Freethought & Rationalism Archive

crazyfingers · 04-12-2002, 03:32 PM

My letter above ran in the paper today. I got a phone call this evening from an old man who had read it. He said that he had penciled out a letter to the same person that I repled to but that he never had sent his in. My letter was almost exactly what he wrote. He was really happy.

He made me happy.

Queen of Swords · 04-13-2002, 12:25 AM

And everyone was happy. And great rejoicing filled the land.

04-13-2002, 12:09 PM

It's an excellent letter. How did you manage to grit your teeth and not say what a moron the original correspondent was?

Dark Jedi · 04-15-2002, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by QueenofSwords:
And everyone was happy. And great rejoicing filled the land.

The winter was harsh, and they were forced to eat Sir Robin's minstrels.

And there was much rejoicing.

Jamie_L · 04-15-2002, 08:43 AM

I've got another issue with this xxx xxx fellow.

Why should I be tolerant of a belief that the US was based on Christianity?

If a man tells me my shirt is blue, when in fact it is red, is it intolerant of me to tell him he is wrong?

The US was not, in fact, based on Christianity. If someone is erroneously trying to say that it was, it is not intollerant to say they are wrong.

Jamie

crazyfingers · 04-15-2002, 08:48 AM

You're right. Trouble is, that would have made a much larger letter. I could only address what I thought was the most important issue.

gravitybow · 04-15-2002, 08:50 AM

Great response, crazyfingers. And I really liked the Golden Rule part. Hope you don't mind if I steal that for some future letter of my own.

Quote:

...Someone had to do some deep digging and some tight twisting to get that phrase out of our Constitution. ...

translation: "Gee, who actually needs to know anything about U.S. history? We all know a communist or someone from the ACLU invented "separation of church and state," don't we? I mean, we just KNOW, right?"

This has to be the saddest, most revealing line in the whole letter. How can she rightly defend a position when she doesn't even know the basics? CAUTION: ignorance at work.

I would also like to share a similar letter I wrote in a series regarding prayer and the posting of the Ten Commandments in schools and government buildings. It touches on the "words and concepts that are also not listed in the Constitution" that Brian63 brings up. I used a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" approach. This letter was specifically written in response to a "no separation of church and state in the constitution" letter:

Quote:

To the Editor:

All of Ms. xxxx's public rights are intact. However, she is confusing "public" with "government." She can proselytize around the clock, her kids can pray in school, and her creche is safe. She just can't get governmental assistance. Jesus said, "But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father who is in secret." Then why does she need a government-owned loudspeaker in a government-run venue? Is it for God, or for show?

Ms. xxxx takes exception to the fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It doesn't. So? Thomas Jefferson, in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, said, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." It is Jefferson who coined the term. Blame Jefferson. James Madison, architect of the Constitution, said, "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." These presidents, authors of American foundational documents, say separation is there.

"Bill of Rights" is not in the Constitution. Neither is "religious liberty." By Ms. xxxx's reckoning, these concepts should be disavowed, they tax the Constitution so. But why stop there? "Trinity" doesn't appear in the Bible in any form. The authors could have said it clearly, but didn't. Not even a postscript. The Trinitarian doctrine wasn't established as dogma until the contentious Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Even today, it is not universally held by Bible-believing sects. The concept, then, should be struck from all future discourse. It isn't there.

Contrast that to the separation of church and state doctrine which has always been a part of post-Constitutional America. Rehnquist says this is bad history. He is wrong. The Supreme Court, including Rehnquist's peers, has regularly quoted Jefferson and Madison concerning separation. The phrase has been used by presidents, statesmen, and religious leaders throughout U.S. history. Bad history? Ms. xxxx quotes Madison: "We have all staked the future of this nation upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments." The problem is that this quote, appearing in David Barton's The Myth of Separation, is a fiction.

Today, some citizens say separation was never there. Fortunately, it is. And because it is, Ms. xxxx enjoys unprecedented religious freedom without governmental interference. So count me among the Jeffersons, the Madisons, the Souters, the Moyerses, the Martin Luther Kings, and other "williwaws," as Mr. XXX puts it, who say it is in.

BTW, I was particularly fond of wrecking her credibility by pointing out the fictitious Madison quote.

Feel free to steal whatever you like from my letter.

Again, great letter, crazyfingers. And you other boys and girls don't forget to write letters of your own when the challenge arises.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: gravitybow ]

free12thinker · 04-15-2002, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Resistance:
"‘‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' How did they get separation of church and state from that?"

Uh, I think it's kind of obvious how we get seperation of church and state from that. What an idiot!

Of course some people won't admit to anything unless it's black and white (read:word for word). Which in itself makes the bible inadmissable then, right? But here's my question?

Why do we go back to the Constitution every time we look to changing laws? I'm sick of people thinking the constitution is unchangeable. Times change and people change (thank goodness for that) and as a result, our country needs to be able to change with peoples wishes. It needs to allow for freedom (including religion, expression), and when conservatives say, "Our countries Constitution is the oldest document fo freedoms and allowances we have, there's no reason to change it", I just want to throw-up. They don't want change, because they're afraid to break tradition, even if that tradition is pre-historic in nature.

crazyfingers · 04-15-2002, 09:22 AM

I think that at this time it would be unwise to start to push for a change to the first amendment.

It would be nice to have the words "separation of church and state" actually in there. But I think that at this time whatever came out of the process would be much worse than having to show why it means what it means.

Toto · 04-15-2002, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by free12thinker:


Why do we go back to the Constitution every time we look to changing laws? I'm sick of people thinking the constitution is unchangeable. Times change and people change (thank goodness for that) and as a result, our country needs to be able to change with peoples wishes. It needs to allow for freedom (including religion, expression), and when conservatives say, "Our countries Constitution is the oldest document fo freedoms and allowances we have, there's no reason to change it", I just want to throw-up. They don't want change, because they're afraid to break tradition, even if that tradition is pre-historic in nature.

Actually, it is the conservatives who would like to change the Constitution (except for the 2nd Amendment.) They want to change it to allow school prayer and allow the criminalization of flag-burning.

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-12-2002, 03:32 PM	#11
crazyfingers Contributor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 13,699	My letter above ran in the paper today. I got a phone call this evening from an old man who had read it. He said that he had penciled out a letter to the same person that I repled to but that he never had sent his in. My letter was almost exactly what he wrote. He was really happy. He made me happy.

04-13-2002, 12:25 AM	#12
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	And everyone was happy. And great rejoicing filled the land.

04-13-2002, 12:09 PM	#13
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	It's an excellent letter. How did you manage to grit your teeth and not say what a moron the original correspondent was?

04-15-2002, 08:43 AM	#15
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	I've got another issue with this xxx xxx fellow. Why should I be tolerant of a belief that the US was based on Christianity? If a man tells me my shirt is blue, when in fact it is red, is it intolerant of me to tell him he is wrong? The US was not, in fact, based on Christianity. If someone is erroneously trying to say that it was, it is not intollerant to say they are wrong. Jamie

04-15-2002, 08:48 AM	#16
crazyfingers Contributor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 13,699	You're right. Trouble is, that would have made a much larger letter. I could only address what I thought was the most important issue.

04-15-2002, 09:22 AM	#19
crazyfingers Contributor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 13,699	I think that at this time it would be unwise to start to push for a change to the first amendment. It would be nice to have the words "separation of church and state" actually in there. But I think that at this time whatever came out of the process would be much worse than having to show why it means what it means.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.