LETTER: Obama is a threat to U.S. Constitution

Submitted by webmaster on June 30, 2009 - 3:52pm.
» Read similar stories filed under:

Opinion

From Sandy Juffer
Hutchinson
On May 8, Rep. Randy Forbes gave a short speech before the United State House of Representatives in which he commented on the speech President Obama had made in Turkey on April 6. The president proclaimed that the United States was no longer a Judeo-Christian nation.

Rep. Forbes asked two questions in his speech — whether or not we considered ourselves a Judeo-Christian nation, and, if we did, what moment in time did we cease to be so?

The book “5000 Year Leap” discusses the principles of the Constitution and how the Constitution was put together by men who were influenced by the thinking of Cicero, Blackstone, John Locke, Adam Smith and so on, as well as being students of the Bible.

John Adams, one of our founding fathers, said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” President Obama’s statement regarding our Judeo-Christian heritage appears inconsistent with our founding fathers’ thinking.

Our Constitution begins with the words, “We, the people …” These words are in agreement with the view our founding fathers that rulers are servants of the people, and all sovereign authority to appoint or remove a ruler rests with the people. Ben Franklin said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Advertisement. Article continues below.

Many of the quotes and actions of our more recent past presidents are in direct opposition to the current president’s comment. President Franklin Roosevelt, for example, led our nation in a prayer before the Battle of Normandy.

As the Fourth of July approaches, I’m reminded of how blessed I am to live in this country. However, the speed at which this administration is dismantling our Constitution is frightening to me. I would encourage all Americans to take a stand and fight to hold onto the freedoms we are rapidly losing.

How is the statement made by...

Back to page top

How is the statement made by President Obama dismantling the Constitution? Is this the same Constitution that mentions speedy trials and innocent until proven guilty? I believe Bush went around the Constitution with Guantanamo. Quit your fearmongering and work for a good country for all and don't try to get people in a panic. I consider myself a Christian but I have room in my heart for all. And I my lowly opinion, the JudeoChristian business, when used as you are using it, is a big turn off for me.

Submitted by charlie_horse113 on June 30, 2009 - 4:15pm.

Please define what you mean...

Back to page top

Please define what you mean by 'I consider myself a Christian'. Does that mean you follow the teachings of Christ and study the Word of God to know for yourself how to properly apply Biblical principles in your everyday life so you can live a life pleasing to Him? Or does it simply mean you 'believe there is a god' and you even go to church sometimes?

Submitted by just1opinion on June 30, 2009 - 7:14pm.

You are using Guantanamo as...

Back to page top

You are using Guantanamo as an example of President Bush not following the constitution????? Just a reminder, it starts out "We the people of the United States", not "We the people of the World".

Submitted by Raymond Norton on June 30, 2009 - 6:15pm.

Bush put many laws into...

Back to page top

Bush put many laws into place after 911 for "security" that took away the right of privacy for law-abiding citizens. It is hypocritical of us to push democracy and then not practice it. President Obama simply stated a fact that we are moving away from the JudeoChristian foundation. A fact that has been presented in the media for quite awhile. More and more young people as well as older adults are seeing the far right and its hateful, non-inclusive policies as something they no longer want a part of. I myself believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit but I don't think they would be all upset by a president that wants to show inclusive policies. Just remember, the far right of ANY religion pulls its group off the track of the middle ground.

Submitted by charlie_horse113 on June 30, 2009 - 6:34pm.

Congress makes law, not the...

Back to page top

Congress makes law, not the President! Many accusations have been made by the left that the Bush Administration acted unconstitutionally in protecting the USA from another terrorist attack (This was all done in love of course). Thus far, none of the law-suites filed, or criminal complaints have been successful in proving this. There is always hope though:)

President Obama is correct when he says "We are not a Christian nation". We certainly have a huge population of Christians, but the things we embrace as a nation, and the laws passed today certainly do not find there foundation in the Bible. However, he is dead wrong when he and others say our country was not founded on Judeo-Christian values!

It is interesting the continual battle we have over this subject in our nation, yet you can go to just about any other nation in the world, and ask "Was/Is America a Christian nation"? The response will always be a resounding "yes"! At least the people from other nations that hate us think so:)

As far as the hateful right goes, statistics show they are charitable, happy, and well informed on the issues. They give 30% more in charitable contributions than liberals, donate more of their time for worthy causes, give more blood than liberals, and are likely to stand up for the unborn.

I'm starting to see what you mean about those devils.

Submitted by Raymond Norton on June 30, 2009 - 7:29pm.

“Our Constitution was made...

Back to page top

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This says it all and explains all of our ills. Was Obama right? I pray not but I fear he was. Be afraid people, be very afraid. The road we have chosen does not lead to any where I want to go.

Submitted by arcy on July 1, 2009 - 5:20am.

Well, I am thankful that...

Back to page top

Well, I am thankful that that statement includes moral people as well as religious because putting all ones faith in the adequacy of the government in religion could be tricky at best. I mean just what religion? Even among the Christian religions there is enough difference to cause one enough confusion. And whether or not you like it, the world has changed and we now know about many other powerful religions that the founding fathers did not. Could it be that those great thinkers would have had different views had they been exposed to Hindus, Islam, Judaism, with the open, more accepting minds of today? By promoting only Christian as the religion that is fit to lead in this country, to me, you turn off more people than you include. Any arguement that uses God or the Bible as a "reason" for or against something, to me steps outside the Constitution. Luckily the founders set rules to separate the two. Eerily almost like they foresaw the future that included many people of many faiths.
So quit saying that all is going to hell in a handbasket just because things are different than the beginning of this country. Embrace that others might enrich, not destroy, this country we all love. Keep open minds and don't let the 2 party system get you so caught up in one side or the other that you forget to think for yourself and not a political party.

Submitted by charlie_horse113 on July 1, 2009 - 6:38am.

I think my point is that...

Back to page top

I think my point is that what you just said..IT ISN'T WORKING.

Submitted by arcy on July 1, 2009 - 8:18am.

The Constitution also...

Back to page top

The Constitution also mentions all men are created equal and the seperation of church and state.

I believe that you do not need to follow every word in the Bible to the letter to be called a Christian. Let's remember everything the Bible says we are not to do, that many people who call themselves Christians do. One of which I can think of is eating shell fish.

You have only quoted one line on the Constitution "We the People of the United States" further down it mentions what I mentioned earlier. Those lines I mentioned are the ones that are most important. That we treat every citizen of the USA with the same equal rights as we do our neighbor with no discrimination on gender, disability, race, or orientation. That is what this country is founded on also, freedom to be who you are.

Submitted by fromhutchnowaway on July 1, 2009 - 11:13am.

How much further down in the...

Back to page top

How much further down in the Constitution after “We the people” will I find the part about separation of church and state? Just kidding, we both know the Constitution says no such thing.

For years the courts have gotten away with using “separation of church and state” to squash anything that references God in government, and entities that uses government money. It is immensely obvious this was not the case in the past. We have the name of God on our money, in our court rooms, government buildings, and in our pledge of allegiance. Forget about any of that today, but it does go to show that Congress, and courts of the past did not always see the Constitution in the same light as it is currently viewed today. Nothing is unanimous in a Republic, but it is very easy to see there has been a definite departure from the true intent of the framers of the Constitution. It is amazing how many new rights, and restrictions we are finding hidden between the written words. The “right to privacy”, for one; the anchor to “Roe vs Wade”. Personally, I want privacy, and don't want people snooping into my affairs any more than anyone else, but I am not going to find it written in the Constitution.

There is much talk here of what (Bible) Christians are and are not, and the harm they cause by the view points they hold, but I have yet to see anything posted here today that supports those claims. The serious Christians I know, love their country, are the most tolerable people you will find anywhere, and are always the first to help people in need. They are also very thankful for our Judeo-Christian heritage that helped shape our founding documents; the very fabric and definitive core of our Nation

Submitted by Raymond Norton on July 1, 2009 - 3:54pm.

Hey Ray, I don't mean to...

Back to page top

Hey Ray,

I don't mean to sound like a nitpick, but I think you could greatly benefit from reading an accurate account of our nation's founding as well as looked up some biographical accounts of the main founders and framers of both the Declaration and Constitution.

I think you'll be shocked to find that many of the leaders who many assume were God-fearing, religious Christians, were actually Deists; Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Madison, and Jefferson all subscribed to the belief that Christ was not divine, miracles are made up, and the Christian religion was a myth.

Knowing that none of these men subscribed to Christian belief, I find it hard to believe that they would construct a government sympathetic to the Christian religion. These men were drawn into the Revolutionary cause with economics and Thomas Paine's Common Sense in mind. Another lesser known work that was highly regarded by these men was Paine's The Age of Reason, which in itself was so hostile to organized religion that Paine could not return to the United Kingdom for fear of execution.

Perhaps these readings (with citations from original documents) would have you reshape your largely mythical and manipulated views on the founders:

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

Lastly, maybe this quote will end the argument, at least by reason, it SHOULD:

(From the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796)

Article XI.
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion..."

(Signed into law by John Adams)

Enjoy.

Submitted by John Q. Public on July 5, 2009 - 3:40pm.

Johnny, I don't mean to...

Back to page top

Johnny,

I don't mean to nitpick but I am pretty sure that the Treaty of Tripoli is not a law but rather a peace agreement between the U.S. and Tripoli, and therefore, is not a part of the Constitution. Also, I noticed you did not include the rest of Article XI, so I did for you:

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America 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
Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war
or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared
by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions
shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing
between the two countries.

It is interesting to read because it sounds very much like a political stance that had to be taken by Adams to get the Treaty signed by the other party.
Also John, I think that you may need to define how you think that a deist differs from a "God-fearing, religious Christian". Deism, as defined by dictionary.com is

1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation, 2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

As I see it, if all those founding fathers were deists they were God-fearing men.

And finally, why would anybody read somebody else's opinion about what the founding fathers said as you suggest with your links. Why not have them read the words themselves and judge for themselves. To many times people of every belief put stock in what someone else said about the history of our nation without asking how that person came to that conclusion. How do we know the founding fathers were Christians? How do we know that the founding fathers were Deists? How do we know infidels.org is a totally unbiased website that is actually looking for the truth instead of pressing their agenda? Only personal research can give a person the answers but I encourge everyone to go to a library or go to a truely educational source online to search out what was really said in these historical documents. You will find the excerpts that both Raymond and Johnny Q. refer to and will be able to understand the context of the writing instead of taking someone's word for what the writer really meant.

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 7, 2009 - 9:58am.

The Treaty of Tripoli, as...

Back to page top

The Treaty of Tripoli, as with any other Treaty, is an official government document that must pass through both houses of Congress and the President himself, and does in fact technically count as law. Wouldn't an overwhelmingly Christian government, with Christian principle in mind have objected to this?

I find it funny that you are preaching research when it's clear that you haven't done enough yourself. Simply getting the concepts of a religion from dictionary.com is hardly what I would call research.

Additionally, did you read the links John posted?
One of them I can say is in fact more of an interpretation, but the other is not. The infidels.org link not only quotes these figures straight out of journals and letters, but also gives their source material. Hearing straight from contemporary sources and from the minds of those men, I consider it fact, not interpretation.

Submitted by Publius on July 7, 2009 - 12:41pm.

Publius, I will conceed the...

Back to page top

Publius,

I will conceed the "Treaty as law" debate. Yet I do not see why this document serves as evidence against the Christian tendencies of our founding fathers. As a treaty it is a compromise and if the rest of it is read it is evident that America not only compromised on the religious front but also the economical front. Why would a country who just defeated England and had the support of the French not objected to Tripoli pirating their ships? I have a feeling, and yes this is opinion, that America wanted to get Tripoli out of the way so that the economy, that according to others was the sole reason for going to war with England, could prosper.

I will adress the rest as one issue. I did not read John's links because I did my reasearch through the Yale Law Library. I think that is a better source of documents then infidels.org but I'll let you judge that one. Also, I would say your statement that I did not do much research is highly presumptive. How do you know how much research I did? Just because I put only two researched items on my post you think that my research was limited to that? What in your opinion is "enough" research? Just because I did not come to the same conclusion you did means I didn't do "enough" research?

