Church vs. State
...now browsing by category
Should Kentucky Pay For A Bible Based Theme Park
Saturday, January 29th, 2011US Biology Teachers Afraid To Endorse Evolution in Class
Friday, January 28th, 2011The majority of public high school biology teachers in the U.S. are not strong classroom advocates of evolutionary biology, despite 40 years of court cases that have ruled teaching creationism or intelligent design violates the Constitution, according to Penn State political scientists. A mandatory undergraduate course in evolutionary biology for prospective teachers, and frequent refresher courses for current teachers, may be part of the solution, they say.
“Considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America’s classrooms,” write Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer, professors of political science at Penn State, in the January 28 issue of Science.
The researchers examined data from the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, a representative sample of 926 public high school biology instructors. They found only about 28 percent of those teachers consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology.
In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers “explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.” Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited.
Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the “cautious 60 percent,” who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. “Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy,” they said.
The researchers found these teachers commonly use one or more of three strategies to avoid controversy. Some teach evolutionary biology as if it applies only to molecular biology, ignoring an opportunity to impart a rich understanding of the diversity of species and evidence that one species gives rise to others.
Using a second strategy, some teachers rationalize the teaching of evolution by referring to high-stakes examinations.
These teachers “tell students it does not matter if they really ‘believe’ in evolution, so long as they know it for the test,” Berkman and Plutzer said.
Finally, many teachers expose their students to all positions, scientific and otherwise, and let them make up their own minds.
This is unfortunate, the researchers said, because “this approach tells students that well established concepts can be debated in the same way we debate personal opinions.”
Berkman and Plutzer conclude that “the cautious 60 percent fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments.” As a result, “they may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists.”
The researchers note that more high school students take biology than any other science course, and for as many as 25 percent of high school students it is the only science course they will ever take, even though a sound science education is important in a democracy that depends on citizen input on highly technical, consequential, public policies.
Berkman and Plutzer say the nation must have better-trained biology teachers who can confidently advocate for high standards of science education in their local communities. Colleges and universities should mandate a dedicated undergraduate course in evolution for all prospective biology teachers, for example, and follow up with outreach refresher courses, so that more biology teachers embrace evolutionary biology.
“Combined with continued successes in courtrooms and the halls of state government, this approach offers our best chance of increasing the scientific literacy of future generations,” they conclude
Source: Science Daily
Hawaii Ends Daily Prayers In Senate Chambers
Sunday, January 23rd, 2011A citizen’s complaint had prompted the American Civil Liberties Union last summer to send the Senate a letter noting that its invocations often referenced Jesus Christ, contravening the separation of church and state.
That prompted the state attorney general’s office to advise the Senate that their handling of prayers – by inviting speakers from various religions to preach before every session – wouldn’t survive a likely court challenge, said Democratic Majority Leader Brickwood Galuteria.
“Above all, our responsibility is to adhere to the Constitution,” Galuteria said after Thursday’s vote to halt the daily blessings.
A three-member Senate committee formed to evaluate the issue recommended allowing nonsectarian, nonpolitical invocations that avoided references to deities, but the legislative body decided to do away with prayers altogether rather than constrain them.
“They (the ACLU) continue to threaten governments with lawsuits to try to force them into capitulating to their view of society,” said Brett Harvey, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, made up of Christian lawyers to defend free faith speech. “Governments should take a stand for this cherished historical practice.”
While every state legislature prays to bless their public work, methods vary widely across the country. Some states pay a chaplain, others require remarks be submitted in advance and many like Hawaii invite members of the community to speak on any topic of their choosing.
The Indiana House temporarily halted opening prayers because of an ACLU lawsuit, but prayers returned in 2008 after a federal appeals court overturned a lower court’s decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that legislative prayers are permissible in some circumstances, but the court hasn’t considered the issue since 1983. ACLU of Hawaii Legal Director Lois Perrin said the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to mean that the government can’t display a preference for one particular sect or creed.
“The Senate’s action does not conflict, and clearly aims at creating an environment where all will feel welcome regardless of spiritual beliefs,” Perrin said.
Sen. Sam Slom, the only Republican in the 25-member Senate, pleaded for making prayers voluntary rather than eliminating them altogether.
“The Senate must stand for something and not back away when there are challenges by individuals or organizations who make it their point nationally to have this as an objective,” Slom said. “As intelligent as we may be, we can still call on someone higher to help us and guide us.”
A protester who was arrested for disrupting a Senate invocation last April applauded legislators’ action to keep the business of government and religion separate.
“They’re a legal body, they make the laws, and they ought to follow them,” said Mitch Kahle, founder of Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church, who would have been a plaintiff in a potential ACLU lawsuit.
Neither the Alliance Defense Fund nor Americans United for the Separation of Church and State knew of any other state legislature that prevents prayers.
The Hawaii House also is considering limiting prayer, but opened with daily invocations as the legislative session began this week. The House will likely continue allowing invocations as long as they don’t mention a specific deity or religion, said Democratic Majority Leader Blake Oshiro.
The Senate’s last prayer was a Hawaiian-language invocation Wednesday.
Source: Washington Post
Atheists Unfit To Serve In US Military
Sunday, December 26th, 2010Sgt. Justin Griffith recently took a test called the Soldier Fitness Tracker (SFT) that would test his competency in four areas: Emotional, Social, Family, and Spiritual.
One of these things is not like the others…
Why is Spiritual on that list? Who knows…
Among the questions Justin had to answer on a scale of 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree):
– My life will have a lasting meaning
– I feel connected to a being that is greater than me
– I’m a very spiritual person
Well, Justin answered honestly and got these results:
The red bar under spiritual isn’t a good thing…
A red bar means that you face some significant challenges in this area. This means that you should focus most of your attention on this area, though you should also note that placing too much emphasis here could result in other dimensions dropping. The key is to properly balance where you need the most development with the areas you are already doing well in.
…
Spiritual fitness is an area of possible difficulty for you. You may lack a sense of meaning and purpose in your life. At times, it is hard for you to make sense of what is happening to you and others around you. You may not feel connected to something larger than yourself. You may question your beliefs, principles, and values. Nevertheless, who you are and what you do matter. There are things to do to provide more meaning and purpose in your life. Improving your spiritual fitness should be an important goal. Change is possible, and the relevant self-development training modules will be helpful. If you need further help, please do not hesitate to seek out help from the people you care about and trust – strong people always do. Be patient in your development as it will take time to improve in this area. Still, persistence is key and you will improve here if you make this area a priority.
It seems like an atheist would have no chance being “spiritually fit” under this assessment. Even though there’s nothing at all wrong with not being religious — and atheists absolutely can feel connected to something “larger” and have meaning and purpose in their lives.
Ridiculous, right?
Rebecca Watson points out the possible consequences of all this:
I’d like to know how the army plans to use the results of this terribly worded survey. No one stepped from the shadows to strip Griffith of his rank, but he does mention that prior to seeing his scores he agreed to have his data included in an anonymous aggregation to be used in some undefined manner. He now worries that it will be used to increase funding to chaplains or in other ways meant to increase the spirituality of the troops.
There’s no evidence that’s happening yet, but the fact that this survey was approved by someone in power and soldiers are taking it as we speak worries me.
On a side note, Justin is trying to increase the visibility of atheists in the military with his Rock Beyond Belief event happening next year. You’ll hear more about that later, but it’s bound to be a huge event and I can’t wait to be a part of it.
Source: FriendlyAtheist.com
Watch: Keith Olbermann’s reaction on Countdown
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
State Of Kentucky Subsidizing Creation Theme Park
Thursday, December 2nd, 2010Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear announced Wednesday that Ark Encounter LLC and Answers in Genesis (AiG), which is widely known for its Creation Museum, will begin construction of a Noah’s Ark tourist attraction in his state.
And according to reports coming out of the state, Kentucky taxpayers may end up subsidizing the park.
The 160-acre religious theme park, which is scheduled to open in the spring of 2014 in northern Kentucky, will contain a “full-sized” replica of Noah’s Ark in addition to a walled city, live animal shows, a children’s interactive play area, a replica of the Tower of Babel, and a first-century Middle Eastern village.
“We are excited to join with the Ark Encounter group as it seeks to provide this unique, family-friendly tourist attraction to the Commonwealth,” Gov. Beshear said. “Bringing new jobs to Kentucky is my top priority, and with the estimated 900 jobs this project will create, I am happy about the economic impact this project will have on the Northern Kentucky region.”
A study conducted by the America’s Research Group found the Ark Encounter may attract 1.6 million visitors in the first year and is expected to employ up to 900 staff.
“We are very pleased to be a part of this new project,” said Ken Ham, president and founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum. “Answers in Genesis has been blessed to see the Creation Museum host over one million guests in three years. Based on our experience and success operating the large, state-of-the-art Creation Museum, our board believes the time is right to partner with the Ark Encounter in building a full-scale Noah’s Ark.”
Answers in Genesis, who will be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the whole park, is seeking performance-based tax incentives for the park.
“We have reviewed this from a legal standpoint and the application complies with our laws,” Gov. Beshear said. “There is nothing even remotely unconstitutional about a for-profit organization coming in and investing $150 million to create jobs in Kentucky and bring tourism to Kentucky.”
Answers in Genesis is best known for its Creation Museum, which opened in Petersburg, Kentucky in 2007. The museum teaches that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and “brings the pages of the Bible to life” by showing “children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers.”
“It certainly sounds as if the mechanism for supporting a particular religious dogma would violate the establishment of religious prohibitions in the state and federal constitutions, but there may be slippery ways this could pass muster,” Louisville attorney David Tachau told the Courier-Journal.
Under the Kentucky Tourism Development Act, the state could subsidize up to 25 percent of the park, the Courier-Journal says.
“The people of Kentucky didn’t elect me governor to debate religion,” Gov. Beshear said. “They elected me governor to create jobs. That’s what we’re doing here, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.”
Below is video of Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear announcing the development of the theme park, with an introduction by Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis.
Father Loses Custody Of His Children For Being Agnostic
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010An Indiana father says that because he professed religious doubt in a custody hearing, a judge took his children from him.
Craig Scarberry, 29, this month was stripped of joint custody of his three children, Kaelyn, 7; William, 6, and Ayvah, 4, because he changed his religion from Christian to agnostic.
“It blew my mind away,” Scarberry said of an order written by Madison County Superior Court 3 Commissioner George C. Pancol and affirmed by Judge Thomas Newman. The order that stripped Scarberry of joint custody listed evidence heard in the case upon which Pancol based his ruling.
Pancol’s order says Scarberry “did not participate in the same religious training that the (mother) exercised and that (Scarberry) was agnostic.” Scarberry has until Dec. 1 to appeal the ruling, which has reduced his custody to visitation with his children four hours per week and on alternating weekends.
“I’m a good, loving father, and this ruling has taken my children away,” Scarberry said. “I wasn’t interfering in their right to be brought up in a Christian environment,” he said, noting that the children still attend Christian school and church services as they have done in the four years that he has had joint custody.
Pancol, through a court staff member, said it would be unethical to comment about the case. The mother, Christine Porcaro, and her attorney, Andrew C. Lawrence, did not return telephone messages seeking comment for this article.
A Navy veteran and health-care worker, Scarberry has obtained a permit for a demonstration in support of fathers’ rights for Dec. 16 at the Madison County Courthouse. He said he believes his religious liberty has been violated.
“I thought I lived in America, where you have the right to practice what you want to practice without persecution,” he said. “I feel like I’ve suffered the highest persecution … I had everything taken away from me.” Scarberry also was ordered to pay child support, which had not been stipulated when he and the children’s mother shared custody.
Pancol’s order included other evidence presented in court. It said there was evidence that Scarberry had used profanity in front of the children and at times “failed to control or manage his anger. … In addition, (Scarberry) was sending a great number of text messages to (Porcaro).”
The order does not say that Scarberry was abusive or negligent toward the children.
Earlier, Percaro had obtained a protective order against Scarberry, which he objected to. She alleged that Scarberry “attempts to harrass and intimidate me at my place of employment with abusive language and profanity” and accused him of “randomly and unexpectedly stopping by my house at different hours of the day and night.”
A protective order against Scarberry was issued in April, and Scarberry said evidence was presented later in court to refute the allegations. A month later, both parties renewed an agreement that extended joint custody.
Pancol’s order also included evidence that the mother “had left minor children at home alone, did not feed them breakfast and did not at time(s) buckle them in their car seats.”
The order severing joint custody was issued by Pancol on Nov. 1 and affirmed by Newman on Nov. 8. It said that when Scarberry had been a Christian, “the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.”
Our Godless Constitution
Wednesday, July 14th, 2010Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton’s flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of “foreign aid”; according to another, he simply said “we forgot.” But as Hamilton’s biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.
