New Voice Media | Associated Baptist Press
Monday, March 15, 2010
| Opinion: Billboards a blow to U.S. history |
|
|
| By Brent Walker | ||
| Tuesday, August 04, 2009 | ||
|
(ABP) -- For the next six months, people on the roads of Pinellas and Hillsborough counties in Florida will rumble past billboard ads making false claims and misleading assertions about our country's history and commitment to religious freedom. One ad even fabricates a comment from the first president of the United States. Recently, media reported on the billboard advertisements that use quotes from history to "portray a national need for Christian governance."
The only lies being told are featured on the billboards themselves. Few would dispute the crucial role of religion in many of our founders' lives. However, they were a mixed lot -- some orthodox Christians, some Deists, nearly all scions of the Enlightenment -- and more committed to ensuring religious liberty for all than enshrining their own religion in our founding documents. The separation of church and state is one of the reasons that, despite our religious passion and pluralism, we have been able to avoid the religious conflicts that have punctuated history and continue to plague much of the world today. In fact, as our founders wisely understood, the separation of the two is good for both. When those with an agenda cherry-pick -- and completely make up -- quotes from our founders, they do a disservice to all. There is a remarkable irony when a group claiming its support for historical accuracy fabricates a statement and attributes it to the nation's first president. For example, one of the billboards quotes President George Washington as saying, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." As reported, the billboard organizers admit there is no proof Washington ever said this. Undoubtedly, Washington believed that religion has a place in public life, but one must look at his other statements to understand his view of government's role in religious matters. In 1789, then-President Washington wrote a letter saying he would establish "barriers" against "spiritual tyranny" and "every species of religious persecution." He also wrote that everyone should be protected in "worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." Taken together, Washington's words show his recognition of religion's benefits and his belief that a person's preferences were a matter of individual choice in which the government should not interfere. Moreover, James Madison -- the father of our Constitution and arguably one of our most religious founders -- observed that "the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of church and state." The phrase "wall of separation" is not in the Constitution, but the sentiment surely is. It is simply a shorthand metaphor expressing a deeper truth: Religious liberty is best protected when the institutions of church and state are separated and neither tries to perform or interfere with the essential mission of the other. That separation does not mean an infringement of the right of people of faith to speak forcefully in the public square. From bumper stickers to billboards, religious speech is commonplace. Certainly, our freedoms allow anyone to purchase a billboard and put almost any statement on it. But putting intentional mischaracterizations, half-truths, and outright fabrications on display is patently irresponsible, undermining the very faith the billboard backers claim. -30- This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it is executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. This column appeared in the Tampa Tribune and is used here with permission.
EDITORIAL DISCLAIMER: As part of our mission to provide credible and compelling information about matters of faith, Associated Baptist Press actively seeks a diversity of viewpoints in its columns, commentaries and other opinion-based content. Opinions expressed in these articles are not intended to represent ABP editorial policy and do not necessarily reflect the views of ABP's staff, board of directors or supporters.                 Comments (62)
 The End Does Not Justify the Means
written by pjerwin, August 04, 2009
Terry Kemple, local chapter president of The Community Issues Council said of his group's billboards:
The billboards showcase quotes from early American leaders... Others carry the same message but with fictional attribution, as with one billboard citing George Washington... I don't believe there's a document in Washington's handwriting that has those words in that specific form. However, if you look at Washington's quotes, including his farewell address, about the place of religion in the political sphere, there's no question he could have said those exact words.No credibility. ...
written by tj282828, August 05, 2009
I believe the author of this article is not being honest either. Now he has a good point regarding a false quote, yet he does not come out with his larger worldview. I run around with the most conservative Southern Baptist around. I know of no one who advocates establishing Christianity as the state religion. Brent walker is simply putting up a straw man to knock over.
I suspect that Brent also believes that for Christians to allow their faith to influence a belief that abortion should be illegal is invalid. This, in his mind, is a violation of separation of church and state. He advocates a Christianity that affects only a persons spirituality, but the moment salvation affects the real world/politics/work place. . . his precious line of separation has been crossed. All conservatives want is to be allowed to have God affect all of our views about life. Doesn't such a big God demand such influence? The problem is Brent Walker's god is too small. In response to the anonymous TJ282828,
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 05, 2009 Who brought up Southern Baptists? I believe it was You not Walker. Walker was addressing these billboards that have gone up in two Florida counties. These billboards are proof that there are indeed individuals in America who desire to see Christianity in a privileged position and other "religions" merely tolerated. One need not be on the inner circle of Southern Baptist life to know that there are a number of visible Southern Baptists in the public square who hold these views such as Rick Scarborough, Wiley Drake, Roy Moore, Sally Kerns, etc. Your assumptions about Walker are merely assumptions. And surely you know what often happens when people go making assumptions. Walker has authored a book, has written hundreds and hundreds of op-eds and has published a monthly column for 10 years now. How about you try making arguments based on facts - facts that can be shared with us here - instead of just making assertions that you can't back up. Until you can add a bit of substance to your rants, you really have no credibility, Mr. Anonymous Internet Commenter. Aaron Weaver Christian influence in government
written by jonluttrell, August 05, 2009
The base of power held by the government is rooted in voilence. If we as Christians seek to use government to enforce "morality" or forbid "sin," then we are complicit in that violence.
If I understand tj, he would want to legislate against abortion due to his religious convictions. This would be similar to holding a gun to a young woman's head and forbidding her to have an abortion. Where is Christ's love in that? Speak out that abortion is wrong, but we as Christians cannot use violence in order to speak for us. ...
written by pjerwin, August 05, 2009
Ouch, Aaron! You're rather vociferous, but you are right. There is ample evidence from the Baptist Joint Committee and Mr. Walker's writings to make an argument. That would be the way to go.
