Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, January 16, 2009
Alan Sears :: Townhall.com Columnist
Call of Duty: Why the Fight for Religious Liberty is the Fight for Life
by Alan Sears
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



“It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to Him,” wrote James Madison in his Memorial and Remonstrance. “This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”

That’s quite a statement, coming from the same man who authored the straightforward assertion that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” One is left with the overwhelming conviction that Mr. Madison, like most of his fellow Founding Fathers, put a priority on one’s responsibility to his own conscience – even above his responsibility to his country, his government, or the prevailing political winds of society.

That assertion, as Father Richard Neuhaus said, is what makes the free exercise of religion “the irreplaceable cornerstone” of “the American experiment”:

“‘We hold these truths,’ the Founders declared. And when these truths about the ‘unalienable rights’ with which men are ‘endowed by their Creator’ are no longer firmly held by the American people and robustly advanced in the public square, this experiment will have come to an end.”

Those words are but a few drops from the fountain of thoughtful reflection that sprang from the living waters in the soul of Father Neuhaus, one of the most prominent church leaders in America and one of the most influential theologians and political philosophers of the last 50 years.

The fountain ceased on January 8, when he passed away at 72, but the living waters still flow. And Father Neuhaus’ single-minded commitment to that “duty” Madison describes, and his own robust efforts to advance the cause of Truth and religious liberty, will undoubtedly influence his fellow Americans for many years to come.

I was one among the multitude of those blessed by Father Neuhaus’ wise, personal counsel; to witness the astonishing breadth of religious and political belief represented at his memorial service last week was to recognize the truly remarkable impact one man can still have on his times, if that man is committed, heart and soul, to his convictions…and expresses those convictions with love and grace.

The attendance of so many leaders of so many persuasions was all the more remarkable because Father Neuhaus, for all that grace, was no passive commentator on the formative issues of his age. He was, first and foremost, a fighter – a man who was never content to raise the alarm when he could wade hip-deep into the forensic fight.

To his mind, a conscientious Christian didn’t stand by and just pray for his culture. A virile Christian’s duty was to engage that culture…and Father Neuhaus did so ferociously, leading from the front of the battle line.

It’s particularly ironic that he should pass away just a few days before Religious Freedom Day, whose themes he had so long and so eloquently defended, and before the 36th anniversary of the terrible Roe v. Wade decision, whose imports and impact he had striven to reverse. What he would not have found ironic – what, indeed, he would have undoubtedly made it a point to underscore – was the significance of the proximity of these two occasions.

For no two ideas could be more inexorably linked than religious freedom and the sanctity of life.

A surprising number of people don’t believe that. Indeed, when the organization I lead, the Alliance Defense Fund, was in its formative stages, many friends in the conservative and even Christian communities warned me not to sully the “purity” of our legal efforts in defense of religious liberty by involving our ministry with complicated, no-win “side issues” like the right to life or the defense of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

But with each passing year, it becomes more obvious to me what Father Neuhaus understood all along: that these issues are intricately, intimately entwined with each other – that the killing of innocents by the purveyors of abortion and the willful destruction of marriage and families by advocates of the homosexual agenda are both inherently fatal to religious freedom in America.

And, by the same token, the steady erosion of religious liberties by leftist organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union makes the perversion of justice, the dissolution of families, and the death of innocents inevitable.

“When the American people can no longer publicly express their obligations to the Creator,” Father Neuhaus wrote, “it is to be feared that they will no longer acknowledge their obligations to one another – nor the Constitution in which the obligations of freedom are enshrined.”

He wrote that 17 years ago, and the fulfillment of his prophecy is evident coast-to-coast, as legislatures, executives, and courts in states like Massachusetts and California increasingly exercise political gymnastics to exempt themselves from the laws of their state constitutions and the expressed will of their citizenry – most of whom overwhelmingly and consistently oppose fabricating same-sex relationships into “marriages.”

It’s evident in the numerous judicial rulings that deny religious groups equal access to the public facilities enjoyed by other members of the community.

It’s evident in the efforts to force doctors, pharmacists, and other professionals to submit their conscience to the convenience of a “customer.” It’s evident in increasingly forceful efforts to silence those who would publicly express their deepest religious convictions…in a school art project, a classroom debate, or outside an abortion clinic.

“To contend for the free exercise of religion,” Father Neuhaus wrote, is to contend for the perpetuation of a nation ‘so conceived and so dedicated.’ It is to contend for the hope ‘that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.’”

No serious historian can contend that our nation was “so conceived” as to promote the termination of life post-conception. Nor can any citizen with Madison’s sense of “duty” believe that our nation will ever enjoy a “new birth of freedom” while the births of so many of the next generations are being casually obliterated.

Neither freedom nor life will ever be sacred, as long as either one is expendable.

That is why, in the words of Father Neuhaus, a great champion of freedom, “We shall not weary, we shall not rest, in the fight for life.”

That is why, in the courtrooms and the legislatures, in classrooms and newsrooms, at altars and ballot boxes, the battle goes on.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Alan Sears, a former federal prosecutor in the Reagan Administration, is president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance employing a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.

Be the first to read Alan Sears' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Chuck
"Your sense of humor needs work."

I know but I can't find a good mechanic.

Donjindra
"Obviously you have no idea what “postmodern" means"

Your sense of humor needs work.

Chuck
“That's very postmodern of you,”

Obviously you have no idea what “postmodern" means. Of course I don’t either since it’s becoming a catch-all term that people apply to anything they don’t like.

“the correct way to interpret any writing is to inquire what the author intended and what is its context.”

There is no context and that’s one of the problems. So you tell me, what am I supposed to repent? Look into your crystal ball and tell me who I’ve wronged. Then tell me, since for true repentance I’ve got to make retribution or correct my behavior in the future, what exactly I’m to do to prevent the same wrong from occurring again or fix the wrong I’ve done? You cannot do this because you don’t have a clue if I’ve wronged anyone, how I’ve wronged them and to what extent. You haven’t even defined the wrongs that might apply. So your verse rests on a mountain of subjectivity and absraction.

“You cannot merely substitute your own definitions for terms and ideas that conflict with prejudices or preconceived notions.”

I’m not substituting anything. I’m applying a “fundamentalist” method of using the text as written and nothing more. Yes, fundamentalists are intellectually lazy. The only way out of this particular laziness is through some form of subjectivity, and plenty of it. I *am* supposed to substitute my subjective experience. That’s the only way the verse has any meaning.

“the evaluation of the effects on a culture by Enlightenment influences can only be evaluated from a perspective of absolute objectivity.”

You still have not shown me one objective moral thing in the Bible.


Donjindra
"I’m interpreting the verse in a modern sense"

That's very postmodern of you, however, the correct way to interpret any writing is to inquire what the author intended and what is its context. You cannot merely substitute your own definitions for terms and ideas that conflict with prejudices or preconceived notions.

That is intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

Donjindra, the evaluation of the effects on a culture by Enlightenment influences can only be evaluated from a perspective of absolute objectivity. That perspective is only available through God's eyes. The Bible purports to be a record of that perspective.

I will urge you to reconsider your approach to both.

