? Where, where, where?
Copyleft| 2.16.10 @ 3:06PM
Several places, rube.
Thomas Jefferson clarified the meaning of the First Amendment when he described the "wall of separation" concept. (Letter to Danbury Baptists)
The Constitution forbids any religious test for holding public office. (Article 6)
Oaths of office do not, and cannot, require any swearing by faith, god, or book. (Article 2) The Constitution has no official position for any church official--it's a 100% SECULAR government.
The 14th Amendment further clarifies that all restrictions on the federal level to protect our freedoms (including separating church and state) apply equally to the state level as well.
And, of course, the First Amendment forbids the government from promoting, prohibiting, or otherwise getting entangled in religion in any way. (Clarification from James Madison, father of the Constitution)
"the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Treaty of Tripoli, signed by G. Washington, and--again, as the Constitution requires (Article 6)--therefore supreme U.S. law over all local and state laws to the contrary.
And, of course, numerous Supreme Court cases have upheld, over and over throughout the years, the principle that the Constitution requires strict governmental neutrality on matters of religion. (Reynolds vs. US, 1879, among many others)
Remember: YOU don't get to decide what the Constitution means; the Court does.
Extremely Extreme Extremist| 2.16.10 @ 11:00PM
"Remember: YOU don't get to decide what the Constitution means; the Court does."
It will no doubt come as a surprise to you to learn, along with your ABC's, that nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court of the U.S. made the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. That's right. It ain't there. Go ahead and look. I'll wait.
You see, for many years after the adoption of the Constitution, "nullification" (i.e. putting a negative on a Supreme Court opinion) was held to be a perfectly defensible act, whether it was by another of the federal branches, or by the people themselves in their several states. At no time did the Founders ever intend the Supreme Court to be the Supreme Leader in America. Indeed, how could they, in a Constitution purporting to be grounded in the principle of self-rule? If the people are to rule themselves, how does that jibe with ultimate, unquestionable authority being vested in five unelected judges? Obviously, it doesn't.
How we came to our current pass Supreme-Court-wise given the above fact is a complicated story, but suffice it to say that your attempt to declare one anti-constitutional fairy story legitimate based upon a second anti-constitutional fairy story simply won't do.
Roy| 2.17.10 @ 1:49AM
"Remember: YOU don't get to decide what the Constitution means; the Court does.":
Cringing, servile, cowardly nonsense.
The Court, like the other two branches of government, is not infallible. Like them, it is ultimately accountable to the people. Like them, it is capable of spouting thoroughgoing horse waste. Like them, when it does, I will state that that which it has spouted is, in fact, thoroughgoing horse waste and will do my best to get rid of those who spouted it. I will not bow down before a Supreme Court judge any more than before a Congressman.
Never mind the founders; it's hard to imagine the TORIES in Revolutionary times saying "Remember YOU don't decide what the Rights of Englishmen are; King George does."
Al Adab| 2.16.10 @ 3:14PM
No "established church" meaning tax funded or mandatory.
No restriction on free excercise of religion meaning public displays and ceremonies allowed.
That is what the amemdment "mandates".
Sandra_in_Severn| 2.16.10 @ 10:39AM
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Everyone forgets NO law PROHIBITING Religion (and Religious Belief), as part of the first Amendment.
It took a LONG time before you really had true "religious freedom," among the various branches of Christianity, let alone had Jews (observant or only cultural) able to run for public office, serve in the Military, Civil, or Diplomatic Services.
Islam? That was not even recognized until the late 1970s. Let alone any of the Asian Religions.
Otis, my man!| 2.16.10 @ 11:02AM
Sandra,
Not exactly.
You quoted accurately from the text of the Constitution but you changed the meaning of that text when you said "NO law PROHIBITING"
The establishment clause was inserted in order to prevent the creation of a National Church, such as the Church of England, or what exists still today in Iceland - the Lutheran Church of Iceland. In those two countries, the Church is supported with taxpayers dollars. At the time of the revolution, the King was head of the Church of England so the state and Church were intertwined.
