-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Goshen College in Indiana, a member of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, has banned The Star Spangled Banner at all sporting events. The main value with which the college seeks to be identified with is: Christ-centered.
Although Christianity and patriotism do not appear mutually exclusive, there are inherent philosophical conflicts. Devotion to one’s god and devotion to one’s country can be opposing forces. Many Christians place devotion to God above all others, including country.
The Christian denomination, Jehovah’s Witnesses, is a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power other than God. Hence, they refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
The first of the Ten Commandments, “you shall have no other gods before me,” is in direct conflict with the First Amendment guarantee that an individual has the right to freely express their religious beliefs. Many military chaplains, sworn to uphold the constitution, are resigning rather than support the equal protection that is manifested by the repeal of DADT.
Same-sex marriage, opposed by many Christians as being against God’s will, is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The principles that constitute this country, as enumerated in the constitution, and the principles of God’s law, as enumerated in the Bible, are often irreconcilable.
Ironically, religion and patriotism have many similarities. Both eschew reason. Both treat submission as a virtue. The Pledge of Allegiance is recited like a catechism. George Washington is often called the father of this country. Like the Bible, the Constitution is treated like a object of reverence. Like the Bible, the Constitution is cherry-picked to suit the biases of the individual reader.
Samuel Johnson famously referred to patriotism as “the last refuge of the scoundrel.” The same can be said about religion.
H/T: NBC Washington.
Mike:
Regarding “Bestiality is coercion.” I did not expect that response. Do you mean it is coercion of the beast? You can’t think that necrophilia is coercion of the corpse, can you? That does not make any sense.
Regarding ““Partial birth abortions” is a made up term by anti-abortion people”. The term may be made-up, but all terms ARE made up, and I was talking about the practice not the term. You don’t deny that it refers to a real practice, call it what-you-will, where the issue of head vs ankle is relevant.
At some point the baby becomes protected by law, and killing the baby becomes murder. What point should that be? I don’t think that is a religious question; it is a legal question.
Regarding: ” the government ignore the First Amendment and promote laws backing a particular religious belief”
To the extent that this happens, why do you blame the religious groups? It is clearly the government that is failing in its obligations here. And many other groups also try to pressure the government to bend to its notions. I can’t even say that I object on principle to various groups’ trying to influence government,
Regarding ” Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman”.
These are politicians. These people ARE constrained by the first amendment in their official actions. To the extent that they violate the First Amendment, they should be arrested or impeached, If your concern is religious people IN POLITICS, I can share your concern, even as I am concerned with the “revolving door” policies between the Defense Department and the arms industry. Your complaints, up to this point, I assumed were aimed at religious groups, such as the ACLJ and Focus on the Family. By the way, I consider Michelle Bachman to be an embarrassment to the educational system.
Regarding Prohibition.
Yes I was aware that there was a fairly large problem with alcohol in the US at the time. The question about the legal appropriateness of prohibition does not turn on its effectiveness (I think it is not prima facie ineffective), but on whether there was a “secular purpose” to the act. You have said that you feel that all laws lobbied for by Christian organizations are suspect.
I think you have gone too far in this.
you[r] pseudonym says it all
Yes. It does. Doesn’t it? 🙂
“If the “life” of the mother is at stake, and a decision must be made that could affect the “life” of the child, he must be talking about a living -breathing child.”
NL,
Your logic is a puerile as your pseudonym. It is true though that you particularly don’t have to state your position you pseudonym says it all and sums up the deficits you have.
Martin,
You would be a fool to waste your time stating your position here. As Otteray Scribe implies, it will be “shredded or made fun of”.
This is not a place where you can expect arguments in support of your position to be subjected to impartial analysis. You have to remember that you are dealing with liberals. They don’t like to take a position that they then have to defend.
Allow me provide you with an example.
Mike Spindell says that life doesn’t begin until the first breath is taken. If a child does not breath spontaneously, according to his position, the mother gets to make the call as to any medical intervention.
Do you remember Mike’s answer above? “Life begins at birth [when the child takes first breath]. If the life of the mother or child is at stake it is the Mother’s choice, or her agent who decides.”