Chuck
I’m interpreting the verse in a modern sense. It has no absolute meaning. It asks to repent. Fair enough. But it doesn’t say what to repent. That’s left up to the individual to apply to his own life. That’s subjective, not absolute.

I don’t claim the products of the Enlightenment are all good. Marxism is not good. Neither would I claim that everything good is a result of the Enlightenment, Christianity, democracy, capitalism or anything else.


jg
Your answer is obvious and what I would expect from Christians -- subjectivity. It makes a mockery of true standards.

What the founder thought was self eviden

What the founders thought was self evident, Liberals oppose.

I think it has something to do with the poor quality education Liberals receive.

Donjindra
Donjindra,

“It's a threat that has no 'absolute' meaning in a behavioral sense. How am I to repent?"

As a first step in the "how" part, consider a daily examination of conscience. That will get you started.

"For what am I to repent?"

Like all of us, you will find plenty when you get to thinking about it.

"To whom am I to repent? (Don't bother with answering ‘Jesus’ or ‘God’ since then you're talking about a subjective idea in one's head, not a person)”

You ask a question and decorate it with a rhetorical device that bars the correct answer. Is this tongue in cheek? (I can't see your face, so I can't tell)



Donjindra
"It's a threat that has no 'absolute' meaning in a behavioral sense. How am I to repent? For what am I to repent? To whom am I to repent? (Don't bother with answering "Jesus" or "God" since then you're talking about a subjective idea in one's head, not a person)"

The point is its absolute nature. It's understood that you, as an unbeliever, regard it as non-binding but its context is what is relevant; not your subjective evaluation of it.
You cannot apply postmodern interpretations to something that is, by its very nature, a contradiction of postmodernism.

The point of bringing up the French Revolution etc. was not to excuse those who did not subscribe to its influences but merely to head off your obvious implication that the effects of the Enlightenment are universally salutary and that all that is good in Western Civilization can be attributed to its effects.

However, thank you for referencing Edmund Burke and conservatism. It merely highlights my contention that there existed in its heyday, as it does today, many who recognized its inherent malevolent nature and were opposed to its influences.

Chuck
"Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish"

It's a threat that has no 'absolute' meaning in a behavioral sense. How am I to repent? For what am I to repent? To whom am I to repent? (Don't bother with answering "Jesus" or "God" since then you're talking about a subjective idea in one's head, not a person)

Chuck
"All of those 'values' (get out a dictionary, will you?) were already well under way in the American colonies long before the 1790's, when the Enlightenment first began to be felt in France and Germany."

"All of those 'values' (get out a dictionary, will you?) were already well under way in the American colonies long before the 1790's, when the Enlightenment first began to be felt in France and Germany."

The Enlightenment goes back further than the 1790s. Maybe you meant 1690s. It's hard to say when it really started. Locke was part of the Enlightenment, as was Descartes. It’s a frame of mind that has confidence in man's individuality and ability to solve problems using reason in the natural world. That frame of mind is still with us and it goes back to the ancients. But in the Enlightenment things really took off.

I love it when conservative bring up the French Revolution following the example of Burke. Let's not forget, as Burke conveniently did, the English civil wars, the Thirty Years War, the 11 Crusades or the Spanish slaughters. When men want to destroy each other they use whatever is handy.

Now as to ‘value’. I do value the scientific method, free markets, and democracy. I would go so far as to call them ethical values. The dictionary applies perfectly.

Donjindra
"Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish" Jesus (Luke 13: 3 & 5)

That "absolute" enough for you?

Chuck
"First you claim Christianity imposes no moral restraints, then you complain that Christians rebel against them."

Your selection of the work "impose" is inaccurate. "Ask" would be a better choice. You could make a better case for that but still the issue ultimately comes down to actual behavior. What difference does it make if you ask of yourself not to do X, I do not, yet we both do X? None that I can see. It merely shows that the act of asking was completely insufficient in stopping X.

Chuck
"The secularists' moral 'standard' is a value relative one adaptable to the times and the circumstances."

So is the Christian 'standard'. It changes with the times and sect. There is no behavioral absolute in the Bible. For example, "You shall not murder" is completely dependent upon ones definition of murder. That is not defined in the Bible any better than it is in a secular law book therefore both are necessarily 'value relative'.

Donjindra
"Science, rationality, free markets, freedom, democracy, consumerism, capitalism, religious tolerance, modernity, etc..."

Man, you are a dedicated cult member, aren't you?

All of those "values" (get out a dictionary, will you?) were already well under way in the American colonies long before the 1790's, when the Enlightenment first began to be felt in France and Germany. But if you like, I'll give you "consumerism" and "modernity", neither of which are Biblically defensible.

About which, don't forget to add the French Revolution, The Terror, the Jacobins, and Napolean to your list of Enlightenment "achievements".

Donjindra
Again. Please.

First you claim Christianity imposes no moral restraints, then you complain that Christians rebel against them.

Which is it?

" Christians behave badly, just as badly as any non-Christian. "

The difference is in the fact that they have a standard to compare that behavior against, demonstrating their moral inconsistencies.

The secularists' moral "standard" is a value relative one adaptable to the times and the circumstances.

Chuck
Me: "Christianity imposes no moral restraints"

You: "An unfamiliarity with the subject of the controversy will invariably lead to drawing wrong conclusions."

I understand perfectly. Christianity poses no moral restraints. Christians behave badly, just as badly as any non-Christian. You may not like this fact, but statistically it's true. The only conclusion we can draw is that as a moral restraint it's ineffective, no matter what rules it professes. So for you to claim atheists are trying to wiggle out of your religions rules is no more than propaganda. To be more than that you would have to demonstrate atheists behave worse than Christians and that you have not done and cannot do.

Chuck
"again, since you claim that Christianity absorbed values from the enlightenment, I would like you to explain which ones they are."

Science, rationality, free markets, freedom, democracy, consumerism, capitalism, religious tolerance, modernity, etc...


Chuck
"Thank you for making my point that the "enlightenment" is the illegitimate offspring of Christianity, apart from which we would be praying to Mecca today"


I said no such thing. I said science (not the enlightenment) was an abandoned child of philosophy (not Christianity).

I don't understand
why the author thinks that "the American people can no longer publicly express their obligations to the Creator". What are all of these churches for? What are all of these religious publications for? There is no suppression of religion going on in this country. To the contrary, there are plenty of opportunities for religious people to "express their obligations" through charity, volunteer work, and so on.

Some of the commenters seem almost paranoid about humanists trying to undermine their religion and so on. In general, humanists or generally non-religious people really don't care what you believe in. In general, they respect people's religious beliefs and see value in them. The problems arise when religious people try to force their religious beliefs on the rest of society.


MikeH
"And with that I'm off to bed. Until next time... "

Me too.

Hope you get that last post and thanks for hanging in there. You're a good sport.

MikeH
" What happened during the Enlightenment was the advocacy that all individuals could use reason and didn't need edicts from kings or popes to tell them how to run their lives and govern themselves."

If they had stopped at that point, they would have been reformers like Luther but where they made their mistake, and where modern Western intellectuals are making theirs is, advocating that they don't need GOD to tell them how to run their lives. That is what is meant by "unaided reason". They can go it alone without Him.

That is the fundamental basis of the Enlightenment and all of its offshoots, like Existentialism and Postmodernism. They don't want to reform Western thinking; they mean to radicalize it and replace it with a Humanistic worldview, devoid of any transcendant reality.

Chuck
"Well, while there have admittedly been excesses, abuses, and crimes done in the name of Christ, don't kid yourself into thinking that the success of Enlightenment mentality with all of its offshoots, like Existentialism and Postmodernism, is going to be much of an improvement over what it is supplanting in the West."

I think we can find agreement there (I even despise the term "postmodernism"). And with that I'm off to bed. Until next time...

MikeH
Well, while there have admittedly been excesses, abuses, and crimes done in the name of Christ, don't kid yourself into thinking that the success of Enlightenment mentality with all of its offshoots, like Existentialism and Postmodernism, is going to be much of an improvement over what it is supplanting in the West.

Chuck
"But the Enlightenment is the idea that man, using unaided reason can effectively govern his existence, writ large and codified into cultural norms.

That directly contradicts and is hostile to the basis of the Biblical message."

We may only get more off topic, but, hey, why not?

Maybe you can explain what you mean by "unaided reason." For now, I'll just use the term reason. I agree that the Enlightenment did put reason as the ultimate guide for decisions. But this was not new specifically to the Enlightenment. That idea can be found in the ancient Greek philosophies, theologians like Augustine and Aquinas, and the Reformation. What happened during the Enlightenment was the advocacy that all individuals could use reason and didn't need edicts from kings or popes to tell them how to run their lives and govern themselves. It also established the idea of natural rights for all people which led to the abolition of slavery. This was also a revolt against the "Divine Right of Kings" which, before that time, was supported by the church.

So, again, I don't understand if you are arguing that Christianity has not changed in its 2000 year existence, or not. I think that it certainly has, and that some of those changes came during the Enlightenment.

Chuck
"Ah, now you're making a distinction.

Christians, perhaps, yes, but Christianity?"

That's why I joked about you being "right to a degree."

MikeH
"I don't find the Enlightenment to be in direct opposition with Christianity. Many, if not most, Enlightenment thinkers were Christian or came from a Christian background."

Mike, I see the confusion, I think. And it's understandable.

Given that even many Christians regard Christianity as a cultural thing it's not hard to see where you would not see the clash of ideas. But the Enlightenment is the idea that man, using unaided reason can effectively govern his existence, writ large and codified into cultural norms.

That directly contradicts and is hostile to the basis of the Biblical message.

MikeH
"As guess your right to a certain degree. It seems some Christians got nothing from the Enlightenment."

Ah, now you're making a distinction.

Christians, perhaps, yes, but Christianity?

Not a bit of it.

Chuck
We can certainly move on if you wish. I actually don't know why you're fighting this so much. I don't find the Enlightenment to be in direct opposition with Christianity. Many, if not most, Enlightenment thinkers were Christian or came from a Christian background. But I don't know how anyone can argue that Christianity was the same before and after the Enlightenment.

Chuck, maybe you're right
During our discussion, I was reminded of something that was in the news a few years back.

"Southern Slavery As It Was", by Steve Wilkins &
Douglas Wilson.

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_sl avery_as_it_was.htm

As guess your right to a certain degree. It seems some Christians got nothing from the Enlightenment.

MikeH
OK, I'll concede.

It is because of Jean Jacques Rosseau, et al that we no longer have slavery in the West.

Happy?

Now, can we get back to the point?

MikeH
*SIGH*

Chuck
"Imagine some future scenario in which man has truly become enlightened and now wonders why, in 20th century America, Christianity supported and turned a blind eye to abortion."

That analogy fails in two ways. One, no one that I know of is for abortion. There are those that want it to remain legal and those that want it to be illegal, but no one in either camp argues that it is a good thing that people have abortions. Second, I don't know of any writings that use Christianity as a basis for keeping abortion legal.

MikeH
Concerning your "evidence":

Think of it this way:

Imagine some future scenario in which man has truly become enlightened and now wonders why, in 20th century America, Christianity supported and turned a blind eye to abortion.


Donjindra
"Christianity imposes no moral restraints"

There's the problem.

An unfamiliarity with the subject of the controversy will invariably lead to drawing wrong conclusions.

Chuck
"Don't think of it as "ignoring" your evidence; just think of it as waiting for some real evidence that you know what you're talking about."

Perhaps you could help me by pointing out how my evidence wasn't sufficient. Or, you could offer some evidence for the claims that you have made.

MikeH
Don't think of it as "ignoring" your evidence; just think of it as waiting for some real evidence that you know what you're talking about.

Donjindra
"But the cultural changes swamped it and overpowered it."

That I will agree with you on, although strictly along cultural lines. The overpowering has taken nearly two hundred years to accomplish and is almost complete.

As recently as 1965, for example, in New York City (NEW YORK CITY!) the only legal basis for divorce was on the grounds of adultery, hardly an enlightenment idea.

Donjindra
I have stated from the beginning that the Enlightenment arose out of a Christian millieu. I would go so far as to say that it was the only philosophical environment of the time which would have allowed it to arise. What I do not agree with you on is that Christianity gained anything from it.

Again, since you claim that Christianity absorbed values from the enlightenment, I would like you to explain which ones they are.

Donjindra
Thank you for making my point that the "enlightenment" is the illegitimate offspring of Christianity, apart from which we would be praying to Mecca today.

Chuck -- additionally
“if, as you say, the Enlightenment sprang out of exposure to ancient Greek philosophy …then it is a retrograde philosophy”

That’s philosophy. It’s a dead end. But all philosophy since Athens has wrestled with Plato, Aristotle and other Greeks. The mental discipline that the serious thinking Greeks inspired, and the Catholic Church eventually kept alive and nourished, led to the Enlightenment. Its one great offspring was science, an unruly, abandoned child that accomplished far more than its parents ever could. That was the enlightened way, not Christianity which was perfectly happy discussing theology in the dead of night.

“the Enlightenment (the name itself is evidence of its hubris) has its roots in the same impulse as we see coming from the intellectual elites who control so many of the areas of information dissemination in the West today and that is an attempt to provide an alternative metanarrative that will not impose upon them the moral constraints that Christianity imposes.”

Christianity imposes no moral restraints – that’s been made abundantly clear for 2000 years. But your insinuation confirms what I stated above. Christians are unhappy with the Enlightenment. It would have never happened if Christians had any control over it. But the cultural changes swamped it and overpowered it.



Chuck
"Name one value Christianity needed the Enlightenment for?"

Christianity didn't *need* any value. It adapted to local conditions. It's always done that and continues to do so. One of the first big changes was its stance on usury. As capitalism took off, Christians suddenly discovered usury wasn't so sinful after all.

There are some very important events that helped cause the Enlightenment: invention of the printing press, discovery of the New World and the commerce it triggered, Luther's breakup of the Catholic monopoly which led to a "free" market in religion.

we are because God is
And God is because we are, but in todays Politics faith is some how wrong, I think not

The dictator state has one great advantage over reason: along with the individual it swallows up his religious forces.
The State takes the place of God; that is why, seen from this angle, the socialist dictatorships are religions and State slavery is a form of worship.
But the religious function cannot be dislocated and falsified in this way without giving rise to secret doubts, which are immediately repressed so as to avoid conflict with the prevailing trend towards mass-mindedness.
The result, as always in such cases, is overcompensation in the form of fanaticism, which in its turn is used as a weapon for stamping out the least flicker of opposition.
Free opinion is stifled and moral decision ruthlessly suppressed, on the plea that the end justifies the means, even the vilest.
The policy of the State is exalted to a creed, the leader or party boss becomes a demigod beyond good and evil, and his votaries are honored as heroes, martyrs, apostles, missionaries.
There is only one truth and beside it no other. It is sacrosanct and above criticism. Anyone who thinks differently is a heretic, who, as we know from history, is threatened with all manner of unpleasant things.
Only the party boss, who holds the political power in his hands, can interpret the State doctrine authentically, and he does so just as suits him.
C.G. Jung from the late 50’s

Peggy
"Can't be done - by me or others. And, totallhy unnecessary."

Okay, so...no one can show whether or not something exists. And you find it reasonable to believe in something, not because it has been shown to exist, but because it hasn't been shown not to exist? Is this the wisdom you claim I lack?

Chuck
"Very weak."

What a surprise! Chuck rejects evidence that doesn't conform to his preconceived beliefs.

"So, in the world you inhabit, prior to 1790 France and Germany, the idea So, in the world you inhabit, prior to 1790 France and Germany, the idea that man is a sovereign being with rights descended from God was a foreign concept? was a foreign concept?"

I assume that he didn't even read my post and any of the evidence that I presented, or he has the reading comprehension of a two year old. I can point to numerous parts of my last post that show that I don't believe what he claims I do.

I will say that the prevailing concept in much of Europe during the Middle Ages was not "that man is a sovereign being with rights descended from God", but the Divine Right of Kings, an idea supported by the Catholic Church.

http://www.answers.com/topic/divine-right-of-kings

Oops. I just offered more evidence.

WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT
SEEMS TO ME ALOT OF PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO GET IN THIS COUNTRY;WHY? BECAUSE WE HAVE FREEDOM AND NOT UNDER A DICTATOR.
WE HAVE THIS FREEDOM TODAY,BECAUSE MEN AND WOMEN HAVE DIED FOR THIS COUNTRY SO THAT THE NEXT GENERATION WOULD HAVE THE SAME.THIS SOCIETY HAS SAID WE DON'T NEED GOD,BY REMOVING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS FROM COURT HOUSES AND SCHOOLS.
BIBLES ALSO WERE DONE AWAY WITH ALONG WITH PRAYER AND NOW EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO FIGURE WHAT WENT WRONG,AS SOCIETY IS ON A FAST TRACK OF SELF DESTRUCTION.
JAILS AND PRISONS ARE FULL;CRIMES OF ALL SORTS ARE BEING COMMITTED AND SOCIETY HAS TIED THE HANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.GIVING THE CRIMINAL RIGHTS AND THE VICTIM INJUSTICE.
DRUGS,PORN,RAPE,KILLING,
CORRUPTION RULE THE DAY NOW WITH NO END IN SIGHT.
TO TOP THAT,THE NEW ADMINISTRATION COMING IN IS GOING TO FINISH THE JOB OF THE DOWN HILL SLIDE.
BUT THERE IS ONE HOPE THAT WE HAVE AND THATS BY RETURNING TO THE OLD PATHS.READ 2 CHRONICLES 7:14 KJV.

MikeH
Can't be done - by me or others. And, totallhy unnecessary.

MikeH
Very weak.

So, in the world you inhabit, prior to 1790 France and Germany, the idea that man is a sovereign being with rights descended from God was a foreign concept?

Please. Only in a modern Western humanist's imagination.

------


"I have come in my Father's name and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, him you will recieve."

Jesus

Peggy
"Because one is unable to "see" or "hear" spiritually does not mean spirituality does not exist."

Oh, Peggy of great wisdom, please tell me how YOU show that something doesn't exist.

Chuck
Where did Locke and those of his time get those ideals? Why was the intellectual temperament of the time such that such pronouncements would have been recognized a priori as valid enunciations of higher reality? Where did Western Civilization get such an idea?

Are you trying to assert that prior to Locke, most people would have been unfamiliar with these concepts and needed him to enlighten them?

No. These ideals can be found in ancient Greek writings, early Islamic law, and in writings from the Protestant Reformation. They gained a new prominence during the 18th century with people opposing the notion of the "divine right of kings."

"As for your implicating Christianity in the promotion of slavery and the crediting of Enlightenment philosophes as the source of abolition, I would like to see direct causality for both."

I'm not sure what evidence you want. Here are some Christian writings defending slavery:

http://www.archive.org/stream/abolitionsedition00colt
Here you can read the whole book by clergyman Calvin Colton

James Hammonds "Letter to an English Abolitionist" also presents a Christian defense of slavery.

You might also want to look up the "curse of Ham."

As for the Enlightment philosophies as the source of abolition again, I can only offer you abolitionist writings with references to Elightenment ideals.

"L’Histoire des deux Indes" by Guillaume-Thomas Raynal (Jefferson even owned a copy)

http://afgen.com/slavery2.html
The consitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society. Here you can see the Christian adoption of "life, liberty, and th epursuit of happiness" (Jefferson's rewording of Locke's sentence). I think this clearly shows Christianity taking that value from the Enlightenment.

I will also point out the timeline that abolition came not after Christianity was founded, but rose up during the period which we now call the Enlightenment.

MikeH, Cia
so much education, so little wisdom. Quoting Dawkins on religion is a knee-slapper. Because one is unable to "see" or "hear" spiritually does not mean spirituality does not exist. Faith in God is a gift. Some receive it. Some do not. Life, too, is a gift. I personally regard the life to have been given to the fetus, not to the mother. If this same mother allowed the child to be born but at some later birthday took the child's gifts away she would be called at least a thief. If she takes away the life you may (think, feel, whatever liberals or progressives are doing these days) believe it is not my business. You, IMO, would be wrong. That child is my brother or sister and that you want to kill them hurts anyone with a heart of flesh and blood. Yours, I believe would be made of stone. Christians (of which Catholics are - research it) are called to be light and salt; that is, to call attention to the society things that ought be changed if life is to improve. Believe me, not being concerned would be easier. It's not a matter of wanting to butt in, but I've been told to love you even if I hate what you do. I am more loving if I speak truth to you than if I tell you to go ahead - what you do is your business alone. Perhaps you haven't noticed how course society has grown in the years since 1973. You may want to believe it is caused by one side of this issue. Again you would be wrong. We are not born into perfection but the Lord gives us time to grow in faith, hope and love. Blessed be the name of the Lord.

MikeH
Where did Locke and those of his time get those ideals? Why was the intellectual temperament of the time such that such pronouncements would have been recognized a priori as valid enunciations of higher reality? Where did Western Civilization get such an idea?

Are you trying to assert that prior to Locke, most people would have been unfamiliar with these concepts and needed him to enlighten them?

As for your implicating Christianity in the promotion of slavery and the crediting of Enlightenment philosophes as the source of abolition, I would like to see direct causality for both.



