Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!microsof!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!unc!tim From: tim@unc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: The Bible and the Constitution Message-ID: <5535@unc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 10-Jul-83 15:38:49 EDT Article-I.D.: unc.5535 Posted: Sun Jul 10 15:38:49 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jul-83 15:14:03 EDT References: cbscd5.248 Lines: 204 It was only a matter of time before one of these "we should be a Judeo-Christian nation" people started laying their silly line on us. It is interesting that this same person, Paul Dubuc, also believes that evolution is a religion, and that secular humanists are trying to destroy the moral underpinnings of this country. In any case, here's my contribution to the issue. To begin with, I want to point out that IF the founders of the United States HAD wanted to make a country based on Judeo-Christian principles, then they would not have so carefully avoided any mention of the Bible, God, or Christ in the Constitution. There are NO such references, anywhere in the Constitution. It would certainly not have been unpopular to include such things, so if they had had such intentions, we would have some solid and unmistakable evidence of it. Enough said on this matter. While it may be true that this country is not founded on the Christian Religion, the influence of Judeo-Christian principles on our forefathers cannot be ignored. There is strong evidence that they believed in absolute standards for the laws of government and that these standards were based on the Bible. And why is it that it can't be ignored? Paul doesn't bother to fill us in on this detail. Even if they did believe this (and I have already demonstrated otherwise), why does it need to be considered today? Presumably, Paul wants this to be used as evidence for changing American government so that it explicitly refers to Judeo- Christian belief. (For instance, by teaching Judeo-Christian principles in public schools.) My feeling is that regardless of the Founding Fathers' intentions, we know that this would be a mistake today. The countries which have the most repressive governments and/or the most terrorism are those in which religion plays a major role in the conduct of the government. You can provide many examples for yourself if you watch the news. (I should mention that I consider Soviet Communism a religion.) So from a pragmatic viewpoint, it would clearly be a mistake. Atheists ... adhere to no external standard for the judgement of their conduct. Therefore, in matters of public interest, there is no assurance that their actions will be in the best interests of others and no standard to judge whether their conduct is right or wrong. Claiming adherence to a particular set of scriptures is also no guarantee that a person will act in anyone else's interests. Again, there are tons of cases in the news that prove this. There is no assurance that ANYONE, ANYWHERE will act in everyone's best interests. On the other hand, most of the atheists I know are friendly, personable, and far, far more tolerant than many Christians. There have been those who have done heinous things in the name of Christianity, but the Bible exposes them for the hypocrites they are. As for Atheism, we would do well to remember that everything Joseph Stalin did in his "purge" was legal. The law of Russia was his own. Oh Lord, how many times must we be subjected to that "They aren't REAL Christians" crap? Paul, I assume you reject Communism. Further, I assume that this is because of the actions of those who call themselves Communists in the real world. What if I said "They aren't REAL Communists"? The Christians who massacred the Palestinians in the Lebanese camp a few months ago were led to it by their religious beliefs. The people killing each other in Ireland are doing it because of their Christian beliefs. The Inquisition was motivated by Christian belief, and Torquemada's law was his own. And so on. When evaluating a belief system, it is just as important to see what it leads to in the real world as it is to see what its supposed ideals are. Also, I see nothing in the Bible that exposes these people as hypocrites. How much of the Pentateuch have you read, anyway? That God has a long history of encouraging intolerant slaughter. The First Amendment was not intended to also secure "freedom *from* religion" as many atheists allege. That statement is rather frightening, Paul. You are declaring your intent to force your religion on atheists whether they like it or not. Can you really justify this sort of blatant intolerance on the grounds of your religion? If so, that's another count against it, and certainly sufficient reason to keep it out of the laws of this (or any other) country. Between 1765 and 1770 the English jurist William Blackstone published his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" which, by 1775, sold more copies in America than in England. Blackstone took it as self evident that God is the source of all laws, whether they were revealed in Scripture or or observed in nature. Many lawyers considered Blackstone's commentaries to be all there was of the law. Have you considered that this was written in England directly before the founders of this nation rejected the English government? I guess not. In any case, the mere fact that someone back then said the same thing that you're saying now is not evidence for the validity of your beliefs. Also, please see below, where you claim that an argument's validity is independent of its source and supporters. The concept of a "wall of separation between Church and State" is nowhere found in our Constitution. Perhaps you haven't read the Bill of Rights, Paul, but it contains a little thing called the First Amendment, which begins as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... " The principle of separation is there as clear as day. The fact that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear verbatim does not mean that their principle is not there. If you can't restrict or respect something, that makes you pretty separate from it, wouldn't you agree? As the founder of the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson recommended that students be allowed to meet on campus to pray and worship together. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise! It may shock you to know that I, too, support students' freedom in this regard, so long as no tax money is spent and the facilities are made available to those of all faiths, including atheism. I do not see how you feel that this shows that Jefferson wanted for there to be explicit references to the Bible in our government. [Jefferson] was the author of the first plan of public education adopted for the city of Washington, which included the Bible and the Isaac Watts Hymnal as the principle [sic] books to teach reading to students. Well, if that's true, Jefferson acted in error. However, we should note that Jefferson's Deism was the subject of much public controversy, and he was at times forced into positions that would make it clear he was not against Christianity. It is entirely possible that he was obliged to do this or be branded a non-Christian, which was just as effective then in ruining any possibility of election as it is in many places (particularly the Presidency) now. Before I finished this article, there was other reaction to Paul's article. Paul saw fit to respond to rabbit!jj's response: [From jj] Paul Dubuc's comments concerning religion, the Bible, and the Constitution of the United States demonstrate ... some of the most criminal uses of sophistry put forth by the so called "moral" majority. [From Paul] Is this any way to discredit my argument? What did you find in what I said that was actually false? ... I am willing to give credit to anyone who espouses the truth regardless of their religious or political beliefs. It's not good reasoning to discredit the source or propounders of and [sic] argument without considering the argument itself. I would agree with Paul in this case. However, Paul himself would not. Since when do fundamentalist Christians (like Paul) believe that the value of an argument is independent of its source? They believe it when it is convenient, but when you start to criticize Biblical assertions, they invariably fall back on "Believe it because it's in the Bible." For Paul to make these statements is simple hypocrisy. Later, our Mr. Dubuc says: I try not to equate any religion or belief system with a particular person.... I did not mean to imply in my article that all atheists would be mass murders given the chance. Just in case you've forgotten, here is Paul's original statement: Atheists ... adhere to no external standard for the judgement of their conduct. Therefore, in matters of public interest, there is no assurance that their actions will be in the best interests of others and no standard to judge whether their conduct is right or wrong. He then quoted Stalin as an example of this principle. Again Paul employs what cannot be described as other than casual self- contradiction, which is to say hypocrisy. It is clear enough that Paul DID in fact mean to equate atheism with immorality. In his article, Paul Dubuc has presented us with an elaborate sophistry whose origin is in knee-jerk pro-Christianity. I am offended by this abuse of the freedom given us by the nature of the net, but if there were no possibility of abuse, it would not truly be freedom. ______________________________________ The overworked keyboard of Tim Maroney duke!unc!tim (USENET) tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA) The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill