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
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Phil Harris :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Church of Secular Purity - More Religious than the Religious
by Phil Harris
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

Freedom from religion is a delusional fantasy shared by atheists, liberals, and the varied collection of First Amendment interpreters, who see in it a prescription for religious sterility. Membership in one of these camps is required; otherwise, any individual would recognize the absurdity of stretching and molding the words of the amendment, like so much silly putty. The collective effort of these people does not strengthen their argument, but rather, masks the fallaciousness behind a deafening roar of monotonous repetition.

Honestly, can one really look at these words, and come away skewered between the eyes with the question mark of uncertainty? The answer is no, unless you are truly bewildered at what the meaning of the word “is” is.

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Arguments that support a government forced sterilization of religion from publicly owned entities, requires the reader of this simple clause to perform mental gymnastics beyond the realm of reason. The only way the reader might come away from this text, with an understanding that government must suppress, under penalty of law, religious expression from all entities that are remotely touched by government, is if the reader has a religious devotion to secularism.

The Church of Secular Purity is as religious as any religion on the planet. I might even stretch a bit to compare the actions and tactics of the secular puritans, to the violence of radical Islam. Of course, they do not seek to slice off the heads of infidels, but they will swing the sword of the courtroom with as much ferocity.

Adherents to the Secular Faith are devout in their belief, that a fanatical sixth grade boy, who writes stories about his faith in Jesus Christ (in response to a classroom assignment), cannot in good conscience be tolerated. Another example, as was illuminated by the Family Research Council in a recent mailing, Lou Dobbs of CNN fame has stated, "…intrusion of religion into our political lives, in my opinion, should be rejected in the same fashion that we constitutionally guarantee government will not interfere with religion."

These puritans of secular wisdom are protecting us, they sincerely believe, from... exactly what? Does the First Amendment spell the boogey man out for us? Well, in fact it does, but the boogey man is not who the secular inquisition thinks it is. Were they to lay down their own personal fear of condemnation, for the rejection of “God”, they would see that the boogey man lives between their own two ears.

The great fear is that unless they can drive “God” away from the publicly owned square, they will be unable to justify, in their own minds, their decision to reject an Almighty Being who may hold them in judgment. They will see doubt at every turn, and they cannot bear to live, as they want to live, guilt and fear hanging over their heads at all times.

Government is to butt-out, according to the First Amendment. That means that government shall not tell people how they should believe, or not believe. It also means that government shall not take any steps whatsoever to interfere with the free exercise of religion, and there is nothing in that clause that says, “…unless the free exercise of religion is being exercised by employees of the government, or by citizens who are participating in a government event.”

There is nothing at all difficult about this string of words, which is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. There are no exceptions given, and there are no extenuating circumstances acknowledged. In simplest terms, religion is to be a non-issue where government is concerned. The Church of Secular Purity has no right whatsoever, according to the First Amendment to the Constitution, to require the government to establish a Religion of Secular Purity as the official religion of the United States government. In fact, the First Amendment expressly prohibits that desired outcome.

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

Phil Harris is a software engineer, author of Cry for the Shadows and blogs at Citizen Phil.

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

Jon: RE: ETH "falsehoods"
Jon writes: Saturday, May, 19, 2007 12:45 PM ETH I'll point out a few falsehoods. It would take me too long to show everything that is false on your website.

Patrick Henry never said:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded the freedom of worship here."

Sources:
- http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2141
- http://thinkexist.com/quotation/it_can_not_be_emphasized_too_strongly_or_too/154030.html
- http://books.google.com/books?id=DMM5qwC1fvEC&pg=PA297&lpg=PA297&dq=it+cannot+be+emphasized+too+strongly+or+too+often+that+this+great+nation+was+founded+not+by+religionists&source=web&ots=uX-g0nicXY&sig=LJ3iWDFEaJAU4G4YRaQRvzUkthc
- http://www.eco.freedom.org/articles/merritt-605.shtml
- http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/2/220328.shtml
- http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=LH04G02
- http://www.scatteredremnant.ws/lawcourse.htm
- http://www.phc.edu/news/trumpet/2004_09/2004_09_07.asp

Or how about this fron a letter to his dughter in 1796:

"Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of their members; and, indeed, that I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian, But, indeed, my dear child, this is the character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast."

Need I continue with the rest of your rant?

It appears you have the liberal view of history. It begins when you wake up each day.

Lon – Birdman duped or duper?

According to you Bill Dembski (a mathematician, philosopher, and PhD) believes his argument. Michael Behe (a biochemist, PhD) believes his argument. I am duped or a duper. That is your entire rebuttal? No countering facts? No logic? Nothing?

Show me how evolution directed energy to produce work. I have to expect that you are at least a PhD and in the same league as the two men you discredited. It should not be too hard for a scholar of your magnitude to show logically how they are wrong. Just saying they are wrong does not cut it. Show your work.

I did not use Behe and Dembski to argue. I used YOUR example to demonstrate that house cleaning is done with a goal in mind by intelligent people. I showed you the fallacy in your argument.

Now, it is your turn, demonstrate how that same house is cleaned by random mindless chance without intelligence and without a goal. Don’t try to sidestep. The stage is yours. Explain your position.

Lon, you said, “According to evolution, when genes replicate, there is some chance of mutation.” Let’s cut right to the heart of the matter. Explain the very first gene. How was it made? How did it replicate from nothing? How did evolution do this work with random chance?

You start from an existent gene and tell me it mutates. That’s Darwin’s Black Box. It never can tell of beginnings of the very first entity. Evolutionists talk about The Big Bang (we have this cosmic egg that exploded – what caused the explosion? we don’t know – big gap), or The Steady State Universe (we have this universe that always was and will be but we can’t explain what sustains it – big gap), or the multi-dimensional universes spawned by black holes (without knowledge of a renewal energy source – it just magically happens – big gap) and then there’s that HUGE gap concerning the beginnings of life.

That is the problem with all of Darwinism, those pesky gaps. You believe Darwinism or Evolution but you ignore the gaps. That belief is a demonstration of enormous faith on your part regardless of the gaps. That faith is religion. Evolution is all about men explaining our beginnings without God (see my response to DA quoting Richard Lewontin).

Now is your chance to shine your candle on us poor ignorant masses. Don’t tell me I have been tricked. Provide me with a better show. Light your candle. That is unless your wick is all wet.
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.