Religion
A Good American
30-Nov-09 08:20 PM
What is a "real American" or a "good American"? How do you define that term? What does it mean?
Does it mean paying your taxes, being honest, and helping your fellow citizens if they need assistance?
Does it mean to support your government and your President and to honor those who have been elected to run the country?
Does it require a belief in a particular God?
Can a person be critical of the government, not support the President, not believe in any God and still be a "good American"?
Who gets to decide who is "good" and who is "bad"?
There is no one correct answer to the above questions; they will differ amongst a group of people based upon values and other factors. How you define what is a good American may differ from how I define it and it doesn't prove one is right or wrong.
Does a "real American" accept the fact that people are diverse both culturally, religiously, and socially across a wide spectrum of influence and is therefore tolerant of those other views; even if they do not agree with their own? Or does a "real American" believe that everyone must hold to the same beliefs, the same values, the same religion, the same politics? Is it really about patriotism and national conformity, or is it about values and freedom?
I think the religious wars are real and they will continue to do devastating harm as long as we keep them alive. The fight over religion has probably killed more people on the planet than any other factor since man first developed the ability to write and communicate. As long as we continue to focus on the differences between people instead of focusing on the similarities that make all humans the same (i.e. race, color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, politics, etc.) then the wars and the hate and the killing will continue. When we focus on our differences it generates anger and contempt which in turn creates fear; and fear ultimately leads to suffering. The things that bind us together are more powerful than the things that divide us.
Any person, regardless of his personal religious or political beliefs, who advocates violence, destruction, murder and mayhem upon society or any other group of people in support of a religious or political view point is dangerous. Every one is entitled to their beliefs as long as they keep them in peace and without threat to those around them. When they cross the line and allow their zealotry to turn to violence then they engage in criminal behavior and must be stopped. This condition is not limited to one particular religious or political view - in fact, it has happened across all spectrums of beliefs. Seeing how that out of the hundreds of millions of Muslims in this country the acts of violence in comparison are exceedingly few, I'd say that the vast majority of muslims in this country are not engaging in criminal or destructive behavior. And to label all muslims as evil because of the actions of a few fundamentalists who engage in violence is grossly unfair and wrong. It would be exactly the same if someone were to say that all Christians believed exactly like Fred Phelps and that he represented the true nature of Christianity. If that were true then I can't imagine why anyone would ever claim the title of "Christian". Thankfully, it is not true.
The bigger question is can a criminal be a good American? It is not the belief that matters - it is the criminal activity that is perpetrated as a result of the belief that must be examined. I believe that any person of any religion, any culture, any political view point (liberal or conservative) can be a good American. It is not dependent upon believing in a certain religion, or voting for a particular party. It does not matter what they believe or disbelieve. The only thing that it requires is respect and tolerance for all people and to live in peace with their fellow man. To respect the views of others that differ from his views and to stand against injustice, violence, and corruption when they seek to destroy the lives of others. That is the ideal at the core of this country and what it is founded upon. That is what made America different and the greatest nation in the world. We should always remember that fact.
Rate this blog post:
|
Evil (c)ommunism
07-Sep-09 11:27 AM
As the health care reform debates have heated in this country, I have heard repeated usages of both the words "socialist/socialism" and "communist/communism" to describe the health care reform that President Obama is trying to enact. As if socialism and communism were somehow inherently evil systems but capitalism is completely pure and good. I have also heard those denouncing the plan saying it is "forcing" them to help people against their will and that it is unfair because it increases the tax burden on those who work and redistributes it to those who don't (i.e. lazy people is what is implied). And then I see comments by those who are religious and attempt to use scripture to denounce the health care reform legislation. Namely, the one that I've seen used is 2 Thessolonias 3:3-14 which instructs Christians not to associate themselves with people who are "idle" (i.e. lazy people who refuse to work is implied by those who use this scripture).
You have to be careful when you start trying to use scriptures to back one particular theory. I suppose there is a scripture somewhere that can be pulled to represent almost any ideology or principle you can think of. I do find it interesting that quite often those who protest the loudest against socialist or communist ideals are also the ones who claim to be either religious or Christian. They seem to make such claims as though they are totally unaware of the principles and values that founders of the Christian religion embraced. These values were practiced by the apostles and the early church. According to the book of Acts, the early Christian church clearly practiced a form of communism (that is with a small "c" not a capital "C" - there is a big difference between the two). The apostles established a system whereby all early Christians sold their possessions and wealth and gave it to them for redistribution to the community for the common good of everyone. This was also consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the examples he used to suggest followers should give up their personal wealth and give it to the poor. This was obviously not a Marxist form of Communism which promoted class warfare, but it was an economic form of communism that was based on communal and equal ownership of those in society for the common good of every man - not just the poor.
Acts 2:42, 44, and 45:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)
The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)
I find it peculiar how people tend to conveniently overlook this bit of history and are so quick to label the idea of programs designed to use tax money for the common good of society as something that is evil and should be abhorred. I am not trying to promote communism. Neither am I trying to blur the lines between separation of church and state by suggesting that government should engage in health care reform because it is a Christian principle. I am only pointing out the fact that communistic, socialistic and capitalistic principles are not inherently evil in and of themselves. They become evil when people begin to abuse the power and allow corruption to dictate the policies. Corruption happens in all systems and occurs with the abuse and misuse of power. But the idea of everyone giving generously to help the whole community is clearly a value and a principle that was practiced by the early Christian church. I would also note that even though our Constitution requires a separation of church and state, this only applies to sectarian considerations. That is to say, it is to prevent the government from showing favortism to one particular sect of religion over another. It in no way requires a divorce of morality from government. A government must be moral if it is to do good, but it does not have to promote a particular religion in order to be moral. The US is the only industrialized rich nation in the world that does not have a system in place to provide for and take care of it's people's health care system. To me that speaks volumes of where our priorities have been misplaced.
Rate this blog post:
You have to be careful when you start trying to use scriptures to back one particular theory. I suppose there is a scripture somewhere that can be pulled to represent almost any ideology or principle you can think of. I do find it interesting that quite often those who protest the loudest against socialist or communist ideals are also the ones who claim to be either religious or Christian. They seem to make such claims as though they are totally unaware of the principles and values that founders of the Christian religion embraced. These values were practiced by the apostles and the early church. According to the book of Acts, the early Christian church clearly practiced a form of communism (that is with a small "c" not a capital "C" - there is a big difference between the two). The apostles established a system whereby all early Christians sold their possessions and wealth and gave it to them for redistribution to the community for the common good of everyone. This was also consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the examples he used to suggest followers should give up their personal wealth and give it to the poor. This was obviously not a Marxist form of Communism which promoted class warfare, but it was an economic form of communism that was based on communal and equal ownership of those in society for the common good of every man - not just the poor.
Acts 2:42, 44, and 45:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)
The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)
I find it peculiar how people tend to conveniently overlook this bit of history and are so quick to label the idea of programs designed to use tax money for the common good of society as something that is evil and should be abhorred. I am not trying to promote communism. Neither am I trying to blur the lines between separation of church and state by suggesting that government should engage in health care reform because it is a Christian principle. I am only pointing out the fact that communistic, socialistic and capitalistic principles are not inherently evil in and of themselves. They become evil when people begin to abuse the power and allow corruption to dictate the policies. Corruption happens in all systems and occurs with the abuse and misuse of power. But the idea of everyone giving generously to help the whole community is clearly a value and a principle that was practiced by the early Christian church. I would also note that even though our Constitution requires a separation of church and state, this only applies to sectarian considerations. That is to say, it is to prevent the government from showing favortism to one particular sect of religion over another. It in no way requires a divorce of morality from government. A government must be moral if it is to do good, but it does not have to promote a particular religion in order to be moral. The US is the only industrialized rich nation in the world that does not have a system in place to provide for and take care of it's people's health care system. To me that speaks volumes of where our priorities have been misplaced.
Rate this blog post:
The Mojave Cross Memorial
18-Aug-09 06:00 PM
In 2001 the ACLU and an Oregon resident filed a lawsuit claiming that the cross is a religious symbol on government property and thus is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. This set off a chain of events and legal maneuvering. In 2002 Congress designated the cross and the surrounding property as a "national memorial" to honor the fallen dead of World War I and ordered the land to be given to the Veteran's of Foreign War. The District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court sided with the ACLU that the symbol was unconstitutional and ordered the cross to be covered. The case will now come before the Supreme Court in October 2009 for a final hearing.
The main argument presented by those who wish to keep the cross in place is that the latin cross is not a religious symbol. Instead they claim that it is an international symbol that represents loss and sacrifice. They further argue that groups such as the ACLU and American's United are only interested in removing the symbol out of religious hatred for Christianity and to dishonor war veterans. They have also stated that the cross is innocuous and does not violate the first amendment in that it does not force anyone to participate in any religious ceremony. They do not believe there is any harm in having this symbol representative of ALL the veterans who died during World War I.
Here are some counter points worthy of consideration:
- The Latin cross is a religious symbol and should be treated as such. It is a central symbol of Christianity and for those who are Christian it is offensive to strip away it's sacred meaning by saying it has no religious meaning.
- Veteran Memorials should honor all of our country's veterans, not just those of a particular belief system. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, 29% of those currently serving in the U.S. military are not Christian. Our veterans come from Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim backgrounds, while some choose to follow other belief systems or profess no faith at all.
- The Constitution mandates separation of church and state. Our country's founders wanted religion and government to remain separate, which is why our Constitution requires the government to remain neutral on the subject of religion. One of the freedoms our veterans sought to protect is the right for all to practice their belief system of choice. This cross on government property goes against that principle.
- The government, in maintaining this cross, is discriminating against veterans of other faiths and those who choose no faith at all. The Mojave National Preserve in California denied a request in 1999 to erect a Buddhist shrine near the cross. This clearly shows the government's favoritism, and makes those who are not Christian feel like second-class citizens.
- The courts should remain open to lawsuits objecting to church-state violations. Some will argue that just because someone is offended by a religious symbol, he or she does not have the right to sue the government and demand it be removed. If we followed this interpretation of the Constitution, the government could display any religious symbols it wants anywhere it wants - on license plates, in public buildings, maybe even in public schools - and those forced to view these displays could do nothing about it. That's not what this country stands for and the government must be held accountable when it strips away our freedoms.
New Hampshire Law Exempts Religious Groups...
16-Jul-09 12:46 AM
The following article is taken directly from the American's United Church & State publication for July/August 2009. It is presented here in it's entirety and unedited. Here is the link to the original article.
---------------------------------------------------
For years, Religious Right organizations have claimed that if same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative churches will be forced to perform such unions or accommodate same-sex couples in other ways.
That’s certainly not the case in New Hampshire, where a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage contains a host of exemptions for religious groups.
HB 73 was signed into law by Gov. John Lynch June 3 after Lynch requested a series of modifications to the bill to make it clear that many of its provisions will not affect the rights of religious bodies.
The law states that religious organizations and their employees may refuse to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and reiterates the point that religious organizations retain exclusive control over their doctrine and beliefs.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives had at first balked at Lynch’s request for changes to the bill, but several members changed their minds to get the bill passed.
“Let’s vote this one last time,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, a Republican from Windham. “Church and state should be separate.” In the Senate, Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat representing Plymouth, said the compromise language provides “equal rights for all and the right to religious freedom.”
Although the new language helped get the bill passed, it probably was not necessary. Most legal scholars agree that the Constitution’s First Amendment ensures that no houses of worship or ministers could be compelled to perform a same-sex ceremony, just as pastors may refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples who do not meet certain theological standards.
In California, advocates of same-sex marriage suffered a setback when the state supreme court upheld a ban on gay marriage passed narrowly by the voters in 2008. By a 6-1 vote, the California high court said Proposition 8 was not an unlawful “revision” to the state constitution. Such a “revision” would have required action by the legislature. Prop. 8 passed after a heavy lobbying campaign and infusion of cash from religious groups, including fundamentalist Christian bodies, the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Americans United, the Anti-Defamation League and 30 other civil rights and civil liberties groups joined the effort to overturn the same-sex marriage ban, filing a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that a bare majority of voters should not be permitted to remove fundamental rights from a minority group.
AU asserts that civil governments have no business writing theological definitions of marriage into civil law. “If Proposition 8 can strip fundamental rights from gay and lesbian people by a 52 percent majority, future amendments can strip away fundamental rights from other disfavored groups based on race, national origin, gender or religion,” read the brief.
Although the California Supreme Court upheld the Prop. 8 vote, it approved the 18,000 same-sex unions that were performed during the period gay marriage was legal.
That part of the ruling angered Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The court’s recognition of these ‘marriages’ clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Perkins said in a statement.
-------------------------
TD3k Commentary:
I think it is clear that the New Hampshire Law sets a precedent in the application of same sex marriage laws by clearly stating that the matter is a civil matter and does not bear on any religious organizations, nor requires them to conform to the civil statues outlined by the government. Even though it is clearly implied in the first amendment to the US Constitution, a specific exemption being included should help to quell some of the fear and anxiety expressed by so many people who felt that such a law was a trampling of their religious rights and freedoms. Clearly, this matter can be resolved in such a manner that should prove to be equitable and fair for all involved. These types of exemptions allow religious groups to maintain their doctrines and beliefs without fear of being overridden by laws designed to promote fair treatment under the law.
Rate this blog post:
---------------------------------------------------
For years, Religious Right organizations have claimed that if same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative churches will be forced to perform such unions or accommodate same-sex couples in other ways.