PS, aren't you sick of writing? I read the Federalist papers and I was tired just reading them, I can't imagine writing them;)

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 7, 2009 - 5:21pm.

I guess I cannot infer what...

Back to page top

I guess I cannot infer what you mean by "Christian tendencies". I don't really understand how someone who not only is not Christian, but sometimes rails against it, would allow themselves to let Christianity shape their government.

As for the Treaty, I don't completely understand your question, but I am led to assume that we both know as fact that we effectively paid off the Barbary pirates from raiding our ships. After the Revolution we had little to call a navy, and no Union Jack on our ships to deter attack.

I have to object to you saying that you did your research through the Yale Law Library and that should be good enough. I would at least encourage you to have a look at the articles in question before you decide to dispute them as they do have quite a lot of reliable information in them.

I'm sorry you had a problem with my questioning your research, but it slightly offends me that all the digging you seem to have done about Deism is to look it up on Dictionary.com. As a person who believes in Deism, I have to admit that I was a little offended that you would still consider a Deist a God-fearing Christian.

PS, I am spent indeed, but as *we/I* were all Deists, I felt I should try and clear the air.

Submitted by Publius on July 7, 2009 - 5:54pm.

My apologies, that my Treaty...

Back to page top

My apologies, that my Treaty statements were unclear. My thoughts are that the issue was not only economical between the U.S. and Tripoli but also religious. Therefore, to gain a treaty with this nation the government had to present a compromise that Tripoli would accept. I am thinking that the language of Article XI is a compromise as well. Something added half-heartedly to appease the opposition. My point is that we stood at that time as a budding world power. We had both England and France in our corner by submission or allegiance. Compromising with Tripoli seems like something we did not have to do but thought it best to concentrate on other pressing matters. Correct me if you know better. However, just two or three years later Jefferson himself commissioned a fleet to the Straits of Gibraltar to protect our cargo ships.

"Christian tendencies" meant simply that a deist tends more toward a Christian stance than that of an infidel. You may not agree with "all the digging" I did but I failed to find at deism.com, religioustolerance.org and other sites anything that contradicted the definition I found at dictionary.com. But please correct that definition if you like. My research included inaugural addresses by Presidents Washington and Jefferson, while also perusing the Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery - Pennsylvania; March 1, 1780, Jefferson’s First Annual Message to Congress and the Constitutions of the various 13 colonies but if you still feel that is not “enough” please bear with me.

I don’t think I ever espoused that the Deists were God-fearing Christians only that they were God-fearing men. I believe Raymond’s most recent post explains a good portion of that idea. I will admittedly say these men may not have practiced an extremely concentrated Christianity but I will say that their writings do not bear the cynicism that is attributed to them.

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 7, 2009 - 7:30pm.

I might argue on the Treaty...

Back to page top

I might argue on the Treaty matter, that we were nowhere even remotely close to a respected world power at the turn of the 19th century and that is specifically why we were targeted by the Barbary pirates. Without the deterrence of a strong sea force (The Royal Navy) to protect our merchants, they were prime targets. Also, I would have to say that we in no way held sway in the affairs of the British or the French. The France of the late 1700's, as we know, was greatly turbulent. In fact, shortly after the Revolution there, the United States and France were in an undeclared (mostly naval) war from 1798-1800. You are correct in that Jefferson sent out a force to take pirate city-states on the Barbary coast, however, it was because they had 1) taken American sailors hostage and 2) raised the rate of tribute and demanded more money for safe passage.

Deism, is the religious belief that there is one god that created the universe, but rejects any sort of intervention on any level (hence the term "Divine Watchmaker"). It also rejects revelations and most importantly is the concept that reason, not faith should be the cornerstone in recognizing this God. That having been said, I find it difficult to understand the parallels that are being drawn between it and Judaism. Not only does Deism reject Christ as a savior, it rejects divine intervention and revelation as a whole (which would include Abraham). Simply interpreting this as "Oh they don't believe in the divinity of Christ, so they are like Jews" (not in your case, but Raymond's) is completely false and unfounded.

I would like to strongly suggest, at the least a skimming of Tom Paine's The Age of Reason, which I would argue as the supreme work on Deism.

Submitted by Publius on July 7, 2009 - 7:57pm.

I was addressing the...

Back to page top

I was addressing the definition of "Judeo-Christian", not Deism.

"Judeo-Christian is a belief in the biblical God of Israel, in His Ten Commandments and His biblical moral laws. It is a belief in universal, not relative, morality. It is a belief that America must answer morally to this God, not to the mortal, usually venal, governments of the world. "

A little research shows many of the founders and framers fit this definition precisely. A little more research shows some weren't even very good Deist, and had religious views that changed over time. Either way, Judeo-Christian beliefs are very evident in many of the founders writings and speeches.

Submitted by Raymond Norton on July 7, 2009 - 9:43pm.

"However, you are right on...

Back to page top

"However, you are right on one point; many of the founders and framers
did not profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and held views more
closely aligned with the Jewish faith, hence the use of the term
“Judeo-Christian”"

Really? Because that's what it sounds like you meant to me. Perhaps you can explain to me what it is you meant by that.

You should work on your back peddling, it's pretty transparent.

Submitted by Publius on July 7, 2009 - 10:18pm.

Are you reading the content...

Back to page top

Are you reading the content of my posts, or does the term Judeo-Christian frost you so bad, you can't get past it? I didn't say the founders and framers were practicing Jews, I said they were more closely aligned with the Jewish faith than Christianity, meaning, they put much emphasis on the Ten Commandments, moral law, believed man ultimately had to answer to God, and do not embrace Jesus as the Messiah. If that is your definition of Deism, so be it, but it is certainly a big portion of what the Jewish people believe, and practice!

Never did learn how to back peddle.

Submitted by Raymond Norton on July 8, 2009 - 6:32am.

My point with the Treaty of...

Back to page top

My point with the Treaty of Tripoli is that it is entirely possible that Adams included the language that he did as a compromise. In the Paris Peace Treaty some 10 years prior Adams affixes his name to a document that begins by saying:

“It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore …”

My stance is that taking one or more of Adams’ and claiming it makes him a raging anti-Christian is a stretch beyond reason especially when there are an equal number of statements that seem to point the opposite direction. At best, I think, we can say he was not as strict a Deist as there are today.

Speaking to Deism, your definition seems to differ a bit from the sources I have looked at. Please divulge where you obtained your definition so as to give a foundation to your stance. Otherwise I find myself chasing a belief that only lives in your head. That chase is not something I believe would be useful to you or me and thus would not continue.

In reading, Paine’s Age of Reason it became evident it is simply a critical assessment of Christianity not a treatise for belief. He repeatedly admitted the statements he made were only opinion not based upon anything other than his thoughts. Some of his points are well founded and others are seriously lacking in “reason”, his own bastion of rhetoric. He states in the beginning of the book,

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy. But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them. I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.”

Unfortunately, I never found what his reasons were for believing. There were references to his belief but his logic was so circular you could argue it was advocating belief in Jesus Christ rather than against it.

I am sure I have misread or misinterpreted something so please enlighten me to the correct reason of Deism and how you came to that conclusion.

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 8, 2009 - 8:43am.

Hmmm, I don't recall saying...

Back to page top

Hmmm, I don't recall saying the Constitution was written to be
sympathetic to Christians....

However, you are right on one point; many of the founders and framers
did not profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and held views more
closely aligned with the Jewish faith, hence the use of the term
“Judeo-Christian”. Many were prolific scholars of the Bible, and firmly
believed in the Ten Commandments, adhering to moral law, and believed
man must ultimately answer to God (The God of the Bible, to be clear).
John Adams, himself had considered becoming a minister, but chose a career in law instead. His letters to family and friends contained Scripture quotes and references from the Bible, and demonstrated his love for God. It is naive to believe he left his core convictions at the
door when making contributions to the founding documents

What is “mythical” are the heathens and atheist who continually try to
rewrite American history, as they berate others with half truths, and
mis-information, in order to get Christians to shut up!

I choose to be “manipulated” by factual history, not fairy tales, and
believe the Constitution was not constructed to be “sympathetic to the
Christian religion”, but to be fair and just too all Americans!

History shows that Judeo-Christian values made a large contribution in the construction of our Constitution, arguably one of the most spectacular documents ever written by man!

Submitted by Raymond Norton on July 7, 2009 - 5:57pm.

Arcy, I never said it was...

Back to page top

Arcy, I never said it was not working. I see the glass half full, more often than not, I see it almost full. I just said we need to quit being a country torn by the 2 party system and think for ourselves. I don't know who said it, but I do believe if you threw all the politicians in a bag and pulled one out you could not tell one from the other. I am trying not to get too worked up by any one and maintain my faith in the people of America. And I am not sure exactly how President Obama's words are dismantling the Constitution. Dismantling the Constitution is making amendments such as the flag burning one. We need to defend our freedoms at all costs. Words don't do on their own. It is the passing of laws that restrict our rights that will cause the downfall of this great nation. Words stimulate conversation and conversation is how we learn about each other and each other's beliefs.

Submitted by charlie_horse113 on July 1, 2009 - 12:22pm.

It is clear to me that...

Back to page top

It is clear to me that people judge for themselves what is moral and what is wrong. As a secular humanist, I decide what is right or wrong by trying to determine what will provide the best outcome for the greatest number of people; that is, minimizing harm and promoting the general welfare. Some religious people agree with me on moral issues and have reached their conclusions based on what they think their diety would want. I don't see where the Christian or Jewish holy books provide the framework for our democracy. They do not prescribe democracy, equal rights for women, or capitalism. They tacitly endorse slavery, subjugation of women, genocide, and brutality. They list ten commandments, only three of which are codified in US laws (murder, theft, and perjury). Clearly, the "Judeo-Christian" beliefs have evolved along with our society, and all people make their own determinations about right and wrong.

Submitted by darwinball on July 1, 2009 - 7:22pm.

I, me myself and I, think it...

Back to page top

I, me myself and I, think it is debatable that a society that has used its "freedom" to do what it wants, as it feels, instead of following a common moral code is not working. When you say "moral" charlie_horse, whose moral code? Where did it come from? Under what authority? I believe the Founding Fathers acknowledge the supremacy of the God of Abraham and used His moral code i.e. the 10 commandments as their guide when they developed our Constitution. I do not stand alone in this belief. I believe God trumps any other ideas on "morals". I believe the Constitution's "separation of Church and State" was to PROTECT my beliefs not impede them. Too many people today really need to READ the document. It does not say Religion is evil it says I get to follow my beliefs and no government law will stand in the way of that. To ensure this, the government will not pick ONE religion and espouse it. Because we say Merry Christmas, or post the original inspiration for the Constitution (10 commandments) on a lawn DOES NOT MEAN the Government is "FORCING" religion. The Constitution attempted to ENSURE we were FREE to EXERCISE religion. It's "Freedom OF Religion" not freedom FROM religion. Happy 4th of July. God Bless America!!

Submitted by arcy on July 3, 2009 - 6:19am.

Just to bring the discussion...

Back to page top

Just to bring the discussion back to a more local perspective, I once heard an associate pastor of a Hutchinson church ask at a gathering several years ago whether we should consider Hutchinson a Christian community. His basis for the question was that he believed that while there are many churches in Hutchinson (27 with a Hutchinson address in the listing on the Leader's weekly Faith page) it was unlikely that on any given Sunday morning more than half of the population was in church worshiping their Lord.

Any thoughts on that perspective?

(Terry Davis is a Hutchinson Leader staff writer. E-mail him at davis@hutchinsonleader.com.)

Submitted by Terry Davis on July 8, 2009 - 3:40pm.

The pastor answered his own...

Back to page top

The pastor answered his own question, if his facts are right.

A number of years ago, McLeod County was on record for being the most church going county in the USA, but even going to church doesn't make you a Christian, as this anonymous quote indicates:

“Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car. “

Anonymous

You have to ask yourself, “If I were on trial for being a Christian, is there enough evidence in my life for the jury to hand down a unanimous conviction”?

