A Strange ChangeOK kids. It's time to inject a little controversy. I've noticed that the blogs have bogged down a bit. Most of you who have been folowing the blogs know that I center on basically two things. Politics & religion. Some have agreed, some not. Regardless, you have all contributed your thoughts & that is the art & science of communication & conversation. Considering some of the comments & replies from some of you concerning these issues, it is apparent that there are many divergent views, all of which should be respected. I came across something I thought was very interesting. Not in or of itself, but for future possibilities. I will tell you now that I did a copy & paste of an article I came across on the web site of Americans United for the Separation of church & State. I am fuly aware that there are some who will consider this an unreliable, biased source. That's only fair. If you can provide another source to refute this account, please feel free to offer what you have. The subject is the separation of church & stae. People like me, agnostics & athiests, use this principle in order to keep our country from becoming a theocracy, among other things. On the other hand, Christian evangelicals have maintained that since the phrase, "separation of church & state," does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, & it doesn't, it should not be considered a valid criteria. Well, I have always maintained that their arguement was a bunch of monkey muffins. It is shallow, intellectually irresponsible, playing to the converted grandstanding. Using their thinking, if one can call it that, garage door openers are also not mentioned in the Constitution. Are we to consider them not valid? Now here is where it starts to be interesting. It seems that they have changed their minds because it now is to their advantage. I offer the folllowing & ask you for your comments. Hypocrite Alert!: ACLJ Decides Church-State Separation Isn’t So Bad After AllSeptember 28th 2007 It will be interesting to see if the ‘mythical’ principle of church-state separation comes riding to the ACLJ’s rescue. Over the years, TV preacher Pat Robertson has said some pretty mean things about the wall of separation between church and state. During a 2002 meeting of the Christian Coalition, for example, Robertson told the crowd, “We have had a distortion imposed on us over the past few years by left-wingers who have fastened themselves into the court system. And we have had a lie foisted on us that there is something embedded in the Constitution called separation of church and state.” Top Robertson attorney Jay Sekulow has echoed these attacks. In a 2004 article, he wrote, “Too often, the ‘separation of church and state’ phrase is allowed to take the place of our actual constitutional provisions.” He called it a “guise” to take away the rights of Christians. It came as quite a surprise, therefore, when attorneys with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a legal group Robertson founded, recently tried to employ the separation of church and state in their defense. ACLJ attorneys are representing the Rev. Jerry Sutton of Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville. A faction of 54 church members argues that Sutton is authoritarian and that he has misused church funds to pay for personal travel and his daughter’s wedding reception. The dissidents demanded to access to certain church records and were denied. So they went to court. The angry members say a Tennessee law that deals with access to the records of non-profit groups should apply in this case. Here’s where it gets interesting. Larry Crain, senior counsel for the ACLJ, is employing the separation of church and state in Sutton’s defense. Reported the Nashville Tennessean, “Crain said in a letter refusing their request that they had no right to the records given the separation of church and state, as well as constitutional rights to privacy of members whose names are on church rolls.” Nashville resident Thomas Wesley wasn’t fooled. In a letter to the Tennessean, Wesley noted that Two Rivers hosted a Religious Right rally called “Justice Sunday II” in 2005. Wesley pointed out that speakers at this event “invited the audience to adopt the dangerous belief that scripture should guide Supreme Court decisions, not the rule of law. Thus, the audience’s respect for the importance of church-state separation was diminished.” Observed Wesley, “Ironically, Mr. Sutton’s lawyer has invoked the doctrine of church-state separation as a legal defense to a lawsuit stemming from church members’ alleging financial malfeasance. Cited in an effort to prohibit the disclosure of financial records to the plaintiffs, church-state separation conveniently transforms from a liberal ‘myth’ into a bona fide legal concern. Alas, the reverend resurrects church-state separation from its slandered ruin and asks that it be his legal salvation in his own time of trouble.” The court case is pending. It will be interesting to see if the “mythical” principle of church-state separation comes riding to the ACLJ’s rescue. If so, perhaps Robertson, Sekulow and the whole gang at the ACLJ will stop throwing mud at this great constitutional principle. That would be nice, but I won’t hold my breath. Related: Report Abuse | RichK's blog | login or register to post comments | printer friendly version
Submitted by Marsha on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 7:31am.