That’s certainly not the case in New Hampshire, where a recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage contains a host of exemptions for religious groups.
HB 73 was signed into law by Gov. John Lynch June 3 after Lynch requested a series of modifications to the bill to make it clear that many of its provisions will not affect the rights of religious bodies.
The law states that religious organizations and their employees may refuse to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and reiterates the point that religious organizations retain exclusive control over their doctrine and beliefs.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives had at first balked at Lynch’s request for changes to the bill, but several members changed their minds to get the bill passed.
“Let’s vote this one last time,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, a Republican from Windham. “Church and state should be separate.” In the Senate, Deborah Reynolds, a Democrat representing Plymouth, said the compromise language provides “equal rights for all and the right to religious freedom.”
Although the new language helped get the bill passed, it probably was not necessary. Most legal scholars agree that the Constitution’s First Amendment ensures that no houses of worship or ministers could be compelled to perform a same-sex ceremony, just as pastors may refuse to perform marriages for heterosexual couples who do not meet certain theological standards.
In California, advocates of same-sex marriage suffered a setback when the state supreme court upheld a ban on gay marriage passed narrowly by the voters in 2008. By a 6-1 vote, the California high court said Proposition 8 was not an unlawful “revision” to the state constitution. Such a “revision” would have required action by the legislature. Prop. 8 passed after a heavy lobbying campaign and infusion of cash from religious groups, including fundamentalist Christian bodies, the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Americans United, the Anti-Defamation League and 30 other civil rights and civil liberties groups joined the effort to overturn the same-sex marriage ban, filing a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that a bare majority of voters should not be permitted to remove fundamental rights from a minority group.
AU asserts that civil governments have no business writing theological definitions of marriage into civil law. “If Proposition 8 can strip fundamental rights from gay and lesbian people by a 52 percent majority, future amendments can strip away fundamental rights from other disfavored groups based on race, national origin, gender or religion,” read the brief.
Although the California Supreme Court upheld the Prop. 8 vote, it approved the 18,000 same-sex unions that were performed during the period gay marriage was legal.
That part of the ruling angered Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “The court’s recognition of these ‘marriages’ clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court,” Perkins said in a statement.
-------------------------
TD3k Commentary:
I think it is clear that the New Hampshire Law sets a precedent in the application of same sex marriage laws by clearly stating that the matter is a civil matter and does not bear on any religious organizations, nor requires them to conform to the civil statues outlined by the government. Even though it is clearly implied in the first amendment to the US Constitution, a specific exemption being included should help to quell some of the fear and anxiety expressed by so many people who felt that such a law was a trampling of their religious rights and freedoms. Clearly, this matter can be resolved in such a manner that should prove to be equitable and fair for all involved. These types of exemptions allow religious groups to maintain their doctrines and beliefs without fear of being overridden by laws designed to promote fair treatment under the law.
Rate this blog post:
The Battle Continues...
28-May-09 11:27 AM
As the battle wears on in California over the ban on same sex marriage, as upheld by the California Supreme Court yesterday, a couple of thoughts on the subject. To begin with, it is completely clear that the two opposing sides of this argument will probably never reach a consensus or a compromise. Whether you are for it or against it, you are probably very unlikely to change your mind or your opinions, although polls are showing that some people are doing just that. Regardless of the slight shift in poll numbers, it is clear that it is an issue that has the country split down the middle with only the smallest of percentages separating the two camps.
I have stated my views numerous times on this blog on this subject and they have not changed. I believe the ruling yesterday by the Supreme Court was not so much a true question on the civil liberty aspects of gay marriage as much as it was a ruling against the argument that Proposition 8 revised the California Constitution as opposed to just amending it. Opponents of Proposition 8 unsuccessfully argued that the voter initiative went beyond a constitutional amendment and represented a revision to the state constitution. The California Supreme Court did not agree. Only one Justice dissented: Justice Moreno in his lone dissenting opinion stated, "[T]he aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution."
I agree with him 100%. Also, the very notion of voters being able to vote on initiatives which at the very heart attempt to limit or restrict basic rights and freedoms of specific groups of people is not only insulting, but it is morally wrong. It is especially insensitive when only the narrowest margins of a majority are then allowed to impose their restrictions based on such a majority vote thus establishing a simple majority tyranny. At the absolute minimum, any such votes whereby specific rights and freedoms are at risk, there should be required a super majority vote, that is more than just a simple majority, in order for any such restrictions be allowed, (i.e. 2/3 minimum required). The idea of a super majority vote is very common in all types of voting processes to prevent a simple majority tyranny by only very slight margins. Even still, I personally believe it is wrong to ever apply a majority vote model when any type of restrictions of civil liberties are at stake for any group. No majority should ever be allowed to trample on or deny the rights of a minority...ever.
So, as the battle continues and opponents prepare to go to the ballot box again in early 2010, two high profile lawyers just filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women in California and many believe this will go straight to the US Supreme Court. Lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies have joined forces and are planning on taking this argument ultimately to the US Supreme Court, in spite of the ACLU and some other LGBT Organizations objecting saying that such a move is premature. Theodore Olson was quoted as saying at a news conference in Los Angeles :
"There will be many people who will think this is not the time to go to federal. Both David and I have studied the court for more years than probably either one of us would like to admit. We think we know what we are doing." David Boies agreed: "Reasonable minds can differ, but when you have people being denied civil rights today, I think it is impossible as lawyers and as an American to say 'No, you have to wait, now is not the right time.' I think if we had done that in prior civil rights battles, we would not be where we are."
The two lawyers became household names during the 2000 Presidential Elections when Theodore Olson represented the Bush campaign and David Boies represented the Al Gore campaign to argue before the Supreme Court about the election results. The two have now joined forces and are of the same mind on the matter regarding same sex marriage. It is unfortunate that such actions have to be taken in order to secure the rights of the minority, but that has always been the case through out history and we never seem to learn our lessons very well. I still maintain that nobody on the opposing side has adequately been able to demonstrate in any believable fashion how allowing the LGBT community to enjoy the legal and civil liberties offered by marriage will result in any harm or injustice to anyone else. Quite simply put, it does not. It is only an argument based on religious views and principles and nothing else. Such arguments may not be allowed to be the reason to restrict civil rights and freedoms for any group of people in this country.
I have stated my views numerous times on this blog on this subject and they have not changed. I believe the ruling yesterday by the Supreme Court was not so much a true question on the civil liberty aspects of gay marriage as much as it was a ruling against the argument that Proposition 8 revised the California Constitution as opposed to just amending it. Opponents of Proposition 8 unsuccessfully argued that the voter initiative went beyond a constitutional amendment and represented a revision to the state constitution. The California Supreme Court did not agree. Only one Justice dissented: Justice Moreno in his lone dissenting opinion stated, "[T]he aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution."
I agree with him 100%. Also, the very notion of voters being able to vote on initiatives which at the very heart attempt to limit or restrict basic rights and freedoms of specific groups of people is not only insulting, but it is morally wrong. It is especially insensitive when only the narrowest margins of a majority are then allowed to impose their restrictions based on such a majority vote thus establishing a simple majority tyranny. At the absolute minimum, any such votes whereby specific rights and freedoms are at risk, there should be required a super majority vote, that is more than just a simple majority, in order for any such restrictions be allowed, (i.e. 2/3 minimum required). The idea of a super majority vote is very common in all types of voting processes to prevent a simple majority tyranny by only very slight margins. Even still, I personally believe it is wrong to ever apply a majority vote model when any type of restrictions of civil liberties are at stake for any group. No majority should ever be allowed to trample on or deny the rights of a minority...ever.
So, as the battle continues and opponents prepare to go to the ballot box again in early 2010, two high profile lawyers just filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two gay men and two gay women in California and many believe this will go straight to the US Supreme Court. Lawyers Theodore Olson and David Boies have joined forces and are planning on taking this argument ultimately to the US Supreme Court, in spite of the ACLU and some other LGBT Organizations objecting saying that such a move is premature. Theodore Olson was quoted as saying at a news conference in Los Angeles :
"There will be many people who will think this is not the time to go to federal. Both David and I have studied the court for more years than probably either one of us would like to admit. We think we know what we are doing." David Boies agreed: "Reasonable minds can differ, but when you have people being denied civil rights today, I think it is impossible as lawyers and as an American to say 'No, you have to wait, now is not the right time.' I think if we had done that in prior civil rights battles, we would not be where we are."
The two lawyers became household names during the 2000 Presidential Elections when Theodore Olson represented the Bush campaign and David Boies represented the Al Gore campaign to argue before the Supreme Court about the election results. The two have now joined forces and are of the same mind on the matter regarding same sex marriage. It is unfortunate that such actions have to be taken in order to secure the rights of the minority, but that has always been the case through out history and we never seem to learn our lessons very well. I still maintain that nobody on the opposing side has adequately been able to demonstrate in any believable fashion how allowing the LGBT community to enjoy the legal and civil liberties offered by marriage will result in any harm or injustice to anyone else. Quite simply put, it does not. It is only an argument based on religious views and principles and nothing else. Such arguments may not be allowed to be the reason to restrict civil rights and freedoms for any group of people in this country.
State Constitution Preambles
11-May-09 11:03 AM
I came across a somewhat interesting e-mail the other day that focused on the content of the separate states constitutional preambles. The body of the message goes on to list all fifty states opening lines from their preambles and the dates of ratification ranging from 1776 through 1959. The e-mail makes the assertion that all fifty of the US states constitutions’ preambles make reference to either ‘God’, the “Supreme Ruler/Being’, ‘Divine Guidance’, or ‘Creator’ and that because of this then therefore the ACLU and the “out-of-control federal courts just maybe wrong”.
Of course we all know that e-mail messages such as this one are in wide circulation on the internet and many of them are nothing more than someone’s subjective opinion on any given subject. Quite often, snippets of facts and documentation are included to give a sense of authority and worthiness to the argument being proffered. This e-mail in question is no different. It seems to me that the purpose of this message is to assert the notion that since all of the state constitutions openly acknowledge God in their preambles that it is a good thing to interject religious ideals into the realm of government. While it is true that all fifty of the US states do make mention of God or a Supreme Being, or Divine Guidance in each of their respective preambles, I think it is important to point out a few other facts that are equally, if not more, relevant.
To begin with, a preamble is nothing more than an introductory statement that usually states the intent of the authors and the document. All state preambles, as well as the US constitution preamble, are very limited in scope and really carry no legal significance. In other words, they are typically never used as proofs of arguments in court cases since they are only introductory statements and make no claim to power of authority for governance.
Secondly, the e-mail fails to note or acknowledge the fact that all fifty of the state constitutions are subject to and must conform with the precepts and articles of the US constitution. If there is anything in the state constitutions that violates the US constitution then it could effectively be rendered without legal merit in a federal court of law. Also, it fails to note that there is no mention of ‘God’ or anything of the divine anywhere in the US constitution. This does not imply that the men who penned the US constitution were ‘godless’, for we know that many of them were indeed religious. It only further illustrates the concept of the importance of not mixing religious ideologies with governmental authority. I did not examine all fifty states constitutions, but I will cite the Texas constitution as an example since I am more familiar with it. In Article 4 of the Texas constitution it states that no religious test will ever be administered as a requirement for anyone to hold office in the state of Texas with the exception that the candidate must at least acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. This clause in the Texas constitution has never been upheld or applied in modern times as it is in direct conflict with the establishment clause of the first amendment and Article 6 of the US constitution. State courts do not attempt to enforce article 4, but it is interesting to point out that it is highly doubtful if anyone in the state of Texas has ever been elected to public office who did not profess a belief or a faith in God. That is a different topic of discussion, but it does illustrate the over-importance and emphasis that some people in a given electorate may place on religion. A person’s religious views have nothing whatsoever to do with their ability or their qualifications to hold office in a seat of government.
And finally, the question must be asked “what” exactly is the ACLU and the federal courts wrong about? The statement that “they may be wrong” is broad and unspecific. I would guess that the charge is aimed at the idea that the ACLU and the federal courts are interested in removing all mention of God out of government and in so doing are violating the religious freedoms of people who are religious. This of course is a tired, old argument without any merit whatsoever as long as the ACLU and the federal courts do not attempt to regulate and control the teachings and functions of the individual churches. I am quite certain that they are not doing that at all but are instead limiting their scope to governmental institutions. It is important to remember that governments are established by men for the governance of the secular and legal affairs of men. Our state and federal governments are thankfully not in the business of administering and ruling on divine laws within our court systems. By government remaining neutral in the field of religious affiliations and sectarian beliefs, the government assures without bias an even playing field for peoples of all faiths and all religions to receive fair and equitable treatment by the government in matters of secular law. It is only when people try to insert their own sectarian religious ideals into government that religious freedoms are truly jeopardized and that is what the ACLU and the federal courts are attempting to stop.
Americans United Action List
29-Jan-09 10:57 AM
The lists of issues facing our nation and the new Obama administration are staggering. The country is faced with many pressing challenges and problems that need immediate attention. Many of these issues are the direct result of 8 years of Bush administration policies and programs that need to be re-examined and checked in accordance with our Constitution. The economy is of primary importance, but lest we forget, there are other important issues that need addressing. The following list is taken directly from the Americans United For the Separation of Church and State website, and represents the top 9 religious freedom objectives that President Obama should consider for immediate action. Here is the list:
----------------------------
As Barack Obama assumes the presidency, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has prepared a list of nine religious liberty issues that merit special attention from the White House. Called “9 in ’09,” this campaign seeks to repair the damage that occurred to the wall of separation between church and state during the Bush administration.