(That's not my quote either, but I like it)

Submitted by Raymond Norton on July 9, 2009 - 2:55am.

As an atheist who is very...

Back to page top

As an atheist who is very interested in what people believe and why they believe, I find it hard to define "Christian" because each person I engage has a different definition of the term. Some think they should try to emulate the way they think Jesus lived (if he was an actual person), some think they must eliminate all behavior that they judge to be un-Christian from their community and nation, some think churches themselves are a misuse of resources and all that is needed is a personal relationship with their deity. I understand that a majority of citizens in central MN call themselves Christian, and that the culture is very reflective of that influence. Much of the charity work and social services are provided by church-based groups. But our government projects, civil engineering, legal system, and resource management are carried out in a secular manner, based on common sense, fairness, and need.

Submitted by darwinball on July 9, 2009 - 5:30am.

Nope. I doubt we could come...

Back to page top

Nope. I doubt we could come up with a definition we all agreed on for what it means to be a "christian". I think your numbers say it all. I am sure they are nationally repeated if not an even greater disparity. There in lies the beginning of all our ills. It is really very sad.

Submitted by arcy on July 9, 2009 - 5:29am.

Not a Common...

Back to page top

Not a Common Defination...

Although not everyone would agree with it, among many Christians who consider themselves "born again" the defination on a Christian would be someone who has 1) Repented (basically "changing ones mind" about sin) and 2) making a conscious decision to follow Jesus, believing and living as He did.

I would agree that many call themselves "Christian" without really knowing what that means. People would say they are Christian because they are not Muslim or Hindu, but that does not necessariloy mean that they'd agree with the defination above...

Submitted by morristhecat on July 9, 2009 - 6:50am.

Well let's see...lets just...

Back to page top

Well let's see...lets just look at some basic requirements of Christianity that almost all Bible reading people in this community could agree on. Some call it 'having an affair', God calls is adultry. Some call it 'creative accounting on taxes', God calls it stealing. Some call them 'little white lies', God calls it lying and assesses the same penalty as murder. Some call it a 'drive for success and financial independance', God says to put Him first and have no other gods. Some say that 'times have change or that's old fashion', God says 'I am God, I do not change'. Some make mistakes and say 'I'm sorry', God says to repent (make a 180 degree change and don't go back). Some laugh at the idea of Christianity, God says "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." (Psalm 14:1). Now, there are plenty of other issues as well. How about covetousness (as in thou shalt not covet thy neighbors...). Do ya think that may have been part of the problem with the foreclosures, repossessions, etc??? Christian community...nah, not in my book.

Submitted by just1opinion on July 9, 2009 - 12:02pm.

I don't understand why a...

Back to page top

I don't understand why a Christian belief system is required for most of these rules. All world religions, as well as humanist beliefs, teach that we should treat others as we would like to be treated, as the president's speech stated. We don't need a god or a scripture verse to tell us stealing is wrong, we can see the result. We do have laws against lying in court or in business dealings, but most of us would find capital punishment to be a little harsh as a penalty for perjury or breach of contract. As for a god who demands to be put first...that god sounds jealous and petty and I would question whether he or she is worthy of your respect or worship. Respect should be earned, not demanded.

Submitted by darwinball on July 10, 2009 - 5:13am.

Based on your statement of...

Back to page top

Based on your statement of being an aehtiest, you won't understand this (Psalm 14:1) but God has done MORE than enough to earn our respect. However, being the Creator of the universe, The Righteous Judge, the giver and sustainer of life, the giver of every good and perfect gift, the One who sent His only Son to die in order that I would not have to pay the price for my sin (if I live for Him), I think He can demand whatever He wants. God is a jealous God and will not tolerate us having another God. My wife is kind of the same. She would get extemely jealous and even outraged if I decided to have another wife. She would even get upset if I chose to be faithful to her for 364 days a year. If I allow my wife to put that demand upon me (and I choose to have it no other way) why not God? My employer also demands my respect and faithfulness. I would get fired if I spent 1 day per year working for the competition. My employer didn't lay down their life for me like Christ did. Why would I tolerate that from a mere man and not Almighty God?

Submitted by just1opinion on July 10, 2009 - 7:53am.

I am not sure anyone said...

Back to page top

I am not sure anyone said that a Christian belief system is needed for the rules. I think the point is that with so many sources stating and believing that this country was founded upon a bunch of arbitrary, random ideas of a group of guys, it is ironic that those rules resemble Biblical scripture so closely.

Without someone telling a person stealing is wrong why would they think it is? What is the result? I get something that may have belonged to someone else but I didn’t want to pay for it so I just take it. No consequence, no problem. What’s wrong with that? If there is something wrong with it, who is the authority that can say that? How did that authority get its authority?

It is interesting that in the analysis of the Old Testament, all the displays of mercy have been overlooked. Countless times in the lives of David, Moses, Solomon, Samson, and more, this God that we “don’t need” stayed the judgment that should have been executed. Instead people look at one phrase or rule and pull it out to say that God “sounds jealous and petty.”

As to your question of worthiness, only you can answer that. What is your criteria for worthiness? What must be done to include or preclude someone from gaining that acceptance from you? If God is God, would not creating and sustaining all things be enough to earn anything respect?

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 10, 2009 - 10:15am.

How do the founding...

Back to page top

How do the founding principles of our nation resemble Christian scripture? Where does the Bible suggest that representative democracy with respect for minority rights, with power flowing from the consent of the governed is the correct format?

We see that stealing is destructive because we would not want to be stolen from and the end result of a culture of theft is violence and unhappiness. We don't need a law-giver to see which actions are positive, neutral, or harmful.

The Old Testament contains some stories that seem sensible, others that are unconscionable tales of rape, genocide, injustice, enslavement and just plain mean-spiritedness. It's a big book drawn from many sources and traditions, but if the main point is that people are sinful by nature and require saving, then I reject it and always will.

Yes, if the Bible were a true account of the history of the Universe, then certainly the creation was an amazing accomplishment. But if it is a true account of the nature of God, then I would not respect that tyrannical, capricious being.

Submitted by darwinball on July 10, 2009 - 7:56pm.

You know, you got me. There...

Back to page top

You know, you got me. There is no scripture that says, “Thou shalt set up a representative democracy with respect for minority rights, with power flowing from the consent of the governed.” However, there are scriptures that resemble setting up a judiciary. There are scriptures that demonstrate democratic decision making. There are scriptures that speak to respect and generosity to minority groups. These seem to remind me of the founding principles of our nation. But if you are looking for a specific mandate from God stating that a democratic republic should be set up, you’re right you won’t find one. But then again, that’s not what I inferred by the word “resemble”.

Your statement that “we don't need a law-giver to see which actions are positive, neutral, or harmful” seems to contradict reality. If “we” were as observant as you claim we are there would be no destructive acts done at all. However, the only way we see what is evil is through law. Without law than who or what is the authority to define evil and good? What you call stealing I’ll call “putting to a good use”. What you call murder, I’ll call “survival of the fittest”. What you call violence and unhappiness, I call “someone else’s problem”. Without law, definitions of destructive actions become subjective to the opinion of each person. As an example, theft has a definition in our society so everyone knows not only what it is but what the consequences for doing it are. I fail to see where the lack of law leads people to do good.

You are again correct about the Old Testament being full of atrocious tales. However, I did not see God committing or sanctioning those deeds. Yes, He did have his people enter into battle yet they were commanded to offer peace first and if the opposition refused then war ensued. Seems like a rational course of action taken in World Wars I and II, Vietnam, Korea and with Iraq. As an ultimate act of God’s justice, there are scriptures that speak to God extending His saving power to those who died prior to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Why reject that saving power? Why ignore words of warning and reject helping hands when destruction is coming?

So I ask you, what if the Bible is a true account of the history of the universe? What if God’s nature cannot be discovered simply by listening to what another person has to say about Him, or judging Him based upon the foolish actions of those who claim to be His representatives? What if God really is all those things you claim He is not? What will you do then?

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 11, 2009 - 3:20pm.

Oooo..Pascal's wager! Well,...

Back to page top

Oooo..Pascal's wager! Well, if the point is to avoid hell, then you should probably go Muslim because their hell sounds very intense. Seriously, if the Bible were a true account, then God is surprisingly ambiguous and suspiciously absent. It seems much more likely to me that religions were conceived by humans to explain the mysteries of life on Earth, and that as we learn more about the nature of reality, our need for mythical explanations diminishes. Gods were created in our image by us.

Moreover it is actually destructive in the modern context to condition our children to believe things that are not supported by evidence. I think that promoting magical thinking just primes people to accept accupuncture, astrology, homeopathy, chiropractic, water dowsing, etc and to reject science that reaches conclusions they don't like.

Submitted by darwinball on July 13, 2009 - 5:46am.

"Moreover it is actually...

Back to page top

"Moreover it is actually destructive in the modern context to condition our children to believe things that are not supported by evidence"...you mean like Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, an honest hard working politician, a balanced Federal budget, and Social Security?

Submitted by just1opinion on July 13, 2009 - 8:21am.

Yes I mean like Santa, tooth...

Back to page top

Yes I mean like Santa, tooth fairy and Easter Bunny. Social Security seems to be real and the federal budget has been balanced once in the last forty years. Remember?

Submitted by darwinball on July 13, 2009 - 6:35pm.

We seem to have strayed far...

Back to page top

We seem to have strayed far from the original topic of comparing the founding principles to Biblical references. We also seem to have opposite views of Biblical accounts and definitions of God’s nature and involvement.

I will agree that promoting magical thinking is not in our interest. However, I am confused on your stance that “it seems much more likely to me” Christianity is based on a human concept to “explain the mysteries of life on Earth” but yet you say that “it is actually destructive in the modern context to condition our children to believe things that are not supported by evidence”. The phrase “it seems likely to me” hardly sounds like solid scientific footing. Therefore I propose these questions and ask for your answers with your sources.

What is your definition of science? I say this to understand where your belief is not to be combative. What in the nature of reality supports the non-existence of God? What conclusions does Christianity hold that are totally rejected by science? What conclusions are made, if science is wrong or inaccurate about some things?

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 13, 2009 - 8:31pm.

Science is the study of the...

Back to page top

Science is the study of the nature of the universe based on observation, experimentation and falsification. It is utterly different from the field of Christian apologetics in that scientists are striving to refine and even disprove past scientific conclusions by furthering the body of knowledge, rather than trying to bend scripture to conform with reality. I used the phrase "it seems likely to me" so as to seem respectful (less dismissive) of religion. It would be more truthful for me to say that I think the history of the evolution of god-belief and religion through the ages has been completely a human-driven phenomenon. Why? Because I don't think there is any credible reason to think that a supernatural realm exists. I would be thrilled and excited to discover that there is such a thing, but there just isn't any evidence to show that forces outside of the natural world are active.

There is no evidence for the non-existence of god, nor for the non-existence of leprechauns, sea serpents, pixies, Martians,etc. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. One Christian belief that is not confirmed by science is the presence of a "soul" that is independent of the body. The consciousness of a person (or animal) appears to be a purely physiological function, and when the brain stops functioning the "mind" stops too. Certainly, conservative Christians (literalists) hold many beliefs that are contrary to natural reality, such as the age of the universe, how life arose and evolved, the shape of our planet, the value of pi, and the way stars and planets were formed. The Catholic insistence that wine and crackers actually physically transform into blood and flesh is unsupported by science. The cracker does not actually change.

Science is constantly wrong about things. Usually it's little things around the edges of research, because our physical universe is pretty consistent and scientific theory is built up through falsification and substantiation. The beauty of the scientific method is that it's always open to correction. Scientists are most excited about their work when they get results that don't confirm previous findings.

Submitted by darwinball on July 14, 2009 - 5:30am.

A few of your statements...

Back to page top

A few of your statements seem to me very contradictive. I ask simply for some clarification.