So it is from the establishment clause that we derive the concept of "Separation of Church and State."
JP| 2.16.10 @ 2:32PM
And the prohibitions were on Congress, and not the states. When the Constitution was ratified there were 3 states that had "state religions".
streetfighter| 2.16.10 @ 3:26PM
Using this logic the state can censor speech, just not the feds.
The states can take away guns, just not the feds.
etc.
etc.
I disagree!
Al Adab| 2.16.10 @ 3:51PM
Originally the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights applied to the Federal Government. It was only after the "civil war" that the 14th amendment was adopted (under coercion, but that's another issue) and under it's provisions the restrictions of the Bill of Rights were extended to the states.
Tghat however did not abrogate the 9th or 10th. Interesting balancing act since then.
Nick| 2.17.10 @ 12:28AM
Streetfighter,
You can disagree all you want, you are still wrong.
Read the words of Articles of Amendment 1 and 2.
The First Amendment starts out, "Congress shall make no law [...]" (Federal) So, yes, the several States could limit speech.
The Second Amendment ends with the words, "[,,,] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (Individual) Neither the Federal or a State government can infringe on a person's right to bear arms.
Get the difference?
The Founders knew what they were saying.
Big Fish| 2.16.10 @ 10:58AM
"...The notion of "separation of church and state" is another "emanation or pneumbra" seen wafting about the Supreme Court. It, like the RIGHT to abortion on demand, is nowhere to be found in the text of the constitution...."
Um, 2 Anglico, actually, Roe v. Wade didn't find a right to abortion on demand; it found a right to privacy.
Jeremiah| 2.16.10 @ 11:27AM
Why shoot, Big Fish, what a revelation! Roe v. Wade had nothing to do with abortion - only the right to privacy. So if you murder your spouse 'in private' that would be your Constitutional right? If you rob the bank in the middle of the night, when no one is there, would that be private enough to be considered a Constitutional right?
'Discovering 'a right to privacy was one of the phantom pillars the court had to construct in order to prop up the previously unsuspected right to abortion. But it was not the object of this decision.
Your observation is not without insight, but it is befuddled, like a man walking into an auto showroom, looking at a new Taurus, and confidently explaining to his wife "Um...honey...they didn;t build a car; they designed an engine."
Big Fish| 2.16.10 @ 11:40AM
Well, of course Roe v. Wade was about abortion. But it did NOT say , in spite of 2Anglico's assertion, that Jane Roe had a right to an abortion. It said she had the right to make the decision for herself. And I do admit befuddlement at your Taurus analogy.
wwwexler| 2.18.10 @ 1:45AM
Can you tell me where the Court 'found' privacy? Which penumbra was that? And could you tell me what gives Jane the right to kill her baby?
Jane's uterus? I didn't know that possessing a uterus gives someone the right to kill. Wow, I wonder where that little tidbit can be found in the Constitution? Probably right next to 'Separation of Church and State', right?
The stupidity of meat-headed liberals never fails to astound me. Liberalism is a mental illness.
Ryan| 2.16.10 @ 11:41AM
Actually, right to privace was found in Griswold v. Connecticut.
Agreed, it's not in there, but probably should be. I still don't think it would apply to abortion - an unborn child has his/her own right to privacy, as it were.
Jeremiah| 2.16.10 @ 11:59AM
Nice catch, Ryan. Of course it was Griswold in which the right to privacy was discovered - a limited right that still does not allow one to commit a crime of aggression against another whether it be in private or in public. I agree with you that there should be such a right, but I do not think the court should have created it. It should have been achieved through Constitutional Amendment. Allowing the court to create it just confirms that they can make it up as they go along.
As to your befuddlement, Big Fish, my Taurus amalogy was designed to demonstrate the absurdity of substituting an ancillary issue for the fundamental issue.
