1 of 2
1
Public School Coach Goes to Church—With Team
Posted: 09 September 2009 01:24 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07

A busy news day.  What is with these Christians and their utter inability to respect the church-state divide?  (Never mind, I know what is with them.  It’s a rhetorical question.)

The head football coach at Breckinridge County High School took about 20 players on a school bus late last month to his church, where nearly half of them were baptized, school officials say.

The mother of one player said her 16-year-old son was baptized without her knowledge and consent, and she is upset that a public school bus was used to take players to a church service — and that the school district’s superintendent was there and did not object.

“Nobody should push their faith on anybody else,” said Michelle Ammons, whose son, Robert Coffey, said Coach Scott Mooney told him and other players that the Aug. 26 outing would include only a motivational speaker and a free steak dinner.

“He said it would bring the team together,” Robert, a sophomore, said in an interview.

Two other parents, however, said in interviews that their sons told them that Mooney had said the voluntary outing to Franklin Crossroads Baptist Church in Hardin County would include a revival.

Mooney, contacted by phone, said school district officials instructed him not to comment.

But Superintendent Janet Meeks, who is a member of the church and witnessed the baptisms, said she thinks the trip was proper because attendance was not required, and another coach paid for the gas.

Link

[ Edited: 09 September 2009 01:38 PM by Keep The Reason]
 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2009 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

A busy news day.  What is with these Christians and their utter inability to respect the church-state divide?  (Never mind, I know what is with them.  It’s a rhetorical question.)

I desperately want to show historically and constitutionally that there’s no such thing as a church-state divide, but that will probably devolve into every other conversation we’ve had on the forum. 

However, this football coach should have known better.  He should have known that even if 19 players and their parents would have supported the church trip, it only takes one disgruntled one to turn this into a headline on CNN.  Not to mention it sounds like there might have been a little manipulation in there…I’d be willing to bet that the coach is a Pentacostal crazy man.

 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2009 03:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1587
Joined  2006-10-20
clayforHim648 - 09 September 2009 06:02 PM

I desperately want to show historically and constitutionally that there’s no such thing as a church-state divide, but that will probably devolve into every other conversation we’ve had on the forum.

You’re right, you should take your case to the Supreme Court, where you can really put that idea to the test.

So, Clay, suppose the coach was a recent convert to Islam, or Mormonism, or Judaism, or maybe HInduism, do you suppose the parents should have nothing to complain about baptizing the players into one of those religions under the pretense of a steak dinner?  This is not a rhetorical question.

Religion in the US means, specifically, Christianity, with the exception of the Mormons and personality cults like Jim Jones’ People’s Temple or the Branch Davidians, and you expect your brand of religion to be given a pass when it comes to the separation of church and state.

 Signature 

“All extremists should be killed!” - neighbor’s bumper sticker

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 September 2009 08:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07
clayforHim648 - 09 September 2009 06:02 PM

I desperately want to show historically and constitutionally that there’s no such thing as a church-state divide

You would have no legal footing to do so.  According to both legal and historical facts, two distinct Supreme Court rulings (1878 and 1947/48) held that Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists citing a wall of separation between church and state adequately (“almost authoritatively”)  defined the First Amendment.

Here’s an article and a link for you to pursue (and of course there are and were dissenters—but the point is, the “wall” has withstood the test of time and has been accepted as authoritative by two constitutionally-founded Supreme Courts.  In other words, you’d lose this argument in a thrice.):

Link to Jefferson’s Letter Restoration Article

‘A Wall of Separation’
FBI Helps Restore Jefferson’s Obliterated Draft

By JAMES HUTSON

Following is an article by the curator of a major exhibition at the Library that opens this month and runs through Aug. 22. A key document on view in “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic” (see LC Information Bulletin, May 1998), is the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, which contains the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state.” With the help of the FBI, the draft of the letter, including Jefferson’s obliterated words, are now known.
Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson’s reply on Jan. 1, 1802, to an address from the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, congratulating him upon his election as president, contains a phrase that is as familiar in today’s political and judicial circles as the lyrics of a hit tune: “a wall of separation between church and state.” This phrase has become well known because it is considered to explain (many would say, distort) the “religion clause” of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...,” a clause whose meaning has been the subject of passionate dispute for the past 50 years.

During his lifetime, Jefferson could not have predicted that the language in his Danbury Baptist letter would have endured as long as some of his other arresting phrases. The letter was published in a Massachusetts newspaper a month after Jefferson wrote it and then was more or less forgotten for half a century. It was put back into circulation in an edition of Jefferson’s writings, published in 1853, and reprinted in 1868 and 1871.

