Buffman

Hi, eileen,

Welcome and thank you.

Oresta,

Anything I post is public property. Please correct any grammar, punctuation, spelling or content errors and use in any manner you wish. I just wish that we had the kind of public access with the verifiable facts that these others have with their bigoted propaganda. Thanks for the special words.

Ron Garrett

My reply to the God Squad:

I shouldn’t be surprised that you two don’t get it. After all, you each have your living from promoting superstitious nonsense, and both of your religions have long histories of dehumanizing and victimizing those who don’t bend the knee to your entrails-eating mountain god. You are each part of an age old tradition that we invariably see during times of violent conflict, if indeed religion is not the underlying cause, i.e. the forces of religion and politics taking opportunity to unite in a social, cultural and political power grab that inevitably leaves everyone less free, and which invariably foments aggression against minorities under the flag of patriotism with the supposed imprimatur of a deity that is always on the side of whomever is doing the flag-waving. The RCC has seventeen centuries of despotism and tyranny to its credit, so I’d expect this of a priest, but I would have thought a Rabbi would have more sense, having more recent history of what happens to "those people" when patriotism and majoritarian religious conformity become equated.

Some of your comments are simply indefensible:

" you know the court ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance (because it includes the words "under God") violates the First Amendment provision against the establishment of a national religion. That is not true."

If the two of you were not living in a monotheist "potato sack" and had two Hindu temples within five minutes of your home, as I do here in the Bible Belt town of Morrisville, NC, you would not arrogantly assert that this "under God" statement is harmlessly generic. A Baptist coalition, largely in response to the growth of the Hindu population here in the Triangle, used the ruse of "cultural history" to mandate the posting of the Decalogue in all public schools. The point being to make sure the Hindus knew who was in charge here.

Who do you think you are kidding? Anyone "not living in a potato sack" knows full well the intent of the Knights of Columbus oath was to insure the godless communists of the world knew that this was one nation under the Christian god, period. This pretense that it was intended in any other way is simple deceit.

Of course, you get worse as you go along:

"The issue is not the rights of the majority; the issue is what is right. And what is right is that unless the phrase "under God" remains in the Pledge, the most important truth about America's self-understanding is lost. We Americans believe our rights come from God - not from the state."

Let me set the two of you straight on this point if no other. My ancestor William Garrett came to Jamestown with Pearcey’s 100. I suspect my family predates both of yours in this country unless you’re part native American, which as it happens I am. My ancestors in every generation have served in the armed forces, fought in every war this nation has fought. I joined the Army, I wasn’t drafted. I am an American. I am a patriot. My rights come from the Constitution and the laws that flow from it, all of which were the products of men of the Enlightenment, many utterly fearful and distrusting of religion, Jefferson most of all.

The most ridiculous claim you make is the following:

"If God is not the source and guarantor of our rights, then our rights would have to come from the state - and what the state gives, the state can take away. What God gives, no state can take away."

Well this is a nice sentiment, except for the undeniable fact that religion and the state have pimped for one another in all cultures and combined to deny freedom, liberty, property and even life itself to those it labels outsiders and enemies. If any God gives rights, then his or her self-appointed representatives have always felt free to revise and restrict what those rights might be, in utter contradiction of other self-appointed representatives of the almighty, as well as decide at their whim who may and may not enjoy them.

And here’s some real utilitarian sophistry:

"There must be some power higher than the state, or there's no way to critique the state."

One theist avows that he critiques the state on the basis of "God’s revealed word" and another affirms that same state on the basis of "God’s revealed word." While some Lutheran ministers proclaimed Hitler the new Christ, others went to their deaths refusing to do so. The winners wrote history and proclaimed which revealed will was true, but it could as easily have been the other way round, because your faiths are utterly full of contradiction and in fact contradict each other. So whose god shall we use to critique the state? Any of course, since a god as you deem necessary is nothing more than a writer’s device to add weight to the critic's own preferred view.