But to jonluttrell: tj may want legislation RE: abortion for that reason; we won't know unless he tells us. But you're the one bringing up the issue of abortion, not tj. And using violence was not part of his comment, either. The base of power held by government is not violence, but the need to be governed. Government is not inherently evil, people are simply not naturally given to behaving ethically and morally, so we need help being able to live together in communities. And even when we are given to behaving ethically and morally, things are not always cut-and-dried, so we still need help. Violence only comes into the picture in cases when one is extremely unwilling to be fairly and equitably governed or when the government is extremely unwilling to govern fairly and equitably. So violence is a last resort for the governed as well as the government. But resort to religious morality is not necessary, for the founding fathers of our nation, even before it was constituted, recognized that there are certain unalienable rights, rights that have priority to those outlined in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, that are endowed by the same Creator who created all men equal. "These truths," they wrote, are "self-evident" and therefore need no other ground. Among these rights, but not necessarily limited to them, are the right to life, to Liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. All individuals being equal and independent, our pursuit of these rights may at some time threaten to interfere with another's. For instance, a woman finds herself pregnant. In this case, as often is the case, let's say the pregnancy was not intentional, though it was the result of a choice she made -- in other words through concensual sex. For this woman, she feels she is about to be deprived of her unalienable right to the pusuit of happiness. The only problem is, in order for her to do anything about that, she must deprive this newly conceived, yet created-equal person, of his or her unalienable right to the pursuit of life. One right must trump the other. Without resorting to religious moralizing, we can say this: there is no other avenue for that newly conceived, yet created-equal person to exercize his or her unalienable right to pursue life. His or her pursuit of life is totally at the mercy of the woman's pursuit of happiness. On the other hand, we know that if happiness cannot be found in one direction, one may exercize the right to pursue it in another direction and yet find it. In other words, the one pursuing happiness has options that the one pursuing life does not. And in this case, this is based, not on a choice made by the newly conceived, yet created-equal person, but a choice made by the woman. Reason say that in this case the right to pursue life trumps the right to pursue happiness. Since this a common conundrum today, a law needs to be established. And since only the Legislative Branch has the constitutional authority to establish law, it needs to be made by Congress, rather than by precedent in the Judicial Branch. A law regulating abortion could easily be established with resort to reason alone. ...
written by tj282828, August 05, 2009
Big Daddy Weave,
Are you serious? You, the writer of blogs on a regular basis are going to lecture on not assuming anything when stating opinions? That's half of what bloggers do. . . its what you do! I've read enough of your blog to see assumptions. And, no, I don't have time to search your blog and bring them to light. lol The Baptist Joint Committee, which Brent Walker runs, says this on its web page: "Civil religion, in its worst form, is that mixture of piety and patriotism where the love of country becomes a secularized religion and God is reduced to little more than an American citizen. In the end, allegiance to church and state becomes so blurred that it is impossible to tell them apart. Civil religion results when we fail to distinguish properly between God and government. It deifies the state and relegates God to a political pawn of American culture and public policy. Some examples of civil religion that pervade our culture include reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, with its affirmation of "one nation under God," swearing to tell the truth "so help me God," taking an oath with a hand on the Bible, and inscribing currency with "In God We Trust." Courts typically uphold the constitutionality of the government's involvement in these practices by minimizing the religious significance of them. Through long use and rote repetition, the words are seen to have lost the religious import they might have once had." Goodness, where to start! Mr. Walker would not have the pledge said at VBS or public school. He holds to this belief in spite of our country's declaration's logical dependence and reference to a God or creator. In 1776 is there any doubt who that God is? The Christian worldview dominated society. Even Thomas Jefferson made his own heretical version of the Bible. All Law must have a foundation. Natural Law found its foundation in the Creator. Brent Walker's view of society and law will leave us at the mercy of the masses. Well, some might say, isn't that democracy. Yes, but American democracy was built on the truth that God gave rights to man. They are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Rights that come from God cannot be taken away by men/government. Without God given rights all our privileges of citizenship can simply be voted away in an election. Besides, how does a Christian believe we are not a nation under God. . . aren't all nations under God. . . isn't America especially under God because our legal system is dependent upon God given rights? Brent Walker's problem is that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of American law and the founding fathers. ...
written by tj282828, August 05, 2009
jonluttrell,
I agree. . . all government is violent and therefore immoral. Why don't we resort to anarchy which will result in no violence at all. After all, who needs police to keep the peace. . . who needs law. ...
written by tj282828, August 05, 2009
For those of you who want to abandon any religious influence upon society, how would you justify outlawing murder. Its not as simple as you think. Btw, "just because" is not a good answer.
Let us consider Hitler. Hitler looked at nature and bought into Darwin's evolution. That is where he got his morality: survival of the fittest. After looking at the races of the world, Hitler conveniently decided that his German race was the master race. As a result Hitler hoped to speed up evolution by killing everyone with bad DNA. Through this process the master race would become stronger still. Wouldn't this be the best thing for the human race?. . . to evolve greater still? Stupid, godless thinking like this lead to the killing of millions of Jews and disabled. This kind of thing happens when the good God of creation is ignored by government. Communism is another Godless government system. Hmmm, how many millions died from their brutality? American democracy has always been heavily influenced by the Christian religion. Those short sighted like Brent Walker will, if successful, regret the day they opened the door for their grandchildren to suffer. tj is still at it
written by Arce, August 05, 2009
tj,
you still cannot avoid extrapolating from what was said to something more extreme. No where in the quoted material was anything said about not saying the pledge of allegience in school or in VBS! No where in the quoted material was anything said that shows that Brent Walker has a flawed understanding of history. Rather, what you said clearly shows that you have read history with a particularly damaging bias. In your rush to attack and condemn people, you misrepresent them. It is the classic tool of the political manipulator, and it is an exceedingly unChristian thing to do. Please stop misrepresenting people as having positions that you cannot find actual statements by them to support. BTW
written by Arce, August 05, 2009
BTW, tj
I think it is a form of idolatry to have an American flag in the church. The church is to worship God, not the American republic, and I personally oppose saying the pledge of allegience in any building dedicated to the worship of God. And I do fly the flag at my home on national holidays, say the pledge when it is said other than on church property, and sing the national anthem with gusto -- all of it. ...
