*nods*

not to mention the fact that the 1st amendment says not one single word about seperation...

the biggest mistake the left makes is reading things in the constitution that arent even there!
its the 'establishment clause' nothing there about being seperate.

the supreme court is there to 'interpret the constitution, and the amendments thereof'
just for the record, IMHO, to do that task any type of justice, is to keep the same mindset of those who framed those laws. read my last statement one last time... 'keep the same mindset of those who framed those laws'

is there anyone here who can honestly say that the high courts of our nation are of the same mindset than our founding fathers? not me!

While the actual words, "separation of church and state" do not appear, the Constitution very clearly states that "Congress shall make no law establishing religion". This statement, I believe was intended to act in the same spirit as "separation of church and state". The issue for me is not that a politician might invoke G-d in a speech. What raises my hackles is issues such as FORCED prayer in public schools (as has been known to happen in the Bible Belt, e.g.), or when city councils begin a meeting with a prayer. IMHO, this is not the time or place, and expecting a group of citizens to ignore this behavior in tax-payer funded venues is tantamount to government establishing a state religion, or attempting to.

I see none of your examples as amounting to establishment of a religion, Mark.

I would agree that forcing someone to pray would be interfering with the free exercise of religion, of course, and would violate the 1st amendment.

I just want to get on the record by saying that, as an atheist, I respect the rights of others to practice (or not practice) religion as they see fit.

Its strange, I'm atheist yet I spend more time talking about the rights of Christians than anything else. Religion is a fact of life in this country and nothing anybody can do is going to change that.

We all just need to learn to respect one anothers beliefs, or lack thereof.

I gotta disagree with you on a point, Mark. Your statement, "or when city councils begin a meeting with a prayer." Please tell me where this violates the 1st Amendment? As you noted the Amendment states, ""Congress shall make no law establishing religion..." So, Congress shall not establish a religion, right? Okay, fine. That's Federal. A city council meeting is State. A state can, if they desire, establish a religion for themselves should they choose. This is completely harmonious with the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution wanted the ultimate decision on how to govern to be left at the state and local level. The point being, who is New York to tell Vermont how they should run things? The people at the local level know best how to govern themselves. And if a city or state wants to adopt an official religion – they can!

The 1st Amendment was written to promote freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. The Founding Fathers' were keenly aware of the problems of state sanctioned religion. That type of system only oppresses. However, they also knew that without religion you could not have a moral government or society. In their mind personal rights, you know, life, liberty and all that good stuff either came from one of two places. The state or the Creator. The Declaration of Independence clearly states, "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

The point being this: If rights originate with the state then the state can suspend or remove them. If rights originate from the Creator, thus being beyond the influence of the state, they cannot be removed.

So in removing the influence of religion over the state you are saying that rights originate from the state and are then subject to removal by the state.

Also the 1st Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a federal religion. It doesn't say that the federal government cannot acknowledge the influence of a religion nor support a particular religious cause. It's like saying should the Catholic Church setup a homeless shelter that helps hundreds of people, the federal government cannot give money to said shelter because it's religious at heart. Never mind the very real good that it is doing for society. While this has already happened it's also very, VERY counter to the history of this nation.

No, you separate religion from government and you basically trust the government not to abuse its powers. Read your history, the odds are pretty good that won't happen.

Remove God from government and you are removing the only thing keeping your rights unaltered.

It's also very interesting to note that it's only in predominately Judeo-Christian countries that this debate is even possible. Try getting away with this in communist China or the Islamic Middle East. Good luck.

Before anyone brings up the 14th, the intent and spirit of that amendment was to prevent States from violating Civil Rights after the Federal Government enacted it.

To differentiate between 'forced prayer' in schools and 'opening a meeting with prayer', usually the latter is by choice and permission of all participants. No imposition. Oh, and by the way, 'forced prayer in schools' has not been in practice, let alone legal, for decades. It's just not accurate.

And just because a prayer is said (whether by an official or a student) that an athiest's kid hears (it's usually the parent who objects, or even sees it as an issue), doesn't force the kid to participate or agree.

There is a big misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about when it comes to religion. This misunderstanding stems from miseducation on the part of those who do have an agenda - the expulsion of religion and religious values from the public square. But a quick lesson in history easily explains the motivation behind the Founders' rationale for including religion in the Constitution.

First, it is important to note that in 18th century Europe, and even today, there are state sanctioned and state sponsored churches. Also, throughout South America, and in the Middle East, state sponsored and state endorsed religion is common. Did you know that in Argentina, you must be married in the Catholic Church in order for your marriage to be considered valid? And that without the Church validation of marriage, property rights and inheritance laws don't necessarily apply?

Also, it is important to realize that the Founders were primarily concerned about the different varieties of Protestant Christianity. Thomas Paine, in his pamphlet "Common Sense" equated the Papacy with evil, and the next to last draft of the First Amendment recognized Christianity, but forbade Congress from specifically elevating one form of Christianity over another. Finally, the phrase "separation of Church and State" appears in the Communist manifesto, but does not appear in the US Constitution.

So what is the point of the First Amendment. The entire First Amendment, including the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the freedom of assembly in really about the free flow of ideas. It is about allowing all philosophies of life, all world views to have equal access to the process.

The freedom of religion is broken down into two parts: 1) the establishment clause, and 2) the free exercise clause. As I mentioned, the next to last draft of the establishment clause read, "Congress shall make no law establishing any Christian sect." Under current interpretations, if this draft had been adopted, today's courts would allow discussion of all religions except Christianity. (Whoops, that is exactly what the courts have been doing.)

To understand the motivation for the establishment clause, one must first understand that in Europe, failure to be a member in good standing of the proper Church meant that one's citizenship rights were in jeopardy. Even today, the Queen of England is, by law, the Head of the Church of England, the official Church of Spain and France is Catholicism, and Germany's official Chruch is Lutheranism. In some cases, the citizens are actually taxed to support the Church.

The Divine rights of the Monarchy and Nobility, and the Divine rights of the Papacy was what the Founders feared. The concept of Divine Right was that Kings, Nobles, and Popes had special access to God, and that they ruled by Divine Authority over the people. To defy the King, or the Noble, or the Pope was to defy God. Divine Right meant that the common man must first look to government to grant rights and approve ideas. It placed government between a man and his God. It is this concept that the Founders rejected.

In Protestant Christian belief, the common man has direct access to God without the need of Kings, Nobles, or Priests. It is this Protestant concept of direct access to God which led the Founders to the belief that Kings, Nobles, and Popes were meant to serve the people, not the other way around. Also, they believed that Divine Authority flowed directly from God to the people, and then to the government.

Witness the Declaration of Indepence: "...are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." and "To secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." The idea that Rights and Authority flowed directly from God to people, and that government derived its just authority directly from the people rather than God was radical.

But the establishment clause is not a rejection of the authority of God. It is simply a statement of putting the authority structure in proper order, i.e. God - people - government.

The point of the establishment clause is to prevent the government from coming between a man and his God, and to restrict the Congress from placing conditions on citizenship. Also, it is to prohibit any particular sect of requiring fealty to a particular religious dogma in order to have access to the public debate.

It is not to protect the government from religious infection. It is certainly not meant to prohibit the discussion of religion, or the discussion of God in politics. It is certainly not meant to prohibit religious values or morality from impacting the law. It simply means that religious ideas have no special standing before the law. They must compete equally with other ideas.

The second clause is the Free Exercise clause. This clause means that while specific religious ideas are not entitled to preferential status, they are not to be prohibited either. The free exercise clause specifically is about the free flow of philosophy and ideas. Those who wish to restrict the ability of religion to impact government are in violation of the Free Exercise clause.

Perhaps it would be better if the First Amendment read" Congress shall make no law establishing any particular religion or philosophy and shall also not restrict any religion or philosophy from having equal access to public debate."

For the purposes of the government, all philosophies, whether atheistic, agnostic, or theistic are equally religious. All ideas must have equal access to the government, must compete on equal footing, and adherence to any particular philosophy can not be established as a requirement for such access.

But those who wish to ban religion do seek such a restriction. They wish to silence those who are religious, and wish to ban religious ideas from government. How is such a ban consistent with the idea of the free flow of ideas?

The Founders did not reject God, or His authority. No one who reads their speeches and writings can conclude this is so. They also did not reject the concept of objective truth, or good and evil. They believed that the search for Truth was good and proper.

What they did was to establish a system where the authority of God could be established through the authority of the people. They distrusted any one man to fully comprehend God's will, and his willingness and ability to accomplish that will without being corrupted.

In this same vein, those who believe that there is no God also have access to the system. The point of the entire First Amendment is to allow access of all philosophies to government in the hope that collectively, we would be more right than wrong.

My problem with those who would restrict religion is that they arrogantly assert that they have it right, and religious people have it wrong. If their philosophy is so right, then let it compete with religious philosophy on an equal plane. Let them convince us by the virtue of their argument rather than seek to silence those who disagree.

Why are they so afraid of religion? Is it because the power of religion has so much sway? Do they ever ask themselves why religion has such powerful influence over people?

Those who wish to silence the religious are really seeking power. They do not trust in the power of their ideas. They want to suppress the power of religion ideas so their philosophy can dominate without competition. They point to the mistakes we have made as free men in order to indict freedom itself. They seek to prevent the free flow of ideas by classifying words, ideas, and thoughts as bigotry, hate speech, and oppression.

These people have no more special access to the Truth than the Kings and Popes of ages past, and they must be opposed at all costs. They are free to espouse their philosophy. But when they seek to restrict my access to the public debate because of what I believe, or what I say, then they seek to do evil.