Uncle Rich, First I would like to commend you on the context of your blog. This is the first one I have seen on one of your favorite subjects that does not appear to Judge the entire lot, and stays on point. Well done and Thank You! Pat Robertson has changed significantly in recent years, I sometimes wonder if he is ill or tripping on acid. It seems like the larger his Ministry gets, the more absurd he becomes. By larger I do not mean his followers, I mean his organization. It appears to me that he sometimes is exhalting himself, not the Creator. Twenty years ago I would watch him, today I don't. Anytime a Religious Organization gets this big the uncovering of corruption isn't far behind. I guess that is where the Scripture comes in that "It is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle then it is for a rich man to inherit the Kingdom of God" If the article is accurate in it's essence then it appears he's backing himself into a corner that may be the beginning of his undoing. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Lily, You touched on a very volatile issue that has not yet been debated here in the blogs and would probably be the most controversial topic ever. My feelings on abortion are very similar to yours. I don't think anyone has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body, but don't use my tax dollars to finance it because for me life begins at conception. I believe a woman has the right to make that choice if her survival is at stake, and I certainly am not going to tell a woman who has been raped that she must carry that child and give birth but I still don't want my tax dollars paying for it. Fresh out of the simple life in the rural midwest I moved to Orlando out of High School. The next door neighbor in my apartment complex was a tall lanky woman that reminded me of Cher. She had two small really sweet little girls. She used abortion as a means of birth control. In less then a year she had two. I say if you don't want a child badly enough to kill it then keep your legs together, sex is not like food, oxygen and water, you don't need it to survive. If you keep putting quarters in that machine something is bound to come out.
Submitted by RichK on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 9:03am.
Lily, Yes, I've often noted the hypocrisy in organized religion. This is just one more example. Like any other organization, the religious right has not been immune or shy to dip into the pot of propaganda. And as with any other organization employing this, the old saying still holds true. The more BS you spread around, the easier it is to step in it. And they have stepped in it. I've commented on my views on abortion so I won't repeat here. As far as separation not being in the Constitution, I stand by my words in this & other blogs. I don't know who came up with line of reasoning, but some one on the Christian right should have seen the trouble this would cause for them. I don't know why they didn't. They do have some very intelligent, well educated people & some one should have seen this coming around the corner. As an agnostic, I do have a problem with religious groups, any religious groups getting taxpayers money. I don't care if it's school vouchers, a day of prayer/faith, or faith based initiatives, where those groups are then allowed, by law, to practise discriminatory hiring practises. The government has no business favoring one religion or any religion. It's not the job or the reason for which it was created. Marsha, Thanks for the thanks, but I contributed very little to it. As I said, it was a copy & paste. If you read back in my blogs/replies, you'll see that if I judge an entire lot, it's for a specific reason. Yes, people like Robertson, Falwell, Kennedy & some others have done some damage to the Christian right with some of their well documented rantings. Regardless of their faith or belief, they are still very human & are just as susceptible to saying something stupid as we all are. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the article. This is the first I've heard of it. As I said, it came from an organization that would automatically draw charges not being fair & balanced. But since it uses quotes from people & a publication, it would be a matter of public record and credibility would stand. If I come across anything else on this, or if any of you do, please feel free to add it to the blog. I love your analogy @ putting quarters in the machine. I think that's the first time I heard that one. Good. Thanks for the input from the both of you. It will be interesting to see what follows. JATFUR. Doubt is the first step towards knowledge. Acquiring knowledge is the next step to a higher intellect. RichK
Submitted by finder on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 10:45am.
