Posted on 10/17/2003 4:04:27 PM PDT by TXLibertarian
Excerpted from a longer op-ed. Author discusses the danger of legal proselytizing by a few firebrand secularists. Worth a read, IMHO.
What Atheists Want
By Chris Mooney
....
Unfortunately, in my experience, the U.S. atheist and secularist communities contain a number of activists who are inclined to be combative and in some cases feel positively zestful about offending the religious. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, easily America's most famous atheist firebrand, wasn't dubbed "the most hated woman in America" for nothing. Despite her landmark 1963 Supreme Court victory in a case concerning the constitutionality of school prayer, O'Hair's pugilistic and insulting public persona hurt atheists a great deal in the long run. A head-on attack on the pledge seems to epitomize the confrontational O'Hair strategy.
....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Actually, if there isn't, then there won't be any evidence against it, and we will never know.
Heinlein also wrote:
"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."
And, more apropos to our discussion:
"The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa."
You seem to be confused here. Governments are either secular or theocratic. The U.S. is not a theocracy, therefore it is secular. Secular in this sense is not synonymous with atheistic, as you seem to be using it.
Being a secular government doesn't prohibit Christians from holding office, it doesn't bar a recounting of our Christian roots, and it doesn't require us to strip any symbolism of God from any and all public spaces.
Now, can we put that to rest already?
It is you that has bought a bill of goods, probably comes from public school indoctrination.
OK, Miss, you're geting ugly. I would normally be the last person to bring up my credentials, but before you go and get all condescending on me again, keep in ming I have six years of education at two different Christian universities, with a full two years in Biblical exegesis. Don't get smug and snippy with me about my education. If you had any decency, you'd apologize for that comment, but I don't expect you will.
As for you inability to understand there will always be those perverts [pedophiles] attempting to move the moral line behind them a little investigation into their agendas would be in order.
Sure, I understand that there are those who want to legalize pedophilia, just as there are those who still want to teach that the earth is flat. They're both similarly marginal in our society and both have about the same chances of succeeding in their goals. Keeping this in mind, I don't go into hysterics about it the way you seem to be doing.
Sure, they may keep pushing incrementally, but I don't lose sleep over it. I proise you, legalized pedophilia is not coming to a town near you anytime soon.
atheists have no business defining where Christians worship or defining where they cannot worship.
You're being evasive here. If you mean that Christians (or any religion) should be able to take their worship (something they're free to do in their church) and impose it on the rest of society by 'worshipping' in public at the courthouse or the shcool, then I'm going to say you're absolutely dead wrong. You do not have that right, no matter how many times you contend otherwise.
As for the public schools and the courthouse, government should reflect the community it serves... The majority population in the USofA is of the Christian religion, government should in no way hinder their free expression of their religion in their courthouses, public schools or other institutions.
Again, this goes back to my original post to you. You seem to think that everything is hunky dorey as long as it's not your ox being gored. Do you realize how haughty that is? What about those who are not Christian and do not wish to have your religion imposed on them? Is that just too bad? Should they just leave the country?
We live in a Constitutional representative republic that protects the interests of the minority as much as the majority. We don't live in a society that lives by simple "majority rules". Or were you not aware of that? Maybe you're the victim of public schools, Miss.
You seem to be saying that it's OK for Christians to impose their religion on the public because Christians are the majority. What if in fifty years, Muslims or Buddhists are the majority? Will you concede that Christians should quietly accquiesce and allow the Muslims to impose their religion on the public, since they are the majority? Should the government be allowed to tell little Susie to wear a burka to school?
No where in the Constitution is this mandated, nor was it ever considered that government must be athestic or secular
What part of "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion" is unclear to you???
... it merely prevents government from demanding that all citizens adhere to Christianity.
You seem to have taken up that cause all on your own.
Since you seem to be knowledgeable on these matters, maybe you could offer me your guidance as to which Bible I should be reading.
Should I read the Jewish Bible that includes the book of Sirach, the Catholic Bible that includes the books of Tobin and Macabees, or the Tyndale Bible, the first English translation?
Perhaps I should rely on the King James version of the Bible, although it is only 83% consistent with the Tyndale Bible, which is regarded as much more accurate in it's translation. However, Tyndale was executed as a heretic for having translated the Bible into English, so maybe that's not a good idea.