State sponsored Atheism has proven just as evil as state sponsored religion. It is freedom, and the free flow of information and ideas, that has proven to produce the most peaceful societies. I can disagree with your philosophy and think you a fool. But when you threaten to punish me for my words, my ideas, and my thoughts, then I will fight - to the death if necessary. It is the suppression of ideas that leads to violence. Those who seek to suppress religion lack wisdom, and invite their own violent destruction.

The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments

" In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. " Alexander Hamilton & James Madison, Federalist No. 51

If you advocate for a civil right for a particular group, you can also advocate for a particular version of morality. The republic will sort it out as long as that decision does not force everyone to belong to the group or sect in question.

But ya have to admit its funny to see Republicans complainging about politicians citing the Bible and using it to 'inapropriatly' attack the opposition, don't you? Don't you?

I want to say one more thing about the Protestant ideology. It is instructive to look at South and Central America where the dominant religion is Catholicism. History gives no indication that Catholicism is conducive to freedom. So saying that the Judeo-Christian heritage is conducive to freedom is not quite accurate.

It is specifically the Protestant idea that men are equal before God that has a revolutionary effect on society. If one's religion teaches that some men have greater or more direct access to God than others, then that religion is not conducive to freedom. Any religion that teaches that Rabbi's, Priests, Imams, Dahli Lama's, etc. have greater access to God than the common man is not conducive to freedom.

If a man speaks with the exclusive authority of God, then we are compelled to obey or be infidels. But if a man has the right to judge to words of another, to determine whether he speaks with the authority of God, then this changes the balance of power. If a man has direct access to the wisdom of God, then he has the right to judge another man's words as to whether or not they are inspired of God, and deserving of special consideration.

The primary difference between atheistic libertarians and Protestants is that atheistic libertarians believe that we are born equal and are morally independent. Protestants believe that we are "equal before God," and morally dependent upon Him. Libertarians believe we are freedom exist for the selfish purposes of the free. Protestansts believe we freedom has a moral purpose higher than the individual man, and we must be free to choose in order to fulfill our moral obligations to God. Protestants reject the absolute authority of any man. Libertarians reject all absolute authority.

But both libertarians and Protestants differ in fundamental ways from those who elevate Priests, Imams, Rabbi's, etc., and they also differ from those who would elevate the State to a higher authority, such as Socialists, Fascists, and Communists.

Freedom of religion is absolutely essential to the peace and prosperity of a society. Those who would suppress religion are no better than those who would elevate any particular religious group or person. The Protestant idea, the idea that we are equal before God, and free to accomplish a moral purpose greater than ourselves had proven to be the idea that has freed more people than any other idea. It both liberates and inspires.

Max,

It is perfectly appropriate to condemn a politician on Biblical grounds, or any other moral grounds. As long as "membership" in a particular group is not required for equal access to the rights of citizenship, then any philisophy may provide the moral basis for criticism. It is then up to the people to validate that criticism or reject it.

Mr. Harris,

Wow. I am impressed. Did you get my e-mail?

It is also instructive to look at those who reject the Divine rights of particular men versus those who reject the Divine itself. For example, those who accept that the Pope speaks for God, and by extension that local Priests also speak for God are confounded by the child molestation crisis in the Catholic Church. If one accepts that Popes and Priests are endowed with Divine authority, and then said Popes and Priests prove to be evil and corrupt, the logical conclusion is that the Divine itself is evil and corrupt.

This is what has happened in Europe. The citizens of Europe, who have long believed in the Divine rights of Kings, and the Pope, have concluded that Kings and Popes are corrupt. So they have also concluded that Religion is a sham, that all Divine authority is to be rejected.

Contrast that with very religious America, which has long rejected the Divine rights of men, but has nonetheless clung to the concept of Divine authority. The failings of those in positions of religious authority do not shake our faith. Rather, those failings reinforce our belief that rejecting the Divine Rights of particular men was a good choice, and that direct appeal to God by the common man is that much more important to living a moral life.

I'm glad that everyone is enjoying the conversation. Honestly, it really is interesting and enlightening. However, let's see how long it lasts after these people get their hands on the reins of power. They're already pretty close. And they are the reason that we even need the kinds of obsessive protections AGAINST other people's religions.

The idea of a free flow of ideas is great. Unfortunately, where it concerns religion, there is generally very little meaningful exchange.

Despite a legalistic dissection of the phrase "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and the harping on the fact that the word "separation" isn't actually written down, it would appear to do a disservice to the spirit of the founders if one looks at some of Jefferson's writings and actions as President where he refuses to declare a national day of fasting as the Baptists from Connecticut wanted.

In his response he *specifically* refers to the "building of a wall of separation between Church and State."

It seems to me that what helps government to survive and people to coexist is the strengthening of a secular framework around which Majoritarianism CANNOT thrive. Something we appear to be failing at at the moment. It amazes me on a daily basis that people in this country think that what the majority wants is what everyone should have.

A secular framework allows people the right to self-determination within the scope of their own lives--not their neighbor's lives--and should theoretically keep the minority free from the tyranny of the majority, which in the end is what matters.

You are oversimplifying Jefferson's position. You're oversimplifying a lot of things, Lockes.

Jefferson's statement of a "wall of separation of church and state" was a phrase he used in a letter to a friend, and there's no indication that he ever meant it in the hyper-paranoid way so many people do today--especially because "church" and "religious belief" are far from the same thing anyway. Jefferson was is a man who also did things like make sure to hire chaplains for the military and spoke at length of the importance of religion in civil life, and of God's wrath against America for the crime of slavery--and who wrote a Declaration of Independence that stated, amongst other things, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, a legal document he gladly wrote and signed.

There is also nothing "legalistic" about this discussion. It is a factual discussion--and despite your paranoia, as shared by the people who wrote that article you linked to, you can find dangerous extremists in any group, including strict secularists. Indeed, atheistic (i.e. 100% secular) regimes killed over 100 million people in the 20th century.

You can point to any group of extremist radicals and suggest that if *they* get into power, everything will go to hell, therefore, we MUST avoid going down the "slippery slope" of giving them even 1% of what they want. But that way lies the path of madness.

I think if we learned a little more about history, and unlearned some of what we think we "know" about religion, or the dread "slippery slope," we might lose that clawing fear that the eville Christians are hiding under our beds, just ready to spring forth and make us love Jesus.

Kerry understands the Bible better than Barber understands "government". Christians (and others) electing and supporting representatives who help them to lift up greater numbers of “the least among us” than we can help individually, are indeed growing “faith manifest[ing] itself through action or works ("fruit").”

Dean,

I don't even know where your bed is and I'm allergic to dust. Besides, isn't Rosemary on top of the bed, ready to spring forth and make you love Jesus?

Yours,
Wince

Lockes,

I have never heard of the group you cited, but from a theological standpoint, let me address your concerns. Specifically, the Bible states that our "dominion" is not over people, but over evil. The struggle is spiritual, not flesh and blood.

Also, the concept that God is over government is correct, but does not bear the sinister overtones you suggest. Prior to American Independence, and during the time when Divine Right was practiced, Government = God. It is very significant that God over Government separates the two, and that under our construct, the authority flows from God to the people, and from the people to the government.

There are not many evangelical Christians, even rabid evangelical Christians like myself, who would agree to going back to God = Government. So your fears are unfounded. At such time as God Himself descends to the earth, and rules by His own authority and power, then I will accept such a situation. But you need not fear that even a substantial minority of Christians in America will ever willingly submit to any particular sect which tries to elevate its interpretation as absolute truth without the consent of the people.

If such a group were able to convince a majority of Americans that its viewpoint were correct, then it might get elected to office. But in the process of becoming elected, that group must inevitably be required to compromise. That process of compromise is the very antidote to totalitarianism. But compromise in religion is heresy, or an admittance that you were previously wrong.

Either way, you need not fear America becoming a theocracy. Those people who believe this way self-segregate, and end up isolating themselves. They spend all their time preaching to the converted, and very little time convincing anyone else of their way.

shep,

It isn't a good work if someone (the IRS) holds a gun to my head. It is a good work if I pull out my check book of my own free will. I do believe in a social safety net (not a social Lazy-Boy recliner), but it does not and can not fulfill my obiligation to God and my fellow man. Robin Hood was a thief. I'm not interested in running him for public office so the poor can be fed.

Yours,
Wince

Dean,
I guess that oversimplification is when people see things for what they are without needlessly *trying* to make them complicated.

Someone earlier stated that "separation" wasn't written and how stupid lefties are for always reading stuff into the constitution and I simply pointed out that just because it isn't written doesn't mean that it was made up out of thin air and didn't shape the thinking of the founders and that we shouldn't use their writings to try to better understand their intentions. In other words, the poster's interpretation was legalistic.

In regards to my "clear and evident paranoia" you probably would have told the Jews in Poland and Germany that they were paranoid too.

You're damned right I'm paranoid. Seems to me that if people spent a little more time paying attention rather than rationalizing, they wouldn't end up in that group of 100 million people killed. Its not like the person who wrote the article was making any of the stuff up. Check the appointments. Look at the organzations. Don't take my word for it. Look for yourself. You act like religious (or any other type of) persecution has never happened before in the United States because a majority in power (who were very religious I might add) decided that they didn't like the minority. Talk to a mormon or a Jehovah's Witness.

As far as the 100 million people killed by atheistic regimes...those people weren't killed by atheism. They were killed by totalitarianism. Secular governments are not atheistic as you insinuate. Atheist governments are atheist. And totalitarian governments are dangerous whether they are very religious or not.