written by tj282828, August 05, 2009
Acre,
Please follow the logic from the quote. "Civil religion, in its worst form, is that mixture of piety and patriotism where the love of country becomes a secularized religion and God is reduced to little more than an American citizen." AND "It deifies the state and relegates God to a political pawn of American culture and public policy." Civil religion deifies the state and makes God a pawn. The quote means to say that this is wrong. . . or sin in the authors mind. Then an example of civil religion is given. . . the pledge. "Some examples of civil religion that pervade our culture include reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, with its affirmation of "one nation under God," If Civil Religion is bad, and the pledge is civil religion, then why would anyone participate in the pledge who believes the quotes above? Civil Religion is wrong. The pledge is civil religion. Therefore saying the pledge in VBS or school is wrong. Acre, I'm not jumping to conclusions. . . just using basic logic. I looked up the quote to satisfy Big Daddy, who thought my assumption of an extreme separation of church and state beliefs of Brent Walker were off base ...
written by pjerwin, August 05, 2009
Arce wrote:
I think it is a form of idolatry to have an American flag in the church.So, I suppose you'd be one of those Baptists who'd have a problem with the scholar's suggestion in another article about Baptists and the veneration of Mary. Some Witnesses?
written by tenor1, August 05, 2009
I believe we are getting some Jehovah's Witnesses into this blog, starting with Brent Walker himself. Actually, I know Walker, have heard him speak from his lawyer-legalese viewpoint; and have told him that John Smythe and Thomas Helwys, our forebears, would turn over if they knew where the current and previous leadership of the BJC were taking the matter of separation of church and state.
What has followed the establishment of every socialist, totalitarian, communist regime that has ever risen to power throughout history? Answer: The repression of, even forbidding free exercise of religion. A secularized state, unencumbered by Judeo-Christian ethical codes, free to apply moral relevance to whatever degree that suits their end-game, must be first in the minds and hearts of the subjects. This, in the words of its founder, is the aim of the ACLU, and the BJC does not seem far behind. extrapolation beyond the content
written by Arce, August 06, 2009
pjerwin said:
So, I suppose you'd be one of those Baptists who'd have a problem with the scholar's suggestion in another article about Baptists and the veneration of Mary. Wow, what a stretch to get from saying the pledge to the flag to idolizing Mary. I personally think that Mary is a model of how Christians should respond to the call of God on their lives, and most of us fail to do so, otherwise there would be no poor or elderly or orphans desperately in need of assistance from the government. But I do not believe a lot of the Catholic Maryology, including that she was immaculately conceived herself, that she did not die but was assumed into heaven, and that she was eternally a virgin. And I do not pray to anyone other than God. The Point Is:
written by mcskinny, August 06, 2009
The point is that telling half truths and/or bending the truth to make a point is very closely related to, if not the same, as lying. Thus the billboards tell a lot about the "Christians" who sponsored them.
Fact is that one of the principles our country was founded on was keeping religion and government as far from each other as possible. The authors of understood from experience and very recent history the reasons for that separation. Modern Christians who are accepting financial aid and other forms of "assistance" from governmental agencies are slowly learning this assistance comes with controlling strings. Government "allowed" prayer, becomes government mandated prayer, which becomes government controlled prayer. This is a fine example of evolution. We an substitute almost any noun for "prayer" in the foregoing statement. Mac McFatter Semmes, Al Who brought up Southern Baptists?
written by Broadman, August 06, 2009
LOL. For what other purpose does ABP exist than to "bring up" Southern Baptists. Without the SBC, they have no cause or substance.
...
written by pjerwin, August 06, 2009
mcskinny wrote:
Fact is that one of the principles our country was founded on was keeping religion and government as far from each other as possible. The authors of understood from experience and very recent history the reasons for that separation.How wrong could you be? All that was intended was that it not be like many of the other nations where the head of state is also the head of the church, as in England with the King or Queen being head of the Anglican Church. They were intelligent enough to know that a person's religion -- if it is truly his or her religion -- can never be separate from the person, even those in government. ...
written by tenor1, August 06, 2009
RE McSkinny: "Fact is that one of the principles our country was founded on was keeping religion and government as far from each other as possible."
This is about as wrong as you can get. pjerwin is right on. Remember that the next day after the first congress approved the 1st Amendment, they approved a NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER. This is not to be confused with action to make permanent the NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER under Eisenhower in the '50s. BiG daDDy and prominence
written by Xenophon, August 06, 2009
Hi again, Big Daddy. In regard to your comment from August 5th when you said, "these billboards are proof that there are indeed individuals in America who desire to see Christianity in a privileged position and other 'religions' merely tolerated,"
I would agree with your assessment. Why is desiring to see Christianity in the cat bird's seat in American culture a bad thing as you seem to be implying that it is? Would you like to see Hinduism or Islam or atheism become the most prevalent religious perpective in America? I suspect that you mean one of two things here or possibly both. One is that you do not want government at any level to acknowledge that Christianity is the religion that around 80% of Americans embrace. The other possibility is that you would like to see more equal numbers and influence among all religions in the United States and even the world, so that no one religion dominates socially and culturally. If you are basing your comments above on the first rationale that I mention, then why should schools, government offices, and the military not reflect in terms of morals and manners what people already believe? Just to sort things out on this matter a bit, let me ask you, if we privatized the school system and sold off prominent government office buildings and reigned in our military mission so that we had virtually no standing military so that Christian influence could not be held back by cries of violations of church and state, would you be happy with that arrangement? To put it more succinctly, what if we lessened the role of the government to a vanishing point and increased the influence of Christianity by voluntary, private means, would you be happy or sad by such a move? On the second possible motive for your comments, I am in favor of wiping out all other religions--by persuasion, not by coercion. Are you? Would it be a good thing if everyone in the world was born again? I say yes. I am not clear how you and others who take a "liberal" (I would say 'egalitarian' is a more descriptive label) viewpoint would answer. Neutrality
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 06, 2009
Xenophon,
I champion a "no-aid neutrality" reading of the First Amendment. I am not in favor of wiping out other religions. As a Baptist Christian, I recognize the reality of pluralism. Instead of answering all of your questions above which might be a bit time consuming, I will instead offer a short quotation from one of my favorite First Amendment scholars, Douglas Laycock. I am generally - though not always - in agreement with Laycock on church-state issues. I do like how Laycock defines neutrality below: "The religion clauses require government to minimize the extent to which it either encourages or discourages religious belief or disbelief, practice or nonpractice, observance or nonobservance. Religion is to be left as wholly to private choice as anything can be. It should proceed as unaffected by government as possible. Government should not interfere with our beliefs about religion either by coercion or by persuasion. Religion may flourish or wither; it may change or stay the same. What happens to religion is up to the people acting severally and voluntarily; it is not up to the people acting collectively through government... Government must be neutral so that religious belief and practice can be free. The autonomy of religious belief and disbelief is maximized when government encouragement and discouragement is minimized. The same is true of religious practice and refusal to practice. The goal of maximum religious liberty can help identify the baseline from which to measure encouragement and discouragement." so less government is better?