In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the “only Heaven knows” sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” and the famous line about men being “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: “In God We Trust” did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and “under God” was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004].
In 1797 our government concluded a “Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary,” now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
As the Government of the United States…is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion–as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen–and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate’s history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.
The Founding Fathers were not religious men, and they fought hard to erect, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “a wall of separation between church and state.” John Adams opined that if they were not restrained by legal measures, Puritans–the fundamentalists of their day–would “whip and crop, and pillory and roast.” The historical epoch had afforded these men ample opportunity to observe the corruption to which established priesthoods were liable, as well as “the impious presumption of legislators and rulers,” as Jefferson wrote, “civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time.”
If we define a Christian as a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of the key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists–that is, they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of the Christian Church; the word of the Creator, they believed, could best be read in Nature. John Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian, but he, too, in his private correspondence seems more deist than Christian.
George Washington and James Madison also leaned toward deism, although neither took much interest in religious matters. Madison believed that “religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize.” He spoke of the “almost fifteen centuries” during which Christianity had been on trial: “What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.” If Washington mentioned the Almighty in a public address, as he occasionally did, he was careful to refer to Him not as “God” but with some nondenominational moniker like “Great Author” or “Almighty Being.” It is interesting to note that the Father of our Country spoke no words of a religious nature on his deathbed, although fully aware that he was dying, and did not ask for a man of God to be present; his last act was to take his own pulse, the consummate gesture of a creature of the age of scientific rationalism.
Tom Paine, a polemicist rather than a politician, could afford to be perfectly honest about his religious beliefs, which were baldly deist in the tradition of Voltaire: “I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life…. I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.” This is how he opened The Age of Reason, his virulent attack on Christianity. In it he railed against the “obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness” of the Old Testament, “a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.” The New Testament is less brutalizing but more absurd, the story of Christ’s divine genesis a “fable, which for absurdity and extravagance is not exceeded by any thing that is to be found in the mythology of the ancients.” He held the idea of the Resurrection in especial ridicule: Indeed, “the wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told, exceeds every thing that went before it.” Paine was careful to contrast the tortuous twists of theology with the pure clarity of deism. “The true deist has but one Deity; and his religion consists in contemplating the power, wisdom, and benignity of the Deity in his works, and in endeavoring to imitate him in every thing moral, scientifical, and mechanical.”
Paine’s rhetoric was so fervent that he was inevitably branded an atheist. Men like Franklin, Adams and Jefferson could not risk being tarred with that brush, and in fact Jefferson got into a good deal of trouble for continuing his friendship with Paine and entertaining him at Monticello. These statesmen had to be far more circumspect than the turbulent Paine, yet if we examine their beliefs it is all but impossible to see just how theirs differed from his.
Franklin was the oldest of the Founding Fathers. He was also the most worldly and sophisticated, and was well aware of the Machiavellian principle that if one aspires to influence the masses, one must at least profess religious sentiments. By his own definition he was a deist, although one French acquaintance claimed that “our free-thinkers have adroitly sounded him on his religion, and they maintain that they have discovered he is one of their own, that is that he has none at all.” If he did have a religion, it was strictly utilitarian: As his biographer Gordon Wood has said, “He praised religion for whatever moral effects it had, but for little else.” Divine revelation, Franklin freely admitted, had “no weight with me,” and the covenant of grace seemed “unintelligible” and “not beneficial.” As for the pious hypocrites who have ever controlled nations, “A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under color of law”–a comment we should carefully consider at this turning point in the history of our Republic.
Here is Franklin’s considered summary of his own beliefs, in response to a query by Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale. He wrote it just six weeks before his death at the age of 84.
Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As for Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure.
Jefferson thoroughly agreed with Franklin on the corruptions the teachings of Jesus had undergone. “The metaphysical abstractions of Athanasius, and the maniacal ravings of Calvin, tinctured plentifully with the foggy dreams of Plato, have so loaded [Christianity] with absurdities and incomprehensibilities” that it was almost impossible to recapture “its native simplicity and purity.” Like Paine, Jefferson felt that the miracles claimed by the New Testament put an intolerable strain on credulity. “The day will come,” he predicted (wrongly, so far), “when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” The Revelation of St. John he dismissed as “the ravings of a maniac.”