Belief in God is not a sufficient condition for either freedom or democracy. If it were, Saudi Arabia and Iran and half the other countries in the middle east would be thriving democracies.

Secular government shouldn't take sides either way. Many of the governments in Europe (France for example) are very secular and you can't say that they were responsible for killing their population as a result.

The simple fact is that the rights of the minority need protection from the power of the majority.

On a personal note, I am very much a theist, religious and church-going, so don't even try to go there. I have nothing against religion as long as it isn't an unwanted yoke for someone else.

N. Lockes,

I couldn't get to the first article, but the second lost me when it called Bush a far-right fundamentalist. Bush is a moderate, both in politics and religion. To a well-left-of-center place like AlterNet he may appear far right, but a someone who has moved from left of Gore to right of Bush I can assure you, he isn't.

I looked at the rest of the article and saw a conspicuous absense of people advocating use of force to change behavior. These people's tools are advocacy and studies, not jails. The most oppressive thing any did was to cut off funding. You are claiming oppression becuase they stopped promoting your viewpoint. Try again.

Yours,
Wince

Wince:
“Bush is a moderate, both in politics and religion.”

Don’t be fooled, Wince. Presidents, especially Republican presidents, who practice neo-imperialist foreign policy and radically defund the government creating imprudent deficits in the process, can’t by traditional definitions be characterized as “moderate”. Bush’s true religion and compassion will certainly be best judged by his creator.

Lockes,

I will readily admit that there are some people who would like to use the force of government to impose their particular view of religious dogma on the general population. It might surprise you to know that these same people try to impose their personal view of righteousness on other Christians as well. Inevitably, these people are frustrated in any church of any size.

There is one such couple in my church of 400. They are quietly tolerated, and simultaneously shunned. Their righteous fervor leads them to volunteer more often than others, but their penchant for holding forth on their pet topics leads people to avoid conversations with them.

These people end up ignored, or they leave and form small cliques, a la David Koresh. No matter how evil you think David Koresh, you can hardly believe that he represented a threat to the freedom of Americans.

The fear on the left of such marginalized people leads many on the right to believe that the left is guilty of projection. Leftists who covet power project those motivations on all people even associated with the people I described above.

You might ask why we don't ostracize such people and forbid them from associating themselves with us. But if we did so, then we would be guilty of what you accuse us of - using our power to suppress dissent.

Calling someone a radical right-wing fundamentalist doesn't make the accusation true. It is the left who is walking lockstep and denouncing any heretic who dares to debate any leftist dogma. Witness what is happening in the Sierra Club right now, with the former Democratic governor of Colorado being called a racist white supremist bigot.

I don't even accept the tenets of my faith on pure faith in the teaching of men, much less accepting political dogma on faith. But blind faith is exactly what the left demands.

- War is always bad.
- Bush is evil.
- Abortion is a woman's choice.
- Homosexuality is good.
- Environmentalism is good.
- Global warming is a coming catastrophe.
- America is the greatest threat to human survival.
- Population control is required.
- People's character is determined by their race and culture, and expecting them to change is elitist and racist.
- The western white man is an oppressor.
- Society is collectively to blame for all evil.
- Religious people desire to subjugate others to their racist, homophobic, white supremist, elitist, Nazi dogma.
- Capitalists seek to profit at the expense of the little people.
- Capitalism and modernism will destroy the earth if left unchecked.

These ideas must be accepted by blind faith, else the leftist is excommunicated and excoriated for political heresy. Compromise is forbidden.

The real issue is not whether morality should play a role in politics. It is whose morality should dominate. All laws, whether enviromental, or FDA related, or sin related are based on someone's morality. Those who wish to ban religion are simply trying to say morality based on religion is invalid in the public debate.

I reject that argument. I cannot separate my morality from myself. And a good portion of my morality, which not insignificantly includes the love of freedom, stems from my religion. I have every right to enter the public square and engage my fellow citizens in debate.

In a perfect world, I would be perfect, and all of my morality would be reflected in the law of the land. But since I am not perfect, it is probably wise that the world is not ordered according to the whims and wishes of Scott Harris. But I do have the right to speak on behalf of my beliefs and my causes in the public debate over laws.

Certainly, our present society doesn't come close to reflecting all of my moral beliefs. I have to accept that sometimes, other citizens with opposing beliefs will carry the day. But you also have to accept that fact. Bloviating about protecting the minority is code for trampling the rights of most citizens. There is a difference between protecting the minority from actual acts of oppression versus protecting their fragile feelings.

Democracy is a grown up game. It requires compromise, and includes both victory and defeat. It has no room for protecting the fragile sensibilities of "minorities" from the offensive ideas of people with whom they disagree. The minority cannot claim the high moral ground solely by virtue of their minority status. Ideas are tried and tested. Those ideas that fail are discarded, and those ideas which succeed are constantly modified and improved upon. If you cannot stand the healthy debate of people with whom you disagree, or if your ideas cannot withstand the scrutiny of informed rational debate, then take your pacifier and go home.

We demand maturity and rationality in debate. Ad hominem attacks will not suffice. Bring your ideas to the table. Let them be heard. Be warned - your ideas will be put through the fire of intense debate and scrutiny, and some of them will not survive. But spare us your justification for suppressing ideas and freedoms in the name of protecting the minority.

Jefferson himself instituted a state-wide Fast Day in Virginia when he was governor. His "separation" was about the federal government only. He - as President - personally aproved religious instruction in public schools (insisted on it, in fact) as new territories became recognized. This was a part of the territorial charters and organizing documents.
(That's why we know about it - it's in official documents)

shep,

Don't be fooled by your viewpoint. I read lots of right-wing folks. Their big complaint about Bush is that he is a moderate, a RINO (Republican In Name Only). (Kerry is a CINO, Catholic In Name Only, at least as regards abortion.) They cite his positions on big government, spending, big government, guns, big government, abortion, spending, prayer in schools, big government, support for civil unions, spending, affirmative action, big government, the environment, spending, and big government as reasons to decry Bush as not right wing. You've only got two data points.

You have no idea how many right wingers are complaining that they are going to either not vote for Bush or that they'll have to hold their nose to do so. You CANNOT get far from center and win in American politics, especially at the national level. One of those two-axis political tests mapped Bush and Gore. They were practically next to each other in the middle. I was off in Libertarian la-la land. My wife was right next to Bush. She should run for office. Click here to see me and Bush and Gore. Enter winceandnod@yahoo.com as my email address and click on the Compare button.

Arnold, Dean, etc.: Back me up here.

Yours,
Wince

Scott Harris,

Bravo.

Yours,
Wince

Scott Harris,

Very good. Very very good.
You make a fine argument for the differences in Christianity and its relationship to government. Really, I think I was born a Protestant despite my Roman Catholic upbringing- you know where the Pope is holy and we will all be wallowing in Limbo or Purgatory [I can't recall the finer details of the nunnery who taught me this at the end of the blackboard pointer].

So imagine my surprise when we get down to it. How smooth was your transition. You go to great lengths to lay out some difference of the right, fundamentalist right, and radical right. Judge not all fundamentalists by David Koresh. Indeed not.
Be not afraid of Christians. The modern American Christian is no more in need of a theocracy than the modern American atheist.
Then you lose me. It's not far left, radical left, loony left - just left. Kind of like the ten commandments of leftist blind faith. Boo. Hiss. Not fair, I cry.

Shall we reverse this list to express it's opposite and call it the dogma of rightist blind faith?

That wouldn't be fair either.
You paint this in such nice detail for the sake of tolerance and understanding for the religious right in order to rest the fears, but your exclamation point is akin to throwing the bucket on top of the left. [cheesy metaphor, I know]

Very good. Very very good.
Almost had me there. Stroke, stroke, stroke, stroke, pow.
Chuckle. Chuckle.

Bloviating. Nice. If I'm honest I must admit to liking your style.

No, it doesn't suprise me at all that those same people try to impose their will on other Christians. Since when did Christians become a monolithic group with the same belief system? How do you know I'm not one?

I hope that I haven't appeared to engage in ad hominum attack, because I don't recall having attacked anyone personally.

Yet so far I have been called paranoid and it has been insinuated that I am anti-religious, intolerant, irrational, immature, a "bloviator" and a cry baby.

Yet barely a word has been spoken to actually counter what I've said about the history of religious intolerance and the persecution of minorities in this country and around the world. It is, in my opinion, human nature. And everyone acts as if it is something that hasn't already happened in the US and can't happen again, in spite of the constitution.

Once again, I invite you to talk to a Mormon and find out why there are so many of them in the western parts of the country.

I would argue that there have been far more wars in history driven by the oppression of religious minorities by government and the forcable conversion of people to the majority's religion through the government than from anything else. All over the world and throughout history you can see what happens when too much of the majority's religion winds up as law.

And no matter how non-sensical or out of date it might be (See Leviticus for example), it is legitimized because the majority thinks it's right because their God says so. And if God said it, who can be against it.

"Who's morality should dominate." Dominate. There goes that word again. For me a question of coexistence, not dominance. Honestly, I think that as scary as they are, at least the dominion theologists and Christian reconstructionists are honest about what they want--for their morality to dominate the public sphere so that it is infused into law and science and every part of our lives whether we like it or not.

If this weren't just majoritarianism, these same people who are angry about secularist trying to rid the government of religion--Christianity more specifically--would be calling for all major religions to have a voice in government. All of the world's great religions have enough points of commonality and high-mindedness that everyone can learn something from, even if they vehemently disagree with the central dogma. Talk to the Ba'hai.

Instead, it's a question of dominance because the majority (no matter what religion) would much rather dominate everyone else than learn and find points of agreement between faiths that might be just as useful to form the basis of law. Why? Because "my God is right and your's isn't."

I'd be willing to bet that the Founding Fathers realized this.

I don't know where that list of left-wing blind faith tenants came from, so I'm just gonna leave it alone.

Except I'll say that being on the left for me doesn't mean that you conform to some pointless checklist of dogma. It just asks that you be willing to revise your world-view--sometimes radically and sometimes in agreement with the opposition--should evidence require it and that you conduct an honest search for the truth.

That said, I will slightly revise my stand. Maybe I don't believe that religion should be entirely banished from government. Maybe it should be there as an abstract concept that doesn't need to be prayed to or referred to as if it is some big Christian boogey man in the sky rewarding us for going to War and being capitalists, but to silently and in many forms remind the people and the government that for a lot of people, there is a God and that since government gets it's authority to govern from the people that ultimately the government, not the people needs to conduct it's affairs in the reverence of the general belief in God, not in the sometimes dangerous sectarian dogma that comes with it.

Kevin D.: City council meetings are NOT state government, they are city government meetings. As far as respecting our rights, city and state governments are bound by our Constitution just as government at the Federal level is. Any time one group tries to impose its will on the rest of us, i.e., in this case, Christians, via a government function at any level, it is a violation of my rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and, IMHO, tantamount to an attempt, by a government body, to institute one particular government-sanctioned religion. A prayer that specifically invokes Jesus is not respectful of the rest of our faiths or belief systems. Prayers that invoke Jesus by government officials at government functions can only be construed in one manner: an attempt to foist your beliefs on me in a government -sanctioned manner. You want to pray in school, do it on your own. Yopu want to pray in government meetings? Do it silently, and by yourself. Please leave the rest of us out of it.

Observer,

Point taken about the list. The list was just a off-the-cuff sample of what I see as some of the positions of the left, without comment on the merit of any particular belief. Some of them I am in obvious disagreement with. But some of the points have a basis in truth. And there are many other beliefs associates with the left that were not in the list that I can support. Suffice it to say that I believe some on the left have valid points.

I don't necessarily object to all the beliefs of the left in toto. What I object to is the suppression of freedom in the name of freedom. I object to the requirement of rigid compliance that I see being manifested on the left. I see that someone might agree with all but one or two of the items in the list, and be subject to a verbal flogging for daring to dissent in any way at all.

This is not Freedom. This is perversity. It is Humpty Dumpty sitting on the wall declaring that he can be master over the meaning of words.

Locke,

I read back through your previous comments to find the specific references to oppressed minorities here and around the world.

1) the Jews were exterminated by Hitler - an atheist. Despite attempts to marry Nazi Fascism with Christianity, that just doesn't wash. As to Catholicisms discrimination against Jews, I have already made a distinction between Catholicism and the Protestant viewpoint.

2) The Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses were discriminated on the basis of two specific beliefs. For the Mormons - the practice of polygamy. For the Jehovah's Witnesses - the rejection of medicine to cure disease, especially when children are involved. These are both valid discriminations based upon sociological values that conflict with their specific religious beliefs. By way of extension, I would also discriminate against cannibals who demand the religious right to eat their enemies to gain their power.

Which brings me to my next point. Society can only exist with a shared set of values. Societal values change over time. The question is who gets to determine how the changes take place.

You go to great lengths to warn against the danger of Majoritarianism. But a greater danger is Minoritarianism. Minoritarianism is what the Baathist had in Iraq. It is what Kings and Nobles had in Feudal Europe.

The Founders attempted to create protection for the minority, but certainly did not mean to unduly restrict the rights of the majority. Forcing the change in laws by judicial fiat to reflect the will of the minority in direct contradiction to the values of the majority is minority preference, not minority protection. It is allowing the minority to, yes, dominate the majority without its consent.

Despite your desire to avoid the word "dominate," the practice of politics is explicitly about coercion. The government is given power to "coerce" adherence to societal values for the purpose of societal preservation.

This power to coerce is why the Founders created a system of divided power, i.e. three separate co-equal branches of government, and Federalism. Federalism created sub-societies that competed for power at the Federal level. And this is why the leftist desire to make every issue a Federal issue, to legislate through the Federal Court system in defiance of majority opinion is such a danger to freedom.

Ultimately this tactic will backfire, because at some point the majority will say "Enough." If the Courts refuse to submit to the will of the people, then they will have forfeited their "just Powers" derived from the "Consent of the Governed." Then the rights of the minority will truly be trampled upon without recourse. Only the majority values of tolerance and respect for the law keep those rights from being trampled upon now.

It is a very dangerous strategy to convert desires and political goals into "rights" and then impose those rights by abusing the values of tolerant law-abiding Americans. Tolerance is not an absolute value. It has limits, as the terrorists are now finding out.

Also, abiding by the law only has value when laws are just, and are agreed to by the consent of the majority. Those who flout the law through "civil disobedience" and then turn around and demand obedience to the changes they force are playing with matches.

Every issue can not be crammed through the legal loophole of the 14th Amendment. Civil Rights agitators would do well to remember that the Civil Rights movement was not won by flouting the will of the majority. Rather, it was the minority oligarchy in the South that was flouting the will of the American people by refusing to grant Black people the rights which had been duly authorized through the super-majority process of Constitutional Amendment.

It was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was the crowning achievement of that movement. And that Act would not have passed without majority approval. Those that have followed somehow have convinced themselves that the facts are other than they actually were.

The process of convincing the majority of the rightness of a particular philosophy or proposed law should not be shortchanged. The majority has the right to demand that its values be reflected by the overall society. Those who lose the argument in the public square should not be allowed to run to the courts to achieve what they otherwise would not be able to accomplish.

The process of gaining majority approval is important because its 1) educates the public, 2) demands compromise, 3) refines the orginal idea into a more acceptable solution, 4) does not allow extremists to dominate, and 5) gets the public endorsement of the people from whom its authority is derived. Shortchanging that process is the very thing that will lead to the domination by extremist groups that you so fear. It is foolish and shortsighted. And it should be avoided.

At its extreme, Minoritarianism is Totalitarianism. It is much worse than the strawman of Majoritarianism.

Locke,

There is one other comment. You make reference to the things all religions have in common. It is a frequent mistake of those who reject all religion to lump all religion together. There are very distinct differences between different religions, and also how those religions relate to society and help determine societal values.

I believe it is absolutely wrong to assert that there is much common groung to be found between the different religions. Some are in direct conflict with others and no possibility of agreement exists. To suggest that they might agree is to demand that one forfeit his religious belief. Those who have rejected all religious belief see no problem in this proposal. But it is willful ignorance to suggest that religions can somehow be reconciled with one another.

Already, I have spoken to the unique effect that the Protestant idea has on American society versus other forms of Christianity practiced in Europe and South America. Religion has a dramatic impact on values, and values are what determine the nature of a Society. To suppose that all religions are equal is to say that all societies are equal. That is demonstrably untrue.

The societies of the Middle East are not morally equivalent to American society. In fact, they are morally deficient. This is apparent in the facts that they subjugate their women, limit personal freedoms, are thoroughly anti-modern and practice violent evangelism. It is willful blindness to suppose that these societal failings are not due in large part to the practice of the religion of Islam.

And here we get to the cruz of the matter. All ideas and all philosophies are NOT equal. Some have earned the right to dominate, and some have earned the right to be discarded. Religion is no different. Only those who have already discarded all religion assert that all religion is the same.

If their is indeed an objective Truth, then it follows that some ideas, some philosophies and some religions are invalid. This is where freedom of religion truly proves its worth. It allows a society to discard bad ideas, bad philosophy and bad religion. To suggest that all religion is necessarily a bad influence on government is to also suggest that government should be devoid of philosophy, values, and ideas. In such a society, what would be the point of government?

Observer,

Back to the list.

For example, take the Abortion issue. I disagree that the rights of the baby automatically and always trump the rights of the mother. But I also disagree that the mother should have no restrictions on the ability to abort her child.

The abortion debate inevitably devolves into an argument about the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn child. But I can count four other parties that have a significant interest in the outcome of the pregnancy other than the mother and child - the father, the mother's extended family, the father's extended family, and the society at large. The interest of these parties is altogether ignored in the debate.

This issue is much more complicated than the courts tried to make it in Roe v. Wade. But to even have the conversation in leftists circles amounts to heresy. No new scientific information is allowed to conflict with the notion that abortion is the sole domain of the woman.

And the prospect of deciding this issue in the Legislature where the competing and unequal interest of the six different parties can be weighed and considered is so frightening to leftists that they filibuster the selection of any judge on the mere possibility that he would turn the issue over to the Legislature - not outlaw abortion mind you - but simply decide that the complexity of the issue demands Legislative resolution that can evolve over time.

So I don't line up perfectly with rightist dogma, either. Yet I am able to have these conversations within Rightist circles without being publicly excoriated. The same conversation in leftist circles might actually put me in physical danger, and is certainly not accepted as a rational position.

Locke,

You mention that you can be persuaded by evidence. So then do the research. Examine the demonstrated consequences of different religious beliefs on society. How do societies with one particular set of dominant religious beliefs differ from other societies with different beliefs? What objective benefits can be observed in different societies? What objective negative impact do different religions have on their respective societies?

It is my contention that American style Protestant Christianity has proven to be the most benevolent and tolerant of dissent philosophies. It has also proven to be the most successful. Unlike Catholicism, or the state-sponsored churches of Europe and South America, unlike secular France which is in the assinine process of banning Jewish skull caps and Islamic head coverings, unlike philosophies of Atheistic Communism, unlike caste-concious India, and unlike Fascist Islam, America has benefited from the values which are derived from Protestant Christian belief.

Even those who do not subscribe to such beliefs are treated better in Protestant America than they have been and would be in these other societies. Also, the freedom and tolerance demanded by Protestant Christian ideology has resulted in unparalleled freedom, progress, material success, and societal robustness.

Am I suggesting that Protestant Christianity is superior to other religious belief, and even to other philosophies which subscribe to atheism or mamby-pamby deism. You bet. My assertion is made on the demostratable evidence. Until you can show me a society which succeeds better than America by subscribing to a different philosophy or religion, you will be hard pressed to get me to believe that Evangelical Christianity is a threat to freedom. History does not support your argument. It supports mine.

N. Lockes:
"Belief in God is not a sufficient condition for either freedom or democracy. If it were, Saudi Arabia and Iran and half the other countries in the middle east would be thriving democracies."

You need to clear up that necessary = sufficient problem there, Lockes. You also might want to take a closer look at how things have developed in the Middle East. Every scholarly, journalistic, and anecdotal source I'm aware of has indicated that one of the reasons a lot of Iranians joined Khomeini's revolution was that the Shah had forced religion out of public life. Women were for a time denied access to public facilities if they wore chadors--a pre-Islam tradition in Persia, yes, but now associated with it. It's true that forcing women to veil is oppressive, but it's also true that women who had done so their whole lives felt naked and indecent leaving their houses in Western dress. Until the revolution opened Islam-approved school curricula and jobs to women, a lot of conservative families simply removed their daughters entirely from public life because they thought it corrupt.

My point, I hope it's clear, is not that the Islamic Republic is morally upright. It's that strongarming people into separating their deepest beliefs from their participation in public life just pushes all those nasty conflicts underground. And once they're out of sight, it becomes easier to screw over women and minority populations who have always been most vulnerable to oppression, only without open debate or accountability. Not the result usually intended.

N. Lockes,

It has been a long and fruitful dialogue today and Mr. Harris's comments merit deep consideration. So before things morph off to total abstraction, may I pose a question of a practical nature ?

Do you believe the words, under God, in the Pledge, indicate the establishment of religion ?

Scott Harris,
What an essay you're putting together here!

Well...

I recall much furor over the Native American ritual of peyote. In light of the 'war on drugs' the courts determined a no-go. So, as far as the Congress making no law respecting or prohibiting the free exercise of, it is. Has been. No polygamy. No withholding of medical care; and yes, no cannibalism. In effect, we are and would be in violation of our own constitution [please don't bring up requirements for Utahs' entry to the 50 states, I don't want to split hairs on that]. There ARE contradictions. In some cases one can proceed with an all or nothing proposition and in some cases I think it can work, but when the ties that bind these 50 states is seen as being in peril, the constitution WILL trump religious practice.

The yearly argument over the creche display at Christmas is absurd. The argument begs the government to be free FROM religion in any way shape or form. In this sense - it becomes the all or nothing progpostion. For my taste, why don't they just display it ALL on every religious holiday. Simple example, but it comes up evey year.
On the other hand, Judge Moore down in Alabama with his monumental monument to the ten commandments was flirting within the political realm - well, more than flirting. There is no problem with the ten commandments. One can see his point- to a point. What he tried to do was establish, in monolithic physical form, the supremacy of Christianity in U.S. law. In his role as an agent of U.S. law, I'm hard pressed to see how he has not crossed the boundary from constitutional law.

A good friend of mine might consider herself a fundmentalist and has said as much. She believes wholeheartedly that this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles and that we should declare ourselves as such. She is vehemently opposed to abortion, but as a Texan, in their productive pursuit of capital punishment, she utteres not a word about it. She also bristled when I suggested that she ease her sorrows with the 'church' she seeks by delving into some theology. She seeks something to fill a void but finds the 'church' lacking in virtue. Why theology offended her, I can't explain. I am not religious, but I am infinitely fascinated with theology. A little Augustine and Aquinas can't throttle the foundations of ones belief, could it?

Theology and politics aren't worlds apart. Point of note, until the Enlightenment, they were quite one and the same. Theologians of the time were part and parcel of the rise to the Enlightment and the Age of Reason -like hey Science can be a good thing- which gave rise to secularism so that it could turn around and bop the head of religion.
Humans. Go figure.
Oh yes, I almost forgot, we're suppose to thank the Irish. those monks copied everything so that we may flourish with the rediscoverd knowledge of the Greeks.

It is Western Civilization and particlarly the Western European Christian society that has created and experienced the immense technological advances of the modern. Has it all been for the good? I don't know. Arrogance may tell me it is so. Really, it wasn't West Europe that fell to communist ideolgy. Those Catholic countries that bordered the Eastern Orthodox did, as did they. Only Greece, that borders an Islamic country doesn't fall on the other side of the Cold War. Islamic countries never phased through the profound changes that the Enlightenment brought. But the only countries to bring on two World Wars were those of the West. One can have a really hard time separating Christianity from the successes of Western Civilization. Is it because of Christianity that the West accomplished what it did? One could make that case and in turn bolster the argument that Islam is deficient. Or is it the people who practice a religion. Chicken or an egg dilemma.

I don't see anything wrong in saying that religions have some common ground. Really, the God of Abraham is the God of Jews, the God of Christians, the God of Muslims. That doesn't mean that all religions can be lumped together as one, but gives one a window to find common ground. That the differences may outweigh the commonality is no reason to discount the other. I'd prefer to research and understand how these diverge.
As far as the treatment of women, the western bridal veil is largely a watered down holdover from what is commonly practiced in Islamic society in an extreme. We've 'evolved', but let's not kid ourselves. Islam went one way, we went another. Ultra-Orthodox Jewish women? Shave their heads and wear wigs.
Jeez, I'm old enough to remember wearing a hanky on my head in church; then Vatican II came along and we got to sing Bob Dylan during communion.
-and that is my comment on the dominance of some religions over others.

As for your list:

In a true spirit of Christianity. War IS always bad.
There may be good reasons to have to go to war,
but war IS always bad.

- Bush is evil.
No, Cheney's evil. Rumsfeld -sigh- it's like they said about Iliescu after Ceausescu- Communism with a 'human' face.

- Abortion is a woman's choice.
Yes, somehow I find that we focus on the issue of choice as a diversion from the fundamental contradiction that we live with. If killing is wrong, killing the unborn is wrong as is killing the born. Are your leftist circles for or against the death penalty? How about your rightist circles? How does one reconcile a pro-life, pro-death penalty postion or a pro-choice, anti-death penalty position? Well, maybe focus on something that one can acutally legislate.
I recall a woman who said that she was against abortion because her religion was against it.
She wasn't a 'leftist' but she followed blind faith.
As I said Humans. Go figure.

I stepped on ant hills as a child, gleefully.

- Homosexuality is neither good nor bad.
In a very religious sense 'Sexuality' is bad. It's one of those necessary evils for propagating the species and nothing more. Show me a religion that celebrates 'sexuality' instead of hiding it and I'll show you one that even moderates will call Sodom and Gomorrah.

- Environmentalism is good.
Yes, I think St. Francis of Assissi is somewhere in there, probably directing Jane Goodall, but perhaps worried about PETA and the excesses of GreenPeace.

- Global warming is a coming catastrophe.
I'm not a scientist, but the earth has warmed up a few degrees. Asteroids are also a coming catastrophe as Dean has pointed out. Have you heard about peak oil though?

- America is the greatest threat to human survival.
This may go back to environmentalism. Blame the British for the Industrial Revolution. I think it started there. Manchester? Don't forget the Puritans. The British sent them.
See the French can't be blamed. Wait a minute, they helpes us wim the Revolutionary war. Hmm. Blame them both for theeAmerican threat.

- Population control is required.
It's always required. Hence the immigration laws and quotas born of all those dark swarthy people who made their way here at the turn of the 19th century. See Jacob Riis and overpopulation leading to social ills. Also Chinese quotas. None of these were lifted until the mid 1950's.

- People's character is determined by their race and culture, and expecting them to change is elitist and racist.
Condescending. Race, no - culture, in large part.
Biology? There's no changing that. I'd stick to the culture explanation and work on it. Humans have a temendous ability to change - until maybe 20 or so. My father still thinks that a wife is for cooking his dinner. He's lived here since 1952. I'm not an elitist because I no longer expect him to change. He just changes wives. No, I'm sorry. They acutally change husbands.

- The western white man is an oppressor.
Well, fascism, nazism, communism - all born in the west.

- Society is collectively to blame for all evil.
One individual cannot do it alone without the consent of the collective.

- Religious people desire to subjugate others to their racist, homophobic, white supremist, elitist, Nazi dogma.
The Taliban comes to mind here, but they're not 'white'..but then, hmmm... Aryan has its roots somewhere near there, and also Alexander the Greek did rape, pillage and maraude his way into Afghanistan.

- Capitalists seek to profit at the expense of the little people.
There are more little people to profit from than anyone else.
But this is only one step in the final game of profiting from the other capitalists. It's where you get your war funds from. Then you buy and buy, buy the little companies and turn your company into a huge conglomerate. Capitalism, taken to its logical conclusion, is a zero sum game. Winner takes all. Thats why it has to be regulated. We can play longer.
But see Lewis Hine for exploitaiton.

- Capitalism and modernism will destroy the earth if left unchecked.
Part of that zero sum game I just mentioned.

I present a bit of humor - I hope, but I do not take it lightly nor am I making light of the serious tone of your writings; not too much at any rate. Each part of your list requires a long treatise on the whys and wherefores as to the nature of good and evil. No argument is simple nor has it simple answers.