Americans United calls on President Obama to make this list a priority.
1. Restrict Faith-Based Funding: The Bush administration’s dangerous executive orders promoting the “faith-based” initiative should be overridden. Religious organizations should not be singled out for special government treatment and generous tax subsidies.
2. Ban Faith-Based Job Bias: An executive order should be issued barring religiously based job bias in all publicly funded programs. Not one dime in tax funds should go to “faith-based” organizations that discriminate in hiring.
3. Select Good Judges: Give America judges who support the Bill of Rights, including its church-state separation provision. Our country deserves federal judges who will respect, not eviscerate, the First Amendment.
4. Reform Justice Department: America must have a Justice Department that understands its duty to uphold constitutional rights, not one that parrots the views of extreme Religious Right legal groups.
5. Stop School Vouchers: Cease all federal tax funding for misguided school voucher “experiments” in Washington, D.C., (or anywhere else) that subsidize religious and other private schools.
6. Protect Military Personnel: Sever the tie between fundamentalist groups and the military. The United States must have a military that doesn’t take a stand on theological issues and that does not pressure its service personnel to adopt religious beliefs.
7. Defend Sound Science: Base public policy on science, not theology. Public policy on issues such as stem-cell research and education about human origins must be based on science, not religious dogma.
8. Resist Church Politicking: Oppose attempts to overturn the federal ban on church politicking. No tax-exempt house of worship should be permitted to engage in partisan politicking by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
9. Oppose Sectarian Symbolism: Use the presidential bully pulpit to oppose sectarian resolutions in Congress. We must see an end to polarizing resolutions by Congress that promote one faith over others, thus sending the message that some Americans are second-class citizens.
Support AU Efforts Like This - Donate Today!
----------------------------
As Barack Obama assumes the presidency, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has prepared a list of nine religious liberty issues that merit special attention from the White House. Called “9 in ’09,” this campaign seeks to repair the damage that occurred to the wall of separation between church and state during the Bush administration.
Americans United calls on President Obama to make this list a priority.
1. Restrict Faith-Based Funding: The Bush administration’s dangerous executive orders promoting the “faith-based” initiative should be overridden. Religious organizations should not be singled out for special government treatment and generous tax subsidies.
2. Ban Faith-Based Job Bias: An executive order should be issued barring religiously based job bias in all publicly funded programs. Not one dime in tax funds should go to “faith-based” organizations that discriminate in hiring.
3. Select Good Judges: Give America judges who support the Bill of Rights, including its church-state separation provision. Our country deserves federal judges who will respect, not eviscerate, the First Amendment.
4. Reform Justice Department: America must have a Justice Department that understands its duty to uphold constitutional rights, not one that parrots the views of extreme Religious Right legal groups.
5. Stop School Vouchers: Cease all federal tax funding for misguided school voucher “experiments” in Washington, D.C., (or anywhere else) that subsidize religious and other private schools.
6. Protect Military Personnel: Sever the tie between fundamentalist groups and the military. The United States must have a military that doesn’t take a stand on theological issues and that does not pressure its service personnel to adopt religious beliefs.
7. Defend Sound Science: Base public policy on science, not theology. Public policy on issues such as stem-cell research and education about human origins must be based on science, not religious dogma.
8. Resist Church Politicking: Oppose attempts to overturn the federal ban on church politicking. No tax-exempt house of worship should be permitted to engage in partisan politicking by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office.
9. Oppose Sectarian Symbolism: Use the presidential bully pulpit to oppose sectarian resolutions in Congress. We must see an end to polarizing resolutions by Congress that promote one faith over others, thus sending the message that some Americans are second-class citizens.
Support AU Efforts Like This - Donate Today!
Goodbye 2008
31-Dec-08 05:15 PM
As 2008 comes to a thankful close, it is good to stop and recap the more memorable events of the year. “Good” is a relative term when speaking of 2008 as very few good things occurred during the year. if you are the type that counts “still breathing” and “wearing pants that have been washed within at least the past 3 days” as “good” then you might not consider that 2008 was really all that bad. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but from my view point it was a rough year. Not just for me in particular - but for a lot of people. Besides, my pants were put on fresh this morning but that doesn’t change the verdict on 2008.
Simply put, 2008 was a doozy. No, actually it was a blood letting. Some made it all the way through and retained both their jobs and their home and for that you can truly be thankful. Others are not so lucky. Many millions have lost their jobs and many millions have lost their homes - and many have also lost both. It seems that as the year progressed things got progressively worse; especially here at home. Even though it’s not particularly pleasant, here is a brief recap of the events of 2008 by month. Click on the links of each month for greater detail and even more events that occurred during that month. This is just to put the year in perspective; I intend to look forward to 2009 and the uncertain promises that it holds. 2009 could continue the trend for awhile yet - but here’s hoping for better and happier times ahead.
January
U.S. Attorney General Opens Investigation into Destroyed Tapes (Jan. 2)
California Sues EPA (Jan. 2)
Markets Plunge Around the World (Jan. 21)
February
Economy Loses Jobs for the First Time in 52 Months (Feb. 1)
Senate Votes to Ban Severe Interrogation Techniques (Feb. 13)
Castro Resigns as President of Cuba (Feb. 19)
March
Bush Vetoes Bill That Would Ban Severe Interrogation Techniques (March 8)
Government Intervenes to Avert Financial Crises (March 11)
Bush Acknowledges Toll of War on Anniversary of War (March 19)
April
Senate Passes Housing Relief Bill (April 10)
Dozens Are Killed in Suicide Attacks in Iraq (April 15)
Pope Denounces Pedophile Priests (April 15)
May
State Department Renews Deal with Controversial Contractor (May 9)
Polar Bear Designated as Threatened (May 14)
California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage (May 15)
June
Five-Year Inquiry Finds Bush Exaggerated Evidence on Iraq (June 5)
Unemployment Rate Spikes To 5.5% (June 6)
North Korea Takes Steps Toward Denuclearization (June 26)
July
Treasury Department Proposes Rescue Plan for Mortgage Companies (July 13)
U.S. Envoy Participates in Talks with Iran (July 19)
Judge Rules that Bush's Advisers Must Comply with Subpoenas (July 31)
August
The Summer Games Open with a Spectacular Ceremony and Tragedy (Aug. 8)
Al-Qaeda Increases Its Strength and Threat (Aug.12 )
McCain Chooses Outsider as Running Mate (Aug. 29)
September
Report Finds That Former Attorney General Mishandled Sensitive Documents (Sept. 2)
Unemployment Rate Reaches Highest Level in Five Years at 6.1% (Sept. 5)
U.S. Financial Markets Roiled by Turmoil (Sept. 7)
Russia Agrees to Withdraw from Georgia (Sept. 8)
October
Connecticut Legalizes Gay Marriage (Oct. 10)
Investigation Concludes That Palin Abused Power (Oct. 10)
Bush Administration Memorandum Asserts Federal Money Can Fund Groups That Discriminate Based on Faith (Oct. 18)
Economy Shrinks for First Time in Years (Oct. 30)
November
Barack Obama Is Elected President (Nov. 4)
California Votes to Outlaw Same-Sex Marriage (Nov. 4)
Economy Stumbles Further (Nov. 7)
China Announces Enormous Stimulus Package (Nov. 9)
Stock Market Tumbles Again (Nov. 19)
December
Dow Plunges Amid Report That Economy Is in Recession (Dec. 1)
Unemployment Rate Increases Again to 6.7% (Dec. 5)
Journalist Throws Shoes at Bush (Dec. 14)
Bush Unveils $17.4 Billion Rescue of Auto Industry (Dec. 19)
Simply put, 2008 was a doozy. No, actually it was a blood letting. Some made it all the way through and retained both their jobs and their home and for that you can truly be thankful. Others are not so lucky. Many millions have lost their jobs and many millions have lost their homes - and many have also lost both. It seems that as the year progressed things got progressively worse; especially here at home. Even though it’s not particularly pleasant, here is a brief recap of the events of 2008 by month. Click on the links of each month for greater detail and even more events that occurred during that month. This is just to put the year in perspective; I intend to look forward to 2009 and the uncertain promises that it holds. 2009 could continue the trend for awhile yet - but here’s hoping for better and happier times ahead.
January
U.S. Attorney General Opens Investigation into Destroyed Tapes (Jan. 2)
California Sues EPA (Jan. 2)
Markets Plunge Around the World (Jan. 21)
February
Economy Loses Jobs for the First Time in 52 Months (Feb. 1)
Senate Votes to Ban Severe Interrogation Techniques (Feb. 13)
Castro Resigns as President of Cuba (Feb. 19)
March
Bush Vetoes Bill That Would Ban Severe Interrogation Techniques (March 8)
Government Intervenes to Avert Financial Crises (March 11)
Bush Acknowledges Toll of War on Anniversary of War (March 19)
April
Senate Passes Housing Relief Bill (April 10)
Dozens Are Killed in Suicide Attacks in Iraq (April 15)
Pope Denounces Pedophile Priests (April 15)
May
State Department Renews Deal with Controversial Contractor (May 9)
Polar Bear Designated as Threatened (May 14)
California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage (May 15)
June
Five-Year Inquiry Finds Bush Exaggerated Evidence on Iraq (June 5)
Unemployment Rate Spikes To 5.5% (June 6)
North Korea Takes Steps Toward Denuclearization (June 26)
July
Treasury Department Proposes Rescue Plan for Mortgage Companies (July 13)
U.S. Envoy Participates in Talks with Iran (July 19)
Judge Rules that Bush's Advisers Must Comply with Subpoenas (July 31)
August
The Summer Games Open with a Spectacular Ceremony and Tragedy (Aug. 8)
Al-Qaeda Increases Its Strength and Threat (Aug.12 )
McCain Chooses Outsider as Running Mate (Aug. 29)
September
Report Finds That Former Attorney General Mishandled Sensitive Documents (Sept. 2)
Unemployment Rate Reaches Highest Level in Five Years at 6.1% (Sept. 5)
U.S. Financial Markets Roiled by Turmoil (Sept. 7)
Russia Agrees to Withdraw from Georgia (Sept. 8)
October
Connecticut Legalizes Gay Marriage (Oct. 10)
Investigation Concludes That Palin Abused Power (Oct. 10)
Bush Administration Memorandum Asserts Federal Money Can Fund Groups That Discriminate Based on Faith (Oct. 18)
Economy Shrinks for First Time in Years (Oct. 30)
November
Barack Obama Is Elected President (Nov. 4)
California Votes to Outlaw Same-Sex Marriage (Nov. 4)
Economy Stumbles Further (Nov. 7)
China Announces Enormous Stimulus Package (Nov. 9)
Stock Market Tumbles Again (Nov. 19)
December
Dow Plunges Amid Report That Economy Is in Recession (Dec. 1)
Unemployment Rate Increases Again to 6.7% (Dec. 5)
Journalist Throws Shoes at Bush (Dec. 14)
Bush Unveils $17.4 Billion Rescue of Auto Industry (Dec. 19)
Prop 8 The Musical
07-Dec-08 12:10 PM
The battle continues even after the voter approval of Proposition 8 in California. I predict that ultimately this referendum will be overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. I would say the vast majority of those who have argued in favor of Proposition 8 have done so mostly on religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that by holding referendums like this on issues that deal with basic rights and freedoms of individuals, and then overturning those rights primarily because of religious view points held by the voting majority; the outcome is an unfair influence on governmental policy which is supposed to treat all people the same and with equality. How many other controversial, basic rights issues could possibly be overturned or reversed if we allowed each of them shortly after they were passed to go before referendum votes and let the voters decide their fate? It is doubtful if slavery, interracial marriages, or voting rights for women would’ve ever been allowed to endure if it had been left up to the voters to decide. Each of the issues just listed were very unpopular issues with the majority of people at the time they were passed, yet through the passage of time these controversial issues were eventually accepted by the majority of the people as the right choice. Today it would be inconceivable for someone to stand up and advocate the reversal of any of those issues because they are now considered “basic” rights.
Prop 8 The Musical is a very short production written by Marc Shaiman and featuring some big name actors like Jack Black and John C. Reilly. Neither of these actors are gay themselves, but lend their talents here in support of the overthrow of Proposition 8 because they believe it is unconstitutional and unfair to gay couples. In an interview on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, both Black, Reilly, and Shaiman appear to discuss the musical and why they did it.
Prop 8 The Musical is a very short production written by Marc Shaiman and featuring some big name actors like Jack Black and John C. Reilly. Neither of these actors are gay themselves, but lend their talents here in support of the overthrow of Proposition 8 because they believe it is unconstitutional and unfair to gay couples. In an interview on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, both Black, Reilly, and Shaiman appear to discuss the musical and why they did it.
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
McCain's America
27-Aug-08 01:29 PM
When I watch this video of John McCain I see a man who is obviously struggling with a topic that I am not convinced that he believes fully. The stuttering and the halted speech just seems like a desperate attempt to say things to appease a certain group of people; and if that’s true then that is unfortunate. McCain is being touted as the guy who is tough and will stand up and tell everyone exactly what he stands for and what he believes in, but when it comes to the topic of religion he sure seems to be caving in to conform to the image and script that he’s expected to parrot from the right.