Chuck
"That is an application of values, not a value."

Fair enough. The value would then be that all men have natural rights put for by John Locke as " life, liberty, and estate."

"Considering that it was Christians, and devout ones at that, in the forefront of the movement, it is an exercise in historical revisionism to claim that as an outgrowth of enlightenment mentality."

Some Christians supported abolition, for sure, but many opposed it. However, if it did not come from Enlightenment ideals why did Christianity support or turn a blind eye to slavery for so long? Why was it only after the Enlightenment that Christianity began to favor abolition?

MikeH
That is an application of values, not a value.

Considering that it was Christians, and devout ones at that, in the forefront of the movement, it is an exercise in historical revisionism to claim that as an outgrowth of enlightenment mentality.

Chuck
"Name one value Christianity needed the Enlightenment for?"

The abolition of slavery.

So Much TRUTH in very few words

“Secular humanism is the delusional drug for the "intellectual elites" who cannot abide religious moral codes which dare to question their shallow lives. “
Brian'61 Jan 16, 2009 - 5:05 PM EST

It's Delusional Donjindra and her little band of Atheists, along with some guy, who thinks he's a Vampire

VS

Brian 61 and the “Believers.”
( Brian 61 is the one with the slingshot)


BTW... “Shallow Lives” are those spent amusing yourself while waiting to die, while well spent lives are those seeking to help others avoid self-destructive behavior, so that we all can make "Progress".

That's why liberals are like pigeons and Conservatives are like Eagles. Unfortunately Eagles don't flock together, but they sure how to deal with a PIGEON ("Plump Bird with a small head")!

Donjindra
Additionally, if, as you say, the Enlightenment sprang out of exposure to ancient Greek philosophy (a claim I disagree with, but that's another story) then it is a retrograde philosophy and not an indication of intellectual, moral, or social progress, as those ancient Greek philosophies had previously given way to the new and more enlightened Way introduced by Christianity.

No, the Enlightenment (the name itself is evidence of its hubris) has its roots in the same impulse as we see coming from the intellectual elites who control so many of the areas of information dissemination in the West today and that is an attempt to provide an alternative metanarrative that will not impose upon them the moral constraints that Christianity imposes.

Those are the facts and all of the cultural indicators support this analysis.

Vampire: Another Ignorant
Vampire’s Reflection writes:

“The first constitution was not Connecticut, it was Massachusetts. That Constitution was written John Adams.”

Wrong, Connecticut was the first constitution written in America. It is called the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. It was on January 14, 1639. All historians recognize it as the world’s first written constitution, was adopted at Hartford by the colonists.

Before Massachusetts had its constitution, New Hampshire and Rhode Islands had already charters approved by their inhabitants, which they used them until the end of the 19th century.

Listen “Vampire,” the wording of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, article I, is based on the biblical concept that all men are equal whose rights are not given by the state. Religious toleration was invoked in the bill. The Founders read mainly Locke, Blackstone, Montesquieu. Cicero was at the bottom of the list.

“We are a Roman nation.”
Yes sure, and Obama is the Emperor. America takes its republican structure from the Romans in part. That does not mean we a Roman nation. According to your defective logic, you admitted that America is a Christian nation.

“But don't believe me.” I can assure you, I do not believe you at all.

“At no point did Adams state the constitution was based upon principles governance espoused by the Bible. Greeks and Romans, yes. The Bible, no.”

Adams was one among two hundred Founders Fathers who expressly asserted that religious principles, and Christianity in particular played a important in the making of the Constitution. In order to make a claim that only Greek and Roman influence is the foundation of the Constitution, you will need to read what other Founders wrote. Revisionists desperately try to re-write our history.

The Constitution was based on state constitutions. Did you read the state constitution? Go and read them and you will see biblical principles, neither Roman nor Greek principles.

Remember that I hate vampires.



Donjindra
Nonsense. That's the secularists' wet dream. But it's only a dream.

Don't confuse Roman Catholicism with Christianity.

Name one value Christianity needed the Enlightenment for?

Chuck
"You have that exactly backwards. Most, if not all, of the Enlightenment philosphes had been reared and conditoned in the philosophical atmosphere of a Christian paradigm."

No, Cia has it right. Christianity adapted with the Enlightenment which sprang out of an exposure to ancient Greek philosophy.

Simply Amazing
that an article such as this would bring forth so many tid-bits as fact, or create a relivance for an argument against the concept of Good Moral Clarity. The one side is "morals be damned, we will live as we want to and make you do the same by imposing our will by laws,coerision, villification, and out right distortion and lies if we have to" While the opposing side brings forth a rather clear and concise, even gentle suplication of a peaceful life for all following a standard moral direction. It is too easy for man to live wantonly in his own desires for the self only; but a truly difficult life of following a moral compass, even with human faults and fraility, brings forth a caring and Love for others; without imposing, but by being an example of a moral direction at peace internally. Too difficult for some, but easy for those who surrender self will to a direction that takes man to his ultimate desire. Pure Love

Cia
"Most of the benefits you're attributing to Christianity were values they absorbed from Enlightenment philosophers"

You have that exactly backwards. Most, if not all, of the Enlightenment philosphes had been reared and conditoned in the philosophical atmosphere of a Christian paradigm.

It is more accurate to call the Enlightenment Christianity's illegitimate offspring.

Anominus
"Backpedaling is simply the method of preservation an evolutionist takes whenever..."

Whatever. I've presented you with Dawkins on words in both radio and print. (I believe the radio interview was done before the Expelled interview, so I don't know how he could be "backpedaling")

Here's the thing, though. It doesn't matter what Dawkins believes. He could believe in aliens or the tooth fairy or a monotheistic god, and it would have no bearing on whether his arguments are correct. This whole discussion started as an ad hominem attack by Brain'61 to avoid actually addressing Cia's point that "there's very good evidence, summarized well by Richard Dawkins that demonstrates a genetic basis for morality, inherited from our ancestors, not from a god."

Just out of curiosity, what are some "evolutionist beliefs" that you think are flawed?

Daft
Your revolution (the Communist one) has debased man far lower than any other, so get a grip on your own human instinct and stop pretending you’re somehow more evolved.

Be human
Put quiet plainly, no matter what the Godless think God is instinctive to man, where would the world be without God to check his aggressive nature, one only need look at the murder caused by the Godless, Stalin, moa and Pol pot, the most notable in recent history.

Fact: the godless want things both ways, they want to believe their just animals like all the rest, but in so saying they are animals they deny their God give instinct to have faith.

Brian'61
"But I would add that secular humanism is the delusional drug for the 'intellectual elites' who cannot abide religious moral codes which dare to question their shallow lives."

How do you know they have shallow lives? How do you know they abide by religious moral codes any less than you do? Are you God or do you just like pretending?

Matthew #11
Great post in response to Jacka$$, or maybe he's just the jaw of one

Brian'61
I understand fully. I'm very familiar with the founding fathers' beliefs about the value of religion in the culture. But this is much different than their opinions on the value of religion as imposed by the government or as part of it. Christians lately are the ones confused about the two and somehow believe they are the same.

Times change
Who cares what the founders think?

Each generation is responsible for deciding the kind of government they wish to have.