The Supreme Court turned the spotlight on the “wall of separation” phrase in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. United States “that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment.”

The high court took the same position in widely publicized decisions in 1947 and 1948, asserting in the latter case, McCollum v. Board of Education, that, “in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’” Since McCollum forbade religious instruction in public schools, it appeared that the court had used Jefferson’s “wall” metaphor as a sword to sever religion from public life, a result that was and still is intolerable to many Americans.

Some Supreme Court justices did not like what their colleagues had done. In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart complained that jurisprudence was not “aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the ‘wall of separation,’ a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution.” Addressing the issue in 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist lamented that “unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years.” Defenders of the metaphor responded immediately: “despite its detractors and despite its leaks, cracks and its archways, the wall ranks as one of the mightiest monuments of constitutional government in this nation.”

Given the gravity of the issues involved in the debate over the wall metaphor, it is surprising that so little effort has been made to go behind the printed text of the Danbury Baptist letter to unlock its secrets. Jefferson’s handwritten draft of the letter is held by the Library’s Manuscript Division. Inspection reveals that nearly 30 percent of the draft—seven of 25 lines—was deleted by the president prior to publication. Jefferson indicated his deletions by circling several lines and noting in the left margin that they were to be excised. He inked out several words in the circled section and a few words elsewhere in the draft. He also inked out three entire lines following the circled section. Click here to see the text of the final letter.

Since the Library plans to display Jefferson’s handwritten draft of the Danbury Baptist letter in its forthcoming exhibition “Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,” the question was raised whether modern computer technology could be used to uncover Jefferson’s inked-out words, so that the unedited copy of the letter might be shown to viewers alongside Jefferson’s corrected draft. The Library requested the assistance of FBI Director Louis Freeh, who generously permitted the FBI Laboratory to apply its state-of-the-art technology to the task of restoring Jefferson’s obliterated words. The FBI was successful, with the result that the entire draft of the Danbury Baptist letter is now legible (below). This fully legible copy will be seen in the exhibition in the company of its handwritten, edited companion draft. Click here to see Jefferson’s unedited text. By examining both documents, viewers will be able to discern Jefferson’s true intentions in writing the celebrated Danbury Baptist letter.

The edited draft of the letter reveals that, far from being dashed off as a “short note of courtesy,” as some have called it, Jefferson labored over its composition. For reasons unknown, the address of the Danbury Baptists, dated Oct. 7, 1801, did not reach Jefferson until Dec. 30, 1801. Jefferson drafted his response forthwith and submitted it to the two New England Republican politicians in his Cabinet, Postmaster General Gideon Granger of Connecticut and Attorney General Levi Lincoln of Massachusetts. Granger responded to Jefferson on Dec. 31.

The next day, New Year’s Day, was a busy one for the president, who received and entertained various groups of well-wishers, but so eager was he to complete his answer to the Danbury Baptists that, amid the hubbub, he sent his draft to Lincoln with a cover note explaining his reasons for writing it. Lincoln responded immediately; just as quickly, Jefferson edited the draft to conform to Lincoln’s suggestions, signed the letter and released it, all on New Year’s Day, 1802.

That Jefferson consulted two New England politicians about his messages indicated that he regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion. His letter, he told Lincoln in his New Year’s Day note, was meant to gratify public opinion in Republican strongholds like Virginia, “being seasoned to the Southern taste only.”

Expressing his views in a reply to a public address also indicated that Jefferson saw himself operating in a political mode, for by 1802 Americans had come to consider replies to addresses, first exploited as political pep talks by John Adams in 1798, as the prime vehicles for the dissemination of partisan views. A few weeks earlier, on Nov. 20, 1801, Jefferson had, in fact, used a reply to an address from the Vermont legislature to signal his intention to redeem a campaign promise by proposing a tax reduction at the beginning of the new session of Congress in December.

In his New Year’s note to Lincoln, Jefferson revealed that he hoped to accomplish two things by replying to the Danbury Baptists. One was to issue a “condemnation of the alliance between church and state.” This he accomplished in the first, printed, part of the draft. Jefferson’s strictures on church-state entanglement were little more than rewarmed phrases and ideas from his Statute Establishing Religious Freedom (1786) and from other, similar statements. To needle his political opponents, Jefferson paraphrased a passage, that “the legitimate powers of government extend to ... acts only” and not to opinions, from the Notes on the State of Virginia, which the Federalists had shamelessly distorted in the election of 1800 in an effort to stigmatize him as an atheist. So politicized had church-state issues become by 1802 that Jefferson told Lincoln that he considered the articulation of his views on the subject, in messages like the Danbury Baptist letter, as ways to fix his supporters’ “political tenets.”

 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2009 12:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
clayforHim648 - 09 September 2009 06:02 PM

I desperately want to show historically and constitutionally that there’s no such thing as a church-state divide, but that will probably devolve into every other conversation we’ve had on the forum. 

However, this football coach should have known better.  He should have known that even if 19 players and their parents would have supported the church trip, it only takes one disgruntled one to turn this into a headline on CNN.  Not to mention it sounds like there might have been a little manipulation in there…I’d be willing to bet that the coach is a Pentacostal crazy man.

Now, this is progress. Desperation: The Debilitating Effect of Atheist Assertiveness on Religious Expressionism.

 


[grammatical correction]

[ Edited: 11 September 2009 04:32 PM by goodgraydrab]
 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2009 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07

Hey, Clay:  Why express desperation anyway when prayer should do the trick?

 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2009 05:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

Hey, Clay:  Why express desperation anyway when prayer should do the trick?

Ooo…that was a good one.

Well you guys drew it out of me…I can’t stop now.  I haven’t been on here in awhile, so I guess I can devote a little time to this.

It is ultimately my opinion that religion and philosophy cannot be really divorced from the process of government in any republican nation, therefore the “wall” between Church and State is a myth in practice.  Take the Reynold’s v. United States case for instance.  The indictment against George Reynolds has religious roots.  The law prohibiting Reynolds from marrying two or more women (bigamy) in the Territory of Utah is based on the tradition of American marriage practices and laws, going back to English law, which of course has much of its basis in the New Testament Scripture. 

In the Danbury Baptist letter, Jefferson wrote, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence…”.  That’s true, but the civil government has to have a basis for its laws, a basis for what “actions” are punishable offenses.  And as I’ve made aware previously, the only rational, solid basis for ethics and morality is found in religion. 

If you read the Supreme Court decision for Reynold’s v. United States, you will quickly see that the rationale for upholding the indictment against Reynolds boils down to something like “it’s always been this way”.  In fact, it sounds ironically a lot like the argument used today to defend the traditional view of marriage:

Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society….

From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life.

Having said all that, I think the Supreme Court’s decision was correct.  People shouldn’t be able to use their religion as an excuse for committing a crime.  But the real question is should polygamy be a crime?  And if it should, why? Or if should not, why? 

Fast forward…a school coach drove a bus full of (seemingly) willing athletes to a local church revival.  Do we really want to make a big issue of this?

[ Edited: 11 September 2009 05:19 PM by clayforHim648]
 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2009 06:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
Jefe - 10 September 2009 02:08 PM
clayforHim648 - 09 September 2009 06:02 PM

I desperately want to show historically and constitutionally that there’s no such thing as a church-state divide, but that will probably devolve into every other conversation we’ve had on the forum. 

Sounds like your Liberty U class in revisionism really took hold.

I only learned two things in law school.  One of them was, the law is what the next judge says it is.  (Send me $10,000.00, and I’ll tell you the other thing, and add in a beautiful certificate celebrating your graduation for Teuchter’s School of Disputation and Legalish Things.)

So, everyone who took civics in the US up to including 1999 thought we voted for the president of the United States here democracyville.  And then, in 2000, along came Bush v. Gore.

Scalia concurring:  The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires. (Bush v. Gore (2000) 531 U.S. 1046, 1047; 121 S.Ct. 512, 148 L.Ed.2d 553)

See, contrary to what you all think, I don’t make this shit up.  The Supreme Court held that counting votes during a presidential election was undemocratic, and order the Florida Supreme Court to stop, because it threatened irreparable harm to GW Bush and his puppetmeister Cheney.

So before we all take the separation of church and state for granted, let’s recall that there are now 5 catholics on SCOTUS, at least 4 of whom are completely batshit crazy. Now, let’s consider McCreary County, Kentucky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky   (2005) 545 U.S. 844; 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729, and particularly Scalia’s dissent.

With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists. 545 U.S. 893

Note that Scalia has done two things:
1.  Announced that the Establishment Clause only prohibits preferring one monotheistic religion over another (so I guess Al Queda is still in the running here) and
2.  Propogated the Religious Right’s claims that everyone is religious anyway by referring to the devout atheists.
If you can take it, some drooling proclamations from Bishop Scalia:


Those who wrote the Constitution believed that morality was essential to the well-being of society and that encouragement of religion was the best way to foster morality. 545 U.S. 887

So before we dismiss Clay as delusional for not seeing the separation of church and state, let’s see what the next judge has to say about it.  Just because it has been an insane assertion since 1789 until 2009 doesn’t mean that it won’t be the law by 2010.