written by Xenophon, August 06, 2009
Big Daddy, I take it you are saying that the less government that we have, the better, and that you would have no problem with a more overtly Christian culture if arrived at without the aid or hindrance of government. Do I have it? If so, we can agree.
I am not clear why you would not like to see all other religions disappear if all individuals were born again in Christ. Would you not like to see all people converted to Christianity voluntarily? ...
written by pjerwin, August 06, 2009
I'm not sure, but I think he doesn't believe explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. I could be wrong.
...
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 06, 2009
Yea you're wrong, pjerwin. Bad assumption.
Would I like to see all individuals born again in Christ? Absolutely. But I also recognize that pluralism is a result of authentic voluntarism. I'm not here to debate whether big government or small government is better. That's really not relevant here. As the quote stated, "The autonomy of religious belief and disbelief is maximized when government encouragement and discouragement is minimized." Strict neutrality = Real Religious Freedom. The outcome is what it is. I can respect any outcome that is the result of real religious freedom. ...
written by pjerwin, August 06, 2009
Since explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, then ideally you'd like to see all other religions become obsolete, right?
I'll repeat again...
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 06, 2009
Would I like to see all individuals born again in Christ? Absolutely.
No time for games.
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 06, 2009
I've been straight-up. I do reject, however, how you have framed your questions.
Is it liberty or equality of result that motivates state neutrality?
written by Xenophon, August 06, 2009
Big Daddy, I appreciate your answering my posts. What I am trying to tease out of you in asking my questions on the role of government is whether your commitment to what I suspect is a rather extreme version of what counts as neutral in church-state relations is primarily motivated by a concern for liberty of conscience or equality of result.
I make no bones about my commitment to individual liberty for those who can use it responsibly, and my complete opposition to equality of result or anything that closely resembles it. I have no problem with people feeling excluded from a community due to differences. I do not sadistically enjoy seeing people left out or not fully comfortable with a social setting, but I am not willing to gum up the works for everyone else as long as no one is physically harmed. For example, in voluntary settings, I am very impatient with canceling, say, a Halloween party because some believe it is sinful or unbiblical to play dress-up on October 31. Here is an example where I do not benefit from leaving non-conformists out of the social mainstream is the matter of where I currently live. I moved to Fort Worth in February from Dallas (after moving to Dallas from Atlanta, Georgia, two years ago--I believe you and I are both Georgians living in Texas). I love Dallas because I spontaneously feel a certain affinity with many of the people I encounter there. I very much appreciate the overall social atmosphere that I find in Dallas. I left Atlanta because I found it too cold and impersonal as well as too frenetic for my taste even though I am a native Atlantan. I found a very nice house in Fort Worth for a great price believing that Fort Worth was similar to Dallas since both cities are in the same metropolitan area. That was a horribly wrong assumption. I simply cannot get along with many people here. I find them to be too blunt and harsh. I am now looking to sell my house, which I love, to return to Dallas. Now then, I believe that government attempts to equalize the social standing of all people will lead to the infringement of individual liberty, but also the destruction of communities and social unions of all types. The government simply cannot make sure that all feel socially comfortable anywhere. What governments can do is butt into webs of social relationships destroying a common public life for many. I would argue on libertarian and conservative grounds that what I hate about Fort Worth should not be interfered with by social tinkering by government. All the government could do is disrupt quirks in speech and mannerism that serve to coordinate the social interactions with folks who are natives or who have assimilated more comfortably than have I. I think such mismatches as I have experienced are best resolved by the liberty of movement and freedom of association rather than by attempts to make all feel included and treated as social equals. I would extend this same analysis to the the religious flavor of a community as long as no coercion is involved. I suspect that you, with good intentions, are more willing than am I or the Founders of the U.S. to use the state to bring people together in harmony and equality to form a cohesive community. Religious differences might very well get in the way of that mission. That might be why you do not want to clearly say that while you want all to come to Christ, you do not want all other religions to vanish, which, of course, they would if all became Christians voluntarily (except perhaps for purposes of history, anthropology, psychological insights, etc.). Am I on the right track here in understanding where you are coming from on government neutrality toward religion? ...
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 06, 2009
To be honest, I think you have made a number of points in your paragraphs above that have little to do with religious liberty and my definition of neutrality. Historically, many American Christians and in particular many Baptists in America have been firm supporters of the principles of neutrality (using the definition offered above), liberty of conscience and the institutional separation of church and state. These American Christians, Baptists included, that I am referring to have been quite politically diverse: political liberals, political conservatives, political libertarians, etc. You seem to suggest that this is not possible or at least I'm not following you completely.
I have offered a definition of neutrality. I can take particular church-state questions and apply the principle of strict neutrality to those specific questions. But, I do not see any such specific questions in your comment. That's really the best way to address church-state issues. Principles first, application second. Back to the question of IF all came to Christ voluntarily... Pluralism is an undeniable reality. Given that reality, I see no need to make the type of statement that PJErwin would like me to make. As a "Free and Faithful Baptist," I try my best to respect other faith traditions and respect those with no faith at all. Such statements are not charitable and do not serve any positive purpose. you are right in a way
written by Xenophon, August 07, 2009
I agree with you Big Daddy that government forcibly suppressing public religious observances and expressions by those in the majority to make those in the minority more comfortable in public gatherings have nothing to do with preserving liberty. In fact, such actions by the state to limit the liberty of Christians in the U.S. are antithetical to liberty.