If that means ejecting the Christian tradition once and for all, let's do it.

See you at the voting booth.

re: Manuel
Delusional much?

The first constitution was not Conneticut, it was Massachusetts. That Constitution was written John Adams.

You can read all about it in the latest Adams biography.

And who did Adams cite as his muse for the constitution of Massachusetts for which the US consitution is derived?

Who? Who?

That's right. Cicero. A cynical Roman.

We are a Roman nation. The entire system of checks an balances is based on the concepts that Cicero put forth. Namely, democracy should not be founded on the naive notion that men should be expected to only act for the welfare of the people. The "check" in "check" in balances is the check on man's proclivities to act in his own self interest. The three branches are supposed to check the self-interest of the men of the other branches.

But don't believe me. Adams said so in his own words. At no point did Adams state the constitution was based upon principles governance espoused by the Bible. Greeks and Romans, yes. The Bible, no.

Ooops.




Why is this so hard for you
to understand Donjindra? The founding fathers did not want a national religion. They did not want any single religion to predominate over the others. They did not want an official religion. Have I stated it sufficient clarity? But WITHOUT QUESTION they believed that our nation and government would not prevail in the absence of a religious people. Read George Washington's farewell address. Read John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Why is this so? Because there is no government big enough, no library of law books large enough, no Supreme Court "active" enough to adequately govern a nation which refuses to practice self-control. And, according to Jefferson, the philosophy of Jesus is the best code of conduct ever given to men.

Manuel
"These are just a minimum slice of fraction of the thousand of documents that demonstrate the prominent influence of Christianity in the early development of civil government in America."

Now flip through the Federalist Papers and tell us how many biblical references you find.

Dawkins
Cia: Dawkins has no idea what he "believes." Everyone has a degree of belief, and while it may be difficult to put a number on it, one would think that an avowed atheist, such as Dawkins, would be 100% in his disbelief in God. Instead, he attempts to dance around the question. Why?

MikeH: Backpedaling is simply the method of preservation an evolutionist takes whenever their belief is shown to be flawed. There is no reason to believe that at the time of the interview, Richard Dawkins did not mean what he said. Just because he denies it afterwards, no doubt because of the uproar the movie created, it does not change what he said. I expect he was put on the spot in the original interview, stated what he believed, and then had to explain it away when people started talking about it.

The Historical Evidence
In the case of Holy Trinity v. U. S. 143 U. S. 457, 465, 470-471 (1892) the court described America as a “Christian Nation.” It explained as follows:

“This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation…these are not individual sayings, declarations or private person; they are organic utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people…these and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”

According to the court, it was the “organic utterances” which proved that America was a “Christian” nation. What are these “Organic utterances”? these are bulk of historical documents and previous legal rulings which comprise what is called the “Common law.”

Based on this huge amount of historical and judicial documents that the court prompted to declare that this is a “Christian nation.”

The court began citing Christopher Columbus. The Pilgrims and Puritans were next in the legal argument.

Both groups of Christians came to spread the gospel for the glory of God.

The charters of the first colonies are factual testimonies that the first Americans understood that a good government must be based on the principles of the Christian faith and the recognition of God.

Connecticut was the first colony that created the precursor of our current federal Constitution.

In 1669, John Locke assisted in the drafting of the Carolina constitution under which no man could be a citizen unless he acknowledged God, was a member of a church, and used no reproachful, reviling, or abusive language against religion. (A collection of Several Pieces of Mr. John Locke., 1720. Pp. 41, 45, 46)

These are just a minimum slice of fraction of the thousand of documents that demonstrate the prominent influence of Christianity in the early development of civil government in America.

Anominus
"He will accept any possibility, including the "seeding" theory, but he absolutely rejects the possibility of the existence of God, even though he is unwilling to "put a number on it." What a great "scientist" he is! HAH!"

I'm not sure what you think that you are proving with the clip from Expelled. It certainly doesn't show what you claim. Though Dawkins doesn't want to put a number on the impossibility of the existence of God, he never claims it to be totally impossible. Nor does he "accept" or "believe" in life being seeded here by aliens. Here is an article by Dawkins on the movie which contains his view of that interview.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Rich ard-Dawkins

Anominus
Dawkins has a pretty good idea of what he believes. His best guess is that there is probably no god. Your best guess is that there is one. Since we're talking about beliefs here, it's not like you can calculate an objective percentage certainty in someone's belief.


MikeH & Cia
Richard Dawkins is willing to believe in anything, so long as it does not involve God.

http://www.youtube.com/watchv=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=related

He will accept any possibility, including the "seeding" theory, but he absolutely rejects the possibility of the existence of God, even though he is unwilling to "put a number on it." What a great "scientist" he is! HAH!

Outside In
The reason for Jew hatred is the composition of the Human Being. Mother Nature designed people to be territorial and hate all those that encroach on their territory.The Jew is seen as an outsider and therefore hated. The holocaust is a recent example of how outsiders are treated. The perfect world is one where the territorial imperative is curtailed. Since that is impossible outsiders have no choice but to try to be insiders.



Cia and Brian'61
"Is that the same Richard Dawkins who thinks human life may have been transported to earth by higher ET beings"

Richard Dawkins does not believe that life was seeded by aliens.

Here are his own words concerning the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNu8F01BD9k

Brian'61
Dawkins has never espoused the "seeding" of life on this planet by other intelligent beings, as far as I know. I haven't read all of his works, but the topic has never been discussed as anything more than a small possibility.

Thank you Alan Sears
And God bless Father Neuhaus. What a wise and noble man.

The battle does indeed go on. We The People are faced with (1) surrendering this nation to its enemies (both within and outside) or (2) fight to restore our lost nation.

I choose the latter.

Fight on!

Brian'61
I never said that the Enlightenment philosophers made up their ideas out of the void, but their writings were often at odds with the established churches of their day. Baruch Spinoza received treatment equivalent to excommunication from his religion for suggesting that God might not be personal.

What they did do, though, was revive interest in, and advance, older Greek and Roman ideas that had been buried or ignored by the Church in the years after Constantine.

Cia - Dawkins
Is that the same Richard Dawkins who thinks human life may have been transported to earth by higher ET beings - because it is completely impossible to rationally explain how life could begin on earth sua sponte? (Irrational explanations abound . . .)

And, by the way, at least according to Biblical history, God predated Hamurabi by a long, long period of time. Marx derisively stated that religion is the opium of the masses (he was peeved that religion opposed his ideas for a worker's paradise). But I would add that secular humanism is the delusional drug for the "intellectual elites" who cannot abide religious moral codes which dare to question their shallow lives.

Brian'61
The most basic moral code that anyone will cite in Christianity is the Ten Commandments, which was novel neither to Judaism, nor Christianity. That code of laws is based on another, older code, attributed to Hammurabi in Mesopotamia. The Judeo-Christian legal tradition borrows heavily from other civilizations that predated or coincided with the early Israelites. Much of the mythology of both religions owe their origins to Mesopotamian thinkers, priests, and writers.

As for atheists and philosophy, there's very good evidence, summarized well by Richard Dawkins that demonstrates a genetic basis for morality, inherited from our ancestors, not from a god.