It’s not a matter of what one’s personal religious view points are, what you believe in or whether or not you have faith in God or not, it’s about the simple fact of being able to understand that the role of the government, as our founders intended, was to be neutral in all matters of religion, so that it metes out justice and fairness for all without regard to religious affiliation. This is a right of all Americans, and not just those who are religious.
Protecting Church State Separation
04-Aug-08 11:55 PM
A subject of increasing importance these days is the principle of the separation of church and state. It is an important topic and one that should be discussed and understood by all. Believe it or not, there are those in the United States who do not understand the role of this important principle, and there are even those who think it is a myth and that it does not exist in our Constitution. As a proud member of First Freedom First, I am posting here verbatim a very concise and informative synopsis that deals with this important topic.
Church-state separation is an historic principle and is supported by countless Americans. But just how these values impact everyday life, or how they are under attack, is not always clear. The following eight issues highlight today’s most pressing concerns:
1. The First Amendment requires government to remain neutral on matters of religion. This basic tenet not only protects religious institutions from the influence of politics, but ensures that the religious beliefs of lawmakers do not infiltrate our laws.
2. End of life decisions are among the most personal of all, and should be based on what’s right for you and your family. Church-state separation restricts interference with end of life care in order to further a political or religious agenda.
3. The choices one makes about reproductive health are choices of individual conscience. Church-state separation ensures that religious doctrine doesn’t take precedence over the laws that allow individual control of reproductive issues.
4. Every American enjoys the right to practice, or not practice, any religion. Maintaining church-state separation means that we are not subjected to government-supported religion and that tax dollars are not allowed to fund any initiatives grounded in faith.
5. Public Education must be free of religious bias. Church-state separation restricts the government from promoting religion or religious views in the classroom.
6. Advancement and innovation, especially in the medical field, require research rooted in science. By maintaining the separation between church and state, we guarantee that the narrow religious beliefs of some lawmakers do not limit the research that saves lives.
7. Private houses of worship have the right to promote specific marriage and family traditions, but the government does not. Church-state separation is critical to ensure that our nation’s laws do not limit the definition of marriage or family, resulting in blatant discrimination.
8. This country is rooted in the traditions of religious freedom, the freedom to practice when and how you want and the freedom to refrain from religious practice. Lawmakers are constantly trying to infiltrate the public sector with tactics like prayer in school and forced devotions during the meetings of government organizations. Protect the separation between church and state and no citizen will feel the pressure to conform to anyone else’s religious beliefs.
First Freedom First was created to inform citizens about church-state issues and to create a platform for those who need to speak out against the violations that threatens church-state separation. For more information on these issues, please visit the websites of American’s United and First Freedom First.
Church-state separation is an historic principle and is supported by countless Americans. But just how these values impact everyday life, or how they are under attack, is not always clear. The following eight issues highlight today’s most pressing concerns:
1. The First Amendment requires government to remain neutral on matters of religion. This basic tenet not only protects religious institutions from the influence of politics, but ensures that the religious beliefs of lawmakers do not infiltrate our laws.
2. End of life decisions are among the most personal of all, and should be based on what’s right for you and your family. Church-state separation restricts interference with end of life care in order to further a political or religious agenda.
3. The choices one makes about reproductive health are choices of individual conscience. Church-state separation ensures that religious doctrine doesn’t take precedence over the laws that allow individual control of reproductive issues.
4. Every American enjoys the right to practice, or not practice, any religion. Maintaining church-state separation means that we are not subjected to government-supported religion and that tax dollars are not allowed to fund any initiatives grounded in faith.
5. Public Education must be free of religious bias. Church-state separation restricts the government from promoting religion or religious views in the classroom.
6. Advancement and innovation, especially in the medical field, require research rooted in science. By maintaining the separation between church and state, we guarantee that the narrow religious beliefs of some lawmakers do not limit the research that saves lives.
7. Private houses of worship have the right to promote specific marriage and family traditions, but the government does not. Church-state separation is critical to ensure that our nation’s laws do not limit the definition of marriage or family, resulting in blatant discrimination.
8. This country is rooted in the traditions of religious freedom, the freedom to practice when and how you want and the freedom to refrain from religious practice. Lawmakers are constantly trying to infiltrate the public sector with tactics like prayer in school and forced devotions during the meetings of government organizations. Protect the separation between church and state and no citizen will feel the pressure to conform to anyone else’s religious beliefs.
First Freedom First was created to inform citizens about church-state issues and to create a platform for those who need to speak out against the violations that threatens church-state separation. For more information on these issues, please visit the websites of American’s United and First Freedom First.
I Am, I Said...
14-Jul-08 11:10 PM
In my previous post, I listed a series of principles and beliefs that came directly from "The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles." As I mentioned in the previous post, slight alterations were made to the list in order to disguise the word "humanist". Why, you may ask, did I dedicate a post to this list? And the answer, simply put, is to clarify a point - namely, that the words "humanist" and "humanism" are words that have been sabotaged by those who have attempted to alter the general perception and the meaning of the words. We find that the true meaning and nature of these words, and those who claim the label of "humanist", are not the demons and monsters that they've been portrayed to be. Just as "liberals" are not the vile, cruel and insufferable creatures that they have been portrayed to be; the subject of previous posts here on TD3k Speaks. The purpose of this article is to open up for discussion and understanding the true meaning of these words and what the people stand for who subscribe to the views and principles of liberal, secular humanism. Wow - three of the ugliest words ever created since the dawn of man, and here I’ve gone and used them in one sentence!! I hope some of you have not passed out from horror. The fact is, there is no better way to cut through the misinformation and understand something, than to go directly to the source and read for yourself the ideas and principles that are central to the existence of that thing. Thus I presented the list.
Except for only the most religious people who will no doubt take extreme exception to the unthinkable notion that somebody could actually not believe in the supernatural nor in the concept of a supreme being, I cannot fathom any of the other items that would serve as a point of contention, or that would cause anyone undue alarm or dismay in the concepts of the ideals and principles laid out by Humanism. While many humanists may in fact be either athiests or agnostics from a religious viewpoint, it can be seen that lack of a belief in the supernatural does not automatically negate the belief in the need for morality, ethics and responsible living. And that is really the main point I would like to make clear, and to quash the notion that only people who aspire to a religious doctrine, or profess a belief in a supernatural being, can be considered morally upright and honorable. That is simply not true - and it never has been true. There are many examples of people through out history who were stalwarts of morality and sound character and who never professed a particular religious dogma. While there are certainly many people who are religious, and who profess a belief in faith and the supernatural, and who live fine examples of moral fidelity and are of strong personal character, the virtues of morality are not mutually exclusive to them. It seems to exist at the core of every man, those who are driven by faith as well as those who are focused by reason. But no one will argue that there are prime examples of people on both sides who do not live moral lives - such is the complexity of human behavior.
It is my earnest hope and desire to expose some light on the issues that have been such points of contention in our society, and hopefully some will begin to understand and reject the narrow and hateful definitions sometimes applied by those who seek to alter the reality of the human experience because of differing viewpoints and opinions. I do not advocate that we all need to agree with every idea and principle out there for the sake of getting along, but rather to examine what the principles in question really are and to analyze them based on sound logic and reason, and not on hyperbole. I believe that debate and discussions on ideas and principles are healthy and productive so long as they are done with respect and dignity by all parties. Just because you disagree does not mean the other person is necessairly wrong.
For those who may have held a negative viewpoint of "humanists" and "humanism", I ask you to read through their Affirmations and Statement of Principles if you have not done so, and examine them closely. Other than the clearly stated objections to accepting any explanations that lie beyond the natural world and focuses on explanations that exist in the mysteries of the supernatural, what concepts and principles in the list could be attributed to vile and repulsive ideals? The point is, once you examine the facts and understand the real reasons that define a concept or a principle, you may well be surprised that the true content of the facts are entirely different from the preconceived perceptions that had been assigned to it by others. I would love to hear any opposing views or thoughts on this one - to me, it is a clear cut case of examining the evidence based on facts, and not on somebody else’s opinion.
Except for only the most religious people who will no doubt take extreme exception to the unthinkable notion that somebody could actually not believe in the supernatural nor in the concept of a supreme being, I cannot fathom any of the other items that would serve as a point of contention, or that would cause anyone undue alarm or dismay in the concepts of the ideals and principles laid out by Humanism. While many humanists may in fact be either athiests or agnostics from a religious viewpoint, it can be seen that lack of a belief in the supernatural does not automatically negate the belief in the need for morality, ethics and responsible living. And that is really the main point I would like to make clear, and to quash the notion that only people who aspire to a religious doctrine, or profess a belief in a supernatural being, can be considered morally upright and honorable. That is simply not true - and it never has been true. There are many examples of people through out history who were stalwarts of morality and sound character and who never professed a particular religious dogma. While there are certainly many people who are religious, and who profess a belief in faith and the supernatural, and who live fine examples of moral fidelity and are of strong personal character, the virtues of morality are not mutually exclusive to them. It seems to exist at the core of every man, those who are driven by faith as well as those who are focused by reason. But no one will argue that there are prime examples of people on both sides who do not live moral lives - such is the complexity of human behavior.
It is my earnest hope and desire to expose some light on the issues that have been such points of contention in our society, and hopefully some will begin to understand and reject the narrow and hateful definitions sometimes applied by those who seek to alter the reality of the human experience because of differing viewpoints and opinions. I do not advocate that we all need to agree with every idea and principle out there for the sake of getting along, but rather to examine what the principles in question really are and to analyze them based on sound logic and reason, and not on hyperbole. I believe that debate and discussions on ideas and principles are healthy and productive so long as they are done with respect and dignity by all parties. Just because you disagree does not mean the other person is necessairly wrong.
For those who may have held a negative viewpoint of "humanists" and "humanism", I ask you to read through their Affirmations and Statement of Principles if you have not done so, and examine them closely. Other than the clearly stated objections to accepting any explanations that lie beyond the natural world and focuses on explanations that exist in the mysteries of the supernatural, what concepts and principles in the list could be attributed to vile and repulsive ideals? The point is, once you examine the facts and understand the real reasons that define a concept or a principle, you may well be surprised that the true content of the facts are entirely different from the preconceived perceptions that had been assigned to it by others. I would love to hear any opposing views or thoughts on this one - to me, it is a clear cut case of examining the evidence based on facts, and not on somebody else’s opinion.
Who Am I?
09-Jul-08 05:56 PM
I am going to list the affirmations and principles associated with a certain group of people and see if you can guess which group of people I am describing. I am going to slightly edit and alter the wording of the list so as not to give the answer away within the list. Please refrain from using Google or any other web search tool until you've read through the list and have given it an honest guess just based on the list. The answer will follow in the next post and it should be obvious - no need to google this one. Here it goes:
- We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
- We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
- We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
- We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
- We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
- We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
- We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
- We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
- We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
- We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
- We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
- We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
- We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
- We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. * ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
- We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
- We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
- We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
- We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
- We affirm there is a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
- We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
- We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.
Collection of Random Topics
21-Jun-08 09:38 AM
There are many topics worthy of discussion, but not really worthy of a dedicated post by themselves. Some of these topics have been building up in my brain lately, so allow me to release the pressure valve and spew some of them forth herewith. I reserve the right to come back at a later date and embellish any of these topics further as warranted by current events or stupid actions by people who should know better. So, in no particular order of importance or interest:
Gay Marriage Rights
Conservative and religious right leaders in California are chomping at the bit to try and pass a state constitutional amendment this November to nullify the recently acquired rights of gay couples from marrying in the state. They are spreading false information about marriage statistics and trying to convince everyone that by allowing gay couples to marry that the very institution of heteosexual marriage is somehow jeopardized and in danger of being eradicated off the face of the earth. Normally, this topic alone is worth an entire post by itself, but i have neither the energy nor the will to further debate this topic as it is so completely juvenille and senseless that it is exasperating to even try to and expend brain cells to debate it. Other than all of the arguments I have already posted on this blog about this topic, suffice it to say that the misinformation about marriage and the alarmist concerns of the destruction of heterosexual marriage is completely senseless and unwarranted. I stop short of calling it stupid (although it is) but I maintain that nobody but nobody can adequately explain how by allowing a group of people (gays and lesbians) to enjoy the same legal protections of marriage that that is going to jeopardize heterosexual marriage. It is a myth and one without any merit. Next topic.
Apple Goodies - iPhone 3G and Mobile Me
There is a wealth of techno goodies about to shower forth from the techno gods in Cupertino in early July, now only a few short weeks away. You’d have to be living in a hole in the sewers of London not to have already heard this news by now. Twice the features and half the price of the original iPhone, faster speeds, more third party applications, GPS, Microsoft Exchange support for enterprises and business users, and the best user interface ever designed for a mobile device make this a must have techno gadget for the masses. Notwithstanding all the goodness, to keep this journalistically pure, I will point out that there is much concern over the pricing plans with AT&T and who will be eligible for the lower prices. The $199 and $299 prices quoted during the WWDC Keynote address will not be available to everyone, depending upon existing cell phone contracts. This is nothing really new in the industry, but I can see a lot of people being disappointed to find out that they don’t qualify for the lower prices. But, like a good Republican, I know I qualify for the rates so I don’t really care if anybody else does or not. Tough luck.
Mobile Me is the replacement of the Dot Mac web service from Apple of which I have been a member for a few years now. While I have generally been pleased with Dot Mac, I am looking forward to the new push email, contacts and calendar capabilities that will be offered by the new service. As billed during the WWDC, this is exchange service for the rest of us. Dot Mac did have a few bugs and quirks in it and I am hoping that this new service will resolve some of those annoying glitches that would creep up from time to time. It is going to be so nice to be able to add calendar events or contacts to my laptop or Mac and then have that automatically sync up to my iPhone. This service also debuts in early July and I am ready for it.