For the record, I am an American. This country and it’s place in the world is understandable in the context of the search for human liberty, something which both your religions have suppressed whenever they had power to do so and would again if that power were returned. Over this patriot’s dead body.

tragic_pizza

The Bible's main focus, at least in the new Testament, appears to be giving up one's "rights" in the interest of bettering the lives of others. That is, after all, what we Christians believe that Jesus did...

tragic_pizza

Ron, I'm afraid the reply isn't goong to be carefully read. You make some pretty offensive statements at the outset, which is understandable given your anger. Sadly, that's going to color their perceptions.

If it isn't too late, try and depersonalize the content. You're starting out with a personal attack, and however much these gentlement may deserve an ass-whipping, it won't serve to change their minds.

Whether I agree with it or not, this next section is an important component to your argument. It must be said, but in a less abusive way.


<strong> This next part is personal attack again. Good points, but agressive and argumentative. You're bringing out the martyr and justified sufferer in them.

The "potato sack" quote is wonderful, and I think you can get away with it if you're more careful in the opening part of your letter.

The language above is angry, but not obfuscatively so, I think. However, I'd say something different from "pimping," and perhaps omit "self-appointed," in the following (remember, they believe that God appointed them):

I disagree with much of the content, while agreeing with the overall sentiment, but find it overall a well-thought-out response. Please take my friendly comments as just that.

Toto

Is there any talk in the Bible about inalienable rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness? I can't think of any, so what rights would anyone give up? The only rights I can recall in the Bible are the rights to property, which Jesus did call for his followers to give up (but you never hear about that from modern Christians.)

Ron Garrett

HI TP:

I'd accept your critique if my point were to try and de-convert this pair of ecumenical shamen, a very low probability scenario, but in fact my point was to as politely as possible convey that I think they are worthless parasites morally equivalent to a heroin dealer, at best, and utterly full of shit. Of course I could simply have stated it just that way and saved time, but verbosity is one of my many failings.

Cheers,
Ron

tragic_pizza

Point taken. However, it equates in my mind to "casting your pearls before swine," if I may misuse a Biblical quotation.

What I think they will read is that they are correct in what they've said, 'why look at this secular fanatic here, and at how angrily he berates us for our Opinion!'

Your points are salient and need to be heard. You very likely will not convert them... but you may educate them.

Oresta

When I finally cooled down, I got this letter off to the Detroit Free Press. The column is the one I cited in an earlier post on this thread:

<a href="http://freep.com/news/metro/riley7_20020707.htm" target="_blank">http://freep.com/news/metro/riley7_20020707.htm</a>

Much of what I say I owe to the C&S experts I have been following here. Thanks, guys.

tragic_pizza

Hear, hear. Spot on.

And that is from a monotheist, by the way. And an Abrahamic one, at that.

Ron Garrett

Here's my love letter to Rochelle:

Hi Rochelle:
I have a couple of comments on your July 7th column.

“Then we are shocked to learn that the borders that we've kept open almost continuously for centuries have resulted in a monumental change in the U.S. populace, one that requires us to not only recognize, but also develop ways to plan for the fact that we don't all speak the same language or worship the same God.”

You should say here, “or God’s, or no god at all.” You seem to minimize this issue with this statement.

“And that's the amazing thing about America. Its government will never please all of the people all of the time, and that's how it's supposed to be.”

This issue isn’t about pleasing people. It’s about the government using its overwhelming power to impose a majoritarian superstition on children. A simple reading of the documents of the Virginians who first erected the separation wall betwixt church and state, and later wrote the First Amendment, gives you a pretty good sense of the reality. Some of these men were deists, vague theists, and outright atheists in the case of Paine, but the notion of the government enacting a law requiring children to make oaths to God would not have passed muster. Reading some of the really vitriolic anti-religious sentiment in letters from Adams, Jefferson and others impresses that these were men of the Enlightenment, a time that was all about shaking off the shackles of the church-state regime.