Jefferson edited his own version of the New Testament, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth,” in which he carefully deleted all the miraculous passages from the works of the Evangelists. He intended it, he said, as “a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” This was clearly a defense against his many enemies, who hoped to blacken his reputation by comparing him with the vile atheist Paine. His biographer Joseph Ellis is undoubtedly correct, though, in seeing disingenuousness here: “If [Jefferson] had been completely scrupulous, he would have described himself as a deist who admired the ethical teachings of Jesus as a man rather than as the son of God. (In modern-day parlance, he was a secular humanist.)” In short, not a Christian at all.
The three accomplishments Jefferson was proudest of–those that he requested be put on his tombstone–were the founding of the University of Virginia and the authorship of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The latter was a truly radical document that would eventually influence the separation of church and state in the US Constitution; when it was passed by the Virginia legislature in 1786, Jefferson rejoiced that there was finally “freedom for the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination”–note his respect, still unusual today, for the sensibilities of the “infidel.” The University of Virginia was notable among early-American seats of higher education in that it had no religious affiliation whatever. Jefferson even banned the teaching of theology at the school.
If we were to speak of Jefferson in modern political categories, we would have to admit that he was a pure libertarian, in religious as in other matters. His real commitment (or lack thereof) to the teachings of Jesus Christ is plain from a famous throwaway comment he made: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” This raised plenty of hackles when it got about, and Jefferson had to go to some pains to restore his reputation as a good Christian. But one can only conclude, with Ellis, that he was no Christian at all.
John Adams, though no more religious than Jefferson, had inherited the fatalistic mindset of the Puritan culture in which he had grown up. He personally endorsed the Enlightenment commitment to Reason but did not share Jefferson’s optimism about its future, writing to him, “I wish that Superstition in Religion exciting Superstition in Polliticks…may never blow up all your benevolent and phylanthropic Lucubrations,” but that “the History of all Ages is against you.” As an old man he observed, “Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!’” Speaking ex cathedra, as a relic of the founding generation, he expressed his admiration for the Roman system whereby every man could worship whom, what and how he pleased. When his young listeners objected that this was paganism, Adams replied that it was indeed, and laughed.
In their fascinating and eloquent valetudinarian correspondence, Adams and Jefferson had a great deal to say about religion. Pressed by Jefferson to define his personal creed, Adams replied that it was “contained in four short words, ‘Be just and good.’” Jefferson replied, “The result of our fifty or sixty years of religious reading, in the four words, ‘Be just and good,’ is that in which all our inquiries must end; as the riddles of all priesthoods end in four more, ‘ubi panis, ibi deus.’ What all agree in, is probably right. What no two agree in, most probably wrong.”
This was a clear reference to Voltaire’s Reflections on Religion. As Voltaire put it:
There are no sects in geometry. One does not speak of a Euclidean, an Archimedean. When the truth is evident, it is impossible for parties and factions to arise…. Well, to what dogma do all minds agree? To the worship of a God, and to honesty. All the philosophers of the world who have had a religion have said in all ages: “There is a God, and one must be just.” There, then, is the universal religion established in all ages and throughout mankind. The point in which they all agree is therefore true, and the systems through which they differ are therefore false.
Of course all these men knew, as all modern presidential candidates know, that to admit to theological skepticism is political suicide. During Jefferson’s presidency a friend observed him on his way to church, carrying a large prayer book. “You going to church, Mr. J,” remarked the friend. “You do not believe a word in it.” Jefferson didn’t exactly deny the charge. “Sir,” he replied, “no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example. Good morning Sir.”
Like Jefferson, every recent President has understood the necessity of at least paying lip service to the piety of most American voters. All of our leaders, Democrat and Republican, have attended church, and have made very sure they are seen to do so. But there is a difference between offering this gesture of respect for majority beliefs and manipulating and pandering to the bigotry, prejudice and millennial fantasies of Christian extremists. Though for public consumption the Founding Fathers identified themselves as Christians, they were, at least by today’s standards, remarkably honest about their misgivings when it came to theological doctrine, and religion in general came very low on the list of their concerns and priorities–always excepting, that is, their determination to keep the new nation free from bondage to its rule.