Marsha/Lily; Your comments about the abortion issue, to me are pretty much right on. As I am a male, I'll put a caveat on my comments. I'm a male! My feeling is that, unless I am the one that has to carry the child for 9 months and provide primary care after birth, then I (being a male) really should not have a lot to say about a woman's right to abort. The issue of tax payers dollars supporting abortions is to me a two edged sword. If we don't pay for the abortion, we take the chance of paying later in the form of welfare. I think that by stopping all abortions what we end up with is a lot of unwanted and unloved children in the world. I guess really, I'd like to see people who want to totally stop abortions to back off a little unless they are willing to support that child for life. Is there a solution to this issue that we all could live with? I don't think so. It is way to emotional. I also think the issue of when life begins is a hot button that religious and non-religious people will never get past to form a compromise solution. It seems to be an all or nothing issue for all that get involved. Finder Submitted by RichK on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 11:14am.
Finder, Like you, I am a male & can only offer a limited view. @ a solution. I'm not sure, but I think I brought up once before why we probably won't get a solution, let alone one with which every one can agree. Reason? There will always be a certain % of irresponsible people, male & female. Always have. You will pretty much always have a certain % of people who, for whatever reason, will refuse to discuss the issue of contraception until it is too late. You will always have a certain % of people who wish to do harm to a female by rape, incest etc. Put those together & you start to have a large percentage of people. Sometimes history can stink, but it's still history. But abortion is only a fraction of current problems. I think your final statement is correct. RichK Submitted by Sunflower on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 12:46pm.
Seems to me that antiabortionists, religious leaders and politicians who want the SCOTUS to overturn Roe v. Wade are ALSO against teaching sex education and birth control! Abstain? Do none of them have memories of those raging hormones that are prevalent during the teen years? Family Planning clinics are bombed and doctors are murdered by right-to-life zealots, but they seemingly support murdering innocent children and adults in the Middle East and elsewhere in the name of war, and they also support the death penalty! That's where my confusion comes in. Once a child is born, there no longer seems to be any concern about their well being.
Submitted by finder on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 1:38pm.
Sunflower; In my opinion, you are right on point!!!!! Finder People are talking about ...Here are the recent blog postings with the most comments. |
Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 154 guests online.
Online usersRecent comments |
Rich, as always an extremely interesting opinion presented without the need for venality, I agree with you in concept. This would appear to be (and let's face it, it is) hypocritical. I always have a fit when I hear the left attacking the right over seperation of church and state. First, there is NO seperation of church and state in the constitution and I find the main hypocritical party to the argument is the Supreme Court who have the ten commandments carved on the walls of that beautiful building. But the court is more like an homage to Jimmy Dean anymore and any decisions involving church and state are as bogus as Roe V Wade. And for the religious right to cloak themselves in this specious argument is probably why more and more people are choosing pagan beliefs. (OK, so far it's just me that I am aware of but I'm hoping it catches on...)
Just to stir the ashes a bit, I am not an adherent to the "unresricted right" to an abortion but that's me. I am certainly not going to tell any woman what they should or should not do. I have my own moccasins to walk in. My problem, like church state aguments, is that Roe was based on a lie. What really galls me is that the decision should be revisited and this time presented by non liars. Roe lied all throughout her case. No one has ever challenged the Court to toss it on honesty issues. Maybe because like every other government institution, they are completely corrupt and dishonorable. All I'm asking for is a little honesty. Is that so impossible a dream?
Getting back on point, with the way the government is attempting to turn us into an Orwellian society, I have less of a problem with religious groups getting aid (note I do not include the religious political groups) than I do with the government funding the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. If a woman wants to kill her child, whatever the reason, I should not be asked to share in that expense. As a dreamer, let me add, I also deplore the government waging an idiotic and unnecessary war in Iraq. Yes, I would like to see the savages mowed down, those who would defame Islam, but Iraq is a completely different mess. I suppose I could ramble on but I'm losing even my attention now. Peace.
Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman