Newt's Holy War - Coming to Your Town in 2012
It is absurd that we would be drawn so often back to the “War on Christianity” meme that seems to form the heart and core of every Republican campaign in 2012. Even the battles surrounding issues like marriage equality and women’s reproductive rights are framed in terms of “religious freedoms under attack” as though somebody is being told they can’t practice their religion if other people have an equal amount of liberty. And rather than focusing on the absurdity of claiming persecution on the basis of equal rights, the media legitimizes the Republican narrative as something deserving discussion.
Newt Gingrich likes to harp on the subject of “religious freedom” as much as the next Republican. Of course, as we have shown here repeatedly, the phrase “religious freedom” is a stand-in for something else: the privileging of Christian belief over all other forms of belief – or disbelief. Religious freedom should mean equal freedoms for all with regards to belief and that is what the First Amendment establishes by prohibiting government establishment of religion, originally applied to the federal government in the First Amendment and later applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment in the wake of the Civil War.
But this isn’t what the GOP wants. The conservative Christian-driven GOP wants the establishment of Christianity as a state-sponsored religion in contravention of the First Amendment and all rhetoric directed at the topic is toward this end and this end alone. Newt Gingrich is no different. CBN claimed Monday evening to have received a document from the Gingrich campaign that shows how seriously their candidate takes this mythical war on Christianity. According to The Brody File, they “obtained an exclusive document that lays out in detail Newt Gingrich’s plan on day one of his administration to create, through Executive Order, a Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom in the United States.”
The document has been posted on Newt.org as of Tuesday in all its dubious glory. It would obviously have been crafted (and leaked) to show how serious he is on the subject of “religious freedom.” It would also demonstrate that Gingrich is well aware of how important it is that he makes a serious attempt to draw conservative Christian voters away from Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, who have more God-cred than does he, especially at a time when Newt is struggling with falling poll numbers. The Brody File further claims that “While Gingrich knows this commission will be welcomed by conservative evangelicals (read: key primary voters), this should not be read as an attempt to pander.”
But it is. A more blatant case of pandering cannot be imagined at this point, and we’ve already seen some truly egregious pandering on the part of GOP candidates.
We already have the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI), established by George W. Bush and maintained and enhanced (as well as renamed) by President Barack Obama, but putting Christianity in the federal government isn’t enough for Gingrich. The others may talk, he seems to be saying, but I have the cojones to actually scrap that pesky First Amendment once and for all and stop the spread of what he likes to call “pagan culture.”
The 20-page-long document states that the Religious Freedom Commission would have as its purpose to:
“Examine and document threats or impediments to religious freedom in the United States and to propose steps for reaffirming and protecting the foundational principle of freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief upon which our republic is built and thrives.”
Translation: to wage war on secularists, atheists, pagans and everyone else who dares object to what Christians see as their right to completely ignore the First Amendment, or to repurpose it as a document establishing Christianity as America’s state religion.
According to the Brody File, Gingrich says that “Today, the foundations of religious freedom in this country are being eroded as never before.”
Gingrich pretends to adhere to the First Amendment but read what he says about religious pluralism in light of the Christian position that it alone possesses access to some ultimate, capital-T Truth:
A commitment to religious pluralism—or affording every individual’s religious beliefs the equal protection of the law—is not the same as saying all beliefs are equal.
This is a long-standing Christian position. Pope Benedict XVI certainly agrees and his position is that truth trumps tolerance, which seems also to be the point Gingrich is angling at.
Gingrich claims that anti-religious viewpoints are being forced on people when of course, the opposite is the problem. What he is really saying is that those who do not subscribe to Christian interpretations of morality and various social issues do not have the same rights as Christians because not all beliefs are equal. Far from it, Christian belief is more equal than others and atheists have no right to non-belief at all.