Eletrical Loadbanks and Short Circuits
DId you know that the quasi-technical definition of an eletrical short is when electrical current flows unintentionally and uncontrolled between two conductors? In other words, it is when electricity goes where it’s not supposed to go and the consequential results are usually fried or charred electrical equipment.
An electrical loadbank is a piece of electrical equipment that simulates electrical load generated by equipment when the equipment is not present. It is used for testing such things as uninterrupted power supplies (UPS) and battery back up systems. With a loadbank apparatus you can simulate all different kinds of electrical events for the express purpose of testing out your emergency back up plans to deal with such emergencies.
Now you may wonder what is so important or interesting about this last bit of information and the answer is absolutely nothing. I said this would be a post on random topics and that’s what I just delivered.
Gay Marriage Rights
Conservative and religious right leaders in California are chomping at the bit to try and pass a state constitutional amendment this November to nullify the recently acquired rights of gay couples from marrying in the state. They are spreading false information about marriage statistics and trying to convince everyone that by allowing gay couples to marry that the very institution of heteosexual marriage is somehow jeopardized and in danger of being eradicated off the face of the earth. Normally, this topic alone is worth an entire post by itself, but i have neither the energy nor the will to further debate this topic as it is so completely juvenille and senseless that it is exasperating to even try to and expend brain cells to debate it. Other than all of the arguments I have already posted on this blog about this topic, suffice it to say that the misinformation about marriage and the alarmist concerns of the destruction of heterosexual marriage is completely senseless and unwarranted. I stop short of calling it stupid (although it is) but I maintain that nobody but nobody can adequately explain how by allowing a group of people (gays and lesbians) to enjoy the same legal protections of marriage that that is going to jeopardize heterosexual marriage. It is a myth and one without any merit. Next topic.
Apple Goodies - iPhone 3G and Mobile Me
There is a wealth of techno goodies about to shower forth from the techno gods in Cupertino in early July, now only a few short weeks away. You’d have to be living in a hole in the sewers of London not to have already heard this news by now. Twice the features and half the price of the original iPhone, faster speeds, more third party applications, GPS, Microsoft Exchange support for enterprises and business users, and the best user interface ever designed for a mobile device make this a must have techno gadget for the masses. Notwithstanding all the goodness, to keep this journalistically pure, I will point out that there is much concern over the pricing plans with AT&T and who will be eligible for the lower prices. The $199 and $299 prices quoted during the WWDC Keynote address will not be available to everyone, depending upon existing cell phone contracts. This is nothing really new in the industry, but I can see a lot of people being disappointed to find out that they don’t qualify for the lower prices. But, like a good Republican, I know I qualify for the rates so I don’t really care if anybody else does or not. Tough luck.
Mobile Me is the replacement of the Dot Mac web service from Apple of which I have been a member for a few years now. While I have generally been pleased with Dot Mac, I am looking forward to the new push email, contacts and calendar capabilities that will be offered by the new service. As billed during the WWDC, this is exchange service for the rest of us. Dot Mac did have a few bugs and quirks in it and I am hoping that this new service will resolve some of those annoying glitches that would creep up from time to time. It is going to be so nice to be able to add calendar events or contacts to my laptop or Mac and then have that automatically sync up to my iPhone. This service also debuts in early July and I am ready for it.
Eletrical Loadbanks and Short Circuits
DId you know that the quasi-technical definition of an eletrical short is when electrical current flows unintentionally and uncontrolled between two conductors? In other words, it is when electricity goes where it’s not supposed to go and the consequential results are usually fried or charred electrical equipment.
An electrical loadbank is a piece of electrical equipment that simulates electrical load generated by equipment when the equipment is not present. It is used for testing such things as uninterrupted power supplies (UPS) and battery back up systems. With a loadbank apparatus you can simulate all different kinds of electrical events for the express purpose of testing out your emergency back up plans to deal with such emergencies.
Now you may wonder what is so important or interesting about this last bit of information and the answer is absolutely nothing. I said this would be a post on random topics and that’s what I just delivered.
Faith That Kills
01-Apr-08 07:55 AM
I've been trying to wrap my brain around the recent story involving an Oregon family who allowed their 15 month old baby to die from bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection because of their insistence on not seeking medical help, but rather relying solely on prayer to cure the baby. If you have not yet read the details of the story, you can read it here - a truly tragic situation.
The story brings many questions to mind that people must grapple with. The most disturbing one, however, is how can a parent justify the suffering of their child - even up to the point of death - by placing a belief in faith above a common medical treatment? A simple round of antibiotics would have saved the babies' life according to the medical examiner. How can a system of belief rationalize that a God would require such behavior to the point of being oblivious to the extreme pain and suffering this poor child endured? Some might make the point that the parents have the right to follow their religious convictions and for the state of Oregon to interfere in the matter and bring criminal charges against them is a violation of separation of church and state. Another point, I would guess (I don't know for sure) that this family, being members of a fundamentalist Christian church, more than likely hold to an anti-choice abortion view and probably favor the criminalization of a woman who chooses to have an abortion - I again, I don't know that - but I am making an assumption based on statistics. And lastly, the church that these parents belong to state that prayer is the only acceptable means by which anyone should seek medical assistance, and should this method of treatment result in death, then that simply means that it was God's will for death to occur.
Here are a few points I would like to make on each of these topics. I concur completely with an article written by Dr. Arthur Caplan in which he states that when it comes to matters of faith and religion, adults should be free to exercise their rights to refuse medical help if they so choose for themselves, but when it comes to children or people who rely solely on the assistance of parents or others for their care, then a person should not be allowed to essentially place their belief systems above the safety and well being of the dependent's right to live and to avoid pain and suffering. Most of us agree that matters of faith are deeply personal things and they should not be tampered with by others. But the law must protect children and those against needless suffering and death at the hands of another person's belief - even if it is their parents. If indeed these parents are pro-life advocates, as many fundamentalist Christians are, I cannot understand how they could possibly justify their actions to allow suffering and death to occur to an infant. Again, I don't know this families position on the matter, but I am merely making a point. If it is wrong for a mother to-be to choose an abortion for any reason, then isn't it just as wrong to allow a fully sentient human being child to also die when other means of helping it are available?
Finally, the other aspect of this story that I find puzzling is the admission by the parents and the church that they belong to is that if prayer alone does not alter the outcome of a situation and if a person dies, then that indicates that it was "God's will" for death to occur. I find this to be a truly bizarre belief because if that statement is true, then what is the point of praying? All prayer, as best as I can tell, is an appeal or a supplication to the almighty for a particular outcome wanted by the one who is praying. If what you are asking for is not granted and then you concede that the reason is that it was not God's will, then isn't that an admission that prayer is an attempt to change the will or mind of God? How can mortals have any influence on the immortal? If God's will is always going to occur anyway, then the same outcome is always going to occur regardless of prayer or not. I realize some people draw tremendous strength from prayer and that is fine, but in the final analysis it would appear is that prayer is not going to change the final outcome of a situation because God is simply not going to go against his will. But, if they had given the baby medicine and she had lived, then was God's will usurped? I realize this is a purely theological question which is convoluted but it is one that I find to be almost inexplicable.
To conclude, I believe it is right and necessary for these parents to be punished in this matter. Not for their faith or their beliefs, but for allowing a child to suffer and die needlessly when readily available medical help would have saved it's life. I fully support a person's right to refuse medical help for themselves, and I even support the rights of those who are terminally ill to choose doctor assisted suicide if it will prevent them from experiencing extreme pain and suffering. But when it comes to children and those who cannot make their wishes known, then we should always act on the side of eliminating pain, suffering and death if at all possible.
The story brings many questions to mind that people must grapple with. The most disturbing one, however, is how can a parent justify the suffering of their child - even up to the point of death - by placing a belief in faith above a common medical treatment? A simple round of antibiotics would have saved the babies' life according to the medical examiner. How can a system of belief rationalize that a God would require such behavior to the point of being oblivious to the extreme pain and suffering this poor child endured? Some might make the point that the parents have the right to follow their religious convictions and for the state of Oregon to interfere in the matter and bring criminal charges against them is a violation of separation of church and state. Another point, I would guess (I don't know for sure) that this family, being members of a fundamentalist Christian church, more than likely hold to an anti-choice abortion view and probably favor the criminalization of a woman who chooses to have an abortion - I again, I don't know that - but I am making an assumption based on statistics. And lastly, the church that these parents belong to state that prayer is the only acceptable means by which anyone should seek medical assistance, and should this method of treatment result in death, then that simply means that it was God's will for death to occur.
Here are a few points I would like to make on each of these topics. I concur completely with an article written by Dr. Arthur Caplan in which he states that when it comes to matters of faith and religion, adults should be free to exercise their rights to refuse medical help if they so choose for themselves, but when it comes to children or people who rely solely on the assistance of parents or others for their care, then a person should not be allowed to essentially place their belief systems above the safety and well being of the dependent's right to live and to avoid pain and suffering. Most of us agree that matters of faith are deeply personal things and they should not be tampered with by others. But the law must protect children and those against needless suffering and death at the hands of another person's belief - even if it is their parents. If indeed these parents are pro-life advocates, as many fundamentalist Christians are, I cannot understand how they could possibly justify their actions to allow suffering and death to occur to an infant. Again, I don't know this families position on the matter, but I am merely making a point. If it is wrong for a mother to-be to choose an abortion for any reason, then isn't it just as wrong to allow a fully sentient human being child to also die when other means of helping it are available?
Finally, the other aspect of this story that I find puzzling is the admission by the parents and the church that they belong to is that if prayer alone does not alter the outcome of a situation and if a person dies, then that indicates that it was "God's will" for death to occur. I find this to be a truly bizarre belief because if that statement is true, then what is the point of praying? All prayer, as best as I can tell, is an appeal or a supplication to the almighty for a particular outcome wanted by the one who is praying. If what you are asking for is not granted and then you concede that the reason is that it was not God's will, then isn't that an admission that prayer is an attempt to change the will or mind of God? How can mortals have any influence on the immortal? If God's will is always going to occur anyway, then the same outcome is always going to occur regardless of prayer or not. I realize some people draw tremendous strength from prayer and that is fine, but in the final analysis it would appear is that prayer is not going to change the final outcome of a situation because God is simply not going to go against his will. But, if they had given the baby medicine and she had lived, then was God's will usurped? I realize this is a purely theological question which is convoluted but it is one that I find to be almost inexplicable.
To conclude, I believe it is right and necessary for these parents to be punished in this matter. Not for their faith or their beliefs, but for allowing a child to suffer and die needlessly when readily available medical help would have saved it's life. I fully support a person's right to refuse medical help for themselves, and I even support the rights of those who are terminally ill to choose doctor assisted suicide if it will prevent them from experiencing extreme pain and suffering. But when it comes to children and those who cannot make their wishes known, then we should always act on the side of eliminating pain, suffering and death if at all possible.
My Answers To The Questions
13-Feb-08 07:02 PM
Here are my answers to a series of ten questions that were recently compiled by First Freedom First as a discussion starter on the issue of separation of church and state. Of course, these are just my opinions, but the idea is to induce people into thinking about these questions and examining their stance on these very important issues. I welcome any and all comments, especially those who may have a differing view than mine:
1. Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a “Christian Nation.” Do you agree with this statement?
Absolutely not. There are more Christians than any other religion in this nation, but the nation was not founded on a theocracy or on Christian doctrine.
2. Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?
No. Tax exempt status is one of the benefits churches enjoy as a result of the wall between government and religion. If a church feels compelled to intermix politics in with it's teachings and openly endorses political candidates from the pulpit, they should lose their tax exempt status and pay taxes.
3. Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?
Public schools have no business dealing in the realm of religion. Since their funding comes from taxes and the government, the public school should remain neutral on the subject of religion out of respect for all faiths. Prayer may be practiced at any time by any student, but should never be sponsored as a school program where students are coerced into participating.
4. Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?
No. The only thing that should be taught in science class is science. Creationism and intelligent design are concepts that do not adhere to the scientific method and are untestable - they therefore should not be presented as science.
5. Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?
No. The pharmacist has a duty to dispense doctor authorized medications to patients - it has no bearing on his personal opinions, beliefs or convictions. If a pharmacist is not able to morally comply with the requirements of the job he should seek some other form of employment.
6. Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?
Absolutely. I happen to believe that sexual orientation is not a choice anymore than your genetics or your nationality are a choice. To allow people the right and dignity to be who they are without discrimination is the right of all humans.
7. Should “faith-based” charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?
This is why public funds given to faith based charities is a bad idea. Tax money should never be used by a business or entity that discriminates against anyone as the tax money is a collective representation of everyone from the community. Churches are free to discriminate along these lines as their money is all freely donated by people of like convictions. Faith based charities may do what they like unless they take government money, then they may not discriminate for any reason.
8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?
Absolutely. The first amendment protects all people of all faiths, or people of no faith. No one is compelled to believe anything against their will.
9. Do you think everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called “a wall of separation” between church and state?
Yes. Without the separation between church and state the two entities become entangled and poison each other. Religion takes on the mantle of state power and can coerce people into matters of faith - and the state can take on the pious nature and deception of divine right and lose sight of secular law by pretending to enforce God's law on narrow and subjective interpretations of doctrine.
