| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2007 01:47:37 PM |
| Object: |
Facts trump opinions in church/state debate |
Facts trump opinions in church/state debate
http://www.chillicothegazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070125/OPINION/701250324/1014
Facts trump opinions in church/state debate
Editor, the Gazette:
In a recent letter to the editor, Karen Lancaster attempted to separate
truth from opinion, and failed miserably.
# Opinion 1: All things which do not have a basis in science are not the
truth.
Science is methodological naturalism. As a philosophy, naturalism believes
"the view that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of
nature." Naturalism does not accept the possibility of the existence of the
supernatural. To this philosophy, any supernatural occurrence is, by
definition, not true.
To base an argument concerning a subject's existence as a truth or opinion
on science is the same as basing an argument on any other philosophy, and
can only be considered an opinion.
# Opinion 2: The concept of separation of church and state still applies
today.
When our founding fathers made statements concerning the separation of
church and state, the federal government was able to place a strict wall of
separation between it and any exercise of conscience. State governments
had, and exercised, the ability to pass laws which either supported or
hindered religions. The federal government could allow the states to
determine any laws which concerned religion, and thus maintain a wall of
separation.
With the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868, a wall of separation
ceased to be viable. It is now generally recognized that unalienable rights
can be denied for the good of society.
# Opinion 3: Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.
The United States was founded to secure unalienable rights. Among these
rights is the liberty of conscience.
When Ms. Lancaster quoted from Jefferson's separation letter, she failed to
quote: "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."
Man has no unalienable rights which are in opposition to his social duties.
Lawmakers do not forfeit their liberty of conscience when they take office.
They have an unalienable right to suggest laws and vote in accordance of
their conscience.
# Opinion 4: Any theist which does not believe in all gods is an atheist.
By definition, atheism is "without theism". Any theism, whether
monotheistic or polytheistic, is unquestionable "with theism". You cannot
be both a theist and an atheist.
# Opinion 5: The U.S. is not a Christian nation.
The U.S. is a Christian nation. It is a Muslim nation. It is a Jewish
nation. It is a Hindu nation. It is a Bhuddist nation. It is a nation of
all religions. It is a nation of all philosophies. To ensure it remains as
such, the governments should not decide there is more truth found in one
particular philosophy or religion, whether it be Christianity, Islam,
Secular Humanism or Methodolical Naturalism.
# Opinion 6: The religious are not persecuted.
Telling a religious person they cannot follow their conscience in their
civic duties, is denying them their liberty of conscience. Denial of an
unalienable right is persecution.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Facts trump opinions in church/state debate |
29 Jan 2007 02:17:30 PM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 11:47 am, wrote:
Telling a religious person they cannot follow their conscience in their
civic duties, is denying them their liberty of conscience. Denial of an
unalienable right is persecution.
You can't really believe this. Suppose we have a governor who is
prejudiced against people with blond hair. Do we really have to allow
him to follow his conscience in his civic duties? There is no right to
follow your conscience in your civic duties if your conscience is
wrong. We demand more from government.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