You say, “that scientists are striving to refine and even disprove past scientific conclusions by furthering the body of knowledge.” How does one “further the body of knowledge” by disproving past scientific conclusions? I am thinking this idea originates from scientific history like that of Ptolemy and Copernicus. Your reasoning would be that Copernicus “furthered the body of knowledge by disproving Ptolemy’s ideas. Correct me if I’m wrong. You say, “I don't think there is any credible reason to think that a supernatural realm exists. I would be thrilled and excited to discover that there is such a thing, but there just isn't any evidence to show that forces outside of the natural world are active” and later say, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. How can you rule out the existence of God based upon a lack of evidence but refuse to state that God exists based upon a lack of evidence to the contrary? You also say, “One Christian belief that is not confirmed by science is the presence of a "soul" that is independent of the body. The consciousness of a person (or animal) appears to be a purely physiological function” then admit that, “science is constantly wrong about things.” If science is wrong about the “little things” there must be the possibility that it is wrong about the things that “disprove” the existence of God. If science is constantly wrong about things, how can there be confidence in any of its findings unless that confidence is founded upon a faith that science is not wrong about those things that conform to your belief system? I think you would agree that it is easiest to believe in evidence that supports what one already believes. Conversely, you say, “Scientists are most excited about their work when they get results that don't confirm previous findings.” My question then is, how can those results be trusted or is it inevitable that someone else will come along and disprove that result? Can that result be considered "science" if it will be disproven later?

You continue to assert that, “Christians (literalists) hold many beliefs that are contrary to natural reality”. I believe you are being hypocritical if you hold Christians to a standard of perfection yet the source you use to “disprove” Christians’ grasp of natural reality, science, is allowed the opportunity to continually correct itself and be wrong. I ask simply for the same courtesy be extended to Christianity that is extended to science, meaning allow for the same “furthering of the body of knowledge.”

Finally, you still are using your reason as the evidence against the existence of God by saying, “It would be more truthful for me to say that I think the history of the evolution of god-belief and religion through the ages has been completely a human-driven phenomenon.” The phrase “I think” only considers you as the basis for your logic. But if you are willing to accept what a scientist has written about the history of the universe, why not accept what historical figures say about the existence of God?

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 14, 2009 - 2:35pm.

Almost everyone (especially...

Back to page top

Almost everyone (especially scientists and engineers) goes through a "phase" where they feel that EVERYTHING must be proven by physics or science. As we get older and hopefully wiser, we all reflect on the things that science has yet to prove. Our control boundaries become more defined and eventually, we are able to take a tally of the things that our logical thinking cannot justify.

In the days of Columbus, it was the concept of a spherical Earth. Do you think this theory made sense to very many people?

Today I am unaware of anyone that truly comprehends the expanse of our universe. Even as fast as we can imagine traveling (the speed of light), the end of the universe is so far out it cannot be explained. It truly boggles my logical brain to just think about how small our Earth is compared to the universe.

You might think that everything has a scientific answer but I urge you to think about infinity and the end of the universe (if there is one) and it will possibly humble you into thinking that we don't know much and that there is a high probability that "something" else is out there.

Are we just a small pebble in the vast universe (Like in Bug's Life) or is it possible that some supreme being is in control of everything. My logical thinking tends to walk me down the path of "there is something bigger that we know nothing about". Or, as my fellow Christians and I believe, we DO know enough about Him to truly believe that our world and well-being was created and given to us as a gift.

We (today's scientists) might think that we are smarter than everyone before us but guess what...we have much to learn and there are things that science cannot yet explain. Until you can show me the end of the universe and define how the universe was created, I'm going to continue to live my life on this planet knowing that I will someday get to see the other end--thanks to my lord and savior! :)

Oh yeah, global warming...yet another example of how far we are from scientific reality. We have a lot to learn yet and if you don't believe this, you are fooling yourself.

Logic and science are great but until science has an answer for EVERYTHING, we should all be careful to consider the possibility that maybe science is something that was given to us by our Lord and sometimes used by the devil to lead people down the wrong path.

Submitted by fiscallyconservative on July 14, 2009 - 5:36pm.

Please! Don't you think...

Back to page top

Please! Don't you think that the reason you are a Christian is that you were born into a society dominated by Christians? Try to put yourself in the position of a believer in another religion and see whether the truth of Christianity would seem so obvious to you. I suspect that most Christians in the US are culturally Christian and would be Muslims if they were born in Saudi Arabia, atheist if born in Sweden, Shinto if Japanese, Fundamentalist LDS if born in a polygamist compound in New Mexico, etc.

Not everything is explained by scientific study, but that is the goal. When I said that science is self-correcting and that this furthers our body of knowledge, I mean that we come closer to an objective understanding of reality. The fact that we don't have the answers to every mystery doesn't mean we need a supernatural being to fill the gaps. My philosophy is to have good reasons to believe what I believe and try to avoid believing things that are not supported by evidence. Certainly, I could try to believe in a religion, but I would not actually believe. If there were an omniscient God, he or she would know that I don't really believe...so eternal punishment in hell for my thought crime?

On global warming: The climate of the Earth is warming. This is an observable fact. The theory that human activity is contributing to the warming is fairly well supported by evidence, but is not as easily observable. What action to take (if any) is the area for debate.

Similarly, evolution is an observable fact. The theory of natural selection as the mechanism for evolution is well-supported by the evidence so it carries the scientific title of a "theory"; not a guess but a hypothesis well supported by the evidence and very likely to be fact.

I have two huge objections to Christian dogma: The idea that people should be punished eternally for their finite crimes (sins) and the idea that people are responsible for the sins of previous generations (original sin). I judge these to be immoral and I think any rational person could agree with me.

Submitted by darwinball on July 14, 2009 - 7:59pm.

Actually, no, I don’t...

Back to page top

Actually, no, I don’t think the reason I am a Christian is that I was born into a society dominated by Christians. The way I live is a choice I made the same as the way you live was a choice you made. Your statements seem to characterize all people who follow a belief system to be mindless sheep. However, you don’t account for the millions of Arabic, Chinese and Swedish people who are Christ followers, the many number of Americans who are Muslims and atheists and the Fundamentalist LDS who are neither polygamists nor live in New Mexico. Overall those statements are quite racist whether they were meant to be funny or not.

Since science is ever working toward the explanation of things, why have we ruled out the possibility of a “supernatural being to fill the gaps”? If we are to be truly objective, then precluding something of being an answer is hypocritical. You state you “have good reasons to believe what I believe” however, I fail to see where you have supported your beliefs with evidence. You also state you “try to avoid believing in things that are not supported by evidence” however, you admit that the science you believe in has not explained everything and is always “self-correcting”. This sounds like a very shaky evidence to believe in.

With regard to evolution, I challenge you to show me its observable effects. When was the last time a human came into being a different means than being born? When did the last “primordial ooze” turn itself into a living breathing mammal? When was there a collision of atoms and molecules so perfect that a planet emerged just far enough from its mother star, with just the right amount of elements to support life, with just the right revolutionary pattern around that mother star so it would not burn up or freeze into a planet-cicle? If it took ten bazillion years for evolution to create us, shouldn’t the creative process have made something else since then, or did evolution get tired out by all the work it did just to get us here? I challenge you to tell me that, since science is always “self-correcting” and “not everything is explained by scientific study”, the theory of evolution will not be disproven in the future. If there is the possibility that it will be disproven, how then can it “very likely” be a fact?

Finally, I will say your two huge objections to the Christian faith, sorry “dogma”, are not related to science at all. Those are personal feelings you have with your own sin and with the standard God has placed upon you to take responsibility for those sins. I don’t think your science can help you with those feelings. I also think the rationality of your judgments are exactly what we are disagreeing about, unless I am being considered unrational.

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 15, 2009 - 11:12pm.

Oh. I'm pretty sure that if...

Back to page top

Oh. I'm pretty sure that if I had been born into a Christian family in central MN I would consider myself a Christian today. This is just based upon observation of the people around me. Most follow a faith similar to those around them. I do not characterize believers as sheep. In my callow youth I probably would have, but I harbor far more respect for my fellow humans now. However i would remind you that sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell.

The FLDS church does practice polygamy in several states and in Mexico. They broke away from the LDS church in part because polygamy was banned there. I don't understand how stating the predominant religion of a nation is racist.

I don't preclude supernaturalism. I would be thrilled to find a whole new realm to study. Just demonstrate its existence and let's investigate! Science is not shaky evidence. I understand that a religious person accustomed to unchanging dogma would be uncomfortable with ideas that shift and change as knowledge is gained. The history of the Christianity has included much resistance to science, followed by very late-in-the-game grudgingly acknowledged capitulation. Ultimately, I think a belief system that does not evolve will be more unstable than one that accepts the fruits of our research and knowledge.

Wow! Did an American public school leave you with that little understanding of evolution?!? Shame on your school system! Please say it wasn't Hutchinson. I don't have the time or inclination this morning to explain the evidence.

Finally, not one of us is entirely rational or unrational, and rationality is subjective. The points I raised are not scientific questions but philosophical. I hope you could agree that it would be wrong to execute a man for the crimes of his grandfather, and that eternal punishment for finite crimes on Earth is un-called for.

Submitted by darwinball on July 16, 2009 - 5:29am.

Come on! Deconvert already!...

Back to page top

Come on! Deconvert already! Am I a bad evangelical atheist?

Submitted by darwinball on July 16, 2009 - 5:34am.

You are not a bad...

Back to page top

You are not a bad evangelical atheist; you are just wasting your efforts on someone who has a secure foundation. Besides, I can't deconvert it's against my religion.

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 18, 2009 - 3:24pm.

I agree that people may...

Back to page top

I agree that people may consider themselves a certain thing, i.e. Christian, Muslim, LDS, based upon the culture they grew up in. However, each had to make a choice about what they were ultimately going to believe based upon all the evidence given to them. In conjunction with that, I will say many, Christians and atheists included, do not consider all the evidence that may be available. Many choose to believe a certain way based upon circumstances they encountered in life, i.e. an overbearing, religious father pushing his religion down the children’s throat may cause the children to detest religion.

Perhaps “racist” was the wrong term. I should have probably classified your statements as profiling. I apologize. I should not have reached for such a harsh word when assessing your statements.

I find your acceptance of supernaturalism to be conditional. You state that I should, “Just demonstrate its existence” and then you’ll be happy to investigate. Your science does not follow that rule. They have a question about something and then investigate. No one needed proof evolution existed before they started investigating. Furthermore, what type of demonstration do you require? I can give you infinite examples from nature but you have chosen to attribute those examples to evolution based upon your faith in the biased opinion of previous scientists. Yes, there are Christians who are uncomfortable “with ideas that ideas that shift and change as knowledge is gained” when that shifting is always considered truth by society while Christianity is relegated to a silly belief system.

I apologize that you find my understanding of evolution so lacking. Admittedly, I have not done an in depth search of evolution but the questions I posed were the best way I could point to the holes I have found in evolution. I do not ask for anything more than an answer to the questions I posed.

I will agree the points about sin you have made are not scientific but rather philosophical. However, you seem to be approaching God the same way you claim I am approaching science. Meaning your view of God seems to be based upon a quick assessment of the Bible and what others have said just as you seem to think my view of science is based upon a quick assessment of it because “Christianity has included much resistance to science”. Could your understanding of original sin and eternal punishment be flawed? If so, then shouldn’t you give the Bible and God the same latitude you afford science? Shouldn’t you allow human understanding of the Bible to expand and grow in the same way that you allow science to “evolve”? If you don’t then aren’t you the one who remains “uncomfortable with ideas that shift and change as knowledge is gained”?

Also, goats don’t go to hell because they ask questions. They go to hell because they refuse the answers.

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 17, 2009 - 10:05pm.

Morristhecat Meows Again! I...

Back to page top

Morristhecat Meows Again!

I read with interest Darwinballs "Two Huge Objections to Christian dogma." For reference, these are: "The idea that people should be punished eternally for their finite crimes (sins)" and "the idea that people are responsible for the sins of previous generations (original sin)."

Actually Darwin, your objections are based upon fairly wide-spread, and huge, misconceptions about Christianity.