10. What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?
Public health and medical research should be based purely on science and fact. Ehtical and moral questions can be left up to the individual based on their own unique beliefs and code of moral conduct.
If anyone thinks I'm fit for public office and would like to see "TD3k robot-extraordinaire" run in future elections, please leave your comments or e-mail for instructions on sending cash donations to my presidential campaign. Or, better yet, please make sure you vote for your candidate of choice in the primaries and in the general election this November. Vote your conscience and make a difference.
1. Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a “Christian Nation.” Do you agree with this statement?
Absolutely not. There are more Christians than any other religion in this nation, but the nation was not founded on a theocracy or on Christian doctrine.
2. Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?
No. Tax exempt status is one of the benefits churches enjoy as a result of the wall between government and religion. If a church feels compelled to intermix politics in with it's teachings and openly endorses political candidates from the pulpit, they should lose their tax exempt status and pay taxes.
3. Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?
Public schools have no business dealing in the realm of religion. Since their funding comes from taxes and the government, the public school should remain neutral on the subject of religion out of respect for all faiths. Prayer may be practiced at any time by any student, but should never be sponsored as a school program where students are coerced into participating.
4. Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?
No. The only thing that should be taught in science class is science. Creationism and intelligent design are concepts that do not adhere to the scientific method and are untestable - they therefore should not be presented as science.
5. Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?
No. The pharmacist has a duty to dispense doctor authorized medications to patients - it has no bearing on his personal opinions, beliefs or convictions. If a pharmacist is not able to morally comply with the requirements of the job he should seek some other form of employment.
6. Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?
Absolutely. I happen to believe that sexual orientation is not a choice anymore than your genetics or your nationality are a choice. To allow people the right and dignity to be who they are without discrimination is the right of all humans.
7. Should “faith-based” charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?
This is why public funds given to faith based charities is a bad idea. Tax money should never be used by a business or entity that discriminates against anyone as the tax money is a collective representation of everyone from the community. Churches are free to discriminate along these lines as their money is all freely donated by people of like convictions. Faith based charities may do what they like unless they take government money, then they may not discriminate for any reason.
8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?
Absolutely. The first amendment protects all people of all faiths, or people of no faith. No one is compelled to believe anything against their will.
9. Do you think everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called “a wall of separation” between church and state?
Yes. Without the separation between church and state the two entities become entangled and poison each other. Religion takes on the mantle of state power and can coerce people into matters of faith - and the state can take on the pious nature and deception of divine right and lose sight of secular law by pretending to enforce God's law on narrow and subjective interpretations of doctrine.
10. What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?
Public health and medical research should be based purely on science and fact. Ehtical and moral questions can be left up to the individual based on their own unique beliefs and code of moral conduct.
If anyone thinks I'm fit for public office and would like to see "TD3k robot-extraordinaire" run in future elections, please leave your comments or e-mail for instructions on sending cash donations to my presidential campaign. Or, better yet, please make sure you vote for your candidate of choice in the primaries and in the general election this November. Vote your conscience and make a difference.
Book Review: Liars For Jesus
12-Sep-07 07:40 AM
Liars For Jesus is an in-depth book of scholarly research that presents a staggering amount of historical facts and information aimed at one primary thesis: the debunking of religious right history authors who try to present a different version of American history than what is generally accepted by most historians. The author, Chris Rodda, plunges into this endeavor with a vast array of historical evidence to back up her presentation... Read More...
Who Was Thomas Paine?
14-Aug-07 05:26 PM
It is truly amazing how little is known of Thomas Paine amongst the general public nowadays. A man of significant historical value and influence to the very founding of our great nation; a man who greatly inspired the founders such as Jefferson, Adams, and Washington; yet also a man silently relegated to the almost forgotten pages of history.
He was an intellectual and a man who wrote an amazing treatise entitled "The Age of Reason". The contents of this book are almost certainly the reason why Paine has been neglected in our history books and out of our collective conscience. Paine was not an agnostic nor an atheist but he was a deist and the writings in "The Age of Reason" was his explanation as to why he did not believe any of the organized religions or their teachings. For this reason he has been smeared and defamed and now forgotten by those who were incensed at his writings and at his logic. This is a man who should be rediscovered anew for I believe that his writings are still fresh, relevant and educational even for today.
Many people will disagree with his arguments presented in "The Age of Reason", and that's their right. Even Paine himself acknowledged that these were only his opinions and he condemned no one for holding to a different viewpoint. For me, reading this book was a fresh confirmation and a reaffirmation of many thoughts, feelings, and ideas that I had held for a long time previously. Seeing the words and thoughts so carefully crafted and penned with such skill was a truly remarkable experience. If you've never read "The Age of Reason", I highly encourage you to check it out and read it all the way through. Even if you disagree with his opinions, he never presents anything insulting or derogatory and thus establishes the ability to be listened to without animosity. For me, I agree almost entirely with everything he states and find the words truly enlightening. The book is in two parts - the entire work can be read on line here.
"...I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it. The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall..." -Thomas Paine
Happy Darwin's Day!
10-Feb-07 09:14 AM
In my opinion, I am all for the promotion of science and a better understanding of the writings of Darwin and other scientists. I think most folks today don't really understand the concept of evolution and gene mutations as the whole subject has been reduced to the single question of "did man evolve from the ape?" This concept is at odds with many religious faiths since it calls into question of man's importance and status in the world as described in the writings of the sacred texts. Evolution, if true as we understand it today, presents a very different picture of man and reduces him to the same level as the animal, but at the top of the animal chain primarily as a result of our larger brains. I remain of the opinion that science and religion play two different roles and I believe that ultimately religion has to conform to the principles of science if it is to be valid. Let me explain:
Simply put, science deals with the observations, data collection and testing of subjects in the physical world. Science can only deal with that which is tangible; it cannot by definition deal with the supernatural or the intangible since entities in that realm cannot be observed, tested, or documented. Religion, on the other hand, deals with the intangible, the supernatural, and the unknown. Since science cannot validate religious teachings due to the content of the subject matter (i.e. science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God), it is imperative for religious teachings to at least conform to scientific principles as they relate to the physical world if we are to have any hope of believing them. If a religious dogma teaches something that is at odds with science; that is, something that we can observe, test and prove to be true or untrue, then that religious dogma is no longer valid by the proof of the physical evidence against it. If a religious doctrine does not conform to that which we can prove true or false in the tangible world, how then can we hope to believe the same religious instructions on things that cannot be seen or tested in the intangible world? It would seem to me that if you are presenting a text, a faith, or a belief system as the "truth", then it has to be true on everything. I doubt that Evolution Sunday will get that deep into the subject, but at least it is a start. It's not about destroying faith, it's about adjusting thoughts and beliefs to at least align with what can be demonstrated as the truth. I would certainly be happy to hear any additional thoughts or comments on this subject. Oh, and Happy Darwin's Day!!
President Clinton's Wise Advice
21-Oct-06 09:10 AM
President Clinton recently gave a speech at Georgetown University and it's message and timing seem most relevant. Here is the actual story as reported from the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON - Former President Clinton says people of faith shouldn't claim to have a corner on religious truth, but instead should view life as a journey toward that truth.
Clinton told students at Georgetown University that religious certainty is especially dangerous when it's mixed with politics, because it closes minds, hinders compromise and demonizes opponents.
The former president said the Bible teaches that "in this world we see through a glass darkly, and know in part."
To believe one knows the whole truth and base politics on it, he said, is a dangerous religious heresy "that makes evidence irrelevant and argument a waste of time."
He said firmly held convictions should be tempered by the recognition that they could be wrong.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press.
I couldn't agree more with this statement and I think it makes an excellent point in that personal religious beliefs are just that - personal. Beliefs are not universal truths or principles to be carved into stone and politicized. Whether you are dealing with fundamentalist Islam or fundamentalist Christianity, (or any religion that tries to conveniently package it's world view into an absolute black and white perspective), the end results will always be the same the minute these views transcend beyond the realm of personal belief and in to a forum of mandatory public acceptance. I applaud President Clinton for discussing this important topic at a time when there seems to be so much confusion and misunderstanding on this subject.
WASHINGTON - Former President Clinton says people of faith shouldn't claim to have a corner on religious truth, but instead should view life as a journey toward that truth.
Clinton told students at Georgetown University that religious certainty is especially dangerous when it's mixed with politics, because it closes minds, hinders compromise and demonizes opponents.
The former president said the Bible teaches that "in this world we see through a glass darkly, and know in part."
To believe one knows the whole truth and base politics on it, he said, is a dangerous religious heresy "that makes evidence irrelevant and argument a waste of time."
He said firmly held convictions should be tempered by the recognition that they could be wrong.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press.
I couldn't agree more with this statement and I think it makes an excellent point in that personal religious beliefs are just that - personal. Beliefs are not universal truths or principles to be carved into stone and politicized. Whether you are dealing with fundamentalist Islam or fundamentalist Christianity, (or any religion that tries to conveniently package it's world view into an absolute black and white perspective), the end results will always be the same the minute these views transcend beyond the realm of personal belief and in to a forum of mandatory public acceptance. I applaud President Clinton for discussing this important topic at a time when there seems to be so much confusion and misunderstanding on this subject.
With God On Our Side
17-Oct-06 11:38 PM
...Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side...
-Bob Dylan
Today I heard a very interesting interview with an author by the name of Michael Weinstein who has just written a book entitled "With God On Our Side". The book recaps the story of the author's son who served in the US Air Force at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. During the interview, Mr. Weinstein made it very clear to the audience that his book is not an attack on Christians, or on Christianity, but rather was an expose to the American public on the infiltration of the fundamentalist religious right into not only the US Air Force, but the entire US military infrastructure. Mr. Weinstein, who is a Jew, recounts the vile and ruthless treatment that his son received while a cadet at the Air Force academy that ranged from complete and total intolerance of the Jewish faith, to insults, and hate filled jeers and jokes. His son was repeatedly pressured by his superiors and peers to convert to Christianity to "avoid going to hell" and was repeatedly mocked for being a Jew and even accused of being responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. Some of the finer details of the accounts he described are truly shocking and revolting.
The author further claims that as he began investigating these specific incidents, he wrote a letter to the Air Force to complain of the treatment and the inappropriateness of this type of indoctrination by the Air Force to young, impressionable cadets. He received a letter back basically stating that they had investigated and that there are no "problems" requiring attention. He sent a subsequent letter stating that he was going to give the Air Force a set amount of time to deal with the matter or that he would file a lawsuit against them for religious discrimination. He received a second letter back that stated the Air Force had the right to "evangelize" any cadet or service man whom they felt like were "lost" or in need of "salvation"!! Since receiving this letter, Mr. Weinstein has formed a non-profit organization and is pursuing his lawsuit against the Air Force.
This should come as no surprise to those who are already savvy to the current politicization of religion taking place in Washington over the past several years. And it should serve as a wake up call to those who are not aware of what's going on behind the scenes. As the current administration embraces the intermingling of politics and religion with a complete and utter disregard for the US Constitution and the mandate of separation of church and state, an insidious malaise is slowly creeping into all branches of our government that our Founding Fathers sought so desperately to protect. The secularization of our government institutions was not a mistake or an after-thought by the founders, but rather was purposely set into place as the only means possible to protect and ensure the fair and equitable treatment of all peoples to their rights of religious affiliation (or freedom thereof). The things that are happening today in the US military are the direct result of an administration who obviously do not understand the serious consequences of allowing government and religion to intermingle. Now that it has, we are already seeing the by-products of this experiment, and for all intents and purposes, it bears all the same marks, attributes and distinguishing features of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The only difference is that this variety is Christian instead of Muslim. This country has enjoyed for over 200 years the freedom of religion allowed by a non-interferring government which has remained neutral on the matter of religion. This has only been possible by the freedeoms employed by a secularist framework in our Constitution. If this ideal is allowed to be dismantled by those who shamelessly and wantonly trample upon the rights and religious liberties of others, simply because they differ from their own, we can expect to see more and more examples becoming commonplace like we are seeing in the military now.
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side...
-Bob Dylan
Today I heard a very interesting interview with an author by the name of Michael Weinstein who has just written a book entitled "With God On Our Side". The book recaps the story of the author's son who served in the US Air Force at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. During the interview, Mr. Weinstein made it very clear to the audience that his book is not an attack on Christians, or on Christianity, but rather was an expose to the American public on the infiltration of the fundamentalist religious right into not only the US Air Force, but the entire US military infrastructure. Mr. Weinstein, who is a Jew, recounts the vile and ruthless treatment that his son received while a cadet at the Air Force academy that ranged from complete and total intolerance of the Jewish faith, to insults, and hate filled jeers and jokes. His son was repeatedly pressured by his superiors and peers to convert to Christianity to "avoid going to hell" and was repeatedly mocked for being a Jew and even accused of being responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. Some of the finer details of the accounts he described are truly shocking and revolting.
The author further claims that as he began investigating these specific incidents, he wrote a letter to the Air Force to complain of the treatment and the inappropriateness of this type of indoctrination by the Air Force to young, impressionable cadets. He received a letter back basically stating that they had investigated and that there are no "problems" requiring attention. He sent a subsequent letter stating that he was going to give the Air Force a set amount of time to deal with the matter or that he would file a lawsuit against them for religious discrimination. He received a second letter back that stated the Air Force had the right to "evangelize" any cadet or service man whom they felt like were "lost" or in need of "salvation"!! Since receiving this letter, Mr. Weinstein has formed a non-profit organization and is pursuing his lawsuit against the Air Force.