And the fundamental issue is the very thing that all the pro-choicers studiously ignore. That issue, on abortion, is the humanity of the fetus. If the fetus is human, he is entitled to all the rights any of the rest of us are. If he is not, then we have no argument. But you can not make your anser to the question arbitrary. It must be based on consistent and coherent principles that protect us all or it undermines the freedom of all.
JP| 2.16.10 @ 2:35PM
Griswold was cited in the Roe case. Despite the 60some pages of nonsense, the only pretext Blackmon had in justifying the majority opinion was Griswold.
Al Adab| 2.16.10 @ 4:40PM
Roe v. Wade was an abortion of jurisprudence.
wwwexler| 2.18.10 @ 1:46AM
Excellent!
ralph| 2.16.10 @ 11:03AM
Public school is for the public; everyone, regardless of their faith or lack of. If one wants their children to get religious education they need to go to a private school.
Apparently, our founding fathers were smart enough to see ahead to a time when our country would be inhabited by more faiths than Christianity. Another reason for that First Ammendment phrase about religion.
Jeremiah| 2.16.10 @ 11:36AM
Well, Ralph, then why, oh why, did it take so very long for there to be any public schools in America? The founders had nothing to do with creating public education. Didn't even occur to them.
They certainly believed in education - and that everyone who could should make arrangements for their children to get one. They even encouraged some charitable activities to help exceptionally bright children of poor means to get an education. But they did not create or advocate a universal system of public education.
Now I think universal education is a good thing - or at least it would be if we had vouchers allowing all parents to choose what schools to send their children to. Right now the system requires that, if I send my children to private school to get a GOOD education (as I did) I must pay for your childrens education through my taxes and my own childrens education through my tuition payments. But that is not my point. You praise the founders for something they never did and never intended. Would you please try to learn something before giving us all the benefit of your wisdom. I realize you are probably the product of a public school and can't help yourself...but you actually can study what actually did happen on your own. There is another public institution that can facilitate that far better than today's public schools - the library.
Ryan| 2.16.10 @ 11:42AM
However, it should be essential that children receive good education about religion - something that is consistently left out or given a side issue, when it is far too important to American political development and cultural life.
sangredulce| 2.16.10 @ 11:37AM
Copyleft is a prime example of the mental damage caused by the public school system. Truly sad.
James Pawlak | 2.16.10 @ 11:39AM
In "Roe VS Wade" the Court added a constitutional right, unconstitutionally, by fiat rather than the prescribed amendment process. They did the same for removing/limiting the First Amendment. This logically leads to: MECCA DELENDA EST.
Austin Scott| 2.16.10 @ 11:56AM
The Churches of England and Scotland are not supported with tax-payer dollars.
Otis, my man!| 2.16.10 @ 12:35PM
Austin,
I don't know about the Church of Scotland. I do know the C of E applies to the British government for handouts (to fund Church renovations, for instance), just like any other special interest group. As far as I know, the Queen is still the current head of the C of E, but since she has little political power, the intertwined nature of Church and State is largely irrelevant.
But having lived in Iceland, I can tell you that every citizen there has a portion of their taxes paid to the State Lutheran Church. I find that fascinating because many Icelanders have become true neo-pagans.
Larry in Iowa| 2.16.10 @ 12:24PM
The founders were also greatly influenced by Freemasonry, A very liberal philosophy at the time. God and a fairly generic Christianity play a central role in Freemasonry.
Petronius| 2.16.10 @ 12:28PM
Slow on the uptake again down there in the Republic of Texas: (hint, secede now). The liberal's faith is her politics, government her church, and the N Y Times newsroom the vatican. So I'm proud to be a heretic.
The real religion of the left is Peterpantheism; a composite of emotional angst and an infantile approach to life. Their sacraments are abortion, wellfare, and coming soon; euthanasia.
I'm on the membership committee of Hell. And when a Liberals shows up, I throw them in with the roofers.