First, it is not accurate to say that God sends people to hell. The reality is that people choose to go there. According to the Bible, God wants to have a relationship with people - its one of the main reasons we were created in the first place, to be in a relationship with Him. In the beginning, humankind had this close relationship with God, and everything was literally perfect. No war, no famine, no slavery, no abuse, none of that...

While God wants this relationship, He does not force it. Think of the old addage, "if you love someone, set them free..." So if people don't want to have a relationship with Him, He will respect that. However, what people need to realize is that if people don't want to have a relationship with God and they don't want to be near Him, then that is what they will get. That however is the very defination of hell: the total, complete absence of God. And it is not a good place. But people choose that.

Most assuredly, it is not God's will.

If people do want a relationship with Him, then God makes that very possible and very easy. I'm sure you know the story well: God sent His own son (really God Himself) to pay the price for all of our sins.

As I mentioned, in the beginning everything was perfect and we had fellowhip with God, but because man felt like he had to do things his own way, instead of God's way, he rebelled and sin entered the world. Because of our revellion against God (sin) we have war, famine, abuse, prostitution, greed, road-rage, bigotry, you-name-it.

And everyone sins: I do, you do, the Pope does, Mother Theresa, Billy Graham, everyone, everyday. The Bible says that if we break even the smallest of God's laws, we are guilty of breaking all of them. Some might say "no fair!" but God does not grade on a "curve," He does not sit around and say "this sin is slightly less than than one," etc. He grades pass/fail. And we all fail.

But when Christ died on the cross, He paid the price for everyone's sins, past, present & future - all the sins of all the people for all of time.

If anyone wants forgiveness of sins, it is completely free. All we have to do it ask for it - pretty simple. But that also means that we have to "repent" of (meaning to "change our mind about") our sins. No more living life Burger King style: "Have it your way!" - to repent means that its going to be "God's way" going forward. And God's way is far better way! Crazy stuff like take care of the poor, love your enemies, forgive, put others first, don't worry, don't judge others, be humble, share your wealth, etc. etc.

God wants to have that relationship with each of us, but he cannot stand to have even the tinest bit of sin in His presence. So He personally paid the price for all of our sins, so that we can be in a relationship with Him (If we want it). I'd say that's a pretty good deal!

When I was 25 I started reading the Bible, and it changed my life!

Submitted by morristhecat on July 16, 2009 - 6:23pm.

I didn't say that...

Back to page top

I didn't say that Christianity teaches that God sends people to hell. Whatever the mechanism that sends "souls" to their eternal torment, I still judge that punishment that lasts forever is not fitting punishment. I also understand that Christianity teaches the origin of "sin". I don't use the word "sin" for bad behavior, because there is no one to sin against.(Blasphemy is a victimless crime) As for the idea that God came to Earth to sacrifice himself to himself to obtain forgiveness for humans, that doesn't even make any sense. If your God is omniscient, omnipowerful and omnibenevolent then his powers to clearly reveal himself to everyone in the world would take little effort on his part.

I have read the Bible quite a bit, and it hasn't changed my life much. I have been surprised, however at the amazing spectrum of crazy behavior exhibited by the God and the people. God commands the genocide of the Midianites, including children and fetuses, but adds the idea that the attackers should keep all the virgin maidens for themselves. In the Sodom story, Lot will not send the visiting angels out to be raped by the mob, but instead sends out his virgin daughters for rape. There are many beautiful stories, too but they are overshadowed by the brutality of: the man executed for gathering firewood on the sabbath, the bald-headed man who has children attacked by a bear because the children teased him, and the 2nd commandment where God is proud to be a jealous and vindictive God who will punish your children and grandchildren if you are disrespectful to him.

Clearly the Bible is a bronze-age document written by people of that era for people of that era. It contains passages that have been used to support slavery, and oppose slavery; to condemn homosexuals and to embrace homosexuals; to support socialism, to promote capitalism; to insist on peace, to wage war with a vicious, vengeful
wrath. It seems that Christians make their own moral judgements and then look for scripture and liturgy to support their positions.

You and Mr. Maricle make great arguments to people who already accept Christianity, but don't seem to be able to step outside and look objectively at different belief systems. Consider starting from a blank slate, null position and compare which systems are most likely to be true. I think the position that the natural universe is all there is seems most likely, since supernatural events are not measurable or repeatable, and personal religious experiences, however real to the subject, are relevant only to that subject.

Submitted by darwinball on July 16, 2009 - 7:59pm.

I realize you didn't say...

Back to page top

I realize you didn't say "God sends people to hell" - I just said it was a common misconception.

Also, I understand your position about eternal punishment...I just note that, in a way similar to when you take a college class, the grade you earn is the one you keep - forever. Again, God's system is pass/fail. It's either 100% or 0%. And its your choice - God will give you a 100 if you ask.

When it comes to revealing Himself - He has, dicisively, in the person of Jesus Christ. All of history turns on one amazing event: the life of Christ. That single life has had a greater impact on the world than any other, by a very wide margin. If you took Christ out, you couldn't even explain history...

I am impressed that you've read a significant portion of the Bible. Kudos to you for being open enough and honest enough to take a real look at the other side of the argument. I hope that you'll continue digging...I recently bought a very contemporary translation, called the "New Living Translation" - I recommend it highly. Very readable. I never could hack all those "thees" and "thous" - who talks like that?!?!?

Regarding your Old Testament observations - I agree, its very tough to understand and certainly not easy reading. It is hard to square that picture of God with the one shown in the New Testament. If you want to dig into the specifics, I'm game, but that'll be another long series of blog entries! If you are interested in a Christian perspective on it I'd recommend a good Bible commentary - maybe you wouldn't accept the explanations given, but at least you'd see what folks have to say about it...

I agree too that people have used the Bible for thier own ends, both good and bad. But that doesn't make the Bible bad. People do all sorts of terrible things in the name of "freedom" too...

As I mentioned previously, I did start at an "objective, null" positon as you state.

When I was a senior in high school I had decided that all religion was bunk and the Bible a bunch of fairy tales. But then I was challeged to back up my assumptions (which is what they were) by actually doing some real investigation. I did investigate, being careful to be objective and intellectually honest...if I found "2 + 2," then I had to be honest about it and say it comes to "4." It was that process that led me to where I am today...a Believer.

I've been a Christian now for about 18 years. As a person I have been radically changed. To be honest I still struggle with my faith sometimes, but I come back again and again to the mountain of evidence that it's all real. I cannot explain away my own changed life, I cannot explain away all the testimonies I've heard from other people about thier changed lives, I cannot explain away the uniqueness of the Bible, the historicity of Christ, the fact of the Resurrection, the existance of the Christian church, etc.

I cannot explain the peace that is inside me, except through God's own word: Jesus said, "Peace be with you, MY peace I give you..." and that "He gives a peace that exceeds all understanding..."

At the end of the day Darwin, I think you're right: evidence or not, in the end beliving comes down to an act of faith. Luckily you can ask God for faith, and He will give it to you!

'Nite.

Submitted by morristhecat on July 16, 2009 - 9:25pm.

Thanks to you and Mr....

Back to page top

Thanks to you and Mr. Maricle for your respectfulness throughout these conversations. I think you understand that questioning our belief systems is not any sort of personal attack. You don't seem any more threatened by the presence of atheists than I am by the presence of theists. Again, thanks.

I don't think the Bible is bad. I think it's a collection of stories written over centuries by different people for different purposes. Some of the stories are allegories, some are written to embolden certain people to brutalize other people, some are rules that seemed important thousands of years ago (don't eat shellfish, don't beat your slaves so harshly that they die immediately, if you rape a woman you must pay her father and marry her), some are second-hand accounts of the life of Jesus. I think the book has little to teach contemporary culture and I regard it as a collection of ancient literature.

Eternal punishment for finite crimes is just unethical and WRONG. It doesn't help to explain "that's how God wants it", it's just wrong.

There is a huge mountain of "evidence" built up by theologians pastors and apologists over the centuries...all designed to prop up and protect people's faith from the attack of doubt, apostasy, and reason. I know of many people who have been converted by looking only at the evidence and arguments written by Christians who later did more extensive research and found their Christian stance unsupportable.

Submitted by darwinball on July 17, 2009 - 5:12am.

Hopefully, I have made...

Back to page top

Hopefully, I have made sense.

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 10, 2009 - 10:18am.

I don't get why so many...

Back to page top

I don't get why so many people today are bent on following a creation when THE CREATOR is here awaiting our response, to His call. We are a society that demands the best, the most expensive, the superior product. Ya just can't do better than God. And since He is the one who created ALL it seems like His authority is beyond reproach.

Submitted by arcy on July 10, 2009 - 9:44am.

Have you looked at the...

Back to page top

Have you looked at the evidence?

Darwinball, I appreciate your comments, however I am wondering if you've actually looked at the evidence? It's easy to say "There is no God," but is that statement based upon just your opinion?

Have you actually looked at the evidence in favor of Christianity? You come across as being very intelligent and a rational thinker.

The reason I ask is that I thought the exact same way you did, until I actually started looking at the evidence:

1) that Jesus really lived,
2) that the Bible is the most reliable ancient historical document that we have,
3) that the Ressurrection is a fact of history,
4) that lives are being changed even today (including mine)

I look at all the evidence, and its a MOUNTAIN of evidence, and the logical outcome is to believe.

I know it sounds, crazy, but it is REAL.

You don't have to believe me, I just encouage you to check it out for yourself...

Submitted by morristhecat on July 10, 2009 - 1:50pm.

I have examined all kinds of...

Back to page top

I have examined all kinds of evidence regarding Christian claims from the apologists, the theologians, the average folks in the pews, the scientists and the strident atheists.

First an atheist does not necessarily say "there is no god". An atheist says "no supernatural deity that has been presented to me seems likely to exist". Is not a Christian atheistic with respect to Zeus, Thor, Poseidon, Allah, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I do not find any contemporary accounts of the life of an itinerant rabbi named Jesus Christ anywhere besides in the bible. It seems rather unimportant, really, whether Jesus actually existed or was a composite legendary figure. The message and the legacy attributed to the character of Jesus is the important point.

The Bible is not by any stretch the most reliable ancient history we have. So many translations, redactions, additions, and errors have been made through the centuries that it is difficult even to decipher which parts are original. I don't believe any serious scholars of the Bible regard the bulk of it as more than legend, apocryphal tales and oral history committed to text.

The resurrection seems unlikely to me, even incredible, unprecedented...in one of the gospel versions, many dead people rose zombie-like to accompany the resurrected Jesus. Again, the only record is in the Bible, which is true because it says it's true...we call this circular logic.

It's amazing that Christianity has changed your life. Congratulations. I hope you will be one of the reasonable Christians who live their day to day lives in a largely secular fashion, making decisions based on observed reality and the power of reason you possess in your human brain.

Submitted by darwinball on July 10, 2009 - 8:19pm.

Lots of Topics There...

Back to page top

Lots of Topics There Darwin!

Some very good comments there Darwin - well reseaoned. I'll take each in turn, briefly - each of these individually could be a major discussion, so we'll call this a very brief summary:

1) Athiesim - I just meant the generic "Denial of or disbelief in the existnace of God" - per my Webster's Dictionary.

2) Existance of Jesus: Out side of the Bible you can check on the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, Pliney the Younger, the Roman historian Tacitus, etc. Do a quick search of the internet and you'll come up with a bunch. Also, pretty much any set of enclopedias...also note your wall-calandar - something pretty big must have happened if the entire western world marks time from that event!

3) Bible Reliability: One line of evidence is called "manuscript evidence;" There are about 25,000 manuscripts of the New Testament that reach all the way back to roughly 65 AD (about 30 years after Jesus was crucified). By comparing the Bible we have today with those ancient manuscripts we can prove that the Bible we have today is the same as what was written 2000 years ago. Which work on antiquity is in 2nd place in terms of manuscript evidence? Homer's "Illiad." Plenty of additional info on the internet.