This should come as no surprise to those who are already savvy to the current politicization of religion taking place in Washington over the past several years. And it should serve as a wake up call to those who are not aware of what's going on behind the scenes. As the current administration embraces the intermingling of politics and religion with a complete and utter disregard for the US Constitution and the mandate of separation of church and state, an insidious malaise is slowly creeping into all branches of our government that our Founding Fathers sought so desperately to protect. The secularization of our government institutions was not a mistake or an after-thought by the founders, but rather was purposely set into place as the only means possible to protect and ensure the fair and equitable treatment of all peoples to their rights of religious affiliation (or freedom thereof). The things that are happening today in the US military are the direct result of an administration who obviously do not understand the serious consequences of allowing government and religion to intermingle. Now that it has, we are already seeing the by-products of this experiment, and for all intents and purposes, it bears all the same marks, attributes and distinguishing features of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The only difference is that this variety is Christian instead of Muslim. This country has enjoyed for over 200 years the freedom of religion allowed by a non-interferring government which has remained neutral on the matter of religion. This has only been possible by the freedeoms employed by a secularist framework in our Constitution. If this ideal is allowed to be dismantled by those who shamelessly and wantonly trample upon the rights and religious liberties of others, simply because they differ from their own, we can expect to see more and more examples becoming commonplace like we are seeing in the military now.
Jetstream of Thought
31-Jul-06 03:23 PM
I'm cruising at 33,000 feet somewhere over Kentucky and looking out the window through the veil of clouds at the world below. I'm listening to music on the iPod (Elton John and Don Henley singing "Shakey Ground") trying to pass the 3 hour flight as best as possible. I'm enroute to Philadelphia from Dallas on yet another business trip and this time I won't have any cool weather to welcome me. I am ultimately headed to Allentown, Pennsylvania; about a 75 mile drive in my Avis rent car from Philly and the forecast for the entire week is calling for upper 90's to possible 100 degrees. Not unusual for Dallas in August, but not normal in Pennsylvania.
I just browsed the latest copy of Time magazine's "6 Steps to Peace in the Middle East" and have been thinking about the escalting conflict in the region. It seems so far away and unreal at the moment. It's hard to believe that in this day and age humans still choose to live with war, killing, hatred, and violence. These are the behaviors of our primitive anscestors who resolved conflict not with reasoning and logic, but rather with force and might. Of all the inventions that man has procured and developed, isn't it interesting that even the most basic of human behaviors still eludes his ability to control? I am sitting in an aluminum tube, hurdling through the skies at near the speed of sound on a journey that will land me almost 1,300 miles from my home. I am writing this article on a device that when connected into the world-wide-web network will enable anybody on the planet to read this article. Yet, even as I type and conjure the words I am trying to express, man is killing man and destroying innocent lives out of a sheer inability to resolve conflicts that are as old as time itself. My question is how can we be so advanced on the one hand, and so repressed and backward on the other?
The answer is elusive; and it is certainly deeper than anything I can cover in this short article. However, I think there is a key element that is responsible for much of the hatred and conflict and I think it is time for us all to realize it and acknowledge it's presence. Religious and cultural intolerance. The inability to co-exist with people who hold to a differing religious viewpoint and culture has been the fuel on the fire for many wars and conflicts all through out history; not just the Middle East. My intention here is not to attack religion, or those who practice religion. My attempt here is to point to the fact that regardless what religion you believe, it is fundamentally imperative to not make the mistake in believing that God has choosen a single group of people out over another and that he is showing favoritism to anybody. This view point has single handedly caused more death and destruction on the face of our planet than any other disease or calamity that has ever existed. I find it completely impossible to believe that God, a divine being who is supposed to be the epitome of love, wisdom, and justice, could ever be implicated in something so evil, so heinous, so completely dispicable as favoring one group of people over all others. There is nothing divine or just about such a concept and it must be realized for what it is - it is the impetus of many of our problems today in a world that is still unable to see beyond that which we already know. We are all equal and we all are deserving of the same rights and priviledges for all. Anybody, group, book, or government who teaches otherwise should be held in the utmost contempt and rejected outright lest we perpetually fan the flames of hatred and arrogance forever.
I know many people cannot accept what I am saying because it is contrary to the Bible. It is also contrary to the Koran and other religious books. But therein lies the problem. All religions have the same characteristic of requiring it's followers to follow it's teachings and writings implicitly. It requires complete devotion and teaches that all others who deviate from it's teachings are false, wrong, and evil. In it's attempt at self preservation it promotes an arrogant and unrelenting mindset of it's followers and places a mental road block in the road of logic and reason. I think it's pretty safe to argue that for all the good religion has brought to the world, it has brought more damage than good because it has ensnared man's ability to rationally reason the concept of co-existence with people of differing views. We seem to forget that religion is about faith - not facts. If they were facts that could be certified and proved then what purpose would faith serve?
Until everyone realizes that God is not on anybody's side; nor has he chosen one group over another, we will continue acting as though we are the favorite child and everyone else is the step child. Not until we realize that all peoples around the world are the same and are equal with the same wants, desires, and needs basic to human life, we will never be able to reconcile the conflict and stop the hatred that has been born out of the bigotry of arrogant, self righteousness and pious self-importance. The fact is, we are all in this together and we all deserve the right to live life to the fullest. There is plenty of space on the planet for all people to live free and happy and in pursuit of happiness. The ultimate question that each of us must ask is, will we be brave enough to stand up and say "no" to those basic beliefs and concepts that continue to divide and separate us into differing groups of "us" versus "them"? We are intelligent - we should act accordingly.
I just browsed the latest copy of Time magazine's "6 Steps to Peace in the Middle East" and have been thinking about the escalting conflict in the region. It seems so far away and unreal at the moment. It's hard to believe that in this day and age humans still choose to live with war, killing, hatred, and violence. These are the behaviors of our primitive anscestors who resolved conflict not with reasoning and logic, but rather with force and might. Of all the inventions that man has procured and developed, isn't it interesting that even the most basic of human behaviors still eludes his ability to control? I am sitting in an aluminum tube, hurdling through the skies at near the speed of sound on a journey that will land me almost 1,300 miles from my home. I am writing this article on a device that when connected into the world-wide-web network will enable anybody on the planet to read this article. Yet, even as I type and conjure the words I am trying to express, man is killing man and destroying innocent lives out of a sheer inability to resolve conflicts that are as old as time itself. My question is how can we be so advanced on the one hand, and so repressed and backward on the other?
The answer is elusive; and it is certainly deeper than anything I can cover in this short article. However, I think there is a key element that is responsible for much of the hatred and conflict and I think it is time for us all to realize it and acknowledge it's presence. Religious and cultural intolerance. The inability to co-exist with people who hold to a differing religious viewpoint and culture has been the fuel on the fire for many wars and conflicts all through out history; not just the Middle East. My intention here is not to attack religion, or those who practice religion. My attempt here is to point to the fact that regardless what religion you believe, it is fundamentally imperative to not make the mistake in believing that God has choosen a single group of people out over another and that he is showing favoritism to anybody. This view point has single handedly caused more death and destruction on the face of our planet than any other disease or calamity that has ever existed. I find it completely impossible to believe that God, a divine being who is supposed to be the epitome of love, wisdom, and justice, could ever be implicated in something so evil, so heinous, so completely dispicable as favoring one group of people over all others. There is nothing divine or just about such a concept and it must be realized for what it is - it is the impetus of many of our problems today in a world that is still unable to see beyond that which we already know. We are all equal and we all are deserving of the same rights and priviledges for all. Anybody, group, book, or government who teaches otherwise should be held in the utmost contempt and rejected outright lest we perpetually fan the flames of hatred and arrogance forever.
I know many people cannot accept what I am saying because it is contrary to the Bible. It is also contrary to the Koran and other religious books. But therein lies the problem. All religions have the same characteristic of requiring it's followers to follow it's teachings and writings implicitly. It requires complete devotion and teaches that all others who deviate from it's teachings are false, wrong, and evil. In it's attempt at self preservation it promotes an arrogant and unrelenting mindset of it's followers and places a mental road block in the road of logic and reason. I think it's pretty safe to argue that for all the good religion has brought to the world, it has brought more damage than good because it has ensnared man's ability to rationally reason the concept of co-existence with people of differing views. We seem to forget that religion is about faith - not facts. If they were facts that could be certified and proved then what purpose would faith serve?
Until everyone realizes that God is not on anybody's side; nor has he chosen one group over another, we will continue acting as though we are the favorite child and everyone else is the step child. Not until we realize that all peoples around the world are the same and are equal with the same wants, desires, and needs basic to human life, we will never be able to reconcile the conflict and stop the hatred that has been born out of the bigotry of arrogant, self righteousness and pious self-importance. The fact is, we are all in this together and we all deserve the right to live life to the fullest. There is plenty of space on the planet for all people to live free and happy and in pursuit of happiness. The ultimate question that each of us must ask is, will we be brave enough to stand up and say "no" to those basic beliefs and concepts that continue to divide and separate us into differing groups of "us" versus "them"? We are intelligent - we should act accordingly.
Thought For the Day
11-May-06 11:24 PM
Here is a very interesting excerpt from the writings of Thomas Paine, that I find to be engaging and thought provoking. I think he makes an excellent point and one that is difficult to rationally argue against. The topic is "Revelation" - Here it is:
"It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
To me, this is somewhat analogous to the notion of an "eyewitness" who may account for something that he has personally witnessed. Until the story can be verified against another reliable source, the account of the eyewitness is not really credible evidence, and would have a hard job holding up in a court of law. The only way to truly verify the accuracy of the story is by corroborating the facts of the accounts against other sources to see if the same events were witnessed by more than one person. The more incredible the account of the eyewitness, the more need for verification to confirm the accuracy of the event. In the circumstance where there can be no verification at all, or the accounts do not align, the story will probably remain uncredible.
This ties in precisely with the comments of Mr. Paine. He makes the point that information that is "revealed" through the telling or writing of any eyewitness to an event, while totally believable to the eyewitness, cannot truly be trusted until there is verification. For without verification, in the end all you have is the word of the eyewitness. Or, as in the case of the written word, you also have to accept the honesty, intergrity, and accuracy of the author, editor and publisher. What do you think?
"It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
To me, this is somewhat analogous to the notion of an "eyewitness" who may account for something that he has personally witnessed. Until the story can be verified against another reliable source, the account of the eyewitness is not really credible evidence, and would have a hard job holding up in a court of law. The only way to truly verify the accuracy of the story is by corroborating the facts of the accounts against other sources to see if the same events were witnessed by more than one person. The more incredible the account of the eyewitness, the more need for verification to confirm the accuracy of the event. In the circumstance where there can be no verification at all, or the accounts do not align, the story will probably remain uncredible.
This ties in precisely with the comments of Mr. Paine. He makes the point that information that is "revealed" through the telling or writing of any eyewitness to an event, while totally believable to the eyewitness, cannot truly be trusted until there is verification. For without verification, in the end all you have is the word of the eyewitness. Or, as in the case of the written word, you also have to accept the honesty, intergrity, and accuracy of the author, editor and publisher. What do you think?
Consider this...
03-Dec-05 11:49 PM
I ran across an article that made a very interesting point contrasting the differences in religious education between the United States and Great Britain. Here is an excerpt:
James Moore of Britain’s Open University noted religion was not taught in U.S. schools, yet this was a “very religious nation.” In contrast, fewer than 5 percent of adults attend church services in Britain, a Christian country where religious education is mandatory and there is no separation of church and state.
The main point of the article is yet another discussion on Intelligent Design, but I found this one point to be the most striking. I post it here for all to ponder and consider what the ultimate goal would be for the United States to become more like England; to water down and ignore the separation of church and state principles, and to go ahead and promote the teaching of religious subject material into the curriculum of our public schools. It seems to me that the end goal of such a move would be to make people more religious or at least more spiritually attuned. Isn't it odd that in the United States, where we maintain a separation of church and state and do not promote religious training in our public schools, that we have a higher percentage of religious people than Great Britain where they are officially a Christian nation with no such separations? Some might say that it is coincidence only. I don't think so.
James Moore of Britain’s Open University noted religion was not taught in U.S. schools, yet this was a “very religious nation.” In contrast, fewer than 5 percent of adults attend church services in Britain, a Christian country where religious education is mandatory and there is no separation of church and state.
The main point of the article is yet another discussion on Intelligent Design, but I found this one point to be the most striking. I post it here for all to ponder and consider what the ultimate goal would be for the United States to become more like England; to water down and ignore the separation of church and state principles, and to go ahead and promote the teaching of religious subject material into the curriculum of our public schools. It seems to me that the end goal of such a move would be to make people more religious or at least more spiritually attuned. Isn't it odd that in the United States, where we maintain a separation of church and state and do not promote religious training in our public schools, that we have a higher percentage of religious people than Great Britain where they are officially a Christian nation with no such separations? Some might say that it is coincidence only. I don't think so.
Intelligent Doom
10-Nov-05 10:40 PM
As someone who has previously weighed in on the subject of intelligent design I find the story about Pat Robertson's comments on the subject to be wholly fascinating and disturbing all at the same time. I am of course referring to his comments made today to the people of Dover, PA, who on Tuesday voted out the entire school board who tried to bring intelligent design into the school curriculum. They in turn replaced them with Democrats who are opposed to the idea of intelligent design being taught as science. According to Pat Robertson, the good people of Dover have rejected God and are inviting doom and disaster to strike in their town for their reprehensible actions. He has advised them not to call upon God in their hour of need should disaster strike, because He will more than likely not be anywhere around.
