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