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2009 06:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1221
Joined  2008-07-20
clayforHim648 - 11 September 2009 09:17 PM

Fast forward…a school coach drove a bus full of (seemingly) willing athletes to a local church revival.  Do we really want to make a big issue of this?

Clay, did you ever play high school sports?  I had a football coach who could make me run wind sprints until I thought I was gonna puke.  I had a wrestling coach who could make climb a rope to the ceiling of the gym (I’m have never been comfortable with heights) and crab walk around an entire gym.  The whole point of high school sports seemed to be to drive you into a state of exhaustion such that you then knock people down even if your are unconscious.  I’m sure there are lines I wouldn’t have crossed, but if the coach would have hauled me to a church to be baptised, I imagine I would have done even though I thought the whole idea, even then, was at best weird.  You just don’t challenge your high school sports coach.  They literally beat that into you.

So “seemingly” willing is an illusion.

 Signature 

“I am one of the few people I know who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”  Sam Harris October 17, 2005

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2009 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1891
Joined  2007-12-19
teuchter - 11 September 2009 10:48 PM

So “seemingly” willing is an illusion.

They broke the first rule of law ... they didn’t get it in writing. Anyone under 18 needed to have their parents verifiably notified of all details and a written consent form obtained. I think secular law still trumps religion. But like teuch says, until the next vote.

[Am I on legal ground here, teuch?]

 Signature 

“This is it. You are it.”


- Jos. Campbell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2009 07:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

Clay, did you ever play high school sports?  I had a football coach who could make me run wind sprints until I thought I was gonna puke.  I had a wrestling coach who could make climb a rope to the ceiling of the gym (I’m have never been comfortable with heights) and crab walk around an entire gym.  The whole point of high school sports seemed to be to drive you into a state of exhaustion such that you then knock people down even if your are unconscious.  I’m sure there are lines I wouldn’t have crossed, but if the coach would have hauled me to a church to be baptised, I imagine I would have done even though I thought the whole idea, even then, was at best weird.  You just don’t challenge your high school sports coach.  They literally beat that into you.

So “seemingly” willing is an illusion.

I’ll give you that.  I understand the concern, and if I was a parent (religious or not) of one of the kids, I would certainly have made a stink about it.  It just seems like a stretch to talk of separation of church and state when the only link in this story is the use of school transportation, and the coach’s supposed quote about “bringing the team together”.  Had they all piled in their religious coach’s Suburban after school and gone to the church meeting, there’s no way this could be a political/education issue.

But for someone like me, who interprets the first amendment to prohibit the government from establishing State religion or making laws concerning religious belief and conscience, this is small beans.  For others, who interpret the first amendment to mean the annihilation of any religion from public life, it is something completely different.

 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 September 2009 11:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07
clayforHim648 - 11 September 2009 09:17 PM

Hey, Clay:  Why express desperation anyway when prayer should do the trick?

Ooo…that was a good one.

Well you guys drew it out of me…I can’t stop now.  I haven’t been on here in awhile, so I guess I can devote a little time to this.

It is ultimately my opinion that religion and philosophy cannot be really divorced from the process of government in any republican nation, therefore the “wall” between Church and State is a myth in practice.

You totally miss the basic point.  There is no way to divorce any philosophy from one’s political or governing impulses, because that philosophy goes hand in glove with your views and opinions.  What lawmakers are required to do however is to not purposely create faith-based governmental agencies.

For instance, Bush’s personal religious convictions are what they are, but he crossed the line when he created the Faith-based initiative.  He allowed his personal religious belief system to compel him to put into effect a governmental agency which deconstructs the church-state separation.

However, he would have been totally permitted to donate as much of his personal money to whichever religious organization he thought was deserving, and he’s even allowed to talk to others about following suit.  His opinions and convictions are not divorced from his perspective, nor even from certain actions.  He simply cannot encode it into law.

That’s what’s wrong with what the coach did.  He used public funds to pursue a personal religious conviction.  Use his own car, and do it on his own time, and he’s perfectly legitimate.  Otherwise, he’s breaking the law.

 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 September 2009 12:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07
clayforHim648 - 11 September 2009 09:17 PM

Hey, Clay:  Why express desperation anyway when prayer should do the trick?

Ooo…that was a good one.

But prayer does work—doesn’t it?

And as I’ve made aware previously, the only rational, solid basis for ethics and morality is found in religion.

