tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post8131276842398796980..comments2024-03-17T08:27:53.658-05:00Comments on Stonekettle Station: Signs of the TimesJim Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-55842133761966047132008-10-28T16:01:00.000-05:002008-10-28T16:01:00.000-05:00Well no, there's not reciprocity because the First...Well no, there's not reciprocity because the First Amendment only governs what the Federal Government can do to individuals and churches, and the Fourteenth Amendment only governs what state governments can do to individuals and churches. The separation of church and state, in other words, is about the relationship between government and churches, not between churches and government.<BR/><BR/>A pastor can tell his congregation how to vote. An elected official can't tell a pastor when to hold services.<BR/><BR/>Yes, there are churches that would impose their visions of the world upon individuals through the schools, the public square, etc. But the reason they're wrong isn't because the wall between church and state doesn't allow them to lobby or vote or sue or petition. The reason they're wrong is that government cannot act against <I>other</I> people in accordance with these churches' wishes. A pastor is entitled to say, "We should teach Genesis in schools," but a school board cannot then turn around and say "Schools should teach Genesis to children whose parents might not believe in Judeo-Christian creation myths."<BR/><BR/>The problems of creationism in schools, or prayer in schools, or "In God We Trust" appearing on coins <I>isn't</I> that churches have asked for them, it's that elected officials have violated their oaths to uphold and follow a Constitution that says you can't actually do those things.<BR/><BR/>Does this mean the churches' speech is futile in a perfect, law-abiding world? Sure. But they have the same right to argue that abortion should be a litmus test for judges that I do to argue that all the churchgoers ought to be atheists. It's not that they shouldn't hold forth, it's that they shouldn't <I>win</I>.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-9554164666402708842008-10-28T15:28:00.000-05:002008-10-28T15:28:00.000-05:00Nathan, first, I find your scenario improbable and...Nathan, first, I find your scenario improbable and best. :)<BR/><BR/>Second, the probability of abuse far outweighs the minuscule possibility of a neo-Nazi running for president. <BR/><BR/>Thirdly, as was pointed out previously, that leads to a reciprocal ability for politicians to meddle in religion.<BR/><BR/>Although there may be exceptions, I don't think it's ever a good think when politics and religion mingle. <BR/><BR/>On one hand, some countries in Europe we have the banning of head scarves and religious jewelry in schools.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand we have the specter of evangelical Christian prayers in American schools.<BR/><BR/>We know what state religion has led to in the past, and we have examples of it in modern times.<BR/><BR/>Regarding being alone in the polling booth, the thing is they think they are NOT. They think God is watching and judging their choice. <BR/><BR/>Crap, I had a bunch of other points I wanted to make but I have a headache. I'll try again later.Random Michelle Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13817444379694818074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-60916559729019699252008-10-28T15:07:00.000-05:002008-10-28T15:07:00.000-05:00PS:Short version: what Nathan said.PS:<BR/><BR/>Short version: what Nathan said.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-42685649609034444262008-10-28T15:06:00.001-05:002008-10-28T15:06:00.001-05:00Religion exercises a claim over a person's moral, ...Religion exercises a claim over a person's moral, ethical and philosophical spheres. Those who are religious find religion to be a guide, if not a definitive solution to their various quandries and disputes in life.<BR/><BR/>That religion has an overlap with the public and political should be self-evident. Not just in the extreme cases, such as Nathan suggests, but even in more ordinary circumstances. If one's religion says it's ethical to behave in a certain way, then this defines what one looks for in ethical leaders. If one's religion says the world works in a parcticular way, then one looks for laws that are in accord with that.<BR/><BR/>The classic issue is abortion: if one believes that God (via His representatives) has declared that a human being exists from conception, then it only follows that killing this thing is killing a human and therefore murder. If it doesn't follow from <I>that</I> that abortion is murder, then it's only because one's religion or conscience or understanding of the facts allows for another outcome.<BR/><BR/>The classic case of "another outcome" might well be "Just War" Theory, another debt Western Civilization owes Catholicism. If killing is wrong (per God) it can only follow that war is wrong (ditto), unless your interpretation of God's dictates allows you to fight back (per, IIRC, Augustine, on God's behalf).<BR/><BR/>The point is that matters of statutes against murder and war are not merely religious, but obviously political. And so if you're going to accede to a religion's authority to declaim on one sphere you must accept their authority to declaim on the other <I>because they're the same sphere</I>.