4) The Resurrection: you are right - it is incredible and unprecedented! But the evidence is there A) Paul, who wrote a big chunk of the New Testament was a rabid anti-Christian. But then he was radically transformed. Something has to account for that - his own explanatin was meeting the resurrected Jesus. Also, the 12 diciples themselves ran like rabbits when Jesus was crucified, but just a few days later they were proclaiming the resurrected Christ, even to the point of - something has to account for that. Then you have the Jewish authorities: they wanted to stamp out CHristianity as a heresy - they could have done that easily by producing the body of Jesus...but they couldn't. THen you have the e growth of Christianity itself - it went from a few dozen to thousands of belivers in a matter of weeks. Something VERY big must have happened! More info on the internet again.

The reason I possess in my human brain suggests that all this adds up to something...

I'm looking forward to your thoughts on all this.

Submitted by morristhecat on July 10, 2009 - 9:28pm.

I said I have examined all...

Back to page top

I said I have examined all this evidence. This forum is probably not the place for such a detailed discussion of these arguments, but please be assured, I'm well aware of all the evidence you've mentioned. I just think it all adds up to an unconvincing and ultimately irrelevant story with respect to contemporary human experience. I understand that the Christian canon is dear and central to many people's lives and I do not intend to disrespect them personally. I do however think the world would be a better place if people looked for reality-based solutions to their issues instead of seeking guidance from an imaginary friend upon whom they can project their own image and take the reflection as divine guidance.

1) I contend that atheism is a reaction to the claims made by theists. The dictionary often mischaracterizes us as denialists. Consider an analogy: a friend tells me that he has living purple dragons in a box at his ranch in Wyoming. I doubt his claim and until he can produce convincing evidence I will consider myself an a-purpledragonist. I have no basis to believe his extraordinary claim, but neither will I claim my friend is wrong without investigating.

2) None of these writings are contemporary accounts. Josephus seemed to know of people who claimed to know Jesus and his writings date to the year 93. The main passage about Jesus in his text is widely considered to have been altered in later centuries to bolster the Christ story. Pliny the Younger wrote about Christians, and I do not doubt the existence of Christians. Tacitus seems to be just reporting what Christians in the early second century believed. I realize that standards of ancient history are very different from those of recent history because of the quality of the source material...so ancient history is much harder to pin down, and more subject to interpretation or wishful thinking. Yes, the western world does measure years in "anno domini" or "common era", although the birthdate attributed to Jesus most commonly was in 4 BC (a real miracle!). Some cultures in Asia and the Middle East use other systems, but since the western culture dominates the world economically and culturally, the world generally conforms to our system rather than vise versa.

3) Whether the Bible is the same now as when it was first inscribed is a very complex issue. Some of the original books have been thrown out over the years and others added, mistakes made by translators and scribes have become part of the canon...the issues are seemingly endless. The bottom line for me is that each reader is left to decide for herself or himself which parts of the Bible are history, which are myth or allegory, which are to be emulated, which are to be rationalized or ignored. It's like a big Rorschach test or multiple choice exam.

4) The historicity of the resurrection seems to be bolstered by the testimony of eyewitnesses and the fact of the empty tomb. There does not seem to be credible testimony from witnesses anywhere but in the Bible stories themselves. Wouldn't Roman or Jewish writers of the day noted such a remarkable occurance? The empty tomb was never written about until the year 70 and even then, Paul claimed that some women saw the empty tomb but told no one. I think the tomb story was added post hoc to bolster the resurrection claims.

Submitted by darwinball on July 11, 2009 - 5:50am.

A good response... I agree,...

Back to page top

A good response...

I agree, this is not the best forum to discuss these complex issues...but for now it seems to be what we have. Regarding your points:

1) OK - sounds good to me.

2) How about these for contemporary accounts? the textbook from one of my college history classes, "A History of World Societies (Second Edition); also, my year 2000 edition of the Enclopedia Americana has a rather extensive article about Jesus Christ; in addition, if you check out Wikipedia on line they have an extensive article about Jesus. All of them treat Jesus as an actual historical figure.

I'd say its pretty much a given that Jesus Christ was a historical figure who really lived. I'd encourage you to check out the many non-Biblical reference available.

3) The Bible itself is a very well regarded historical document (I'd encourage you to investigate this further). Not only is there a mountain of manuscript evidence, but there are what's called the "internal evidence test," the "external evidence test," and the "archiological evidence test" - all of which the Bible passes with flying colors. Because of this, we can also count the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and the other New Testament writers as very being solid historical accounts. Books have been written about this...

4)Why can't the accounts of the Bible be considered trustworthy in this regard? 11 of the 12 original diciples went to an ugly end insisting that the resurrection happened. (the 12th believed it as well, he just wan't killed for it) Who would die for something that they knew was a lie? What could possibly be the purpose? It just doesn't add up...unless they truly believed in thier heart of hearts that the resurrection actually happened.

How do you account for the amazingly rapid growth of the early Christian church? It went from a few dozen to thousands in a matter of weeks. I'd count that as a very significant bit of evidence. Something really big must have happened...

Finally, the fact that the resurrection accounts all have women finding the empty tomb is actually highly significant. At that time, and in that culture, women has no status at all. They were regarded as incurable "gossips" and thier testimony just wasn't accepted. So who in thier right mind would have WOMEN finding the empty tomb and being the first ones to meet the resurrected Jesus? Thier testimony was worth less than zero.

If they wanted to make up a credible story the writers would've had men making these discoveries...the only explanation that makes sense is that the writers wrote what they did because that's the way it really happened.

What do you think? I'd be interested in your toughts on this.

Have a good night.

Submitted by morristhecat on July 11, 2009 - 8:57pm.

I appreciate your continued...

Back to page top

I appreciate your continued engagement on the subject. Most people don't seem to want to discuss religion. Many don't seem to have even given much thought to why they subscribe to a particular dogma.

By contemporary accounts, I mean other (extra-biblical) texts that were written at the time of the event. For example, we have pretty good reason to believe that Caesar Augustus existed, because many different sources from around the Empire tell accounts of his reign, written while it was happening. It's hard to believe that events like water-walking, transsubstantiation of water to wine, zombie-festivals, hundreds of healings would not have been more widely reported by other writers of the day. The gospels were written after these purported events by many years in an attempt to pass the legends along and standardize the tenets of the faith. An encyclopedia or textbook written in the 20th or 21st century does nothing to make 2000 year old stories more credible.

I understand that the historicity of Jesus is widely accepted. I think this is largely because it hasn't been questioned very much and because it really doesn't matter to the faith.

I have studied the historicity tests you cite, and understand that they would be convincing to someone who is looking to bolster their faith. I urge you to take a more neutral approach. Pretend that you are a non-Christian investigating the Christian faith to see how its foundation compares with the other belief systems. Instead of listening to Christian apologists seek out neutral researchers who follow the evidence to conclusions rather than only examining evidence that fits their conclusion.

I don't think the disciples' stories in the New Testament were the stories of liars. I'm sure that these characters believed what they were saying, I would just question its accuracy, not their intentions.

I don't know how we can know that the church grew by thousands in its early weeks. The first authentic accounts I'm aware of are the letters of St. Paul, which talk about the conditions of early Christians under Roman rule, but don't detail the early weeks of the church.

Again, all the stories of the resurrection are from scripture. Maybe true, maybe not, but only self-referential (it's true because it says it's true).

Submitted by darwinball on July 13, 2009 - 5:29am.

It is actually funny (for a...

Back to page top

It is actually funny (for a while) to watch debates on Christianity vs. whatever. It is like watching two warriors toss Nerf balls at each other. There will NEVER be a winner. Ironically, many people have been killed over this topic throughout history. Fortunately, we can't be killed (yet) for making postings on forums. :)

Unless we were there during the foundation of our Constitution or the resurrection of the Lord, we will truly NEVER understand the true context of what happened. Even if we were there, we most likely would still not understand. There are several accounts posted about the followers of Jesus not truly understanding his teachings--and they were there! Many of us choose to believe with faith (trust).

Similarly, did our founding fathers really know what was going to happen in 200 years? Are we giving them more credit than they deserve? Did they truly envision today's challenges or were they just making a noble attempt to build a good foundation for our country?

Or...maybe they simply wanted to create a document that would restore the freedoms that they did not have while we they were under British rule?

I think (we don't know for sure) they simply wanted to create a document that outlined an indefinite path to freedom, or at least a good start to this path. And, I think they did a fairly good job considering how many years have passed since its creation.

I have the freedom to believe in God and that Jesus died for my sins. I have the freedom to believe that if I give my life to Jesus and that I have faith in what He tells us through the Bible, that I will move on to a better place when my time has expired on this earth.

Remember that God's kingdom is NOT of this world, John 18:36...

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

The true litmus test for our Constitution lies in the simple question... "is your freedom restricted any more than that of your father, your grandparents, etc.?" Are you able to go to the church of your choice? Are you able to worship anyone you wish without fear of persecution?

For those of us that confess to be Christians, we need to remind ourselves of John 18:36. Since the Kingdom of God is not of this world, we shouldn't get so upset when someone chooses to label our country as something other than Christian. Yes, we are to "go and make disciples of all nations..." but we need to remember that this does NOT mean that we, the Christians of this earth, need to make this our kingdom. It is both futile and against His word. If Jesus had wanted to make this earth His kingdom, don't you think he could have done it before his resurrection?

Until Obama, or any other government official starts to infringe on my freedom of religion, I'm going to live each day and thank Jesus that we are able to live in a country where we can pray each day without the fear of being killed.

For those that continue to debate the Bible and God's existence, I need to remind you of one of the definitions of faith:

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Again, we live in a free country and I choose to have faith in Jesus as my savior. And I thank God that I can do that without fear. I am also thankful that my brothers and sisters in this country can experience the same comfort as they live each day.

Have a great day everyone!!! :)

Submitted by fiscallyconservative on July 12, 2009 - 10:34pm.

Fisc, I love it when people...

Back to page top

Fisc, I love it when people are content to follow their own beliefs for themselves and not insist on legislating the secular government to enforce or bolster their particular creed! Thanks!

Submitted by darwinball on July 13, 2009 - 5:48am.

You statements were so well...

Back to page top

You statements were so well stated, I truly hate to disagree. Since my humility has been questioned before, I will allow you to determine whether you think I "really" hate to disagree or not.

Your quote of Jesus, while acurate, seems to be presented as if Christians are to stuff their beliefs in their pockets and not resist the opposition when it attacks.

I would say current events have dealt serious blows to your litmus test. The freedom of ministers to stand in a church and proclaim that homosexuality is a sin may soon become labeled as a hate crime. Are they still free? I may be able to go to any church I choose but if I dare step in a high school or elementary school I had better not openly worship the God of the Bible. Am I really free? Did the founding fathers foresee this? No. It was never a fathomable idea for them.

What will you do if the government does begin to infringe on your freedom of religion? If you fail to speak now, will your voice be heard when that day comes? Isn't something you believe in worth speaking up about? Is not the comfort you are so thankful for something that you are willing to defend against anti-Bible, anti-God theories? If the founding fathers felt the same way you do, would our nation be what it is today? If we allow an anti-Bible, anti-God ideas to uncontestedly enter our society, are we not compromising our faith? Whether a belief has "logical proof or material evidence" or not does not make it any less reasonable to believe or defend.

You've been Nerfed.

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 15, 2009 - 11:41pm.

I certainly agree that...

Back to page top

I certainly agree that ministers and anyone else should be free to express their opinions. If any belief of mine can be called "sacred" the right to freedom of conscience and expression is probably it. I hope we don't choose the anti-blasphemy, no-offending policies that are spreading in Europe.

I don't understand where people got the idea that religious practice is banned in public schools. What is not appropriate is for the government organ (the school) to promote one religion over others or religiosity over non-religiosity. So, teacher-led prayers, mandatory prostheletizing assemblies, or promotion of religious worship by the school violates the first amendment. Every student is free to pray during free time or set up a religious after-school club that uses the building. I still can't figure out why MN law allows for religious release time, especially with the current emphasis on student achievement. In Hutchinson, only Christian programs are offered, so I consider it a de facto promotion of Christianity by the school system.

Some of the founders were not Bible believers; Jefferson famously redacted all supernaturalism from his Bible to leave only the philosophy.