Some canards just won't die
Sears says, "And, by the same token, the steady erosion of religious liberties by leftist organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union..."

The ACLU fights for the religious liberties of everyone including Christians

eddie too
"One of the more interesting tactics of the left is their deliberate attempt to confuse the simple-minded.

For example, for a person to oppose abortion is the inflicting of their morality on others.

However, for a person to hold the opposite view is unrelated to inflicting their morality on others.

Same subject, opposite view, one is inflicting the other is not.

This is what passes for the use of reason on the left."

No, eddie, what you've given us is what passes for reason on the right. Let's see if I can make this clear this so as not to "confuse the simple minded."

One side wants to prevent women from being allowed to make the choice as whether to have a abortion or not. They base this decision on their beliefs and want others to abide by it.

The other side wants to keep abortion legal so that the decision to have one or not is made by the woman. It then becomes the choice of the women based on her beliefs and not anyone else's.

So you see, the first group wants to force their beliefs onto people while the second wants individuals to be allowed to make these choices based on their own beliefs.

I hope that wasn't too confusing. :-)

Was Madison against Christianity?
When investigating Madison we discover that Madison is more difficult than Jefferson position of religion. The reason is because Madison’s early actions were in direct contradiction with his later opinions.

First, Madison was publicly outspoken about his personal Christian belief and convictions. For example, he encouraged his friend Bradford, to make sure of his own spiritual salvation:

“A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.” (Madison Letters, Vol. I., pp 5-6, Nov. 9, 1772)

Madison declared even desired that all public officials would declare openly and publicly their Christian beliefs and testimony.

Second, Madison was a member of the committee, which authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that:

“It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other” (The proceedings of the convention of delegates held on May 6, 1776. P.103)

In 1789, Madison served on the congressional committee, which authorized, approved, and selected paid congressional chaplains. In 1812, Madison signed a federal bill, which economically aided a Bible society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.

Furthermore, during his entire presidency (1809-1816) Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.

Later on life, he reversed some previous positions by avoiding discussions of his religious views. But in no way he rejected Christianity. Also, Madison was in disagreements with many important Founding Fathers Washington, Marshall, Henry Lee, and others. Remember that they were more than two hundred Founding Fathers, Madison was one of them.

Cia, no way no how
The notion that the enlightenment thinkers came up with their ideas ex nihilo is a complete delusion. It is also amusing to us who believe that God is the source of truth and light. Thus, He was the source of their enLIGHTenment, and not the sincere practice of naval gazing.

Cia, not so fast
I agree with Dennis Prager that the Jews were the first to give us ethical monotheism, and I believe that Christians improved on this model. It goes something like this: A just and caring God gives us guidance to help us achieve greater individual happiness (but not endless bliss) and greater societal harmony. But He does not force us to be good; the choice is ours. Can you name any Greek, Roman, Assyrian, Babylonian, or Neanderthal philosophers who gave us a moral code anywhere near comparable to Christianity? Or how about some great atheist thinkers - what lasting moral systems did they create? Your argument that humans would have figured out a strong and lasting moral code even in the absence of revelation from God is belied by thousands of years of recorded history.

Read the Madison quote again
"...and such only..."

Brian'61
Most of the benefits you're attributing to Christianity were values they absorbed from Enlightenment philosophers. Many of the things we think of today as cornerstones of Christian morality don't actually have any basis in the history of the religion.

John Cornyn and Shelia Jackson-Lee
Will somebody in Washington do me a favor explain the freedom of religion clause to United States Senator John Cornyn and now the impossible part explain it also to United States
representative Congresswoman Shelia Jackson-Lee.
More than likely next week will be a bad time, the consumption of alcohol will be heavy. This is an essential part of the Bill of Rights.

Manuel
"The above is just one of thousand of examples that demonstrate and prove that the Founders took seriously the role of religion, and Christianity in the society."

Society, yes. Government, no. Big difference.

None
You'll note I never said anything about a nativity scene, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. If people want to put up Christmas decorations, I have no problem with it.

You'll also note I said nothing about prayer. You're assuming an awful lot that just isn't true.

As for morality, there are plenty of moral people who aren't religious. The world is full of people who give lip service to religion, but don't know anything about their scriptures or the origins of their beliefs.

Morality need not be based on religion for people to realize that no one wants to be killed, stolen from, hurt, or interfered with by other people. What I have a problem with is using religious beliefs to try to control the behavior of others in a way that isn't your business.

skywalker81
Yes, I'm very familiar with "neocon" and Neuhaus. His FIRST THINGS is generally considered to be a catholic/neocon front, even though in the strictest sense a neocon is atheistic.

none
I thought conservatives understood that force comes in when it started being done with government money or people working for the government. Odd that that lose that incite when it comes to the things they want everyone to support.

Did the Founders repudiated Religion
Did the founders truly repudiate religion? Only the original sources will reveal the truth about what the Founders thought about religion in society.

For example the revisionists, those who deny categorically that the Founders were Christians and deeply religious, like to cite John Adams who said, “this would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion.” This quote is taken from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817, in which Adams illustrated the intolerance often manifested between Christians in their denominational disputes.

Lamenting these types of petty disputes, Adams declared to Jefferson:

“Twenty time in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!’ But in this examination I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.” (The works of John Adams, Second President of The United States, Vol. X, p. 254 to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817)

The evidence speaks for itself, Adams believed that it would be fanatical to desire a world without religion, for such a world would be “hell.”

What do you think Jefferson reply? He agreed. (Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson Vol. IV, p 301 to John Adams on May 5, 1817)

Now imagine if Adams and Jefferson would express their sincere and true ideas about religion today in 2008? Yes, the communist group ACLU and anti-Christian Barry Lynn would threaten to sue them if they continue “violating” the unconstitutional phrase “separation of Church and State.”

The above is just one of thousand of examples that demonstrate and prove that the Founders took seriously the role of religion, and Christianity in the society. That is why freedom flourished in America.

Freedom to Choose
Why is it, that whenever conservatives talk about promoting Judeo-Christian morality, liberals always whine about "forcing religion" upon them. This broken record is driving me crazy.

Here is how it works - according to Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Webster, Madison, and many others. We have the freedom to choose. If, on the one hand, we choose to voluntarily adhere to the tenets of Christianity, then we all benefit from stronger marriages and families, greater respect for living things, more honesty and integrity in private and public life, more charity towards all, greater humility, etc. Christianity actually works - as Jefferson stated: "The philosophy of Jesus is the most sublime and benevolent code of morals ever offered to man."

In, on the other hand, we choose to voluntarily pursue secular humanism, materialism, narcissism and existentialism, then we get things like 70% illegitimacy rates and welfare states, broken families, physical and emotional abuse, STDs, drug and alcohol abuse, rampant porn, increased crime, ENRON, Bernie Madoff, etc.