Source: The Nation
Supreme Court Rules: Cross a Secular Symbol
Monday, May 3rd, 2010The US Supreme court, by a 5-4 majority, has held that it is okay for the government to use a cross as a “secular” symbol in the context of a war memorial. In that context, the cross is now de-Christianised, according to the majority, so no question of separation of church and state arises.
This will not please American secularists, and who can blame them? It gives the government much more authority to spray the landscape with Christian symbols, and of course many Americans don’t read the cross as merely a secular symbol of the deaths caused by war. Thus, Derek Araujo at the CFI says: “This endorsement of a sectarian religious symbol for purportedly non-religious purposes should disturb religious and secular Americans alike.”
Well, yes. Quite right. But that’s the way a lot of these cases are now going to be decided, by de-Christianising the Christian symbols and interpreting them as “just ceremonial deism” or even as symbols that have, in context, taken on a secular meaning. Once you do that, you can avoid some of the hard questions about separation of church and state, because you assert that such-and-such a Christian symbol or practice is no longer “the church”, but now has some non-religious meaning in American culture.
I’ll cop some reaction to this, but I actually think the position was pretty arguable in the particular case. I don’t know how things stand in the part of California where the cross was set up, but here in Australia a cross really might be interpreted, at least to some extent, as a secular symbol if it were connected with memoralialising the sacrifices involved in war. To some extent, the meaning has segued from a specifically Christian thing to a more ambiguous thing as a result of our exposure to countless images of crosses on war graves … in contexts where all the emphasis is on the horror of war, and none is on religion. So, I could actually live with the outcome of this litigation, at least if it were viewed as an isolated development.
The bitter pill to swallow will be when (and if) the Supreme Court upholds the National Prayer Day legislation, which is blatantly and unambiguously religious. The case is a long way from reaching Supreme Court level, but surely it will. I can see no plausible legal basis to save National Prayer Day, but when you count judges … well, there’s four unequivocally conservative judges plus Justice Kennedy. If they vote as expected, the law will change. With Justice O’Connor gone, the balance of the bench has altered considerably, leaving Justice Kennedy as the only swing judge. Kennedy will sometimes vote against the government in cases like this, but only if he sees something at least mildly coercive. Given his previously-expressed views, the law in the US will soon allow a lot more non-coercive endorsement of religion by the government. That’s where all this is heading, and it’s not a good destination.
Source: MetaMagician3000
‘Angel Sent Down’ To Put Bible In Kentucky Schools
Monday, February 22nd, 2010
A Kentucky state Senate committee has approved legislation allowing the Bible to be studied as a literary subject in public schools, a move that means the state will likely follow Tennessee, Texas and a handful of others in bringing the Christian text into the curriculum.
The bill, put forward by three Democratic state senators, orders the Kentucky Board of Education to draw up guidelines for teaching the Bible as a literary work in the context of “literature, art, music, mores, oratory and public policy,” reports the Louisville Courier-Journal. The Bible courses would be elective.
The bill passed the committee 12-0, and is expected to sail smoothly through the legislature. “It’s the kind of legislation that most Kentucky lawmakers dare not vote against, especially in an election year,” reports the Associated Press.
In praising the legislation, state Sen. Elizabeth Tori told the bill’s sponsors that “an angel was sent down on your shoulders” prompting “you to put this bill together,” as quoted at the Courier-Journal.
Read more at: Panel approves Bible classes for public schools (The Raw Story)
Christians Claim Hate Crimes Law Is An Attempt to ‘Eradicate’ Their Beliefs
Sunday, February 7th, 2010
A Christian group in Michigan has filed a lawsuit alleging that a package of hate crimes laws named after murder victim Matthew Shepard is an affront to their religious freedom.
Far from the intended purpose of severely punishing criminals who commit unspeakable acts against a persecuted minority group, the religious activists claim the laws are a guarded effort to “eradicate” their beliefs.
Filed by the Thomas More Law Center — which bills itself as the religious answer to the American Civil Liberties Union — the complaint claims that protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people “is an effort to eradicate religious beliefs opposing the homosexual agenda from the marketplace of ideas by demonizing, vilifying, and criminalizing such beliefs as a matter of federal law and policy.”
The suit was placed on behalf of American Family Association of Michigan president Gary Glenn, along with pastors Rene Ouellette, Levon Yuille and James Combs.
Read more at: Christians claim hate crimes law an effort to ‘eradicate’ their beliefs (RawStory.com)