Do you consider any idea that doesn't glorify god or promote the Bible to be anti-Bible or anti-God? I'm not anti-God or anti-Bible, I just don't find them to be sources of guidance or wisdom for me. I would be completely neutral or indifferent about them if it weren't for the constant cultural thrusting of Christianity into City Council meetings, laws, tax policy etc. where Christians insist that their ideas deserve special consideration because they are divinely inspired.

Submitted by darwinball on July 16, 2009 - 5:06am.

My understanding of the...

Back to page top

My understanding of the acceptance of religious practice in public schools has come from my discussions with young people who have either recently graduated or are currently in school. Granted I have not discussed this issue with the administration who would probably give me a politically correct answer such as you have.

But I do wonder why teacher-led discussions about evolution, gay rights, philosophy, abortion, sex, and Einstein’s theory of relativity are not considered promotion of one’s “one religion over others”. Also, I wonder how schools' “promotion of religious worship” violates this statement, “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.” Forgive me but I don’t see schools mentioned in there at all nor do I see worship mentioned in there at all. Also, I don’t exactly think that a judge a good number of years removed from the writing of this document can interpret it to mean something that it never contemplates.

Your points about release time, I feel, are what many feel today. Since there isn’t parity we should abandon the practice altogether. Well, I don’t see any African-American police officers in Hutchinson, but I am not going to say that the department is in “de facto promotion” of whites.

For sake of argument, I will hypothesize that the founding fathers were not Bible believers. Even so, they did not fathom the idea of curbing someone’s right to worship or their right promote the God of the Bible. The idea promoted in the First Amendment and supported by the history of the nation was to prohibit a government controlled religion such as the Pilgrims fled from in England. “Free exercise” to me means that I can “exercise” my religion anytime, anywhere despite the feelings of others. I also need to understand that others hold the same right to “exercise” their religion in the same way.

No I do not consider “any idea that doesn't glorify god or promote the Bible to be anti-Bible or anti-God”. I consider those things that tear down the Bible and God, no matter how well they are hidden in rhetoric and politically correctness, to be anti-Bible and anti-God. Therefore, my argument is not that my Christian views deserve special consideration just that they deserve the same consideration as every other view.

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 17, 2009 - 9:48pm.

Case law and precedent built...

Back to page top

Case law and precedent built up over years has established that the First Amendment applies to state and local governments and their organs, the public schools. I am very happy with that arrangement, as I assume any religious person should be. I doubt that Christian parents would appreciate their children being led in daily Muslim prayer or taught the fundamentals of Scientology as facts. Evolution, sex, physics, and philosophy are real tangible things in the material world, not religious beliefs. That is why they can be taught in public schools.

The First Amendment does apply today to many issues the founders could not have imagined. I also wonder when I read the Second Amendment why I shouldn't be allowed to have a rocket-propelled grenade launcher or at least a bazooka.

Submitted by darwinball on July 18, 2009 - 5:08am.

I again agree with you that...

Back to page top

I again agree with you that case law has molded the view of prayer in school. However, I will say that I think the trend has led us to see religion as a threat to the “real tangible things” that “can be taught in public schools.” I have reviewed some of the case law you refer to and encourage everyone to do their own research. I have listed a few of the cases here to aid in the search:

• Engel v. Vitale
• Abington School District v. Schempp
• Lemon v. Kurtzman

If examined carefully the reason the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment has been affixed to schools is the Fourteenth Amendment which states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This, in the above cases means that the restrictions upon Congress in the First Amendment also apply to all other governments, and therefore schools, that make up the collective United States.

Justice Black in Engel v. Vitale says, “By the time of the adoption of the Constitution, our history shows that there was a widespread awareness among many Americans of the dangers of a union of Church and State. These people knew, some of them from bitter personal experience, that one of the greatest dangers to the freedom of the individual to worship in his own way lay in the Government's placing its official stamp of approval upon one particular kind of prayer or one particular form of religious services.” Then he states, “Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend upon the succession of monarchs. The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say that the people's religious must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office.” This sentiment seems to change course by the attitude conveyed in Lemon v. Kurtzman where Justice Berger states, “In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: ‘sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.’ Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 668 (1970).” He continues, “Under our system the choice has been made that government is to be entirely excluded from the area of religious instruction and churches excluded from the affairs of government. The Constitution decrees that religion must be a private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions of private choice, and that while some involvement and entanglement are inevitable, lines must be drawn.”

I see a different attitude between the justices toward religion which colors how they approach the subject matter. Justice Black seems cautious to intrude upon the specific wording of the First Amendment while Berger is willing to “draw lines” and assert that the Establishment Clause was to guard against “three main evils”. While I will admit the “three evils” are accurate, the reasoning Justice Berger goes on to use is that of one who sees religion as a threat to “secular” education. Justice Black seemed to see government infringement as the threat where Berger sees religious fostering as the threat. I believe Justice Berger is wrong.

I will agree that if my children were forced to daily ingest Muslim or Scientologist thinking, I would not keep silent. However, I would not oppose the research of those ideas to compare to the various ideas of Christianity if they are given equal attention. As I have stated elsewhere the position that evolution is “a real tangible thing in the material world” while religion is only a belief seems, to me, to discount or circumvent the evidence available for Christian beliefs. If you have evidence about an idea and I decide to refute that idea by taking that evidence and twisting it to support my facts, who is right? In that line, I think every scientist today would admit evolution is a fairly new idea for the explanation of life on this planet, while Creationism predates the Roman and Grecian Empires. So, why can evolution be taught in school without the opposite view being taught? Why not let the children see the “facts” as stated by each idea and let them decide? We seem to think they are able to “exercise” their right to freedom of worship on their own, why not let them decide if evolution should be their own idea?

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 18, 2009 - 5:04pm.

Mr. Maricle, I think your...

Back to page top

Mr. Maricle, I think your hypothetical thinking is twisting my statements a bit. I didn't say that we, as good Christians should give up our battles to fight things that infringe upon our thinking and quest to spread the good word of our lord. Jesus did not use the government to accomplish His goals. Why would He expect us to do this? Doesn't he want us all to spread the word through individual interaction, good examples, and the power of His word?

Why would we want our government to make laws to force others to accept Christianity or Christian beliefs. Can we not approach the spread of His word in a much more fundamental way--a way that is more meaningful? If I could wave my magic wand and make a law to only allow Christian worship, do you think that would force Darwinball to become a Christian? And, if it did, would he truly be a Christian because he was forced? If the government would ban abortions, would that stop the atrocities that would occur in the underground? To avoid repeating history, we should all read about our attempts to outlaw alcohol in the early 20th century. That was a major disaster that is an example of how governmental law cannot restrict certain individual freedoms.

I'm not aware of any restrictions that prevent me from praying in a school. In fact, churches rent school facilities for their services. Can I force others to pray with me? No. Or, as a teacher, can I lead a student in prayer? No. I wouldn't want this to happen anyway as the teacher may not be properly teaching my Christian values and my "little Johnny" might be led down a path that isn't good.

Last I checked, our preachers can talk about homosexuality any way they wish without being arrested. If they go out and burn down a gay person's house, that is completely different.

Again, I beg to differ with you. I think the litmus test still passes the test that our religious freedom is intact. And yes, if this changes, I will be one of the first ones to stand up and fight for my religious freedom. Again, I think our founding fathers did a fairly good job and (so far), I still feel I'm free!

Submitted by fiscallyconservative on July 16, 2009 - 9:06pm.

Thank you for the...

Back to page top

Thank you for the clarification. My questions were only to cull out your true heart on the matter because as I read it I heard you telling us that the discussion was useless. I did not agree with that because as I said, if Christians keep quiet how are we spreading the gospel. Thank you for the clarification.

I have never asked the government to make laws to force others to accept Christianity. I simply ask my government not to rule that religion needs to be done in a certain way, done at certain times and divorced from any other decisions that are made at any level of society, i.e. government, business, personal. I say what is more meaningful than allowing my beliefs to shape my decisions in every area of life and being so excited about it that I must share my experiences.

I don’t doubt that abortions would continue if the government banned abortions. I am saying it is hypocritical for abortion and murder to be considered somehow different. It is not the laws that I am concerned with; it is the justification that society gives itself for making such law.

My understanding of the acceptance of religious practice in public schools has come from my discussions with young people who have either recently graduated or are currently in school. What I learned is that they were given a room but only early in the morning and only for a set amount of time. This does not sound like “free exercise” of religion. No, I am not saying that “free exercise” means there should not be structure or respect for others' needs, but rather that pushing the kids into some room in the corner and giving them 30 minutes does sound a little restricting.

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 17, 2009 - 9:54pm.

The Bible treats abortion...

Back to page top

The Bible treats abortion differently from murder. In Exodus the penalty for causing the death of a fetus is a fine levied by the husband of the woman. The death of a born person is to be punished by death.

The accommodations for religious practice at public school seem more than reasonable to me. Silent prayer can be anywhere at virtually any time, and student led meetings can be held before and after school. Students who feel a need for additional religious holidays will need to complete their assignments but get an "excused" absence.

Submitted by darwinball on July 18, 2009 - 4:57am.

Exodus 21:22-25... "If men...

Back to page top

Exodus 21:22-25...

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Yes, the penalties noted in this passage are different for the baby's death vs. the mother's. But, in BOTH cases they are a sin and both actions were punishable. The Bible covers many laws and penalties and they have obviously changed since biblical times so we can't assume since the penalties were different, the life of the unborn child should be treated as non-human.

The bottom line is that the Bible treats both cases, the miscarriage (and abortion) as the death of a human. Under today's law, one who causes the death of a human should be punished accordingly.

People that use Exodus 21 as a case for pro-choice are simply pulling a passage out of context. Those that are true scholars of the Bible know that the Bible should be looked at in full context with no particular passage standing alone. It is pretty easy for anyone to pull something out of the Bible, or any other document and make it say whatever he/she wants.

I'm not a biblical scholar by any means but I do know that people like to twist the meaning of particular passages without understanding the rest of this great book.

Good try! ;)

Submitted by fiscallyconservative on July 18, 2009 - 10:14am.

"Religious Freedom" I...

Back to page top

"Religious Freedom" I suppose you are accurate FC, we are more in an age of persecution than a removal of religious freedoms. It is absolutely more difficult to be a Christian in the USA today than it was say 60 years ago. I suppose that is not a removal of freedom, but to many, it sure feels like it. I too do not want some random public school teacher teaching my child what they think is acceptable prayer, but I also do not want said teacher choosing "literature" that's sole purpose is to denigrate or laugh at my religious beliefs, and that did happen. Try and say "Merry Christmas" in a public school. Why the response cannot be "Happy Kwanzaa" I do not know, instead all vestiges of a "national" holiday that has religious roots are forbidden. That feels like my freedom is being encroached on. Why does the expression of my beliefs insult non believers? Try and be a Pro-Life Christian and get into medical school. Try and prevent your taxes from paying for programs that are morally repugnant. Many celebrities in recent years have been fired over awful racial slurs. The same slurs on Christians are heard nightly on TV, in Movies. Look into how the RICO act is being applied to shut down abortion protests. The government has absolutely shut down what a pastor feels free to preach on in the area of politics. Tax exempt status has suddenly been used as a weapon against biblical values. Research how pastors in many countries are being told they cannot teach biblical values on homosexuality. We are on the same slippery slope that got them there. Persecution today will lead to removal of freedoms tomorrow. Tolerance of non believers I can do, to allow them to remove my ability and ease to express my beliefs,I cannot.

Submitted by arcy on July 19, 2009 - 5:56am.

Arcy, you bring up some good...

Back to page top

Arcy, you bring up some good points and some intriguing thoughts... For example, I think we have more irony here than persecution. I believe that some people are confused about their 1st Amendment rights. This is probably the most recognized (and often misinterpreted) "freedom" statement that people reference when it comes to "I want to say WHAT I want and WHEN I want to say it and WHERE I want to say it..."

People need to review the First Amendment and read it carefully...

"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."