Of course, Pat Robertson is entitled to his opinion, no matter how far out there they may be, but if you stop to think about what he has said, it certainly raises some very interesting topics of discussion. Here are the main ones that come to mind:
1. Mr. Robertson has unwittingly answered the question that has been on everyone's mind lately, and is also the primary answer that the judge in the Dover lawsuit case in Pennsylvania is seeking; namely is intelligent design a true science or is it religion masked as a science? Pat Robertson has now unmistakenly linked the two together and has revealed that indeed intelligent design is strongly rooted in religion, and to be oppossed to it is the same as being oppossed to God! If the judge in Pennsylvania has any doubts, hopefully he will take Pat's advice on the subject and will therefore conclude that this is indeed about religion and not science.
2. If there is any merit to the type of theology that Pat Robertson is espousing, one would have to conclude that any governmental regulating board at either the federal, state or local levels, that do not embrace a Christian theocracy, are in direct danger of invoking the wrath of God upon itself. The people who live under the jurisdictions of these agencies should therefore not bother to pray to God ever again since they obviously elected these officials in the first place. If this were true, one would have to further conclude that God would have wiped out the United States of America a long time ago seeing that the US Constitution is a completely secular document that calls for the strict separation between state and church and does not invoke the name of God anywhere within it's articles or amendments. This country has been flirting with disaster since 1776!! How long can we last?
3. We should be able to look forward to some really interesting comparisons between the doomed folks of Pennsylvania and the blessed people of Kansas. Seeing that Kansas has accepted God into the classroom and Pennsylvania has rejected God out of theirs, we should be able to see a marked difference in the number of disasters and calamities that befall each group over the coming months and years. After all, we all know that disasters only befall those who have rejected God and nothing but good times can be had for those who accept him. Pat didn't say this outright, but it is inferred.
Suffice it to say, I don't think most people in this country subscribe to the views of Pat Robertson on this subject. I think Pat has done a lot, however, to fully illustrate the total absurdity of the argument that intelligent design is a science when it is clearly nothing more than a religious viewpoint. Science does not deal in the realm of religion or God; it never has and it never will. It is strictly concerned with natural phenomena - what can be seen, touched and proved. If science ever reveals a hole in your religious belief system, it is time to maybe question what you believe. It is not a good idea to disguise your religion as a science to try and make the hole go away. This is really what is going on today with intelligent design.
Of course, Pat Robertson is entitled to his opinion, no matter how far out there they may be, but if you stop to think about what he has said, it certainly raises some very interesting topics of discussion. Here are the main ones that come to mind:
1. Mr. Robertson has unwittingly answered the question that has been on everyone's mind lately, and is also the primary answer that the judge in the Dover lawsuit case in Pennsylvania is seeking; namely is intelligent design a true science or is it religion masked as a science? Pat Robertson has now unmistakenly linked the two together and has revealed that indeed intelligent design is strongly rooted in religion, and to be oppossed to it is the same as being oppossed to God! If the judge in Pennsylvania has any doubts, hopefully he will take Pat's advice on the subject and will therefore conclude that this is indeed about religion and not science.
2. If there is any merit to the type of theology that Pat Robertson is espousing, one would have to conclude that any governmental regulating board at either the federal, state or local levels, that do not embrace a Christian theocracy, are in direct danger of invoking the wrath of God upon itself. The people who live under the jurisdictions of these agencies should therefore not bother to pray to God ever again since they obviously elected these officials in the first place. If this were true, one would have to further conclude that God would have wiped out the United States of America a long time ago seeing that the US Constitution is a completely secular document that calls for the strict separation between state and church and does not invoke the name of God anywhere within it's articles or amendments. This country has been flirting with disaster since 1776!! How long can we last?
3. We should be able to look forward to some really interesting comparisons between the doomed folks of Pennsylvania and the blessed people of Kansas. Seeing that Kansas has accepted God into the classroom and Pennsylvania has rejected God out of theirs, we should be able to see a marked difference in the number of disasters and calamities that befall each group over the coming months and years. After all, we all know that disasters only befall those who have rejected God and nothing but good times can be had for those who accept him. Pat didn't say this outright, but it is inferred.
Suffice it to say, I don't think most people in this country subscribe to the views of Pat Robertson on this subject. I think Pat has done a lot, however, to fully illustrate the total absurdity of the argument that intelligent design is a science when it is clearly nothing more than a religious viewpoint. Science does not deal in the realm of religion or God; it never has and it never will. It is strictly concerned with natural phenomena - what can be seen, touched and proved. If science ever reveals a hole in your religious belief system, it is time to maybe question what you believe. It is not a good idea to disguise your religion as a science to try and make the hole go away. This is really what is going on today with intelligent design.
Intelligent Design in schools? Only on Sundays
21-Aug-05 12:37 PM
I have to weigh in on this whole issue of "Intelligent Design" and the debate against evolution that has come to the fore front in the news. There are many voices being raised over the issue of teaching intelligent design in school right along with evolution. The idea is that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that has as much credence as evolution theory and should be present in the curriculum for students to decide which theory is more plausible. While this concept appeals to some as being fair and equitable, I maintain that we absolutely do not want to do that because it would be inappropriate to do so. Teaching it in science class in school would be a clear encroachment of the establishment clause of the first amendment, or the separation of church and state requirement in our constitution.
The proponents of Intelligent Design would have us believe that their theory of how the universe was created is a valid scienctific hypothesis and one that should be taught as an alternative idea to the scientific theory of evolution. I think we should all agree, however, that the only things that should be taught in science classes in public school is science; and nothing else. To understand what science is, and what it isn't, all you have to do is look at the definition. Once you understand the true definition of science you then understand that Intelligent Design is not a science, but really more of a philosophy or a faith system. As such, it has no place in a classroom science class. It would be inappropriate to do so. It would be like expecting science teachers to teach philosophy instead of science. There's nothing wrong with philosophy, it can be quite useful, but not in science class.
Allow me to expound briefly. I do not wish to go into great depths on this subject because there are other sources of information that provide an in depth analysis for anyone who wishes to learn more about it. As points of reference, I would suggest anyone wanting to learn more visit the following links to get a much deeper, broader explanation of this overview.
Science deals strictly with the natural, observable world and nothing else. Science assumes that for everything that can be observed in the world that there is a natural explanation for it. Science does not take into account for the supernatural, the paranormal, or the concepts of faith or mysticism. Science is not necessarily saying that these realms don't exist, but as it is defined, it does not consider them or anything related to them. Science is not opposed to the idea the world may well have been created by God or some higher intelligent being, but as such, science has no way to prove or disprove this using the scientific method. All hypotheses in science, in order to be valid, must contain three factors: 1. Be testable; 2. Be falsifiable; and 3. Make prediction. If a hypothesis fails to hold to any three of these abilities, then it is not truly a scientific hypothesis.
When dealing with Intelligent Design, the common explanation is that life is so complex that the only possible explanation is that life was designed by an intelligent being. While that may or may not be true, that concept as a scientific hypothesis fails to meet the three requirements because it is not testable nor is it falsifiable. When dealing with anything at the supernatural level, you automatically transcend the bounds of the natural observable world and cannot prove or test the hypothesis; nor can you set up an experiment whereby you can falsifiy the theory. Evolution on the other hand, is composed of a testable, and a falsifiable theory that has revealed much to us in the last 150 years. The theory of evolution simply states that all living creatures are descended from a common ancestor and that all life forms are related. Thus far, this theory has been tested to be true by many various forms of experiements, testing and observation of the natural world. The theory is accurate until an observation or experiment based on that hypothesis shows it to be false. When that happens, a succeeding hypothesis would then have to be presented, and tested, and meet all the other requirements as dictated by the scientific method AND also explain why the theory of evolution was wrong. True science allows the data to dictate the final outcome and as such allows our knowledge of the universe to increase. Intelligent Design seeks to present the final conclusion and then make all the data conform to that conclusion, (i.e. that God created the world). Science does not work that way and science is always at risk of discovering that it is wrong, and then must make adjustments.
I think the whole story is best summarized by the recent quote by Senate majoriy leader Bill Frist, who on Friday, August 19, 2005 made the following statement in his argument that ID should be taught in public school along with evolution:
"I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith." - Bill Frist
Frist is acknowledging that ID is a principle of faith, and he is right. Because it does not meet the strict requirements of a valid scientific hypothesis, it indeed falls into the realm of philosophy and faith, and as such it is inappropriate to teach it as science. Additionally, he notes that we live in a pluralistic society; right again. So, if the subject matter is not science, but rather faith, whose faith are we going to discuss? To introduce faith teachings into our schools we are entering upon a slippery slope that only leads to controversy and ultimately takes away from the first order of business which is education. I find it very discouraging that our President and our Senate leader cannot distinguish between the two simple principles at play here. I find it even more distrubing that they do not seem to understand the dangers of mixing the two and why we musn't engage in that type of activity.
Simply put, the ideas of ID are best kept in Sunday School or church or in matters of one's own personal religious and philosophical views. We should only teach science in our public classroom science classes and nothing else. This is not an attack on any group, any religion, or any belief system. It is simply understanding what is at stake and what is appropriate. If we teach anything other than science, or if we water down the rules of what constitutes true scientific research, we are at risk of introducing variables into our research that will result in faulty data and false conclusions. What do you think?
The proponents of Intelligent Design would have us believe that their theory of how the universe was created is a valid scienctific hypothesis and one that should be taught as an alternative idea to the scientific theory of evolution. I think we should all agree, however, that the only things that should be taught in science classes in public school is science; and nothing else. To understand what science is, and what it isn't, all you have to do is look at the definition. Once you understand the true definition of science you then understand that Intelligent Design is not a science, but really more of a philosophy or a faith system. As such, it has no place in a classroom science class. It would be inappropriate to do so. It would be like expecting science teachers to teach philosophy instead of science. There's nothing wrong with philosophy, it can be quite useful, but not in science class.
Allow me to expound briefly. I do not wish to go into great depths on this subject because there are other sources of information that provide an in depth analysis for anyone who wishes to learn more about it. As points of reference, I would suggest anyone wanting to learn more visit the following links to get a much deeper, broader explanation of this overview.
Science deals strictly with the natural, observable world and nothing else. Science assumes that for everything that can be observed in the world that there is a natural explanation for it. Science does not take into account for the supernatural, the paranormal, or the concepts of faith or mysticism. Science is not necessarily saying that these realms don't exist, but as it is defined, it does not consider them or anything related to them. Science is not opposed to the idea the world may well have been created by God or some higher intelligent being, but as such, science has no way to prove or disprove this using the scientific method. All hypotheses in science, in order to be valid, must contain three factors: 1. Be testable; 2. Be falsifiable; and 3. Make prediction. If a hypothesis fails to hold to any three of these abilities, then it is not truly a scientific hypothesis.
When dealing with Intelligent Design, the common explanation is that life is so complex that the only possible explanation is that life was designed by an intelligent being. While that may or may not be true, that concept as a scientific hypothesis fails to meet the three requirements because it is not testable nor is it falsifiable. When dealing with anything at the supernatural level, you automatically transcend the bounds of the natural observable world and cannot prove or test the hypothesis; nor can you set up an experiment whereby you can falsifiy the theory. Evolution on the other hand, is composed of a testable, and a falsifiable theory that has revealed much to us in the last 150 years. The theory of evolution simply states that all living creatures are descended from a common ancestor and that all life forms are related. Thus far, this theory has been tested to be true by many various forms of experiements, testing and observation of the natural world. The theory is accurate until an observation or experiment based on that hypothesis shows it to be false. When that happens, a succeeding hypothesis would then have to be presented, and tested, and meet all the other requirements as dictated by the scientific method AND also explain why the theory of evolution was wrong. True science allows the data to dictate the final outcome and as such allows our knowledge of the universe to increase. Intelligent Design seeks to present the final conclusion and then make all the data conform to that conclusion, (i.e. that God created the world). Science does not work that way and science is always at risk of discovering that it is wrong, and then must make adjustments.
I think the whole story is best summarized by the recent quote by Senate majoriy leader Bill Frist, who on Friday, August 19, 2005 made the following statement in his argument that ID should be taught in public school along with evolution:
"I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith." - Bill Frist
Frist is acknowledging that ID is a principle of faith, and he is right. Because it does not meet the strict requirements of a valid scientific hypothesis, it indeed falls into the realm of philosophy and faith, and as such it is inappropriate to teach it as science. Additionally, he notes that we live in a pluralistic society; right again. So, if the subject matter is not science, but rather faith, whose faith are we going to discuss? To introduce faith teachings into our schools we are entering upon a slippery slope that only leads to controversy and ultimately takes away from the first order of business which is education. I find it very discouraging that our President and our Senate leader cannot distinguish between the two simple principles at play here. I find it even more distrubing that they do not seem to understand the dangers of mixing the two and why we musn't engage in that type of activity.
Simply put, the ideas of ID are best kept in Sunday School or church or in matters of one's own personal religious and philosophical views. We should only teach science in our public classroom science classes and nothing else. This is not an attack on any group, any religion, or any belief system. It is simply understanding what is at stake and what is appropriate. If we teach anything other than science, or if we water down the rules of what constitutes true scientific research, we are at risk of introducing variables into our research that will result in faulty data and false conclusions. What do you think?