While people should be free to find the community that embodies the milieu that they find desirable including the way that the religion that is most pervasive in an area affects the social climate, they have no business using the apparatus of the state to force people with whom they disagree into silence. Individuals have no right to force other people in an established community to accommodate their dissenting folkways including their religion except not to be threatened with violence. If someone wants to go against the grain whether it be in religious belief or observance or in business practice or social niceties, that is their decision. But there can be social and economic consequences to their lack of cooperation. I still suspect that you do not want to clearly say that you would like to see the end of all religions other than Christianity due to your commitment to equality of result enforced by the coercive arm of the state. It comes across that your commitment to equality is your chief concern that trumps all others. Disrespecting others here.
written by Arce, August 07, 2009
pjerwin and Xenophon continue to try to paint others remarks in ways that misrepresent them. It is an extreme form of disrespect. Please stop trying to put ideas into other people's remarks and extrapolating from what they said to what the did not say.
It is a sign of an intentional effort to trash someone for ideas they do not and did not endorse. Please stop trying to make a case that others believe what they do not say. ...
written by pjerwin, August 07, 2009
Arce wrote
It is an extreme form of disrespect.I suspect from your comment that you have little idea what an extreme form of disrespect is. I've observed and experienced extreme circumstances of various kinds and this doesn't come close to extreme. There are various methods of trying to draw people out in discussions and this is but one way of encouraging one to clarify his position. I'm trying to discover why my brother is so reluctant, so non-committal, and what in the question or in posing the question is so offensive. There's no condemnation. There's freedom of thought and freedom of conscience here. I'm just trying to discover whether or not he believes religious plurality is preferable to unity in Christ. It's a simple philosophical question. If it were possible, wouldn't it be preferable that all be Christians and bound for eternity in God's presence or, for the sake of plurality, that some would be Hindus, Buddhists, etc., who do not trust in Christ and are bound for, as Christ Himself said, “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels... where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched”? It’s just a question. ...
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 07, 2009
Xenophon,
Nothing that I have written would or should have led you to the conclusions that you still hold. I'll give you one example. I'm a proponent of increased civil rights for gays and lesbians. I'm also a proponent of religious liberty. In a situation where there is a conflict between proposed increased civil rights for gays and lesbians and the religious liberty of a person or persons, I do not desire to use the "coercive arm of the state" to further any personal "commitment to equality." I'm not interested in suppressing religious freedom in order to further the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Instead, I believe that during such conflicts the government can take measures (ex. religious exemptions) that will allow for an individual's religious freedom to be maximized while also maximizing the civil rights of gays and lesbians. A person interested in using the "coercive arm of the state" in some quest for equality would not take such a position and would most certainly not be a proponent of religious exemptions. PJErwin, I've answered your questions and elaborated more in my previous comment to Xenophon which I will repost below: "Pluralism is an undeniable reality. Given that reality, I see no need to make the type of statement that PJErwin would like me to make. As a "Free and Faithful Baptist," I try my best to respect other faith traditions and respect those with no faith at all. Such statements are not charitable and do not serve any positive purpose." I've never stated that plurality is preferable to unity in Christ. But I live in the real world where pluralism is a reality. Move on. ...
written by pjerwin, August 07, 2009
But of course, the point is to discuss the article and the ramifications of the various viewpoints, isn't it. I believe the billboards that have fictional quotes or give fictional attributions should be offensive to Christians because it’s lying. And one has to wonder about the true state and motivation of those who are comfortable with lying. In that regard, it matters little who the author of this op-ed piece is or what his character or motivation may be. Truth is truth. Now, if there’s something untrue in what Walker has written or if it’s misleading in some way, that’s a legitimate point of discussion because the same thing applies to him: the end doesn’t justify the means.
...
written by pjerwin, August 07, 2009
So, BDW, you're only selectively willing to speak theoretically?
...
written by tj282828, August 07, 2009
Multiculturalism is a dangerous philosophy that America has bought into. Multiculturalism basically says that all cultures are of equal value. Liberals buy into this view hook, line, and sinker. Yet there are dangerous side effects to such beliefs.
If all cultures are equal, then why has Western Civilization, rooted in Christianity, thrived while the Middle East, Africa, South America, and the East have not. Why did the West develop technology, science, and better governance? This can only be explained through a better civilization. I can almost feel the liberals cringing! lol If all civilizations/cultures are equal then how can we explain Western Civilization's superior technology, science, and governance? Well, a liberal multiculturalism takes the obvious answer away: Western Civilization has a better/higher culture. Since all the cultures are of equal value, the liberal will not allow the right and simple answer. Thus the liberal argues that Western Civilization is better off because it unjustly stole, forced, and fought its way to its superior position. Yet all cultures fight wars. . . even the Indians. Besides, these other cultures did not use their natural resources as efficiently as the West. My main point is this. If all prosperity cannot come from a superior culture, because all cultures are the same, then superior prosperity must come from dishonest gain. This is why liberals hate America. American exceptionalism is an impossibility to a liberal multiculturalists. So the only way to explain our material success is wickedness, trickery, and unjustified war. To bring this back to Big Daddy, he is caught between two contradictory worldviews. Christianity, which believes itself and King Jesus to be superior to all other cultures. . . thus evangelism; and multiculturalism, which says no culture is superior to another. Pick a side Big Daddy, the only thing in the middle is road kill! ...
written by Big Daddy Weave, August 07, 2009
I don't take Mr. Anonymous Internet Commenters who accuse me of hating America, etc. all that seriously...
...
written by tj282828, August 07, 2009
I think you are using my anonymity to dodge a good point. Besides, do you really think I am going to give my name to you. . . a blogger? That's like giving your address to the paparazzi! lol
sorry to tell you tj...
written by Slick, August 07, 2009
...but I know the Weave, his mother, his father (a noted scholar), his sister and two churches in GA where he was a member some years ago and I can tell you that you completely lack the intellectual capacity to argue with him. His positions on a number of things are a good bit to the left of mine--miles apart--but he's entitled to them and you aren't going to change him. He is far more correct than I find many of your positions.
Disrespecting the right to another having their own opinions
written by Arce, August 07, 2009
tj
It is extreme disrespect because you substitute your wild extrapolation for the other person's ideas and opinions, and therefore violate his/her freedom of thought. It undermines the basis for discussion, which is that each of us has the right to determine our own position on anything and everything. You do this all of the time and it is a bad habit. I think it is a SIN of the utmost severity, to deny another the God-given right to think for themselves. But then, as an SBCer, you probably believe that the pastor has the right to tell the sheep what to think and believe, and the only proper interpretation of any and all passages in the Bible, and to toss out any who do not agree with him. do you like it?
written by Arce, August 07, 2009
The previous post was intended only as an example of the extrapolation that is the basis of my complaint. My apologies, it was intended only as an illustration and a teaching device!
...
written by tj282828, August 07, 2009
:-) Did you plan the last sentence, or did you just catch yourself calling the kettle black? Please give me an example of "wild extrapolation." Earlier, the VBS pledge claim is right in line with the quote.
ideas have consequences
written by tj282828, August 07, 2009
Acre,
You do see the pickle Big Daddy is in. If he comes out and says Christian culture is superior to others, then, logically, he would have to support Christian influence on society as being best. But this violates his multiculturalism which says all cultures are the same. If Christian culture is truly the best, then anyone who believes this should work to influence the culture and its institutions with Christian values. . . which are the best. Ideas have consequences Acre. I am not trying to sound mean when I say these things. Like the guy above who said this: "Government "allowed" prayer, becomes government mandated prayer, which becomes government controlled prayer. This is a fine example of evolution." Now it takes real work to be this ignorant. Congress has opened with Christian prayer since its beginning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives This guys homemade "evolution" prayer ideas hold no water. You are right to say people have the freedom to be wrong, but others have the freedom to say "Wait a second." ...
written by pjerwin, August 07, 2009
As if Big Daddy Weave is not an anonymous internet designation. :-D That is a disingenuous dodge.
Slick wrote: ...and I can tell you that you completely lack the intellectual capacity to argue with him.Of course, unless you know who tj282828's mommy and daddy are (noted scholars or otherwise) or his siblings (if any) or where he has gone to church over the years (if ever) or anything about his educational background, then you really can't say that about him (or her), can you? :-D tj282828 wrote: If all cultures are equal, then why has Western Civilization, rooted in Christianity, thrived while the Middle East, Africa, South America, and the East have not...I suppose it depends on how you define "thrive." Does technology and science necessarily mean a culture thrives? Does lack of it mean that a culture does not? But of course, the point is to discuss the article and the ramifications of the various viewpoints, isn't it. I believe the billboards that have fictional quotes or give fictional attributions should be offensive to Christians because it’s lying. And one has to wonder about the true state and motivation of those who are comfortable with lying. In that regard, it matters little who the author of this op-ed piece is or what his character or motivation may be. Truth is truth. Now, if there’s something untrue in what Walker has written or if it’s misleading in some way, that’s a legitimate point of discussion because the same thing applies to him: the end doesn’t justify the means. ...
written by tj282828, August 07, 2009
Let us ask the Indians who still hunt with bow and arrows, eat one another's hearts, and live in tepees why they believe their culture is superior to the West? Wait. . . they are all on reservations watching English T.V. in their air conditioned homes! Wait, the whole world is copying Western Civilization. . . ;-) Imitation is the greatest flattery.
...
written by tj282828, August 07, 2009
I can't argue with that! lol The world is still the world. . . even in the West.
multiculturalism does not mean equal
written by Arce, August 07, 2009
I believe in multiculturism in the sense that all cultures have value and we can learn more about ourselves by being aware of them. The culture in this country is really a melange of cultural influences and varies greatly from place to place.
I also believe that a truly Christian influence is good for any culture, but I am not willing to allow you or anyone else to decide what I mean by a truly Christian influence. To me, Christianity means I have considered my sinful state, and in humility confessed and sought forgiveness from God, and have pledged to follow the Christ and serve him. That means a forgiving and generous spirit, seeking to consider the needs of others above my own, seeking peace among my fellow inhabitants of the planet, and sharing the love of God as evidenced in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. But the culture of America is not Christian. We have pornography and near pornography on television and in the movies, and we sell those everywhere. As a country, we are the largest consumers of narcotics. We export cigarettes and toxic wastes. We economically destroy the agricultural basis of third world countries by our tariff and ag support payments systems. We stole the whole place in the first place. We practiced slavery as endorsed by the SBC and then passed Jim Crow in the mostly "Christian", mostly Baptist South, that lasted a century. We exploit the resources of the world, consuming several times more than the average European, per capita, of many world resources, including fuels, metals, crops (in addition to those grown here). We pollute more per capita than Europeans. So what is Christian about our culture? I wish we had a Christian influenced culture. But if you call our culture Christian, I am not sure that it would be better than some of the alternatives were it more so influenced. reply to Arce
written by Xenophon, August 08, 2009
I am just now reading the comments from today. Arce, I do not see why you say that I am mischaracterizing anyone's comments. I could accuse you of mischaracterizing my comments in saying that I am misrepresenting Big Daddy's remarks on this website when I clearly qualified my characterization of his position with phrases such as " I suspect" and " It comes across..." I have repeated asked for clarification and I do not see the clarity. I still stand by my speculative understanding of his position on what exactly is motivating his position on church-state relations.
I suspect (notice the qualification) that Big Daddy and I are speaking past each other due to one or more of the possible following reasons: (1)sincerely misunderstanding each other due to our unspoken assumptions (2) Big Daddy does not want to clearly lay out his position because he realizes the weakness or controversial nature of many of the practical implications of his philosophical (3) due to different academic training and temperament, we may place a different emphasis on clarity (4) some other reason that I am not aware of. In any case, I do feel that Big Daddy and I are not lined up on the same yard line (so to speak) in order to go at each other. I am merely trying to sharpen the focus. He or anyone else can correct me if I am wrong on my characterization. I think he did above after my last post, but I am about to tackle that rely now. reply to Big Daddy
written by Xenophon, August 08, 2009
Thanks for your latest reply to my trying to sort out your motivations for taking the position that you do on church-state relations. I apologize if I have in any way caricatured any of your positions. I am simply unclear on the underlying thinking on some of the positions that you appear to me to be taking. I was and am trying to smoke you out on what you are primarily interested in protecting, liberty and freedom on one hand or equality of result on the other. I am also interested in what you think about the nature of social relationships. I cannot help but surmise that you either place equality over liberty or see the two principles as more compatible than I do.
For example, I appreciate your saying that you would grant religious exemptions from civil rights laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination. So, your egalitarian sentiments might not be as single-minded as I suspected. Thank you for the correction. I, however, view such laws as the ones that you advocate on civil rights as abridgments of liberty (right to private property and freedom of association) as well as disrupting the social sorting process that more diffused collective decision making methods such as markets and traditions allow for. Radical changes in sexual norms can also destabilize the entire social structure in very subtle and unpredictable ways. Without these structures, there can be no individual liberty. So within my philosophical orientation, even though your commitment to equality is not absolute, your willingness to use state action to achieve equality does unjustifiably encroach both on individual liberty and the freedom to form and maintain social unions. Moving to another issue that you raised in your previous post that might help clarify our central points of contention is the interplay between theory and practice. You said previously, "...That's really the best way to address church-state issues. Principles first, application second." In reply I would say that one must temper principles with an allowance for human falleness as well as the incomplete nature of principles or theory (assuming the theory is correct in the first place). There has to be some back and forth correction and adjustment as one applies abstract principles to the contingencies of a particular real life situation. This is the basic insight that conservatives such as Edmund Burke forcibly push to the forefront in political discussions. Abstractions must be adapted to specific, fluid conditions in not fully predictable settings. This is also the pragmatist's plea. So in the types of cases we are discussing here, I have seen some advocates for a strict interpretation of separation of church and state say that the Founders were many times inconsistent between their actions and their words (incidentally, even if that one quote from Washington mentioned by Mr. Walker in the article is dubious, Washington did clearly make a connection between morality and religion and the need for both in a free country in his Farewell Address--many of the other Founders held the same view). Instead of interpreting writings by the Founders laying out their theoretical take on religious freedom as inconsistent with their actions in office, I would suggest taking their actions and their theory as of one piece. They implemented what they saw as the concrete form of their theory according to the time and place in which they lived. There is not necessarily a contradiction between their principles and how they put them into practice in the United States. reply to Big Daddy, part 2
written by Xenophon, August 08, 2009
Should we move to a more leftist understanding of the First Amendment now that we are multi-cultural and Christianity is no longer the dominant religion in the U.S.? Well, I challenge both of these assumptions. The U.S. is not that religiously diverse in terms of sheer numbers. Around 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and other religions together only make up 4% of the population while the remaining 15% or so are atheists or agnostics according to the American Religious Identification Survey 2008. Should we be more diverse religiously? I would say no since I believe that Christianity is the only true religion. Also on grounds of social union and fraternity, it is salutary that most people actually share the same basic religious orientation even if the solidarity is not coerced. It is one thing to have diversity among Protestant sects and even Catholics and heterodox versions of Christianity. It is another to have large numbers those who adhere to religious precepts that reject the basic metaphysical tenets of Christianity. I do not believe that we could sustain the common sets of assumptions that informally bring a sense of cohesion to our country if we actually had tens of millions of people who worked from a radically different metaphysical perspective. Even Western atheists many times accept basic metaphysical and practical perspectives drawn from religious sources. Consider Christopher Hitchens' story of an atheist stopped in Northern Ireland by a masked gunman who asked if he was a Protestant or a Catholic. The atheist declined making a choice between the two options offered and said that he was an atheist. Then the gunman followed up with the alarming question, "Are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" After a laugh, Hitchens answered that he is a Protestant atheist recognizing many of his philosophical predispositions come from Protestantism.
For the similar reasons, I oppose multi-culturalism within the borders of the United States or any country. While I do not respect the religious claims of false religions as I simultaneously respect the right of the individual to hold false views, I do respect in a substantive sense, not merely a formal sense, different cultures that evolved to facilitate various peoples to effectively interact with one another in very different environments. As a conservative, I admire and wish to maintain the array of different cultures around the world, even including the differences between Dallas and Fort Worth. I just do not think the differences can be maintained in close proximity with differing cultures--there will be a form of syncretism or conflict or avoidance and social withdrawal. The informal differences in gestures, accents, dress, smell, appearance, facial expression, etc. bind certain people together and repel or confuse others. While some differences can co-exist, others cannot. Just consider the conflicts between the Belgian French and Flemish or between the agrarian South and industrial North in the U.S. in the mid-Nineteenth Century. Those differences were relatively minor compared to what I see developing in the U.S. nowadays. So, while I respect each community and nation to maintain its differences and would insist on it, I do not think that diversity past a certain threshold is compatible with a sense of civic friendship necessary to sustain a political union. reply to Big Daddy, part 3
written by Xenophon, August 08, 2009
Finally, I see an ambiguity between different ways to interpret 'neutrality' by the state in matters pertaining to the establishment of a church. First, I see the First Amendment only prohibiting a state church at the Federal level. Second, I see neutrality in terms of government staying out of the fray as different sects and religions compete for dominance. The state is also to stay out of intramural disputes among adherents of a particular sect or religion such as the proper interpretation of communion or questions about the divinity of Christ. My view is similar to the equality in the eyes of the law understanding of 'equality' in contrast to the equality of result view.
The contrasting view of neutrality takes a more interventionist tack on church state relations. On this view, the state should be empowered to bring different religious perspectives into equal standing in the public realm as much as possible. On this view, the government would be authorized to intervene to level the effects each religion had on the community or nation. If the majority religion were too influential, then the state should be empowered to limit the expression of individuals who belong to the dominant group so that they do not drown out the social and political influence of the other groups. On this view, we have seen public school prayer outlawed, Christmas pageants outlawed in public schools, limits placed on the speech of Christian students in public schools, displays of the Ten Commandments outlawed on state property, Christmas scenes banned on state property while Muslim and the ornamentation of other religions protected on the same site on which the Christian symbols were banned. The list of such interventions goes on and on and they are quite frequent. The traditional interpretation of the First Amendment allowed school prayer and religious celebrations since they simply followed the trends already present in a community. The state did not intervene or impose these practices. They evolved spontaneously from the religious ethos of the community. There is no coercion involved in these activities and so do not violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment nor do they establish a particular church as the state church. The more activist view of the First Amendment is motivated by a desire to prevent anyone from feeling left out or marginalized. The leftist, interventionist view of the First Amendment, however, mandates that the state impose a "religious cleansing" of public institutions that fails to recognize the voluntary and habitual nature of these organic practices. Some libertarians come down somewhere in between on this issue. They object to the state funding or the state simply being closely involved with activities that are so overtly religious. They see the funding and status of government involvement as departing from neutrality in the sense of equality in the eyes of the law. At the same time, these libertarians reject the active role of government trying to equalize the status of various religions in the life of the community or country even though they do want the government to step back a bit from such a close involvement with religions of any sort. Libertarians want to minimize the influence of the state per se. That is why they favor privatizing education. For libertarians, if Christians dominate the field in fair competition, then so be it. If another group becomes more influential in society, then so be it. My previous questions to you on the role of government were getting at these differences. Do you simply want government out of the picture or do you want government to attempt to actively equalize the status and influence of all religions as much as possible? If government has a big role to play in society, then if religion is stripped out altogether, then even if some lip service is paid to the libertarian view without the entire libertarian program, aren't we, in effect, getting the leftist interventionist approach? Too many to read them all
written by mcskinny, August 08, 2009
There are way to many comments to this article for a busy person to read them all. I would like to respond to TJxxxx's response
Where have you been? There have numerous incidents in the last few years where at public functions prayer was "allowed" as long as the person praying did not mention Jesus Christ? Even Christian US Military Chaplains have come under pressure to not use the name of Christ in sermons or prayer. Thus I stand by my case that when the US government "allows" public entities to have prayer the power to allow morphs (evolves) into power to mandate, which in turn morphs (evolves) into power to completely control. Call it morphs, or evolves, or becomes, or whatever you want to, it is still an example of the intent/meaning of the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of;--- " into what it is today. The point of the article remains and the last paragraph of the article is absolutely correct. Mac in Semmes, AL ...
written by pjerwin, August 08, 2009
I agree mcskinny. (Surprised?) But the word you're searching for is likely "devolve."
The last paragraph is true: Certainly, our freedoms allow anyone to purchase a billboard and put almost any statement on it. But putting intentional mischaracterizations, half-truths, and outright fabrications on display is patently irresponsible, undermining the very faith the billboard backers claim. ...
written by mcskinny, August 09, 2009
pj,
"" I agree mcskinny. (Surprised?) But the word you're searching for is likely "devolve." "" No, I'm not surprised. I knew I would get it right sooner or later. "Devolve" sounds like a negative, but doesn't devolve actually mean to pass on to another as it is? Our rights as put forth in the Bill of Rights have changed something like the Decalogue had changed by Jesus' day. The Law still read the same, but the application of the law had evolved. Mac ...
written by pjerwin, August 09, 2009
"Devolve" does carry a negative connotation, but means more than "to pass on or delegate to another." It means, "to cause to roll onward or downward." Unless you believe that the succession from government allowance to government mandate and then to complete government control is positive, then "devolve" is appropriate.
As far as the Declogue is concerned, Jewish Law consisted of much more than that. The development in application was not all positive there, either, as Jesus made clear (e.g. "The Sermon on the Mount," you have heard it said x, but I say y). Much rabbinical interpretation of the Law devolved as well. Even some of the Law handed down from Moses was an accommodation. ... written by tj282828, August 10, 2009
The problem is where you ascribe cause. For 200 years prayer was not a problem, yet you blame public prayer. The problem is a nation that has lost its values and does not understand her own constitution.
Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the ABP News. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
|
||
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Baptists
- BWA leaders hear thanks for quake relief, requests for more aid & prayers
- CBF seeks funds, volunteers for long-term Haiti relief
- Ala. CBF leader McDougal returns to pastorate with call to Dallas church
- Dallas church announces gay-friendly stance, endangering BGCT affiliation
- New Baptist hymnal favors singing traditions, innovations simultaneously
Nation
- Federal appeals court says Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional
- Faith leaders say abortion provisions adequate in health-care bill
- Supreme Court accepts case testing limits of free speech
- In Texas, Religious Right loses fight with national curriculum implications
- Supreme Court declines Okla. county’s attempt to display 10 Commandments
World
- Uzbek Baptist gets 10 years in jail
- Legal expert says remaining Baptist jailed in Haiti likely to be set free
- CBF establishes relief fund for Chile; Chilean Baptists describe needs
- Baptists pledge support for earthquake victims in Chile
- Uzbek Baptists claim continued harassment by government officials
| |
Were this country to allow one religious doctrine to run roughshod over all the others, would life not be somewhat like that of NT Jerusalem with the Pharisees trying to dictate how everyone should live—that is live according to their rules. Practicing our faith and adhering to our doctrinal beliefs is one thing but imposing those same things on another does not strike me as scriptural.
I believe the biblical imperative is to tell the gospel story to all nations, not to make everyone become a Christian. Paul noted that it is the will of God that all should come to him but even Jesus acknowledged that all wouldn’t. Using half-truths and a misleading, incomplete gospel to impose Christianity on others cannot be pleasing to God.
Were this country to allow one religious doctrine to run roughshod over all the others