<BR/><BR/>Understand now, I'm an atheist. I don't have a particular problem with equitably taxing churches (religion's tax immunity comes largely from a fear the state might punitively tax <I>certain</I> churches out of existence), requiring that churches receiving Federal funds follow Federal law (which was the case until Bush and the Congress began supporting "Faith-Based Initiatives), and either keeping the government out of religious institutions like marriage entirely <I>or</I> defining them solely in civil terms. In fact, I <I>favor</I> everything I just mentioned. But I would <I>never</I> say that a pastor can't tell his congregation how he thinks Jesus would vote. While I'd prefer everyone be a nice secular humanist like me, if you're going to accept that there <I>is</I> a God and He has a benign interest in human affairs, then it's only fair for you to wonder how He feels about the budget deficit or school bonds, and your priest is purportedly the expert with an inside line on that sort of thing.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-56288304722618639462008-10-28T15:06:00.000-05:002008-10-28T15:06:00.000-05:00Congress shall make no law respecting an establish...<EM>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</EM><BR/><BR/>I see the line there as being in one direction...only limiting what the Government can and can't do. I think there's sufficient protection from any church's agenda based on the fact that if they're pushing some religiously based legislation, the Government wouldn't be able to enact it if it is unconstitutional under the amendment.<BR/><BR/>I'll repeat that I think this is very similar to free speech. The government can't limit your speech but there's nothing in the constitution that says <EM>I</EM> can't. If you want to test that theory, come on over to my blog and see how fast I can limit your speech. (That's an example, not a threat.)<BR/><BR/>And similar to free speech, I'm not going to like all of what you're allowed to say. And I don't have to agree with a lot of religious agendas. I'm free to say that as loudly as I like. I honestly don't have a problem with religious authorities having the same right...even when I'm going to disagree with them. Which is going to be quite often.<BR/><BR/>As usual...I might have expressed that better, but this is what I've got right now.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00648438549121320566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-90084797441477036332008-10-28T13:55:00.000-05:002008-10-28T13:55:00.000-05:00I'm with Steve on this one, if one side wants to b...I'm with Steve on this one, if one side wants to blur the line, then both sides get too. You do <EM>not</EM> get to redraw the line where you want, cause everyone’s version of where the line belongs is different, that is why it is so black and white, there supposed to be no grey, if you allow a little bit of grey, who judges when the grey grows to large and where it is centered?Thordrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02483497564571489980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-30698495642843930562008-10-28T12:34:00.000-05:002008-10-28T12:34:00.000-05:00I'm going to stick to my guns here.Imagine, if you...I'm going to stick to my guns here.<BR/><BR/>Imagine, if you will, the improbable specter of the American Nazi Party putting forth a viable presidential candidate. The campaign has three candidates running neck and neck a month from the election.<BR/><BR/>I'll ignore others for a moment, but I can't imagine the Rabbi or the preacher in a black church remaining silent. I'd not only condone them speaking from the pulpit, but I'd consider silence a dereliction of duty.<BR/><BR/>The case of parishioners distributing pamphlets is <EM>not</EM> the church speaking. It's some zealots in the congregation. And I'd expect the Priest in question to publicly ask them to stop it if it bothers him.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, every one of these congregants is going to be alone in the booth when it comes time to vote. Nobody will know how they chose to vote.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, Steve, your example of an officer ordering someone to fill out an absentee ballot a certain way? I'm pretty sure that constitutes an illegal order and the subordinate (theoretically) has been instructed that he is duty bound to disobey it. (Yes, in reality, he might be scared to disobey, but that's not how things are set up to work.)Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00648438549121320566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-18448430812186307532008-10-28T10:50:00.000-05:002008-10-28T10:50:00.000-05:00I've seen the people who are going to heaven. Bei...I've seen the people who are going to heaven. Being stuck with those self-righteous bastards for all eternity would be hell. Yeah, I pass.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-76932910981419210962008-10-28T10:46:00.000-05:002008-10-28T10:46:00.000-05:00So, Deuteronomy 1:6-13 means that if Obama wins al...So, Deuteronomy 1:6-13 means that if Obama wins all these religious people ought to STFU and sit down.<BR/><BR/>And Nathan, I have to agree with Random Michelle here. It's the same thing if your commanding officer brings you an absentee ballot and tells you how to vote. Any officer caught doing that will see a door very quickly. <BR/><BR/>The reverse of this is, if religion wants in to politics, then we get to insert politics into religion. All those rules about "not hiring" people for their outreach services, yeah, those all go away and churches can be sued for discrimination under EOEA. Also, we're going to schedule your worship times, because it's a matter of how many cars are on the road at a certain time (safety), and the restaurants would like to space out the rush. Oh, and we're going to audit your books.<BR/><BR/>If a religion doesn't like that, perfectly fine (I agree), they should stay out of politics.<BR/><BR/>And as I'm sure you know, Jim, that sign is code wording for "if you want to get into heaven, you'll vote the way we tell you."Steve Buchheithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12999709767641212586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-73856539812712975392008-10-28T10:33:00.000-05:002008-10-28T10:33:00.000-05:00And Jim,BwahahahahahahahahahahaAnd Jim,<BR/><BR/>BwahahahahahahahahahahaNathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00648438549121320566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-67951164211036484492008-10-28T10:32:00.000-05:002008-10-28T10:32:00.000-05:00Michelle,When it comes to organized religion, I'm ...Michelle,<BR/><BR/>When it comes to organized religion, I'm more or less apathetic. I'm not Atheist. I'm not Agnostic. I'm Apathetic.<BR/><BR/>I was raised in an observant Jewish home. I lean toward those beliefs, but I cherry-pick at will.<BR/><BR/>That having been said, I think that if religions stand for anything (and what other purpose would they have), they should have a clear ethos. <BR/><BR/>You and I are free to disagree. We're free to find another church. We're free to abandon all churches. We're free to <EM>found</EM> another church that more suits our beliefs.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure I haven't expressed this well and one of these days I'll get around to figuring out how to really articulate it.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00648438549121320566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-3005254844459028642008-10-28T09:48:00.000-05:002008-10-28T09:48:00.000-05:00Maybe we can recite Ezekiel 25:17 to aid us in the...Maybe we can recite Ezekiel 25:17 to aid us in the election, while pointing .45 down some poor schmucks head.<BR/><BR/>"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by inequity of selfish and the tyranny of evil..."Some dude stuck in the Midwesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00852056495927941030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-42337522494505093022008-10-28T06:15:00.000-05:002008-10-28T06:15:00.000-05:00Nathan, I couldn't disagree with you more strongly...Nathan, I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.<BR/><BR/>Religious figures have a tremendous amount of power in their spheres of influence. They are viewed by their followers as <I>speaking for God</I>.<BR/><BR/>We worry about the influence of industry and special interest groups upon our politicians, how much worse would it be if GWB had owed his election to the likes of the pastor of the church by Jim's house? Or any of those horrible televangelists?<BR/><BR/>My dad was talking to one of the priests at his church, who said he strongly dislikes it when the pro-life people put political brochures in the pews, because there are people who believe those brochures come from the church, and are how the *priest* thinks they should vote, which is an undue influence.<BR/><BR/>And that influence is even greater in small towns, where a single church could have tremendous influence over local politics. Imagine a local church having control over the local sheriff.<BR/><BR/>Look at what happened historically when the state was influenced by and entangled with the church. We ended up with Ferdinand and Isabella and the Spanish inquisition. We have divorce and marriage controlled by the state, including who is allowed to marry.<BR/><BR/>We like to think we are an enlightened society, but historically in the US your relatives and mine would have been denied rights by the various states. We believe it could never happen again, but I'm not so sure.Random Michelle Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13817444379694818074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-36689984603782987332008-10-28T01:26:00.000-05:002008-10-28T01:26:00.000-05:00Ha! Now I understand. Full report tomorrow.Ha! <I>Now</I> I understand. <BR/><BR/>Full report tomorrow.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-27271051837634549322008-10-27T22:59:00.000-05:002008-10-27T22:59:00.000-05:00Re: separation of Church and State.I come down on ...Re: separation of Church and State.<BR/><BR/>I come down on the side of thinking that it's only State that needs to maintain the separation. Just like free speech. Jim is free to delete my ass here. It's his place. No law constricts him.<BR/><BR/>Church? Heinous as your particular beliefs may be, you're a RELIGION. You stand for something. I have no problem with you endorsing someone.<BR/><BR/>That being said, I will feel free to tell you you're full of shit.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00648438549121320566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-34919409680420748322008-10-27T22:48:00.000-05:002008-10-27T22:48:00.000-05:00A couple of questions come to mind, the first bein...A couple of questions come to mind, the first being...what ever happend to the separation of church and state? There seems to be a lot of overlap these days, especially from the pulpit. Several churches here in Georgia have been on the hot seat for brining the various campaigns into their sermons on Sunday mornings. <BR/><BR/>And, you're right, Jesus was pretty radical for his time, preaching love and inclusion, not hate and exclusion. I know many Christians who happen to be gay, are very religious, and struggle daily to come to grips with the venom spewed at them by so many in the name of God and Christ. For the most part they have found wonderfully inclusive churches that celebrate their individuality and diversity. <BR/><BR/>And, now that I've voted, can someone please stop the infernal robo-calls?!?!?!? Although there was a really funny one this evening with a candidate for local judge advising people they could participate in early voting at a specific neighborhood polling station... which just happened to be the one that had a computer glitch that resulted in 6-7 hour lines!! Good new is it only took me about 90 minutes to vote at another location. <BR/><BR/>WendyB_09WendyB_09https://www.blogger.com/profile/03788918629240949526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-50929412238149153832008-10-27T21:58:00.000-05:002008-10-27T21:58:00.000-05:00Bwahahahahaha.....hahahahahah.....hahahahahaBwahahahahaha.....hahahahahah.....hahahahahaNathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00648438549121320566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-78646587316559464472008-10-27T21:18:00.000-05:002008-10-27T21:18:00.000-05:00And now we can guess where Nathan's package went.....And now we can guess where Nathan's package went...Random Michelle Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13817444379694818074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-71896003676815787792008-10-27T21:07:00.000-05:002008-10-27T21:07:00.000-05:00No, that's not it. I assure you, you'll know it wh...No, that's not it. I assure you, you'll know it when you know it. Although, my information says you should know it by now.<BR/><BR/>And on second thought, this version is kinda fun too.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00648438549121320566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-60428803284610701852008-10-27T20:55:00.000-05:002008-10-27T20:55:00.000-05:00Nevermind, it's the Stevens thing, right?Yeah, baw...Nevermind, it's the Stevens thing, right?<BR/><BR/>Yeah, bawahahahahahaha! Of course, this doesn't mean that he can't be a Senator. Note the quote on top the main page, one of my very favoritesJim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-64455323974784595042008-10-27T20:54:00.000-05:002008-10-27T20:54:00.000-05:00I'm covered in sawdust, regular dust, and mud at t...I'm covered in sawdust, regular dust, and mud at the moment, Nathan, and on the way to the shower. Could you be just a little more specific? Please? What subject. Obviously I've missed something today, but I have no idea what it might be. Sigh.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-89819738312219464992008-10-27T20:09:00.000-05:002008-10-27T20:09:00.000-05:00Oh, and Jim...On another subject BWAHAHAHAHAHA!Oh, and Jim...<BR/><BR/>On another subject BWAHAHAHAHAHA!Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00648438549121320566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-88666972763492532102008-10-27T19:24:00.000-05:002008-10-27T19:24:00.000-05:00Actually, there are pro-choice pro-gay marriage Ca...Actually, there are pro-choice pro-gay marriage Catholics.<BR/><BR/>My mom is one.<BR/><BR/>Abortion is problematic (but then the subject is problematic for me), but the gay rights issue both my grandmother and father has spoken in favor of. <BR/><BR/>I simply don't understand "Christians" who pull out all the stops digging up passages in Leviticus, while ignoring the hundreds of time the NT tells them to care for the poor and those in need.<BR/><BR/>Er.. Sorry. Didn't mean to get all ranty there.Random Michelle Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13817444379694818074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-4545873091003656102008-10-27T18:40:00.000-05:002008-10-27T18:40:00.000-05:00So Jim could you come and teach my Religion and Cu...So Jim could you come and teach my Religion and Culture class this Thursday? Religion, according to Christopher Hutchings will try and creep into power by doing three things..<BR/>1..Education of young children<BR/>2..Declaring themselves tax exempt (non-profit groups, who have NO right to be sticking their noses into politics....if they do, then they are crossing the line into a political group which is NOT NON_PROFIT)<BR/>3. Using racism and hate speeches to facilitate bringing Blaspheme Laws, thus ending Free Speech as it is.<BR/><BR/>Your little sign may be up to a whole lot more than just annoying you...just saying'.<BR/><BR/>(thanks for letting me actually use something I learned in a class in the real world...or at least our version of it)kimbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18202011517037727838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-46365896629879994002008-10-27T17:53:00.000-05:002008-10-27T17:53:00.000-05:00Vince, see that I could get behind. If the sign sa...Vince, see that I could get behind. If the sign said, hey, Matthew 25:31-46 vote for somebody who best lives up to that - that I could understand. And you guys, of course, don't see the messages that are up there every week so you don't get the tone of this place. Seriously, every single message has the words "Hate" in it - as God hates Sin, God hates Atheists, God hates Gays - followed by what I assume are supporting bible passages. Every week. I dunno, maybe the letters for "Hate" are painted on and they have to work the rest of the message around it?<BR/><BR/>Now, on the other hand, Thordr, I'd don't think they're WBC either, but sometimes I wonder just what they're preaching in that little storefront church, school, and daycare. But I understand what you're saying.<BR/><BR/>Shawn, yeah, I'm sure your are correct :)Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.com