So, if the Bible is the "very spoken word of God" how can there be this much confusion, inconsistency, and disagreement about what is "The Bible"? Perhaps you could enlighten me.
If your child wants to say a prayer before her lunch at a public school, who is going to stop her? If you and your family form a prayer circle before going into a court hearing, who is going to stop you?
The answer is, you know it and I know it, that no one is going to stop you. So how is it that you still contend that government is hindering your free expression of religion?
What you really mean is that you want free license to proselytize. And that, you do not have the right to do with the sanction or assistence of the government.
Now, inerrancy does not apply to a translation. It applies only to the originals written by the Apostles. However, we can be assured that the Bible we read today, assuming you get a responsible translation, is about as close as it can get, and truth unto salvation.
Here is a quote I found a few months ago from Vanderbilt School of Divinity, hardly a hotbed of fundamentalism:
Most scholars agree that there is more manuscript support for the New Testament than for any other body of ancient literature. Over five thousand Greek, eight thousand Latin, and many more manuscripts in other languages attest the integrity of the New Testament. Moreover, no other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Illiad by Homer is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. Furthermore, to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no document of the ancient period are as well attested biographically as the New Testament.
Here is the link:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/religious_studies/NTBib/textual.html
So, if you want to disagree with the words of the Apostles, then we can discuss that. But you cannot consistently doubt the integrity of the New Testament.
There are many excellent translations available. The essential message of the 66 books of the Bible remains the same.
That's right. I try to look at all ideologies through the Christian prism. The Christian worldview is the only one that makes rational sense.
I think you are asking if it wrong to harm someone to the point of death if there is no God. I'm sure we could all think of some utilitarian reasons for not harming someone - they are more useful to us alive than dead, etc. But morally, ethically, the answer is "No." Without God there are no eternal consequences and no eternal standards, so if you can get away with it, it is entirely up to the Mind of Man, and on that there is no Governor. I agree with Dostoevsky, who I believe said that without God, all things are permissible.
And such it is. The Apostle Paul, quoting the Prophet Isaiah, said that without Christ, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
So, let me make it simple and I'll ask for your explanation.
If the Bible is the "very spoken words of God" as you've said, then why do we not only have only an 83% consistency between translations (which I'll concede is insignifigant), but also disagreement as to which books are actually part of the Bible.
I know you've said you believe the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are the words of God, but are you then telling Catholics and Jews, who include other books (such as the Apocrypha) or different versions of one of the books (the book of Esther) that their Bible, which they also believe to be the "very words of God", is in fact not the words of God?
Who are you to say so? Perhaps they are right and you're wrong. But one thing is certain, both cannot be right and neither can be sure who is right.
You can condemn whatever you like. Hitler could condemn you or me too. That doesn't make it valid, because as you just stated all morality is a personal choice. You can say "I personally condemn Hitler" but you can't say (without an eternal standard) "Hitler is wrong in all places and all times."
Now of course you rebel against this, because God has implanted a conscience within you and you obey it. You have a knowledge that there is a God and there is such a thing as an eternal standard. Find out who that God is.
I mean, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao all lived long and fruitful lives, implementing their choices freely. Their moral choices were antithetical to mine. On the other hand, I know of many good peaceful hardworking and kind people whose lives, though short and miserable, barely conflicted with my morals at all.
I would hardly say that Pol Pot or Stalin lived "fruitful lives." In fact I'd say the exact opposite. I wouldn't trade places with them for an instant, and where they are now there is no hope at all. Be assured of that - justice escapes no one, accept those that receive Christ who bears justice for them on the Cross.
Sometimes bad things happen to good people. We don't always know why. But we live in a sinful world and evil is our own invention. God will deal with all of it in his own time.
I think anyone who answers this question "No" is simply being dishonest. I understand you wish to promote the idea of a universe that revolves entirely around God and is dependent upon God for everything, but even in the absence of God, man has an inner sense of morality that precludes doing harm to other, if only to not bring harm upon themselves. It would not be open season to commit any kind of offense against others as you contend.
Think about this. The oldest book in God's word to us, the Bible, is only about 3,000 years old. Was man free to murder prior to receiving God's expressed disapproval in the Bible? If you say no, then tell me on what basis? Man had no stricture against murder from God, but surely you don't think it was permissible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.