Religion is a strong force, but a religion as a government is too strong a force for the people, as is a governement that refuses to accommodate religion. So it is a tug of war for hearts, minds. I don't think that one morality has to dominate at one time or another, but as human behavior goes - 'I respect your opinion but can't you just see it my way.' It's a good battle. I always hope that the pendulum swings neither too far in any direction.

Organized religion is food for the spirit in a communal setting. I believe that it comes from man and is fraught with the same frailities, contradictions and missteps that the man without religion visits on his neighbor. It is not a question of God. It is a question of structure and its intepretation of God imparted to the community.

There was a priest in a Naperville congregation [Chicago suburb] who preached the word of Jesus Christ. He preached it fervently and vehemently. The WORD of Jesus Christ. To live like the Christ did. Forgive. Give to the poor. Suffer, etc.
The congregation kicked him out.

A cousin in the family belongs to one of those outreach churchs. The latest form of Protestant, Evangelical, Fundamentalist. i.e modified, Christian churchs. This cousin devours and espouses his Christianity in the same way he used to deal drugs. We all get to hold hands at family gatherings while he talks to God, Jesus, Jesus brother, etc... His wife, a lovely woman really, joined and teaches Bible study. Don't get me wrong, they lead fine lives. VERY fine lives. They just come from the same culture that the Naperville congregation comes from.
Give me a Jesuit any day.

You don't strike me this way Scott Harris, but I share my experience since I'm hard pressed to come across too many Christians that are using the brain God gave them. Instead, I see a culture that seeks to belong to a church without regard to the depth of what that church teaches. Albeit, I come across quite a number of born-again Christians [aka former Catholics or Lutherns] If there is a 'left' that fears the rise of what they percieve as the 'religious right', perhaps my little anecdotes give you some idea of who is in the congregation. They are not David Koresh.

I'm a staunch individualist. I suspect you are too.

"Presidents, especially Republican presidents, who practice neo-imperialist foreign policy and radically defund the government creating imprudent deficits in the process, can’t by traditional definitions be characterized as “moderate”."

shep,
I don't think lowering taxes (you had to say "defunding" government, huh?) is terribly rare among politicians seeking reelection, and it certainly isn't religious extremism.
Oh, and wasn't Bush's foreign policy supposed to be this Jewish thing? Now it's right wing Christianity? Or is that just because he's Republican?

Well let me just say that a number of people, including Dean, are taking some liberties with history in this discussion.

The intent behind the first ammendment was that religion is a matter left to the individual. PERIOD. If you read up on Madison, particularly, you will find the the use of Jefferson's "wall of separation" quote is entirely appropriate.

And no, it was not written to a friend, but to the Danbury Baptists in general, specifically responding to their concerns about their religious freedoms being endangered under the new constitution. And if you read anything about Jefferson and Madison, you'd know the history behind the religious freedoms document they co-authored for the state of Virginia, which says, and means the exact same thing.

And if you knew anything about Jefferson you'd know he was a Deist, and that the "creator" that is referred to in the Declaration is NOT the christian God, but the natural god of deism.

I personally think persecuting the religious in this country is ridiculous, the taking down of christmas trees and nativity scenes. Prayers before legislative sessions is centuries old tradition as are numerous religious depictions in state and federal buildings. The religious musings of politicians, besides being entirely self serving, are inappropriate, I don't care who it comes from. Religion is a matter for the individual. I won't go telling you about mine, you keep yours to yourself.

If we all just lived by that, there wouldn't be any problem. But, NNNNNNNNNNOoooooooooooooooooo, everybody has to be jamming THEIR idea of religion down everybody else's throat. And I'm sick of it.

Touche, Sherard!

Well let me just say that a number of people, including Dean, are taking some liberties with history in this discussion....The intent behind the first ammendment was that religion is a matter left to the individual. PERIOD.

I almost had to stop reading right here, because this opinion is quite simply false-to-fact.

Both the letter and intent behind the first amendment were to assure that the states would have the right to have officially designated state churches without interference from the Federal government, and that the Feds would not prohibit the free exercise of any religion. Period.

As for the rest: yes, I'm terribly sorry. Jefferson's letter was to a group of Baptists and not a friend, but it nevertheless remains a man's personal opinion and not a legal document, and as I have stated, and stand by, his view of the matter was far less draconian, extreme, and paranoid than what so many of today's advocates for "separation of church and state" call for. Especially those who suggest that there is some sort of "slippery slope" in action if we allow this horrid influence of religion in public life.

Look up any book on logical fallacies, talk to any legal professor, and you'll learn that "slippery slope" is one of the best-known and most common logical fallacies of all. Indeed, I would have to say that if there is any slippery slope in action at all in America today, it is in taking freedom of religion and turning it increasingly toward a ridiculously paranoid and extremist view of "separation of church and state" that's getting truly ludicrous.

"In God We Trust" is not an establishment of a religion, nor does it prohibit anyone's free exercise of religion. Ditto creche or menorah displays, "one nation under God," or any of that.

Far more important, in my view--especially given than I have no religion and am basically an atheist--is the fact that this rampant paranoia, not to mention historical ignorance, in the guise of "separation of church and state" has done nothing but heighten religious fervor and religious tension and has perversely made religioni a MORE POLITICALLY POWERFUL FORCE than it ever would have been if we'd just let well enough alone.

Religion clearly does far more good than harm in this society, and is mostly harmless when we leave it be. Keep poking the lion cage, though, and see what it gets you.

I'm not so sure that religious zealotry is tied to religious repression, at least in American history. There have been puritanical, evangelical movements throughout our history, for good or ill: against slavery, for prohibition, and so forth. As mainstream society has become more free from religious pressure, I think that perhaps some religious people, sensing that their values are losing their past dominance, might become more strident in their beliefs; but to people like myself, whose values have never carried much weight in society, this is hardly worthy of concern or even sympathy.

The beauty of our society is that nobody ever gets the last word. I know this sticks in the craw of some deeply-religious people, but that fact, and not any religion in particular, is what has done the most good for our country.

Also: if we take a strictly constructionist view of the constitution, does that mean that states should be able to legally-sanction or restrict the practice of non-state religions?

And if that is the case, who here would be in favor of that?

I take a dim view of trying to get inside the mindset of the Founding Fathers. Doing so presumes, in my opinion, that we haven't grown past them. I believe we have, and that the Constitution, as a fundamentally conservative document, must necessarily be behind the times.

John Kusch,

I take a very dim view of ignoring the actual words of the Founding Fathers. They did not mention seperation of church and state in the document. I take a very dim view of adding words that aren't there. In short, I take a very dim view of any effort to modernize the Constitution by judges who are appointed for life. To modernize the Constitution one goes through the amendment process and only through the amendment process.

Conservatives believe that human nature does not change, so a conservative document is always up to date.

Yours,
Wince

“‘In God We Trust’ is not an establishment of a religion, nor does it prohibit anyone's free exercise of religion. Ditto creche or menorah displays, ‘one nation under God,’ or any of that.”

Right, probably OK, absolutely wrong. There is no “slippery slope” but there is a big bright line and it is where government promotes a particular religious view. Monotheism is a particular religious viewpoint and, even if I agree with it, I don’t think it is in the letter or the spirit of the 1st Amendment for public school teachers to indoctrinate young children in that view. Of course, I don’t like indoctrination of any kind so, rather than change the pledge, I’d stop having teachers ask their charges to recite anything but their alphabet and leave the religious and patriotic indoctrination to parents.

Wince:
“I read lots of right-wing folks. Their big complaint about Bush is that he is a moderate, a RINO (Republican In Name Only). (Kerry is a CINO, Catholic In Name Only, at least as regards abortion.) They cite his positions on big government, spending, big government, guns, big government, abortion, spending, prayer in schools, big government, support for civil unions, spending, affirmative action, big government, the environment, spending, and big government as reasons to decry Bush as not right wing. You've only got two data points.”

1. It shows. You may want to diversify.
2. Kerry is in pretty good company, even among Catholics.
3. Right wingers may be right that Bush isn’t one of them, that doesn’t make him a “moderate”. You’ve got a number of data points, they just don’t prove anything except that Bush doesn’t appear to have any guiding principle.

John, the answer is (in theory): yes, and good question.

It is self-evident from the text, and from history, that States have the right to establish a religion. So we could see the creation of (say) the Ohio Baptist Church. Fine so far.

You raise an excellent point about restricting other religions, but I conclude that this is pure theory. In the real world that idea wouldn't last a New York second. In fact I'll say that 99% of the Christians in America would line up against any such restriction.

Dean's point, of course, is that certain anti-clerical elements of our culture have gone too far the other way by trying to eliminate any hint of Christianity in American culture. That's why the recent "pledge case" is so pathetic: the father (separated from the mother, I might add, and he does not have custody!) is filing on behalf of his daughter who attends Bible study every week. In other words, he is arguing against "in-class religion" on behalf of a girl who is a Christian.

The sheer arrogance of it takes my breath away.

If, on the other hand, Congress (in a fit of anti-terror hysteria) decided to add a provision for allegiance to a specifically Christian God, or (worse yet) a Protestant God, I would stand right beside you in protest.

Only because I don't have a lot of time will I make this quick post.

Scott you said:
Am I suggesting that Protestant Christianity is superior to other religious belief, and even to other philosophies which subscribe to atheism or mamby-pamby deism. You bet. My assertion is made on the demostratable evidence.

Gee whiz dude. You act like the Protestant Christian Church didn't have to go through a reformation to fix the terrible and violent tendencies that are inherent in it. That it didn't murder millons of people in the name of God. That it didn't oppress women and do most of the same things that modern Islam is doing.