The irony I mentioned earlier stems from the fact that we are actually following the Constitution more literally than before. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a proponent of the "zero tolerance" policies that we are now seeing, but it is a simple fact that we are experiencing solid (and unprecedented) enforcement of our Constitution in most situations.

Regarding your preacher example... if a preacher wants to talk about politics without government control, they simply need to waive their non-profit status and they can say anything they want. Your example is not a restriction of freedom but rather an "inconvenience". The government is actually enforcing the the 1st Amendment rights of American's when they don't allow our tax resources to be used for things other than standard religious activities.

Yes, I remember the good old days when Miss Jones could say Merry Christmas to her students. What if the table was turned and she said, "Happy Devil Day"? Wouldn't that be an infringement of your 1st Amendment rights? Wouldn't Little Johnny want to find out why Miss Jones was a devil worshiper? What if Miss Jones handed out pro-devil pamphlets to her students while she was "on-duty"? For non-Christian Americans, the "Merry Christmas", said in a classroom context, was a violation of their rights as the government is technically supporting a specific religious belief via a law (taxes for schools).

Remember that the 1st Amendment only applies to government entities so the press, private businesses (like some medical schools), television, movie studious, etc. can restrict what you say and don't say as much as they want. It is your choice to participate in their organization and it is NOT government funded so they are simply exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

Can you give me an example of religious persecution by a government entity that has happened in the US in recent times as it relates to you personally? I am still waiting to hear about a situation where someone's religious freedom was truly restricted (or persecuted). I have thought for a long time and I still cannot imagine a situation where I wanted to pray in a public place and I was restricted by a government entity. Wasn't there a recent situation in our high school where a student's rights were violated and it cost our school some $$$$? (ie. the T-Shirt case)

You make a good point on the literature in schools issue. That is definitely a slippery slope. But, again, if you don't like the literature, you have the freedom to choose another school don't you? Or, you can elect new school officials that are better at choosing the right materials. I'm hoping, but not sure, that schools are teaching the students that there are several different beliefs about the creation, evolution, existence, etc. of mankind and are letting the students make their own conclusions based on their own beliefs, etc.

Finally, you made the statement about how it is harder to be a Christian today than it was 60 years ago. Is it maybe more correct to say that it is easier to be a non-Christian today than it was 60 years ago? This, in turn, would give you the feeling that it is harder to get others to follow Christianity, and hence feel that it is harder to be a Christian. This is the ironic part of my whole point is that because others (non-Christians) are experiencing more freedom, you feel you are being persecuted. I'm not sure I can agree with you in that I feel Americans are far better off with their freedoms than they ever were in the past.

Ask any black person that lived in the 50's and 60's and I think they would agree with me. Or ask any atheist if it is now easier to express their views (see Darwinball's postings) than it was a few decades ago. I can't imagine how well DB's letters to the editor would have been received in our town in the 60's. I believe he would have been run out of town very quickly or his thoughts would not have been posted in this paper in that era.

I'm happy to be free. I will be the first to let you know when my 1st Amendment rights have been violated. Until then, I think our Constitution is doing very well! :)

Oh, and back to the main topic of this forum, President Obama can label our country any way he wants and I really don't care. I can't imagine that this would affect my Constitutional rights in the least bit as he's not making any laws to restrict my freedom. So, go for it Mr. O!

Submitted by fiscallyconservative on July 19, 2009 - 1:30pm.

FC, you made my point. Yes I...

Back to page top

FC, you made my point. Yes I think a person does have the right to say "Happy Devil's day" and I will say back to them God Bless you. That is non-restricted speech. I would also argue that Happy Devil's day would not be reprimanded as Merry Christmas is. In the name of diversity one can say about anything as long as it does not hint at Christianity. The fact that we are now re-interpreting the paragraph you quoted is what bothers me. The government is not making laws saying we all have to belong to The Church of England, or any other denomination. That was the intent of the law. The words are not there to restrict us from saying "Merry Christmas" or any other greeting we personally espouse to. They are to stop the Government from FORCING us to say "Happy Hanukkah", or what ever. Pastors are preaching biblical values when they instruct their congregations against voting for politicians that support abortion,war,not helping the poor. No government has the right to get between a pastor and his/her congregation. That is what has happened. No where in the Constitution does it say the Government gets to censor Churches. How they drug the tax exempt status into it is a travesty. You can only claim to be religious if you stay out of Government? Religion should reach into EVERY pore of your life. That would include how one votes.

I agree Christianity had been easy, too easy for US citizens to follow, some would say. To be "fair", more equality was necessary, but you said our freedom has not been restricted. I am saying it has, the cost is much greater now, that feels restrictive to me. Yes in theory I am free to attend a different school,practically not so much. I can't say I disagree with any of your sentiments, it is just that life experience does not always live up to its promise. It is all about what price you are willing to pay to exercise your "freedom". The cost to exercise Christianity has increased greatly in the last few decades. In the long run that is not helping us as a Nation is what I see, that was my only point. Instead of rich diversity we are ending up with watered down secular humanism. That is not keeping us on the path our Fore Fathers mapped out for us. From my vantage point that is not working for America.

Submitted by arcy on July 20, 2009 - 6:31am.

I think you are absolutely...

Back to page top

I think you are absolutely right when you say that the cost of being a Christian has increased. I don't think anyone ever said freedom would be free. In fact the parents of killed soldiers would argue that the cost is quite high.

The example I used about the devil involved the teacher saying it to her students. That wouldn't be allowed and it shouldn't be as she is "pushing" her religion from a governmental position of power and would have used "law" to promote a religious belief.

Our pastor talks regularly about the sins of abortion so I know that it isn't being restricted in our church. Now, if the church actively campaigns for/against a candidate, that is a slippery slope. Again, if your church wants to campaign openly, simply decline the tax benefits from the government and there would never be any restrictions.

Once again, can you please give me one or two examples of where YOUR religious freedom is being persecuted or denied by our government? So far, I've only seen where it has been more difficult and expensive. Good things don't always come easy (or cheap)--do they? :)

As an aside, I see your point and understand your frustration. But, in the context of freedom, I still can't think of ONE situation where my religious freedom rights are being restricted. Can anyone cite an example of how your religious rights are being restricted by the government? I'm sure a lawyer would like to hear about these too! ;)

Submitted by fiscallyconservative on July 20, 2009 - 10:32am.

This is in response to the...

Back to page top

This is in response to the post beginning with "The Bible treats abortion differently from murder."

As you can see the Bible address the issue that you have alluded to much more directly then you stated. The verses listed above are not even about abortion at all. The Bible does not even refer to the concept of abortion except in description of the ritualistic sacrifices of other cultures of that day and these are classified as abominations. This is pretty specific language from God about the idea of killing babies. The previous comment has more than adequately covered this argument.

My argument is not that a church service should be conducted daily in the school or that teachers should be allowed to sit and tell students what they should believe. I am saying that students should not be closeted because of their beliefs. Teachers should not be prohibited from explaining the doctrine of Christianity just as they are not prohibited from explaining the doctrine of evolution. If freedom is to be realized then people should be allowed the freedom to disbelieve. The only premise that Christianity asserts is that one must take responsibility for one's disbelief. How can a child disbelieve evolution when it is taught as truth in the classroom setting? How can children believe that Christianity is a valid belief system when it is cloistered as a “private belief” without validity in or to the rest of life? Why, if Christianity is and should be relegated to "privatization" does everyone, including the federal government, observe basic holidays originating from the Christian belief? You allude to additional holidays, but I assert that the traditional holidays are Christian based. So I charge the next atheist to be true to their beliefs and take the federal government to court to have their child be allowed to be in school over the Christmas and Thanksgiving holidays. If the Pledge of Allegiance is an infringement upon your “Establishment Clause” rights, I want to know what forcing you to take time off school or work for observation of Christian based holidays is.

Submitted by Charlie Maricle on July 21, 2009 - 7:17am.

FC - That was a great, great...

Back to page top

FC - That was a great, great post!

An excellent post FC - very thought provoking and very well said!!

You've made many excellent points - Kudos to you!

Submitted by morristhecat on July 12, 2009 - 9:10pm.

Morristhecat is Back Sorry...

Back to page top

Morristhecat is Back

Sorry for my tardy reply - the family car has been acting up!

Onward:

Replying to your post of 7/13, actually the various super-(above)- natural events were widely reported. There are thousands of copies of New Testament letters floating around, many of which we have very old copies of today. You may discount them Darwinball, but historians don't.

You mention Ceasar Augustus - actually we have more evidence today for the life of Christ than we do for this "Ceasar Agustus" guy! The number of ancient works we have talking about Ceasar Augusts is a few dozen, versus many thousands that reference Christ. If we're going to accept the evidence for the life of Ceasar, then we must also accept the same type of evidence that reports on the life of Jesus.

I hope that you'll agree that we need to use the same rules of evidence for the actual existance of Jesus Christ that we do for Ceasar Augustus. If we do, then we have abundant evidence that Jesus was a real historical figure.

You talk of the New Testament letters as containing "legends;" J.R.R. Tolkein, who's brilliance is unassailable, and who was Merton Professor of English Language and Literature at Oxford, said that the New Testament was many things, but most assuredly it was not a "legend." This is from a guy who would certainly know the difference!

Ragarding the super-natural events you mention - I agree, that stuff can be hard to swallow. But I would submit that there is a lot more about the universe that we don't know than we do know. Twenty years ago who would have believed that the vast majority of the Universe is made of stuff that we cannot see or measure or directly detect (I'd referencing "Dark Matter") It's crazy, but it goes to show that there is a whole lot that we just don't know...so it seems to me we need to tread lightly when we say something is "impossible."

Lastly, I want to note that the investigations I mentioned previously actually were from the perspective of a non-Christian. I was 25 before I became a beliver.

Cheerio!

Submitted by morristhecat on July 16, 2009 - 5:47pm.

Today's Poll

Submitted by webmaster on November 18, 2009 - 9:52am.

» Read similar stories filed under:

Polls

News, sports, politics, blogs and forums for Hutchinson, Minnnesota • (320) 587-5000

Search

Advertising

Advertising

News2Navigation

LETTER: Obama is a threat to U.S. Constitution

How is the statement made by...

Please define what you mean...

You are using Guantanamo as...

Bush put many laws into...

Congress makes law, not the...

“Our Constitution was made...

Well, I am thankful that...

I think my point is that...

The Constitution also...

How much further down in the...

Hey Ray, I don't mean to...

Johnny, I don't mean to...

The Treaty of Tripoli, as...

Publius, I will conceed the...

I guess I cannot infer what...

My apologies, that my Treaty...

I might argue on the Treaty...

I was addressing the...

"However, you are right on...

Are you reading the content...

My point with the Treaty of...

Hmmm, I don't recall saying...

Arcy, I never said it was...

It is clear to me that...

I, me myself and I, think it...

Just to bring the discussion...

The pastor answered his own...

As an atheist who is very...

Nope. I doubt we could come...

Not a Common...

Well let's see...lets just...

I don't understand why a...

Based on your statement of...

I am not sure anyone said...

How do the founding...

You know, you got me. There...

Oooo..Pascal's wager! Well,...

"Moreover it is actually...

Yes I mean like Santa, tooth...

We seem to have strayed far...

Science is the study of the...

A few of your statements...

Almost everyone (especially...

Please! Don't you think...

Actually, no, I don’t...

Oh. I'm pretty sure that if...

Come on! Deconvert already!...

You are not a bad...

I agree that people may...

Morristhecat Meows Again! I...

I didn't say that...

I realize you didn't say...

Thanks to you and Mr....

Hopefully, I have made...

I don't get why so many...

Have you looked at the...

I have examined all kinds of...

Lots of Topics There...

I said I have examined all...

A good response... I agree,...

I appreciate your continued...

It is actually funny (for a...

Fisc, I love it when people...

You statements were so well...

I certainly agree that...

My understanding of the...

Case law and precedent built...

I again agree with you that...

Mr. Maricle, I think your...

Thank you for the...

The Bible treats abortion...

Exodus 21:22-25... "If men...

"Religious Freedom" I...

Arcy, you bring up some good...