Jeremiah| 2.16.10 @ 12:44PM
Oh my, Petronious! Peterpantheism...that is delicious - and a perfect description of the left's religious belief. Forgive me...I am going to make like a New York Times reporter and plagiarize the hell out of you on that one.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.16.10 @ 12:56PM
Heh Petronius,
We in Texas MUST be "slow on the uptake".
Where ever "up there" is where you live, 4/5ths of your fuel comes from...or through... Texas.
We find ourselves "down here" trying to be patient before we turn off the gas and freeze your hiney in the dark.
Say thankyou, dolt!
Jeremiah| 2.16.10 @ 1:05PM
Ken, old buddy, reread Petronius' post. He is making fun of the left. He aptly describes the left's religion in his neck of the woods and then proclaims himself a heretic, a hated dissenter from their bizarre religion. Following the internal logic of his post - if he is on the membership commitee of the left's hell, that would mean he is an orthodox Christian - because that is what the left considers hell. In short, Petronius is one of ours, not one of theirs.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.16.10 @ 4:38PM
Yeah Jeremiah,
I hear you, but his little barb that Texas should secede demonstrates some serious ignorance on his part that needed a teaching moment.
We Texans are not slow on the uptake, but certainly slow to wrath, and we have demonstrated that over the years.
Heh, we only talk and hear slowly.
When flying into the New York controlled airspace, I always get a chuckle out of the approach controllers: "8265 Romeo with you...from Texas. I listen slowly".
They always stop spitting verbal bullets at me then, and do their jobs properly.
Petronius| 2.17.10 @ 3:18AM
I do beg your pardons, Jeremiah and Ken. Provocation is one of my few talents, but I digress. If memory serves, the Constitution of the Republic and State of Texas is explicit regarding the Right to Secede. And were it not for the prospect of electing Rick Perry your next U.S. Senator, the jibe exhibits lack of patience on my part, as I believe that in the end our country will not remain as it is now. The coastal regions and large cities reject the cultural imperatives that define who is really American. My post is implicit: they want Never-neverland. But "we American taxpayers" get stuck with the bills. No! The babies must be spanked and told No!
And I'm not a Christian as I've been excommunicated for the last time a couple years back. Watch Quo Vadis. Leo Genn will explain it. Hence, my call sign.
While the gulf states have most of the oil and gas, my portfolio is over weighted with energy stocks. 2 years ago when regular cost over $4, the dividends paid enough for my gas and insurance. Showing my statement to the economically illiterate denizens in my union hall was so satisfying.
Must dash. My cloven hooves require sharpening.
Rhymes With Right | 2.16.10 @ 3:36PM
I wonder how many of those making negative comments have even bothered to take a look at the actual proposed standards.
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/.....ics_a2.pdf
Pingback| 2.16.10 @ 4:25PM
The American Spectator : Anti-Christianity: A Textbook Case | workoutforgod links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
TalkingSnake| 2.16.10 @ 5:12PM
What I can't tell on this bizarre site is if some of you think separation of church and state is a bad thing?!
And if so, which brand of xianity the government should endorse...
Otis, my man!| 2.16.10 @ 10:47PM
You have a point. Some comments are confusing. It is hard to tell.
But what is "xianity?"
Alan Brooks| 2.16.10 @ 11:50PM
xianity is short for christianity.
as in Xmas.
like, say, just for example, I know scientists who celebrate 12/25 as Newton's birthday call christianity xianity..
Ryan| 2.17.10 @ 8:37AM
What's funny is the "x" isn't a non-Christian invention. The "chi" symbol has been used to represent the cross for a LONG time.
Don| 2.16.10 @ 5:21PM
It is idiotic to blame the worlds ills on Christianity.
It is moronic to pretend that Christianity automatically creates good people.