When the document talks about “promoting greater religious freedom” what it is talking about is promoting Christianity at the expense of other forms of belief and non-belief. It is saying, like Bachmann and Perry and pseudo-historian David Barton, that Christianity is indeed the basis of the American system of government and that the Founding Fathers were wrong. Rather than legislating from the bench, as he claims “activist” judges do, Gingrich proposes to legislate after the fact, redressing perceived imperfections in the First Amendment by stressing Christian pre-eminence (Christianity didn’t even get a nod, let alone a mention, in the U.S. Constitution).
Gingrich is desperate, as this document proves and he has just upped the ante, putting other Republican candidates in a position to demonstrate their own devotion to the myth of Christian America.
Related posts:
Any government that proposes to regiment the people always wants to compel them to a single religion or quasi-religion; that way, they can be relied on to police their neighbors’ behavior and their own thoughts both.
I have a suggestion which should resolve for all time the question of the proper place religion should have in our governance. The country should pass a Constitutional Amendment adding the Declaration Of Independence as a “Preamble to the Constitution Of The United States”. The Declaration holds a hallowed place in our history. In everyway it is acknowledged as our “First Founding Document”. By including the Declaration as part of our Constitution, we would be establishing with certainty the most important principle separating our “grand experiment” from all preceeding governmental schemes… that being “Man,s unalienable rights come from the (unnamed) “CREATOR”. Jim Dyer
Bring it on your name will become newtered
A blessing to the ladies, that.
please someone shewt the newt
Please avoid advocating violence, even in jokes. Such could seriously backfire.
It’s hugely ironic, and scary as well, that someone as morally bankrupt as Newt Gingrich wants to target atheists, many of whom have a strong moral compass that he lacks. The more he exposes his true colors in this campaign, the more I shake my head in disbelief that anyone looks up to him as an “ideas man.” However, in this sense, he is like most of the other candidates as well as other GOP politicians who have alienated Muslims, gays, the unemployed, women, and racial minorities like black and Hispanic folks. None of them ever need to get into the White House, including Newt and Willard.
More frightening yet, to me at any rate, is that he has been accused of being “too” pragmatic.
I’m seeing more and more people being turned off to Christianity altogether because of things like what Newt and the others have promoted, some to the point of having violent reactions even to the words “God”, “Jesus”, and “heaven”. Yet the “Good Christians” see their resistance to domination and micromanaging as an attack on Christianity, when it is not.
The harm they’ve done to people is incalculable, and their actions lead to greater and greater hostility from people who follow other paths. The really sad and painful thing is that people who do NOT follow the dominionist/fundamentalist/evangelical forms of Christianity are painted with the same brush as the worst of the dominionists, and we often experience prejudice because of their actions.
In a sense, I wish Jesus WOULD return. I rather think he’d be (metaphorically) kicking a lot of asses if he did.
In fact, some people I know think that is the real reason why he was crucified – he resisted the “Good Christian” types of the day and dared to oppose them.
BTW… I’ve yet to meet a unethical atheist. I’ve met several now who are violently hostile to any form of religion (especially anything connected to the Bible), but when you get past the hostility, you discover a lot of hurt – and the anger is in a way justified.
I admit to having that reaction myself, even though I have known many good Christians who are not “good Christians”. I never felt like that in Dade County, where many of my friends were UU. It took moving to this podunk place to do it. My sister, who lives in Chicago, still doesn’t get it. If she lived here a while, she would.
Liberty Hyde Bailey said we needed more nature in the city and more enlightenment in the countryside. The Dissocialists seem (literally) Hell-bent on driving things the other way, and I am tempted to be equally literal in calling them God-damned.
My maternal grandmother was one of the truly pious Christians who was beloved by so many people since she actually followed the example these fake Christians only claim and pretend to follow. You are 100% right that they have alienated people who take different paths from Christianity and in the process have exposed genuine believers like you to unjustified ridicule and scorn. Religion is at its best when it’s used as a moral compass and when it inspires caring toward one’s fellow humans. It’s at its worst when used as a means of governing, because it almost always seems to fuel self-righteous intolerance as well as hypocrisy.
“I’m seeing more and more people being turned off to Christianity altogether because of things like what Newt and the others have promoted, some to the point of having violent reactions even to the words “God”, “Jesus”, and “heaven”.