You see, just because you went through your reformation doesn't make your religion inherently better. It just means that the conditions were right to allow the tempering force that most religions need to mitigate the violent and oppressive parts of dogma.

Islam is having difficulty going through that process mostly because of economic and political imperialism. Don't forget that while Christians were still eating their young that Muslims for example were busy making the very building blocks of civilization--like MATH. Remember the Dark Ages?

Did that make them inherently superior. Nope. And because their religion is overrun by murderous totalitarian and your's is in a phase of general tolerance doesn't make yours superior either. Just in a better stage of development. You can always go backward from where you are if the conditions are right for it.

On the matter of Hitler, it would appear that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that he was personally a Christian.

And your summary of why the Mormons and JWs were justifiably persecuted proves my case. Its "justifiable" for you, but I bet that while they were trying to find a place to live in peace that they didn't think it justifiable.

WOOOO-HOOOO! What a terrific discussion! So many, many good things here! HAIL TO THE KING AND TO THE QUEEN AND TO ALL THE ROYAL COURT JESTERS!

Now you're getting into the swing of it. Freedom of religion! Isn't it great to exercise your rights? Freedom!

Observer:
"I'm a staunch individualist. I suspect you are too."

That's EXACTLY what I am, above all else! Absolutely!

Wince and Nod:
"Conservatives believe that human nature does not change, so a conservative document is always up to date."

I agree with that. I'm against any change except the change in my pocket. I'm for the ancient, eternal values.
"Whatever is not eternal is eternally out of date." -G. K. Chesterton

Catch 22:
"Do you believe the words, under God, in the Pledge, indicate the establishment of religion?"

NO!, I don't. I support the Pledge of Allegiance. We had it in school when I was a boy, and, therefore, that's good enough for me. It's a symbol of patriotism, love of _my_ country. I hope the Supreme Court votes to keep it. It's too bad Scalia had to recuse himself from this case because, I know it will suprise many of you, but I agree with him on this issue. I'm for keeping "under God" in it for those who want to say that. If they don't then they don't have to, they can be silent (or say "under Man", as Ayn Rand would say), but they must not try to silence those who _do_ want to say it in expression of _their_ beliefs. It doesn't infringe on my rights in any way whatsoever. And _I_ have the right to say "under Goddess" or "under Gods and Goddesses" if I want to. Freedom of religion is for everybody, agnostics, atheists, monotheists, ditheists, Trinitarians, and polytheists.

The Pledge of Allegiance. "In God We Trust" on our money (all others pay cash, as they say). "Nature and Nature's God", "their Creator", "the protection of Divine Providence", in the Declaration of Independence. Chaplains in our military, prisons, hospitals, and our Congress. The Presidential Prayer Breakfast. "God save this honorable Court!" The Ten Commandments. Constant invocations of God by the Founding Fathers, by Martin Luther King, by all of our presidents. Crosses. Creches. Menorahs. Ankhs. Swastikas (an ancient and sacred symbol before the Nazis profaned it). The Hammer of Thor. Any and all religious symbols. Any religious symbol or expression you like. DO IT! LET'S HAVE IT! Freedom!

None of that, as Jefferson said, either breaks my leg or picks my pocket.

Freedom!

"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, to argue freely according to conscience, above all other liberties."
-John Milton, "Aeropagitica"

"If all mankind, minus one, were of one opinion, and only one man of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
-John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"

Freedom!

Wince and Nod:
"One of those two-axis political tests mapped Bush and Gore. They were practically next to each other in the middle. I was off in Libertarian la-la land. My wife was right next to Bush. She should run for office. Click here to see me and Bush and Gore. Enter winceandnod@yahoo.com as my email address and click on the Compare button."

Enter sma4@speakeasy.net, click the Compare button, and you'll find I'm very close to Wince (no wonder I like him so well!). I'm right next to Ayn Rand on this spectrum. I love these 2-dimensional spectrums. Spectrums I do love. Spectrums, spectrums, spectrums, spectrums....

The Pournelle Axes. Too bad there's not a quiz for this (yet), but I think I'm about a 2/2 or a 1.5/1.5' (irrationalist anti-statist, closer to Nietzsche than to Rand) on this spectrum:
http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

Here's where I stand on that list:

- War is always bad.
The alternative, i.e., slavery, is worse.

- Bush is evil.
Bush is weak. He has caved in to some very evil people, so I must vote against him.

- Abortion is a woman's choice.
Abortion, in most cases, is a choice to murder. The baby has no choice. I favor a Right to Life Amendment to extend 14th Amendment protections to the unborn.

- Homosexuality is good.
YES!!!! Homosexuality is good, good, good, good! -- and heterosexuality is good, good, good, good! Sexuality as such is sacred, the longing of the Divine in oneself for the Divine in another man or woman. Above all for me: Captivating Lesbian Individualist Theology -- holy, holy, holy, holy! Up With Beauty!

- Environmentalism is good.
Conservation is good. Radical environmentalism is destructive.

- Global warming is a coming catastrophe.
I need more proof of that hypothesis. Some of this "global warming" propaganda is coming from those who _snowed_ us with the "nuclear winter" scare in order to promote the nuclear _freeze_ movement during the _Cold_ War.

- America is the greatest threat to human survival.
America is the greatest, wealthiest, mightiest, freest nation on this planet.

- Population control is required.
People should have as many children as they want, or as few, or none at all.

- People's character is determined by their race and culture, and expecting them to change is elitist and racist.
People's character is determined by their own free choices. I am an elitist. I am not a racist.

- The western white man is an oppressor.
The Western Dead White European Man, the Jew, and the homosexual have been creators of culture far out of proportion to their numbers -- and, conequently, envied and hated.

- Society is collectively to blame for all evil.
All good and all evil come from individual choices. The worst individuals (e.g., Hitler, Mao) choose to be collectivists, to run in herds, to form mobs, to take over governments, and to tyrannize over independent-thinking individuals.

- Religious people desire to subjugate others to their racist, homophobic, white supremist, elitist, Nazi dogma.
Some do, some do the opposite. Religion is the greatest force both for good and for evil, because it is, always has been, and always will be, the realm of ultimate origin, meaning, and destiny, the shaper of ultimate values.

- Capitalists seek to profit at the expense of the little people.
Capitalists, in seeking to profit, create jobs and wealth for the so-called "little" people. People are as little or as great as they choose to be.

- Capitalism and modernism will destroy the earth if left unchecked.
Capitalism, the United States of America, the High Culture of the West, enrich this planet and will enrich other planets as we explore this solar system, this splendiferous Milky Way galaxy, this infinite Universe -- holy! holy! holy! holy!

Steve the Lesbian Lover.

You are so exhuberant! I see you on one of those pogo sticks shouting in your altar room of Artemis and Aphrodite - holy, holy holy! and no hands no boot.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the exhuberant Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete,

We are quite close on that scale. Oddly we are almost the exact same distance apart as Bush and Gore, measuring from the center of the stars. Here are some other quizzes I've taken. Other scales certainly differ, and I know they don't all place Bush and Gore close together in the middle.

Anyone else want to play?

shep,

I've tried Hesoid and CalPundit, but unlike Ara's site (thanks to you, Ara and Mark, among others) the comment sections are horrible. Hesoid reminds me of Ann Coulter, except that Ann has a better sense of humor. Dean's World has the best comment section I've ever encountered. What liberal/left sites do you know of with quality comments like Ara's, and knowing my preference for policy over politics? (Mark, I've visited your new site a couple of times and it is too early to tell, but I'll keep dropping by.)

Yours,
Wince

Wince,

I'm not much of an expert on the blog world from any political angle though I suspect you won't easily find a dialog like what Dean has created here in all of the blogosphere. For some perspective from the rational left, I think Jake Sexton is pretty good (LyingMediaBastards.com) but you won't find a discussion like this one.

shep,

If Jake's commenters are as good as Ara's that's plenty good for me.

Yours,
Wince

"Am I suggesting that Protestant Christianity is superior to other religious belief, and even to other philosophies…....You bet. My assertion is made on the demonstrable evidence. (Scott Harris)

Until you can show me a society which succeeds better than America by subscribing to a different philosophy or religion, you will be hard pressed to get me to believe that Evangelical Christianity is a threat to freedom."

Are you declaring that the success of the America is the result of evangelical christianity ?

And your statement:

" Specifically, the Bible states that our "dominion" is not over people, but over evil"

And are you also suggesting that any nation that has not had the success America has had ought drop any religious affiliation or philosophy not in harmony with evangelical christianity ?

Catch 22,

That's how I read it.

Yours,
Wince

Scott Harris's comments on this particular string are quite well done and even brilliant in many sections. It was only a few of his conclusionary statements that caused me to
ask my questions. I'm staying open minded.

Catch 22

What I am saying is that all religion is not equal, and that a rational person would measure the validity of a religion, just like any other idea or philosophy, by the effect that religion has on the lives of its adherents, and on the societies it influences. I'm saying that it is possible to be rational about religion.

Unless God is some deviant ogre, he has set up the world to operate under conditions meant to benefit us. Just as there are natural laws such as gravity and conservation of energy that we can use to our benefit, the benefits of religion can be observed and learned. Whether God set up a passive set of benefits, or whether he actively rewards righteousness and punishes evil, or perhaps a combination of the two, it should be possible to evaluate religion on the basis of objective benefits.

And I am asserting that American success is due, at least in part, to a governing philosophy derived from Protestant Christianity. America has brought freedom not only to Americans, but Europeans, Asians, Australians, Pacific Islanders, South Americans, and others.