Do all Christians avoid temptations and error? Absolutely not. The hypocrisy label is often well-deserved. But this does not justify throwing out the baby with the bathwater. An essential teaching of Christianity is repentance. Getting back up after you fall. Staring anew. Recommitting to a better life. Secular humanism does not.

forcing religion
Cia: Really now, when was the last time someone forced religion on you and how did they do it?? Is Christians demonstrating their celebration of Christmas with a nativity scene "forcing" religion on you? How about a silent prayer? No, it is your side who wants Christians to be forced into not being able to practice their religion. You are the intolerant ones. But I do not hear you complaining about Muslims practicing their religion in this country. Secondly, where has the practice of creating a non-religious society gotten us, let's see: rising teenage pregnancies, anywhere from 30-70% illegitimacy rates, skyrocketing dropout rates, drug use, promescuity, a welfare industry that robs people of independence, ah, the list goes on. Examine secular societies like Cuba, N.Korea, China hell France and UK and look at the troubles that secularism provides. You and your lib friends may disagree with this but without religion there would be no morality since man-made morality is subject to relativism, and think of a society with no morals or laws...

Hmm,thought everyone knew "neocon" means
...THE JOOOOOOOOOS MAN!!! Just ask oli stoner, he'll tell ya. Oh and, he also believes that palestinians are justified in blowing themselves up while surrounded by evil Jewish preschoolers. Of course that goes for most people who use that code word.

Hmm, I say again, hmm.

Well said............

"that the killing of innocents by the purveyors of abortion and the willful destruction of marriage and families by advocates of the homosexual agenda are both inherently fatal to religious freedom in America."




What you guys (like eddie) don't get:
You guys don't seem to understand the fundamental idea of freedom that our country is based on. Freedom means people may choose their own way and don't need your blessing to do it. Just because someone else's actions disagree with your morals, it doesn't give you the right to try to strip their rights away.

It gets even more dangerous when you try to mask this behavior with terms like "freedom of religion." The basis of freedom is the understanding that people can and will do things you don't approve of. The price of your freedom is understanding and defending the freedoms of others to do things you disagree with.

Tammy
That's wierd. Abortion's not in the Bible? I kept thinking there was something in the Bible about Thou shalt not kill. Hmm...could've sworn it was in there somewhere...

The Real Irony
More death and destruction has been done at the hand of atheism than has ever been done by Christians. And the scary thing is, while when Christians did those things they did so against thier core belives, while when atheism destroyed 40 million people in the last century they did so from the logical outworking of thier beliefs. It is the "practice of our religion" to engage in this debate and try defend those who cannot defend themselves. What about the rights of unborn humans? It is the "practice' of our religion to express our belives. There is no such thing as a private Christianity.

Sears
When I opened up this column based on the title
I knew without a shadow of a doubt that sooner
or later it was going to be all about Roe vs. Wade. As if the abortion issue defines the end all and be all of Christianity (although it is never mentioned in the Bible) and as if also the
sanctity of life is defined by your stance on
Roe vs. Wade.

The fight for liberty is not (pure and simple)
the fight for life, in any of its nuances.

Both liberty and life have meaning if they are
used well. You can fight for liberty and
lose your life. You can fight for your life
and lose your liberty. This has been the
story of civilization. And it isn't going to
stop until the end of time. The way to spend
your life and your liberty (if you have it)
is to care for the quality of life and for the
souls of those who are among the living.
To be Christ-like.

Stop preaching and start caring. Don't read the law to us. Show us that you really care
about people. Make us believe that you
really do care.

Jack
Care to compare how many people in history have been killed as a direct result of Judeo-Christian teachings vs. atheistic governments like the USSR, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, etc?

Even better, let's compare the number killed specifically at the commandment of God, vs the atheist regimes. God is pro-life, He's just not a pacifist. He understands that sometimes it is necessary to destroy an evil society in order to allow a better society to have freedom. If killing a murderer saves the lives of ten people, you can be in favor of killing the murderer and still be pro-life.

Skywalker81
Neoconservatism is a philosophy that emerged from liberals in the 50s and 60s in response to what they considered was the radicalization and anti-American sentiments of the liberal movement. Neocons tended to support government involvement in the economy, but also supported a strong foreign policy which supported loosely defined national interests. William Kristol's father was one of the earliest people to claim the title, and so anything William Kristol supports is now automatically considered to be neocon.

David Horowitz has said this:
"Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no 'neo-conservative' movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today 'neo-conservatism' identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists."

There is a long article on this subject at wikipedia (not a site to be taken at face value, but a good resource for finding sources).
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

One of the more interesting tactics

of the left is their deliberate attempt to confuse the simple-minded.

For example, for a person to oppose abortion is the inflicting of their morality on others.

However, for a person to hold the opposite view is unrelated to inflicting their morality on others.

Same subject, opposite view, one is inflicting the other is not.

This is what passes for the use of reason on the left.

Pro-life and Religion?
How can the pro-life movement go hand in hand with religion when religion is responsible for so much death and destruction over the years? Just look at the bible, particularly the story of Exodus where god murders the first born in Egypt. I think that's a pretty clear indicator that god isn't pro-life and isn't the best one to invoke if you're against abortion. It's okay to be pro-life, but not when it involves sticking your noses in other people's personal business. And getting the state involved in a woman's reproductive decisions is taking it a step too far from what the founding fathers intended when they sought to create a limited government that would not infringe on the rights of the people.

Author doesn't understand "freedom"
Mr. Sears seems to think that writing his own personal morality into law is what constitutes freedom. Freedom of religion has to do with its *practice*, as in your personal practice of it, not forcing your own personal view of morality on others.

Whether gay people get married has nothing to do with your freedom. Whether a woman has a legal abortion has nothing to do with your freedom. These people are seeking or exercising their freedoms. The author's argument is little more than the same old fundamentalist bullying wrapped in friendlier terminology. Only this time, the terminology doesn't even fit.

skywalker81
I believe the term "neocon" comes originally from Irving Krystal (Bill's father) to describe himself and some fellow thinkers who had gone from considering themselves liberals to considering themselves to be a new kind of conservatives.

Teh term is generally used to broadly.

selective reading
Sears seems to be ignoring one of the clauses in that quote from Madison, namely the "and such only". Madison is clearly pusing the individual nature of religious belief and the importance of keeping the government out of it. (That is why it is curious that Sears seems something interesting in this coming from Madison as the writer of the 1st Amendment).

I suspect Madison would be rather taken aback to see his comment taken as a defense of government led prayer. Madison was opposed to the idea of a Congressional Chaplain.

Where the heck did the term Neocon
come from? What the heck does it really mean? I see it thrown about by every semi-leftist to full bore uberleftist that posts here. Do you really know what it means and who it really should be applied to?
I see no ideological manipulation from the article, only expressed ideals and philosophies. Sears never says that taxes should be used to fund religious expansion, only the link between religious freedom and the fight against abortion and gay "marriage".

The irony
Alan Sears fails to mention
Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments was written to OPPOSE taxes meant to pay for teachers of religions. How deceptive of him. I suppose it's fitting his article is filled with ideological manipulation since it's in praise of a fallen neocon.

Article summary:
The founders believed in Americas' survival as a nation of free, God created patriots.

Those on the left want to wipe from public memory any knowledge of the beautiful force for liberty our founders set in motion.

Okay lefty scum, you may now commence to telling us all what a bunch of "racist", "atheistic" "misogynists" they really were.

Or, you could all go to hell instead. It's just a thought.

“‘We hold these truths,’ the Founders
Well, no one does today.
Not in Washington DC
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.