Yep. If anyone thinks some on the right aren’t promoting, or engaging in, violence, he/she needs to think again.
http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-national/christians-issue-death-threats-over-twitter-hash-tag
I’ve mentioned in the past the things they did to us. Darla Kay Wynne and David Mullin know well how violent they get, along with many others (including the people who work at clinics where abortions may be provided – and clinics where they aren’t but DO care for women).
That’s just the physical violence too. They also are known for economic and social violence (blocking employment of people they don’t like and trying to destroy the reputations of people who resist, for instance).
I find it hard to believe that you’ve “never met an unethical atheist”!!! Please explain where those “ethical” atheists gained their ethics, and against what standards are their ethics measured? Without a firm belief in a Supreme Being, morals and ethics constitute difficult ideas to sustain or measure.
First, your presumption is that people are inherently evil and must be coerced to do the right thing, or that they cannot chose to do right on their own. That is the basis of the thinking that flows from fundamentalism (and some forms of mainstream Christianity). That thinking is patently false. People choose to do good or to do evil, and their choices reflect their personality or person. There are good and bad people everywhere, although I would quickly argue that fundamentalism (1) brings out the worst in people, (2) transforms their good into evil (via brainwashing, thought control, and other forms of manipulation), (3) attracts those who want the name of being “good people”, but aren’t willing to pay the price, and (4) attracts those who realize that fundamentalism by nature is perfect for scamming people.
The fact is, there is a mixture of good and bad in all people, and it’s kind of a spectrum. Some people tend to do “good” (those things that most people would consider positive), and others tend towards the evil or “bad” side of the spectrum, with most in the middle. That’s human nature (which isn’t a bad thing, unlike what I’ve heard preached). By the way, in the correct Christian theological translation, people are FALLEN, not evil. Thus they are not perfect and cannot measure up to perfection. This does NOT mean that people are evil.
Since people have this mixture within themselves, they must make choices. The people I know like goodness… they like seeing people have good things happen to them, and they like to have good things happen to themselves. Thus they choose to try to do the right thing because it is better not only for them, but for everyone. Maybe this doesn’t make sense to you, but the fact is, they’re more free to make choices than you are. You have your idea of God hanging over your shoulder critically examining everything you do. They don’t care, they choose to do good because it is good, and therefore their choice is light-years more free than yours is. They aren’t coerced. They follow their own hearts rather than obedience to a critical taskmaster.
I’m sure that if I hung around thieves, con men, and murderers, I’d meet some “bad” atheists (by my definition – people who are selfish, destructive, uncaring, harming of others, and so on). It depends on the environment where you find yourself. The sad thing is that the dominionist/fundamentalist (and even some mainstream) churches tend to have an environment that encourages “holier-than-thou” attitudes with noses stuck in the air – and at the same time those who think they are so Godly are self-centered, uncaring, legalistic, and hateful. It comes with the environment. It took me too many decades to learn this truth – that you’re far less likely to find truly “good” people in that environment and more likely to meet the inverse. YOU MUST UNDERSTAND: I’M SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE.
I do need to add that it depends on the values held by the church… those that support social justice and religious pluralism are far more likely to have “good” people in them than those who preach hellfire and damnation.
Let me put it this way – do you do “good” things because you’re afraid of Hell, or afraid of punishment, or think you’ll win “brownie points” with God, or do you do the right thing just because it IS the right thing*; not caring about the consequences or God’s approval/disapproval? Do you help people because you want the “feel good” that comes from helping someone else (proof that there is inherent good as well as bad in everyone), or because you want to convert them, or because you’ll win some of those desired “brownie points”, or do you help them strictly because they need the help and you’re capable and available? Think about these questions and ask yourself “Why would someone who doesn’t believe in God choose to do good things?” Maybe you’ll gain some insight into human nature and the reality about moral impulses.
*- “Right thing”: defined by what someone would wish done to them. All cultures and religions have their own version of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, except those so badly harmed by European domination and interference that the only way to survive is “each person for him-or-herself”. There ARE such cultures, notably in Africa, and they are studied by anthropologists specifically because of this difference. The cultures in question USED to have the golden rule as part of their ethos.
(NOTE to others: I’m not going to even start into the connection between moral definitions and culture, or moral relativity. I’m answering from my own position and I don’t have THAT much time to write.)
Hogwash. My brother and his wife have children; their home is not a religious one. His children are the most caring people I ever met. Humanitarianism and sympathy are natural human feelings. God isn’t needed to show morals.
Scuse me, JC & B, where did you pull that one out of? The most vicious people I have met were convinced they could do anything, repent, and “Gahd” would forgive them; if they screwed up the planet, “Gahd” would fix it or get them another one. Atheists have no such delusions.
I’m an atheist, NRA Life Member, and a progressive.
Bring it.
RAMEN brother!
Go away, old man.
If Gingrich envisions a “…Christian-driven GOP [wants the] establishment of Christianity as a state-sponsored religion in contravention of the First Amendment…” then we truly understand the actual under-pinning of a theocratic rule. The implication is that the GOP intends to use the United States as a platform for a dictatorship in order to drive a religious crusade; we’ve got lots of military might to push the pagans (rather the Muslims) off the planet, don’t'cha’know…
Historically, he sort of reminds me of Hirohito in Japan–Hirohito isolated the people, created all kinds of fear and patriotic frenzy and made waves of aggression that he turned into “aggressive acts” by round-eye devils; the rest of the world saw him/Japan as a crazed, fear-driven people replete with suicide bombers…
I can also go with the “Handmaiden’s Tale” scenario…
In either case, he’s probably pissed off Pat Robertson for revealing his “plans”; remember, Robertson asked that the GOP candidates “ix-nay” the chatter so that the non-believers won’t get wind of their plot…
SinghX, please not the “Handmaiden’s Tale!” I still have nightmares about that book. I didn’t have even an ATM card for years. Now if I think about it, I can still freak out. Scary!!!!!
Sorry Anne, but, ya’ know, it was written in 1985…and, somehow, it still scares the be-gebers out of everyone, even more so than “It Can’t Happen Here” or “1984″ or “Fahrenheit 411″…
(Also, read Atwoods’ “The Year of the Flood” for view of the corporate angle).
I remember being discriminate against by banks in my state and could not get an ATM…let’s see, that was during the Regan Admin. as I recall…they wouldn’t let me open savings accounts for my children under the rube that I was a “single parent”.
In case anyone wants to read the book, its title is “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood.
gee… Theocracy works so well in Iran.. for some reason i get the picture of Woody Allen, in Dr stranglove, yelling we have to close the Theocracy gap
what could possibly go wrong..
The ReichWing trying to establish the American Evangeliban.
I’ve been saying for years: Taliban II is coming, and this time they wear a cross.
Well all I can say to Newt and all the other bible beating screw heads and I think I pretty much can say this is the general feeling of the Heathen Community if you want to start a fight with us just be sure that is what you really want because we are not the turn the other cheek type of faith fighting is one thing we pretty much sit at the top of the food chain on and I think your friends in Rome would tell you to leave the Northmen alone. We are not a fight you want on your hands because it will not turn out good in your favor and that is a fact.
I just do not understand the need to believe in a mythical god and a bunch of fictional works written by man, look at all the damage religion has caused in the world, time for people to wake up and leave the old myths in the past where they belong.
Myths have their place, so long as we understand they are symbolic and not literal. I recently encountered two sweet videos of the Russian holiday(s) of Krasnagorka and Radunitsa, and whether any given symbolism was Christian or pagan, the sacredness of the cycle of life was evident in it. Literalism and conformism are the enemies of vitality and poetry both, regardless of whether we are talking about religious fundamentalism or concrete materialism (the latter actually spawned a novel called Cement, which was as moving as watching a sidewalk dry).
Beautifully put, Reynardine.
Relgion has not caused the damage! The demented or power mad, twist and pervert it. Ie… “killing for Christ”, or Christian Warriors, etc… Their words, beliefs and actions bely that they are Christians. Instead, they seek power under the mantle of Jesus Christ, in an attempt to cover their naked greed for wealth and power. They profess and act in a manner 180 degrees from what gentle Jesus laid out for Christians to do.
There will be no religious freedom in Newt Gingrich America. You will be free to practice the religion he tells you is the right one. You can rest assured if you are Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or any other religion, any type of public displays will be forbidden.
Newt Gingrich. Shredding the Constitution one right at a time
he’s a shitty, small-minded little bastard who “thinks” like that absurd, demented old fool Pat Robertson. Perfect symmetry if you ask me.
Tell Newt that as far as some Christians are concerned he’s a nut case and needs to be hospitalized. I believe in Christ and hope I’m a Christian but his beliefs are not from God.
As an Agnostic atheist for more than 30 years all I have to say to Newt on this topic is bring it on. I have just as much right to not believe in the existence of an imaginary sky being as those that wish to believe in that same imaginary being. Newt is a small-minded bigot just trying to appease the far religious right and make them forget what a two-faced toad he’s been his entire life.
What …???!!! You have been an “Agnostic atheist for more than 30 years”?? Atheism is a religion of absolutes, as is Christianity. Atheists are absolutely sure there is no God, and proselytize as such. Agnostics are not sure whether there is a God. I think ya better go back ta the drawin’ board with that philosophy, son.
Another pathetic individual who insists on telling atheists who/what they are, what they know/don’t know and what they believe/don’t believe.
I am an agnostic, meaning I do not KNOW, for certain, whether or not a god or gods exist. I am also agnostic in regard to elves, demons, unicorns and even, dare I say it, the great FSM.
I am an atheist, meaning I do not BELIEVE, at all, that a god or gods exist. Nor do I believe that elves, demons or unicorns exist either.
Thus I am, like many atheists, an agnostic atheist, although I would normally refer to myself simply as an atheist to avoid having to educate cretins like Protector.
Needless to say, atheism is as much a religion as is train spotting. “I think ya better go back ta the drawin’ board with” your “philosophy, son.”
The freedom of religion in the U.S. should protect Pagan religion as well as atheism.Should we pretend the pope is special because the vatican drowns itself in wealth while the world starves,in the name of Christianity?I guess sometimes when your mind is flooded by media lies its best to turn to intuition.Reading some history would be more helpful than listening to the msm
As an evangelical follower of Christ, I don’t want ANYONE telling me what to believe; not Newt, not Rick, not the Pope, not the atheist crowd nor the pagans.
Newt won’t get my vote.
“I don’t want ANYONE telling me what to believe”
When I was a Christian I believed that JESUS, allegedly a person still living, had the right to tell me what to believe and, furthermore, the right to be believed. How else could a Christian proselytizer get around the objection that if JESUS didn’t have at least the latter right, it could not possibly be justified to punish humans for infidelity? It’s by the way that Jesus is the name with which Christians are to beseech the Israelitic god.
Also, atheism is merely the absence of a particular type of belief, so “the atheist crowd” would not tell you to believe in atheism. It’s ironic, however, that one can cover a great deal of philosophical and scientific ground by understanding the error of believing in a god, esp. one of the type espoused by Jesus.
See David Ramsay Steele’s “Atheism Explained” for an interesting introduction to the arguments for and against belief in elohim, YHWH, Theos, etc. The author is a disproof atheist, i.e. he claims that the nonexistence of a creator god can be demonstrated. He gives also a crash course in evolutionary theory that is much better than any I received when taking AP Biology and, the following year, college biology.
Happy Holidays.
And it sounds to me like you’re proselytizing for atheism. You deny belief, but try to convince others to believe (or lack thereof) as you do (citing Steele). I really don’t see that much difference in what you wrote and what I’ve read from some fundamentalists, except that the direction is different.
Oh, yeah… I’ve taught and studied evolution, and not at the introductory level. I’ve got a much better understanding of the topic than most people. I find no problem with being Christian and accepting that evolution is fact. Neither do many of my colleagues, by the way. (Christian does NOT mean accepting that the Bible is literally true.)
There are Christians who are just as opposed to dominionism and fundamentalism as the pagans, atheists, and others. The problem isn’t religion, it’s fundamentalism – and there ARE fundamentalist (and militant) atheists just as there are in all religions. I admit I’m not sure where “Evangelical” stands in the struggle, but that person could be someone who opposes forcing religion on others. I have heard that a great many evangelicals are opposed to the things that have been going on, although I admit I’ve not met a single one, and consider evangelism to be the precursor to fundamentalism.
Why not just leave it at this… you don’t agree with people who believe in a God? What does it matter what I (or anyone else) believes, as long as we don’t force it on you? Doesn’t that therefore suggest that what you do or do not believe shouldn’t be forced (or pushed or suggested) on others?
We (deists opposed to fundamentalism and atheists) have a common cause and trying to deny something that is important to us deists would be as counterproductive as trying to force you to believe (and just as wrong).
Most atheists do not seem to actually be non-believers. They full well believe and are angry with or hate the God they know exists. Hence, the militancy against anyone or anything that reminds them of a supreme being. The militants who proselytize their atheist faith have devolved into hatred of God and His because they are promoting the fiction that they are god.
WRONG. I’ve known a few militant atheists, and have had discussions with others who help people who walk away from fundamentalist or dominionist churches (something I’ve done for many years, even decades). They’re very often people that the church has so severely damaged that they cannot even abide the thought of God.
In other words, they are the victims of the church, and believe me, the damage is real and devastating. Often people never recover from it.
When people realize that they’ve been lied to and brainwashed and exploited and even abused (physical, mental, and even sexual), they turn against the organization or group that has done so. That turning against often includes the basis for the existence of the group – in the case of churches, God and Jesus. It’s a natural reaction to abuse.
Now, I admit I’m oversimplifying the situation. I know that atheists are atheists for as many reasons as why people are (for instance) Christian. But, it’s been my experience that the more militant ones have been severely wounded by the church. (Even the non-militant ones usually carry emotional scars from the hate spewed against them.) In fact, I’ve yet to meet or hear of a militant atheist who was NOT wounded (and severely) by the church.
There is another aspect that must be considered too. If you say you disagree with a church or resist being converted, often that church will try to force you to agree (or convert), and start the punishment system (shunning, harassment, and verbal abuse – if not worse). If you don’t believe as they do and openly oppose them, they can be extremely violent and damaging. For instance, because of a letter to the editor I wrote, my parents were threatened and a couple of weeks later someone torched my electronics workshop – total loss. (It was written off as “bad wiring”, even though the evidence showed that was bullshit.) The pentecostal church I used to belong to decades ago was caught trying to destroy my marriage, I found out that they had been blocking me from getting good jobs for at least a few years after I’d walked. They even tried to force us to convert – when things got really bad, we were offered help (through members in a different church) but with a string attached: we had to attend a “spiritual deliverance service” where again they tried to mess with our marriage and get us (me) to “return to the fold”. The people involved demanded that we return the money and food given to us to keep us going because we walked out, but as I told them: I agreed to go to the service but never said that I would sit through it or convert. Needless to say, they were enraged and they let us know we were not welcome.
Now that’s my experience (a small part of it, actually). It’s a miracle that I am still a follower of Jesus; consider how someone who doesn’t believe would take such treatment. Believe me, “Good Christians” are doing it all the time. It turns people off to the church and to Christianity. The stories I’ve listened to and read are myriad, and the sorts of nasty tricks “Good Christians” pull in an effort to force people to assimilate or obey are widely varied and often fiendish.
THAT is what makes people militant against the church. The churches are the guilty ones.
It’s obvious to me that you’ve been listening to the bullshit coming from the pulpit about atheists. I can tell you categorically that the preachers don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, and the fact is, they are to blame for the harm that is done.
I leave you with this question: Do you REALLY think God would punish someone who didn’t believe in God, because of the harm done to him or her by “Good Christians”???
I don’t accept or believe in a God who would be that cruel or unjust. Demon would be a better descriptor for such a “God”.
Wow!! I am probably naive and have not know of such awful “church”/”religion” experiences. But then, I have largely “cut out the middlemen” and have primarily grown my relationship with my Father through His Savior/Son, with His Handbook as a guide. (Even that ain’t always easy, but He gets me by …)
It’s the very people who talk about cutting out the middlemen who are doing that crap. The very ones who claim to be “Bible Believing Christians”. The ones who think there are the Christians and then the lost. The ones who talk about personal relationships – and then spew hatred and bigotry.
Remember what Jesus said about people expecting to be honored in heaven, and find themselves not… and people who didn’t expect it being honored? It’s not what you believe but how you treat people. I think that there are going to be some big-time preachers being really surprised, and a lot of atheists will “sit at table” while they look on.
I also have big problems with the Bible as “Handbook”. That too was prattled by the Assemblies of God that I walked away from.
I also heard it from the people who tried to coerce me into returning.
I find it really odd that the people who claim to follow the Bible as a “handbook” usually also ignore the thousands of sentences castigating the rich and powerful for how they treat the poor, and focus on a bare handful of mistranslated sentences, which are then usually used to whip up hate for people. That is so common a story that I expect the same from ANYONE who calls the Bible a “handbook”.
Newt Gingrich needs to find some people who are competent to read and interpret decisions of the Supreme Court.
In a list of grievances within his outline for a Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom,” the following item is listed:
“In 1993, the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a Christian club to meet on thecampus of a public school.”
That statement grossly, erroneously mis-characterizes the opinion of the Court. The case in point (as footnoted in the outline) is Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District 508 U.S 384 (1993). As summarized in jiffynotes.com:
<<<>>>
Stated simply–Although the lower courts held the use of school property for this activity to be unconstitutional, the U.S. SUPREME COURT reversed that judgment. The Gingrich outline got it wrong by a full 180 degrees. The case involved the showing of religious materials provided by James Dobson’s Focus on the Family . The content was demonstrably SECTARIAN in nature, yet the Supreme Court held that it is constitutional for such school venues to be used for such presentations, relying in part upon a prior decision of the Court, as further explained in the jiffynotes entry:
<<<>>>>
Somehow, the incompetent theocrats who cobbled up the outline of Newt’s Commission got it backwards. Tunnel vision sometimes plays strange tricks on true believers!
ewt Gingrich needs to find some people who are competent to read and interpret decisions of the Supreme Court.
In a list of grievances within his outline for a Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom,” the following item is listed:
“In 1993, the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a Christian club to meet on thecampus of a public school.”
That statement grossly, erroneously mis-characterizes the opinion of the Court. The case in point (as footnoted in the outline) is Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District 508 U.S 384 (1993). As summarized in jiffynotes.com:
“The case arose when a church, named Lamb’s Chapel, sought to use an auditorium in a public school during nonschool hours to show a religious film on the subject of child rearing. Under rules set by the school district, school facilities could be used during nonschool hours for social, civic, or recreational meetings or entertainment. Pursuant to state law, however, the district adopted a rule prohibiting the use of this property “by any group for religious purposes.”
“The church sued, arguing that the school property was a designated PUBLIC FORUM and that it is unconstitutional to exclude a group from such a forum on the basis of the religious viewpoint of its speech. Although the DISTRICT COURT and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected this argument, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed and adopted the plaintiffs’ position.”
Stated simply–Although the lower courts held the use of school property for this activity to be unconstitutional, the U.S. SUPREME COURT reversed that judgment. The Gingrich outline got it wrong by a full 180 degrees. The case involved the showing of religious materials provided by James Dobson’s Focus on the Family . The content was demonstrably SECTARIAN in nature, yet the Supreme Court held that it is constitutional for such school venues to be used for such presentations, relying in part upon a prior decision of the Court, as further explained in the jiffynotes entry:
“WIDMAR V. VINCENT (1981), which had permitted university students to use university facilities for religious speech. Lamb’s Chapel further opened the door to expanded FREEDOM OF SPEECH rights by religious groups on government property and in other government-subsidized forums. If religion is a “viewpoint” then it cannot be used as a basis for exclusion, no matter what type of forum may be involved, in the absence of a COMPELLING STATE INTEREST to justify it. The only such justification that appears plausible is compliance with the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. The Court held that the establishment clause does not bar a religious group from using government property on a neutral basis.”