Nonsense.  This is purely an opinion, and a self-serving undemonstrated one, and one cannot take an irrational assertion (that there is a supernatural—i.e. non-rational—god) and come to the conclusion that this leads to a “rational basis”.

When you can demonstrate why non-sapient animals (who have absolutely no recognition of any theistic point of view) display altruistic behavior via some divine spark or plan, you’ll have the very beginnings of an argument.  Until then, that very provable altruism in non-sapient animals stands as a natural source for higher ethics and morals. 

I can demonstrate the natural occurrence of this.  Can you demonstrate the supernatural foundation for it?

 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 September 2009 04:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

You totally miss the basic point.  There is no way to divorce any philosophy from one’s political or governing impulses, because that philosophy goes hand in glove with your views and opinions.  What lawmakers are required to do however is to not purposely create faith-based governmental agencies.

For instance, Bush’s personal religious convictions are what they are, but he crossed the line when he created the Faith-based initiative.  He allowed his personal religious belief system to compel him to put into effect a governmental agency which deconstructs the church-state separation.

However, he would have been totally permitted to donate as much of his personal money to whichever religious organization he thought was deserving, and he’s even allowed to talk to others about following suit.  His opinions and convictions are not divorced from his perspective, nor even from certain actions.  He simply cannot encode it into law.

That’s what’s wrong with what the coach did.  He used public funds to pursue a personal religious conviction.  Use his own car, and do it on his own time, and he’s perfectly legitimate.  Otherwise, he’s breaking the law.

I agree with you, for different reasons, but I agree with you.  The problem still remains that morality is built into the law, and you have to get morality from somewhere.

 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 September 2009 05:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  777
Joined  2007-09-16

But prayer does work—doesn’t it?

Depends on what you mean by “work”, I suppose.  If “prayer works” is seen as synonymous with rubbing a magic lamp and Robin Williams popping out as the genie, then no it doesn’t work like that.  But prayer as a means of communication, thanksgiving, praise, and supplication towards the Creator of all things does “work”. 

Nonsense.  This is purely an opinion, and a self-serving undemonstrated one, and one cannot take an irrational assertion (that there is a supernatural—i.e. non-rational—god) and come to the conclusion that this leads to a “rational basis”.

When you can demonstrate why non-sapient animals (who have absolutely no recognition of any theistic point of view) display altruistic behavior via some divine spark or plan, you’ll have the very beginnings of an argument.  Until then, that very provable altruism in non-sapient animals stands as a natural source for higher ethics and morals. 

I can demonstrate the natural occurrence of this.  Can you demonstrate the supernatural foundation for it?

The logical tie between morality/law and a lawgiver/absolute standard is itself evidence for the existence of such a supernatural being, not to mention the existence of God’s Word, the evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus, and so on and so forth.

Despite the fact that claims of really altruistic behavior in animals are questionable (considering altruism has to do with conscience and motive, traits not measurable in animals), it still does not say anything for personal or even societal morality and law in humans.  The issue, again, is not whether people (or animals for that matter) do moral things; the issue is what basis they have for behaving or not behaving a certain way.  The observance of altruistic behavior in animals does not necessitate morality in humans.  You could look at an animal, observe an “altruistic” behavior and imitate it, but there still is no “oughtness” or “rightness” to it, it just is what it is.  In other words, altruistic behavior in nature is an observation, not a basis for personal decision making and morals.

In that sense, I think I can at least demonstrate that moral oughtness cannot be consistently derived from nature alone, although we can come to understand some things about it from nature (see Romans, Chapter 1).

[ Edited: 12 September 2009 07:40 PM by clayforHim648]
 Signature 

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 September 2009 07:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

Yet another church state separation discussion. Amazing.

Lets dumb it down, or at least try to.

If the founders wanted religion used as public policy, why did they write an estblishment clause that prevents state sponsered religion?

If the founders wanted a christian theocracy why did they not included the Ten Commandments, the words God or Jesus or any other religious verbage in our constitution?

The establishment clause in fact guarantees a secular democracy and that was it’s exact intent, and most enlightened people, for over two centuries now, have understood that, including millions of ‘thinking’ christians.

Clay, your argument is tremendously old, outdated, nonsensical, nonthinking, historically ridiculous and never going to amount to anything.

Read quotes by Madison and Jefferson on separation. If you can’t accept and believe the people who came up with the idea and wrote it down, then there is truly no hope for you.

The majority of the critical founders were in fact Deists, and not Chrisitans. They were products of the European enlightenment. So why and the hell would they build a nation on ‘Christian’ values? It was not even their specific beliefs! For the government to stay out of religion, religion must be kept out of governing.

Now, tell us all you still don’t understand this.

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed