Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RomanNiucumir · 08-11-2002, 02:10 AM

<a href="http://www.radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics24.htm" target="_blank">http://www.radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics24.htm</a>

In his latest column he supports the hanging of the ten commandments. I usually feel

and overwhelmed when I have to sift through an entire section of a web site devoted to an opposing view, but I generally respect the Radical Academy for its usually tightly reasoned views. Because of this, I would appreciate it if someone went through some of Farrell's (and the others') articles and tell me what you think. I would ordinarily dismiss it out of hand, but this guy's credentials do *seem* impressive. BTW, he is a writer at Newsmax, which I've heard was kind of unreliable, but I've never heard any evidence to back this up.

P.S. Toto, I apologize if this belongs in the politics forum, or if I'm breaking some TOS by linking the site.

hezekiah jones · 08-11-2002, 06:23 AM

It would help if Farrell had linked to, or at least mentioned the author of, the findlaw commentary to which he is responding.

Anyway what is Farrell's point? That the "first commandment" is somehow analagous to the founding of this country?

And this is a non sequitur: "This is what happens when man, or the state, or secularism is worshipped in the place of God."

Who "worships" any of those things?

Splat · 08-11-2002, 08:32 AM

The first paragragraph pretty much tells me all I need to know (and is all I can stomach):

Quote:

...the hate God, hate American heritage lobby has turned up the heat on finishing the job of kicking God out of America.

I woulda called us the "love the constitution, love the truth" lobby and said we've turned up the heat on the job of defending the Founding Fathers' original vision of church-state separation.

What is it that you find impressive in his credentials?

Quote:

Originally posted by RomanNiucumir:
<strong><a href="http://www.radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics24.htm" target="_blank">http://www.radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics24.htm</a>the Radical Academy for its usually tightly reasoned views.</strong>

Like
<a href="http://www.radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics22sartre1.htm" target="_blank">this tightly reasoned piece of work</a>?
Or
<a href="http://www.radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics22tlk1.htm" target="_blank">this one?</a>

These are the only two I read. If they're representative of what the RA considers good thinking/argument, I'm not very impressed.

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Splat ]</p>

Toto · 08-11-2002, 10:54 AM

The topic is appropriate for this forum.

Newsmax.com is a highly partisan ideological source.

I assume you mean this piece:

<a href="http://www.radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics22sfa34.htm" target="_blank">http://www.radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics22sfa34.htm</a>

I found an older article that appears to be the one that is under attack here:

<a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020314.html" target="_blank">THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN COURT: Power And Its Abuse </a>.

excerpt:

Quote:

So how does one explain the lower courts' inability to embrace the clear, simple, and obviously true proposition that the Ten Commandments are religious? The answer is that there are two forces at work in these cases that tend to muddy the constitutional waters.

First, the most reviled minority in America is characterized neither by race nor sex nor religion, but rather by a lack of religious belief. When nonbelievers challenge government-backed religious messages, they are typically treated with contempt and often face threats and harassment as well.

For example, in the Pennsylvania case, the female plaintiffs - atheists who brought the suit with the help of the ACLU - were threatened and harassed both before and after the court's decision validating their argument. In Texas, students challenging government-sponsored prayer at football games asked (and were granted the right) not to be named in the lawsuit so they could avoid harassment. Who are the actual and feared harassers? Believers, of course.

Hamilton does label herself a "believer", but she doesn't say in what, so Farrell's snear about "Christian apologetics" is a little puzzling. But certainly her stance is compatible with many Christian dominations, who appreciate strict separation of church and state.

Quote:

As a believer, I find this all rather embarrassing. I find embarrassing and unfortunate, too, believers' efforts to lobby for government support for their beliefs - whether through the posting of the Ten Commandments or otherwise. Actions like these make all believers look bad.

Hamilton also has an excellent recent article on the Pledge:

<a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20020801.html" target="_blank">THE ONGOING FIGHT FOR RELIGIOUS DOMINANCE: From The Secret Service Agent's Slur, To Critiques Of The Ninth Circuit's Pledge Of Allegiance Decision </a>

Splat · 08-11-2002, 02:06 PM

Thanks Toto.

Comparing Farrell with Hamilton, you can see why the he didn't want to make it too easy to compare. The intelligence and sophistication of the two articles are light years apart.

08-11-2002, 02:10 AM	#1
RomanNiucumir Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Honolulu, HI Posts: 102	Steve Farrell and others <a href="http://www.radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics24.htm" target="_blank">http://www.radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics24.htm</a> In his latest column he supports the hanging of the ten commandments. I usually feel and overwhelmed when I have to sift through an entire section of a web site devoted to an opposing view, but I generally respect the Radical Academy for its usually tightly reasoned views. Because of this, I would appreciate it if someone went through some of Farrell's (and the others') articles and tell me what you think. I would ordinarily dismiss it out of hand, but this guy's credentials do seem impressive. BTW, he is a writer at Newsmax, which I've heard was kind of unreliable, but I've never heard any evidence to back this up. P.S. Toto, I apologize if this belongs in the politics forum, or if I'm breaking some TOS by linking the site.

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

08-11-2002, 06:23 AM	#2
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	It would help if Farrell had linked to, or at least mentioned the author of, the findlaw commentary to which he is responding. Anyway what is Farrell's point? That the "first commandment" is somehow analagous to the founding of this country? And this is a non sequitur: "This is what happens when man, or the state, or secularism is worshipped in the place of God." Who "worships" any of those things?

08-11-2002, 02:06 PM	#5
Splat Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hell, PA Posts: 599	Thanks Toto. Comparing Farrell with Hamilton, you can see why the he didn't want to make it too easy to compare. The intelligence and sophistication of the two articles are light years apart.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.