Somehow, the incompetent theocrats who cobbled up the outline of Newt’s Commission got it backwards. Tunnel vision sometimes plays strange tricks on true believers!
This nicely explains why anti-evolution groups are allowed to use campus facilities, even though what they preach is patently untrue and violates the principles of science we try to teach students.
It also could explain why some of the less savory problems we have on campus were not dealt with for a long time. For instance, not stopping the jackleg preachers from ranting near C____r Hall would be a good example, even though they created traffic problems and could be heard in the classrooms and offices of that building (even disrupted classes). It became a freedom of speech issue and proving a compelling interest in stopping the aggravation became problematic as it could have led to another Lamb’s Chapel type decision.
(I would have thought getting beat up after calling a student’s girlfriend a wh*re and sl&t would have taught them to tone it down, but they got even more hostile and vocal after that. She was wearing shorts and light/thin clothes – in the Florida heat.)
They’ve finally moved everything to a different area of campus, btw… where it won’t interfere with classes or studies. I heard that the “preachers” weren’t happy about it (less traffic at the new location and people aren’t forced to go near them), but could not find any legal basis to resist. A nice solution to the issues raised by the balance between freedom of speech and freedom from (a specific form of) religion.
I laugh at the psuedo-intellects who do not understand, or are too biased to admit the workings of the scientific method. The science of origins, whether creation or evolution, is not an operational science, yet it is jealous of the respectable mantel worn by the operational scientists, who can prove over and over the basis for their conclusions. They can’t wear that mantel of assurance in their conclusions, so they make s**t up and state it with pompous vigor. Evolution and creation are left to interpretation of historical evidence, not reproducible experimentation. Evolution and creation proponents are victims of their own biases, and should drop the pompous rhetoric and accept their uncertainties – they are not chemists or physicists – or even physicians.
The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation: “Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.”
To all the sophomoric evolutionists, creationists, and intelligent design theorists: Personalizing the debate with overt biases in public demeans science, get over it, and get along ….
Creationism and “intelligent design” are not science and never were. There is no comparison.
You don’t teach religion in the science classroom. If you want to teach creation or “intelligent design” in the philosophy classroom, be my guest.
By the way, scientists use evolution in reproducible experimentation all the time. That’s how they developed some of the new medicines that are so effective. It’s how they develop new types of bacteria to deal with problems. It’s how we find ways to cope with harmful bacteria which have become resistant to antibiotics. It’s done in the lab EVERY DAY. Not only that, but the principles of evolution are used in aspects of advanced computing on a growing basis – for instance, some of the new sorting routines were developed by using evolutionary theory, and they are far more efficient and effective (and accurate) than anything come up with by people.
Please try to show that you understand the reproducible effects of the Law of Natural Selection among asexual organisms, rather than its extrapolation to the Theory of Evolution among sexual species. They are quite different and you are speaking Natural Selection in operational studies.
Scientists use theories effectively for many predictions and even the development of technologies. However, except for the emotionally charged Theory of Evolution, there is easy admission that we are dealing with theory. The Theory of Evolution has become more than useful science; it is now a religion. It is difficult to discuss true science with a true believer.
(SIGH)
I think I may know a lot more about science than you realize.
True science does not include creationism or “Intelligent Design”. That’s been proved so many times it would be a waste of time to begin to enumerate them.
Talk to Dr. Kenneth Miller about it and whether there is a difference in evolution between asexual and sexual organisms.
That’s all I’m going to say.
We Already Have A Prime Minister Spouting Off About Our Families Following Christian Values, It Appears We Are Heading Back Into The Dark Ages, All Freedoms Are Being Attacked On Both Sides Of The Atlantic.
Peter Boxall
realalternativesite.com RAS