The second part of his answer is interesting. Did he betray his personal beliefs, or is he confused? If the “life” of the mother is at stake, and a decision must be made that could affect the “life” of the child, he must be talking about a living -breathing child. If not, according to Mike, the child would not be considered to be have a “life”. We must conclude that though the child has already been birthed, the mother has some say over whether the child lives or dies.
It could be that Mike doesn’t have the ability to effectively communicate his thoughts.
This is why liberals don’t like to state their position. They leave it to you to state yours. Then they make fun of it and declare a hollow victory.
OS,
Exactly the same and used by others here through the years. I caught on to it at some point here years ago, when based on their questioning of me I struck back with an attack on someone’s Right Wing bent, only to be responded to that they were a liberal. The disconnect between everything they wrote and being liberal was great, but it was true that they had never openly stated such about themselves. I then ruefully caught on to the game.
True dat, Mike. Remember, Kd did exactly the same thing, but with a much more uncivil tone compared to Martin. At least that is an improvement.
OS,
I agree with you and his method of questioning, without opining himself, is quite patronizing and rude to boot. As for him possibly thinking that we would tear him to shreds I doubt that. First because we have responded to him with civility and secondly because I suspect that whatever he believes his has the utmost confidence in it. The tactic of questioning others, while remaining vague where one stands, is a good strategic one if you can get away with it. It lowers ones profile if the person you disagree with tries to respond. BTW I’m stating this clearly for his, not your benefit, since you are probably more aware of rhetorical strategy than I am.
Note to Martin:
This blog is neither an interrogatory or a deposition. If you have a position or argument to make, let’s hear it.
Mike, I think he is trying to use the rules of cross-examination on this blog. Inappropriate to say the least. If Martin has a position, let him state it clearly and we can respond. Maybe he is afraid of having his argument shredded or made fun of, I don’t know, but this exchange is rapidly approaching the level of rudeness. Socially inappropriate, at a minimum.
“Are you saying that all the current laws on beastiality, necrophilia, prostitution and pornography should be dropped.”
Martin,
Bestiality is coercion and so is necrophilia in a creepier way. I am against coercion. Prostitution and pornography should only be dealt with legally when coercion is present. i.e. A woman forced into prostitution or a child used for pornography. Otherwise I have no problem with either and consider them victim-less Again Martin, what do you think?.
“I assume that you feel that the line is when the head is born, rather than the ankles, so that partial birth abortions are legal.”
“Partial birth abortions” is a made up term by anti-abortion people trying to again play the sympathy card. Late Term abortions usually occur when there is evidence that the life of the mother is threatened or of the possibility of severe, life limiting deformity in the fetus. Your head and ankles analogy is absurd. By born I mean the child taking its first breath as defined by MY religious beliefs, which I don’t have the effrontery to lay upon others with different beliefs. However, the abortion issue is about people trying to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us and that I object to.
“The churches are not limited by the First Amendment, only the government is. I do not understand what problem you could see in the church’s continued ignoring of the First Amendment, since they have no reason not to ignore it: it does not apply to them.”
Are you really so caught up in your own beliefs, whatever they are since I have not seen one position taken by you except to ask questions of me,
that you are unable to discern that I fully understand what the First Amendment is about? I am very clearly talking about the effort of certain religious groups to have the government ignore the First Amendment and promote laws backing a particular religious belief. You’re not stupid Martin, so I can only assume you are playing rhetorical games with me,
while at the same time avoiding stating your own positions as you question mine. That I consider to be disingenuous.
“They would like the government to determine that only christian churches are culturally valid religions, and part of “America’s great tradition”. One hopes no sane government official is about to try to do this.”
There you go again Martin. You know very well and I have given you examples to show that this has been a problem since the inception of the Constitution. however, by using the word sane, you avoid fully stating what is in fact the case. I imagine you do so because this allows you leeway to debate the issue. I don’t think Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman are technically insane, but I do believe they wish to impose a Christian theocracy and sincerely believe that was the intent of the Founding Fathers.
“Would you count prohibition as a Blue Law?
Was that improper on its face in your opinion?”