Alan Brooks| 2.16.10 @ 6:43PM
A word about the Judaic, seeing as how the first and largest portion of the Bible isn't Christian:
I do not like the way Israel (and the Jewish people in general) is being used as a scapegoat; Israel is being used as a national version of a Christ-figure in an attempt to nail the Jewish people collectively to a crucifix. And-- not merely as an aside-- women in Israel are treated far better than women in all Arab nations. Please understand that I am not optimistic about peace-- it is a game, many Arab nations are merely biding time, waiting for the opportunity to drive Israel into the sea. They could attack now if they really wanted to but it is not convenient.
Best IMO would be to pressure Germany to give back the real properties Germans took from former Jewish residents in the Nazi era. The reparations involving-- if memory serves, Swiss accounts-- weren't enough. BTW, it wasn't just Nazis who stole properties, it was many non-Nazi Germans. The aggregate properties owed would be enough to house millions of Jewish, and perhaps Roma as well.
The Mideast is a death trap. Before you call me a nut, remember that those millions of Arabs opposed to Israel are not going to have a postive change of heart unless Allah Himself asks them to.
If anyone here is really optimistic-- as distinct from whistling in the graveyard-- at this time, whether it be Old Texican or whomever, let us have it clear:
Your optimism at this time is NOT JUSTIFIABLE.
fwb| 2.16.10 @ 6:55PM
I suspect that those who believe the Constitution does not support the christianity of the framers have never read or studied the document. Article I, section 7 contains proof of the Framers christian doctrine principles. I point it out when I teach others about the Constitution. Now go forth and find it for yourself.
There is a second judeo/christian section later in the document. But then one must have knowledge of history, christianity, and a brain to understand.
TalkingSnake| 2.16.10 @ 11:57PM
Sorry fwb - epic fail.
Neither god or jesus makes an appearance in that document - and that is on purpose. The framers debated the very topic and explicitly decided to keep it secular in nature. Do you teach this to your students? If not, you are doing them a disservice.
Please don't tell me you've bought into the nonsense that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are linked and therefore the reference to a creator in one somehow wafts over to the other.
victor| 2.17.10 @ 1:20AM
"But then one must have knowledge of history, christianity, and a brain to understand."
That would certainly leave out the liberals, snakes and talking liberals.
Perhaps he will see this on Sunday, may he not?
Pingback| 2.16.10 @ 9:39PM
Petrographic Analysis Provides Critical Engineering Answers | eLagaan | Materials Cha links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Andy_krow| 2.17.10 @ 12:36PM
I am a late comer to these "comment" fields and am enjoying the repartee immensely. I find the factual knowledge of the contributers refreshing and am (re)learning much that I've forgotten over the years. Thank you Petronius, Jeremiah, et al..
On that note, I have a theory about "Copyleft"
I really think he's a practical joking conservative who likes to yank chains by posting inane, ignorant, silly and knee-jerk diatribes. He then sits back and snickers away at how he's fooled all of you. After that, he goes back to the NYT and scans it for other hot button topics to further his addiction (sorta like the Joker in the Batman movie).
He had me fooled for awhile and I was going to ask him if I can have some of whatever he (and talkingsnake) were smoking...
What a kidder!! Keep those yuks coming, copyleft!!
Andy
Pingback| 2.17.10 @ 1:04PM
Engineering metallurgy,: A textbook for users of metals, | Metallurgy Material Geek links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
PolishKnight| 2.17.10 @ 4:05PM
One of the most fun sock-it-to-'em comebacks I like to use on leftists when they argue about seperation of church and state and the evil of such right winger fundies is to point out that... Martin Luther King was a REVEREND and that the civil rights movement often held their meetings in CHURCH!
Pingback| 2.17.10 @ 5:19PM
Anti-Christianity: A Textbook Case #fb links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 5:21PM
The Church Member's Bill of Rights -- Basic Rights Any Member of a Church Should Expe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 7:34PM
An Exclusive Excerpt From If God Was Like Man: A Message From God To All Of Humanity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.28.10 @ 2:23PM
Numerical Techniques for Chemical and Biological Engineers Using … | Biological Engin links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Puma x Alexander McQueen | 8.13.11 @ 12:01AM
is good