Humility is the core Protestant value that leads to tolerance. It is because Protestants humbly recognize they only have part of the picture, and that they could be wrong that they tolerate other viewpoints. There is a difference between tolerating ideas and viewpoints for the purpose of seeking truth versus tolerating known evil. Tolerating ideas is wisdom and humility. Tolerating evil is pure evil, and has no value. Tolerance for its own sake is nihilism.

Catch 22,

One other thing. As far as other societies go, I think they should open up their societies so that I and others like me have the chance to tell them why Protestant Christianity is better. But just the act of voluntarily opening themselves up to seek the truth is a Protestant idea itself, and vehemently opposed by those other religions.

All I need is the freedom to speak and worship. I can take it from their. But many societies, even secular Europe sees my belief system as a threat. They are afraid of my ideas, and my religion. Why does Protestant America allow other religions to come to America and preach unmolested, yet other religions or secular philosophies do not so open themselves?

It is because we are are confident of our ideas because they have proven to be successful. I do not fear another philosophy. What I fear is the attempt to silence me, and expel me from public debate for what I believe.

Let all the world open themselves up to Protestant Christianity. Just open, not prefer. In a short time, the power of the ideas of Protestant Christianity will win the hearts of the people by the force of argument, not arms. Because Protestant Christianity offers what other religions do not - freedom. And it also offers what secular philosophies and atheism does not - purpose. Freedom and Purpose. Liberate and Inspire.

Catch 22,

Galatians 5:1 "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ."

Galatians 5:4 "You have been severed from Christ, you who seek to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace."

Galatians 5:13-14 "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

The above verses represent Protestant Christian theology. But they have been translated into a benevolent governing philosophy. Read the verses. What do they say?

Equality between the races.
Equality between different levels of society.
Equality between the sexes.
Freedom above all.
An admonition to jealously guard freedom.
Freedom from oppressive religious dogma.
Responsibility to use freedom properly.
Rquirement to serve each other.

Freedom and Purpose. Liberation and Inspiration.

How some can see a threat in such a philosophy is beyond me.

Scott,

You do not have to convince me of the rightness of your position. But I am not a protestant and have no intention of ever becoming one. I agree with much of what you say in fact a lot of it.

I think your statement that:

" Humility is the core Protestant value" can more approach actual factual truth if the statement said, humility is a core Protestant value, not limited to protestants.

Looking back at the history of the US, “out of the constitutions adopted by the Thirteen States, only four did away with the old Penal Laws and allowed Catholics absolute equality with other citizens…Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland...

Have you studied the history of Mr. Charles Carroll or his son, John Carroll who became the first Catholic Bishop in the United States.

Here is a small excerpt:

" In 1776, when a committee composed of Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and Charles Carroll of Carrollton was about to be sent by the Continental Congress to seek the neutrality of Canada during the War of Independence, "by a special resolution (Feb. 15) Charles Carroll of Carrollton was requested to prevail on Mr. John Carroll to accompany the committee to Canada, to assist them in such matters as they shall think useful". He accepted the honourable office, and spent the remainder of the winter in Canada; he found, however (Shea, Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll, New York, 1888, 148-53), that it was too late to discuss the question of union with the revolted colonies, or even neutrality, and returned to New York at the end of May in company with Benjamin Franklin. His influence on his fellow-countrymen even at this period may be surmised from the fact that, though out of the constitutions adopted by the Thirteen States, only four did away with the old Penal Laws and allowed Catholics absolute equality with other citizens, yet these (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland) were situated nearest to Father Carroll ".

And then later:

He (John Carroll) represented to Congress the need of a constitutional provision for the protection and maintenance of religious liberty, and doubtless to him, in part, is due the provision in Article Sixth, Section 3, of the Constitution, which declares that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States",

John Carroll was a catholic born in 1735 died 1815. So the notion that only protestants were responsible for the success of the current USA does not seem to hold the value you seem to suggest.

In addition to that, literally millions of Irish catholic immigrants came to America to free themselves of the religious intolerance of their british masters. (although that wasn't the only reason)

So humility is a two way street.

And oddly enough Galatians wasn't written by a protestant.

And I still admire you for your really good commentary.

Catch 22,

It would be real easy for to get into theology, but that was not the real point of this whole commentary, so I shall resist the temptation. As you mention, in the early years of the United States, there was a real fear of Catholicism in America precisely because of the concept of Divine Authority of the Pope. Even up to 1960, JFK found it necessary to reassure people that he would be American first, and Catholic second.

That Catholics were part of America from the beginning doesn't change that fact the the dominant religion was Protestant Christianity. Thomas Paine's pamphlet "Common Sense" discusses the evil of monarchy by comparing to "Popery." Quoting I Samuel and the story of the Jews demanding a king in order to denounce the Monarchy, Paine writes,

" 'Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING.' These portions of scripture are direct and positive. They admit no equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government is true, or the scripture is false. And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of king-craft, as priest-craft, in withholding the scripture from the public in Popish countries. For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government." (Emphasis by Paine)

It was the historical governing practices of Catholicism that was at the root of this fear, not the actual religious liturgies which were quite similar to some Protestant Groups. Today, most American Catholics give only lip service to the concept of Papal Authority. Indeed the Catholic Church itself, although still the only religion I know of with a diplomatic corps, has retreated from directly interfering in national governments. To the outside observer, there is a certain amount of real-politik displayed in this retreat.

Of course Paine went on later in his exposition "The Age of Reason" to denounce all forms of organized religion. This is why many historians believe he is not given his due as one of our Founding Fathers. But it is instructive to note that colonial Americans accepted his denunciation of Catholicism, but did not accept his polemic against all religion. Though Paine denied being an atheist, his Age of Reason earned him American scorn. But he still had the freedom to present his ideas.

Gordon Wood, professor of history at Brown University wrote of Paine,

"Unfortunately for Paine's reputation, most of the common people that he emotionally represented brought with their democratic revolution and their anti-aristocratic attitudes and intense religiosity and an evangelical Christianity that Paine never shared. Upon his return to America, Paine was attacked as a 'lying, drunken, brutal infidel,' and sympathizers like aged Samuel Adams grieved over what they took to be Paine's efforts to 'unchristianize the mass of our citizens.' Paine denied truthfully that he was ever an atheist, but it was to no avail. Every defense he made only made matters worse. He had lived by the pen, and in the end he died by the pen. He became, in his biographer's world, one of 'the first modern public figures to suffer firsthand' from a scurrilous and powerful press.' "

As to convincing people of the rightness of my argument, my main contention here is that I, like Paine, should have the right to argue. And that right to argue has a point. The point is to find the truth. I am willing to live or die by my argument.

Sometimes people lose sight of why we cherish freedoms. Preserving the right to argue like children (Mommy, he touched me. No I didnt't. Yes you did. Did not. Did too. Did not. Did too.) would be rather silly. Values are not usually self-referent. Things like tolerance, humility, and freedom need to have a goal in mind. For example, absolute personal freedom would result in Liberty for me, and Anarchy for thee.

The key is to be open to ideas, regardless of their source, and jealously guard the free access to both give and receive ideas. Not long ago, I invited some Jehovah's Witnesses into my house, and listened to their viewpoint. They came back twice, and then they came back a few more times. I finally had to ask them not to come back again. But they never infringed on my freedom by trying to convert me. And I learned what they believed and have a clearer understanding of why I think they are wrong.

I participated in the Catholic christening of my nephew, and learned a little about the Catholic Church. I saw even less to disagree with doctrinely, though the entire structure of the Catholic Church bothers me greatly - particularly banning marriage of Priests and Nuns.

I mentioned the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses above. It is important to note that they are not prohibited from practicing their religion, only certain practices that the society deems harmful. So they brought their ideas to the table and lost. This reinforces my assertion that religious ideas are not given preference, only equal access.

If Mormons were able to convince a majority of Americans that polygamy was acceptable, then it would be the law of the land. They have the right to try, and try, and try again. And the American society at large has the right to deny them the specific ability to practice polygamy. Mormons in America have accepted that restriction because they value being Americans, and they don't view polygamy as essential to their faith.

I welcome other ideas because I both believe my ideas are healthy enough to compete, and because it is possible for me to continue to learn. But just because I welcome other ideas does not mean I judge all ideas, philosophies and religions to be equal.

I meant that the Jehovah's Witnesses never infringed on my freedoms in their effort to convert me. They did try, but were unsuccessful.

Catch 22

One other thought, then I'm going to bed. You mention that Galatians wasn't written by a Protestant. Thomas Paine in his denunciation of Monarchy calling it the Popery of government alludes to the withholding of the scriptures in Popish countries. It has been my observation of Catholics in general that most of them never read the Bible.

My next door neighbor, a very sweet 70 year old devout Catholic never studied the Bible until 3 years ago. And she did this not through the Catholic Church, but through a non-denomination Protestant group called Bible Study Fellowship.

So while the Bible applies to all Christians, including Catholics, what good does it do Catholics if they never read it? And more importantly to this discussion, how does the philosophy I quoted from Galatians have an impact on a practicing Catholic if he has never read Galatians? If Catholics depend entirely on Priests and Catholic liturgy books, and never seek spiritual wisdom directly from God, or directly from the Bible, how does that reinforce the notion of equality before God?

I am not denying your right to claim Galatians as your own. Indeed, I wish all would claim Galatians as their own. But my Catholic in-laws never read the Bible, so I wonder about their commitment to it - speaking spiritually and theologically of course.

Scott,

The entire liturgy of the catholic Mass and other liturgies are all based on biblical scripture. And it