Of course it was a “blue law” its’ main impeller was the Women’s
Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). Now interestingly, there was a huge alcoholism problem in the US during the 19th and early 20th century’s, where some estimate the amount of alcoholism at 50 to 70% of the male population and many alcoholic men tended to abuse women. However, prohibition of any kind of addiction simply does not work and actually accomplishes the opposite of its intent.
Finally Martin, unless you start answering the questions you’ve continually asked me, so that we can have an interesting discussion of where we might agree and disagree, then I really feel no obligation to further answer your questions. I do not claim to be a great writer, or even a great thinker, but in my 7 decades on this planet the overwhelming majority of people I’ve exchanged thoughts with, written and verbal, have found my positions clear, whether or not they disagreed with them. You, not so much and so I think it is your problem and/or your game playing behind it. If you wish to have a dialogue, than revise your procedure and proceed without the dis-ingenuousness.
Mike regarding 3b, I do agree with you in part:
Many religious radio people (I am thinking of the ACLJ) do not realize that the government is forbidden from doing what they would like the government to do.
They do seem to want to have protestants pray at the 9/11 memorial, but exclude muslim participation, and excluding buddhists and hindus, and members of the church of the flying spaghetti monster.
They would like the government to determine that only christian churches are culturally valid religions, and part of “America’s great tradition”. One hopes no sane government official is about to try to do this.
Mike, your answer 3a is
“3a. I’ve already made clear they don’t have to change the 1st Amendment, only ignore it, which the country has a history of.”
The churches are not limited by the First Amendment, only the government is. I do not understand what problem you could see in the church’s continued ignoring of the First Amendment, since they have no reason not to ignore it: it does not apply to them.
mike, While your answer of 2c is perfectly acceptable from a logical point of view, may I check that I understand you?
You say “2c. Only laws dealing with exploitation of minors and laws dealing with all kinds of sexual coercion.”
Are you saying that all the current laws on beastiality, necrophilia, prostitution and pornography should be dropped. Possibly drop restrictions on civil marriage?
If you or others think I am misinterpreting you, I welcome the correction.
Otteray, Yes live means alive, and sentient means sentient, as you point out. And things other than human beings can be alive.I dare say that things other than humans can be sentient. I missed the application of your comment to the question of legal recognition, which is I believe a political one.
Do you perhaps disagree with the way I put the question initially “at what point do you feel comfortable recognizing that a mass of living cells is a legal person, and the due the protection of the law?”
—-
Mike you didn’t bother to say head or ankles. Do you feel strongly about one or the other as being the only reasonable and acceptable answer?
“Hard to have a conversation if two people are talking past each other.”
Martin,
I totally agree and I am sympathetic with you inability to understand me.
Alive, yes in the same sense that skin and nerve cells are “alive,” as opposed to “dead.” By that definition, a fertilized bird egg is “alive.”
Sentient, no. Early in the developmental stages there is no brain and only a rudimentary cell structure that will eventually become life as we know it, assuming nothing goes wrong in the meantime and there is not a spontaneous abortion; i.e., miscarriage.
2b. Life begins at birth
No one argues that the fetus is not alive, so it is not “life” that begins at birth.
More precisely, I assume that you feel that the line is when the head is born, rather than the ankles, so that partial birth abortions are legal.
2a.
Would you count prohibition as a Blue Law?
Was that improper on its face in your opinion?
Mike
I give my opinions all the time. You didn’t like Socrates?
I just don’t find your answers convincing, even for the tiny questions. Hard to have a conversation if two people are talking past each other.
I understand your answer to number 1, but after that, not so much. And even with number 1, you seem more skeptical of religions than, say, of Monsanto.
Thanks Mike.
As far as the church wanting the government pass their laws and have the police enforce them, I remembered (while driving) today that Christ said something like if you have two coats, give one away to someone who doesn’t have one. That could be updated today to read If you have two houses, give one to a homeless person. I don’t think that the people in most churches want that to be enacted as a law, with police enforcement. Not sure why. Probably not even crazy to see a “two coats” law anytime soon.
I have been to a church in southern california that had a program of “hats for the homelss”, where people knitted hats for homess people. Struck me funny at the time. And we have all heatd of giving food to the homeless.
I appreciate your answers though. Understand that it can be boring for you.