Some other comments:

“Now that we've had a chance to think about it, what is the Pledge of Allegiance, really? It's just words honoring a flag that has represented a country founded "under God."

There is a broad gap between “just words honoring a flag” and a loyalty oath. You missed, “and to the Republic for which it stands.” The flag is symbolic of the nation to which one pledges allegiance. Moreover the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus that proposed the change certainly meant it as a comment that the nation was currently “one nation under Jesus’ Father.” It was not a historic comment about the founding. I am old enough to remember Eisenhower, McCarthy and the panic over godless communism. Everyone knew exactly why these words were added. Also, if the words were “under Gichi Manitou”, “under the Gods of Valhalla” or some such I’m quite certain your view of the harmlessness of these words would change.

You wrote, “Those two little words, "under God," are from a time when a single God was the one in whom most of a new country put its trust. He remains the one to whom millions pray.”

You must be quite young. 1954 was a time when in many parts of the country it wasn’t safe to be a Jew or even a Roman Catholic. Then as now denominationalism was rampant and most could only agree that there was a Christian God and not much else. As to the millions who pray to your god today, I live in a small North Carolina town with two Hindu temples and a Mosque that outdraw all six Baptist churches combined. Part of the reason North Carolina Baptists pushed the Decalogue onto school walls was to let the Hindus know this is Christian country and they should mind their place. Regardless of this, many millions pray to all manner of gods and goddesses. It is irrelevant. Our constitution prohibits the governmental imposition of theism of any brand on our children.

And one other point:

“So no one complained when America imprinted its money with "In God We Trust" and courts required the telling of truth, "so help me God."

With all the good Christian folk now telling me to leave the country or that I deserve to die for being an atheist, I think I understand the silence. Mind you my family has been here since Jamestown, my forbears volunteered in the military in every generation, as I did, patriots all, as I am, but I understand this country in the context of liberty, freedom, diversity and inclusion, all embodied in the Constitution which states this nation is under the people, not under anyone’s god. That’s been and continues to be our strength, not the racist hate mongering and religious and cultural bigotry now masquerading as patriotism, same as when we marched the Nissei off to internment camps while the Nazi’s gassed Jews.

“Church and state in America have always been, and will always be inseparable. We'll just continue to hide it, on walls and in meaningful moments of silence.”

As those “profiles in courage” up on the Hill demonstrated when the decision came down, church and politics are inseparable as long as posturing one’s religious conformity gains votes.

You wrote, “having a pledge that honors God doesn't harm those who don't believe.” Well then why not have a pledge that honors Satan? It doesn’t harm those who don’t believe. The children can stand quietly while their classmates take oaths to the Prince of Darkness and they won’t feel excluded, ostracized or pressured. Why not Vishnu? Krishna? Or let’s just get real honest and make it Jesus, since that’s what’s really at the base of all this? After all if you believe James Kennedy our founders were all true blue born agains. Let’s do what John Kasich suggested on the O’Reilly factor and tell all of these non-Christian immigrants that this is a Christian nation and shut up about it.

You also wrote: “In America, you can take a pass.” As an adult I can and I will. That’s different than having a classroom teacher lead the entire class in an oath and making children whose families have another tradition the target of ridicule, suspicion and racism. The fact we say a child can opt out is a cop out. If we are going to be a country with “liberty and justice for all”, an ideal not yet real, then “under God” has no place in the oath.

If your children were being led in an oath to a deity you reject, your tune would change. But you are part of the majority in this, so of course you think no one is harmed. I’m old enough to remember statements like this made about the civil rights movement, i.e. that colored folk had their own fountains and entrances to the restaurant, so what’s the problem? That didn't satisfy Americans of color and shouldn't. Be assured that your telling me reciting oaths to entrail-eating Canaanite gods like Yahweh, ones that demand the blood of their own children no less, won't harm my kids...that's not going to play either.

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>