The Proper Response to Oath Breaking Judges
Oath Breakers because they fail to defend the Constitution of the United States... Because they are seemingly ignorant of what our founding document actually says... A document that any graduating 12th grader understands. In Russel Springs, Kentucky, anyway...
As Solomon rightly pointed out in a comment on another post, the phrase "Separation of church and state" do not appear in our Constitution. Here is the relevant letter, in its entirety, from which we get the aforementioned thorn in our Constitution's side...
You can interpret this any number of ways, as is demonstrated in the ongoing clash between religionists and secularists today, as highlighted in the article I'm quoting above, but the fact remains that the 1st Amendment was written to insure that the new and burgeoning republic that was the United States of America would not create a state church as did England. No one would be forced to attend, no one would be forced to belong, and no one would be forced to tithe to any one specific and Lawful-- under the Constitution --Church of America. Congress would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Sadly, Secularists only see the Establishment clause. And ignore altogether the Free Exercise clause.
If any law or judge abridges the rights of American citizens to exercise freely their constitutional right to worship as they choose, when they choose, and where they choose, that law or judge has forsaken his/her oath of office.
Perhaps a town council somewhere wants to avoid allowing Muslims from staging a 'stoning of the devil' in the town square. How can they say no if they allow Christians to drag a cross through downtown during Easter week (which frequently happens where I live)? They can't. But neither can they deny either party the right to publically proclaim their faith. Quite simply, the town council's hands are tied... they must allow Muslims and Christians their public displays of faith equally. This does not amount to an endorsement of religion, only the allowance of the free exercise thereof... and it's most decidedly "Constitutional."
A manger scene is no longer allowed on public property? THAT is unconstitutional. By very definition, the Public Square belongs to the public... not to any town/city council. At any given election, the "Public" can vote out every member of the city council and begin anew-- it rarely happens but the possibility remains. The City, being an entity incapable of owning anything*, has no power in itself to deny or approve anything. It is to the elected officials that the public looks to for answers and services.
So... Where in the Constitution is a single individual, or minority of individuals, allowed to effect the abridegment of the rights of the majority, in respect to the worship of God?
Nowhere.
I am personally proud of these young Americans for expressing their "Free Exercise Thereof."
There's hope for America yet.
----
* The Public owns the city, and the Public governs the city through the offices of city and county commissioners, judges, district attorneys, and school board members, sheriffs, police chiefs, managers and mayors. Buildings and streets don't own anything, people do.
the same is true of taxes... Corporations don't pay taxes, Business don't pay taxes... People do.
Judge Blocks Prayer at High School Graduation
May 19, 2006
RUSSELL SPRINGS, KY. (AP) - The senior class at a southern Kentucky high school gave their response Friday night to a federal judge's order banning prayer at commencement.
About 200 seniors stood during the principal's opening remarks and began reciting the Lord's Prayer, prompting a standing ovation from a standing-room only crowd at the Russell County High School gymnasium.
The thunderous applause drowned out the last part of the prayer.
The revival like atmosphere continued when senior Megan Chapman said in her opening remarks that God had guided her since childhood. Chapman was interrupted repeatedly by the cheering crowd as she urged her classmates to trust in God as they go through life.
The challenge made the graduation even better because it unified the senior class, Chapman said.
"It made the whole senior class come together as one and I think that's the best way to go out," said Chapman, who plans to attend the University of the Cumberlands with her twin sister Megan.
The graduation took place about 12 hours after a federal judge blocked the inclusion of prayer as part of Russell County High School's graduation ceremonies.
U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley granted a temporary restraining order sought by a student who didn't want prayer to be part of the graduation exercises at the south-central Kentucky school, about 110 miles southeast of Louisville.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed suit on behalf of the unidentified student on Tuesday.
ACLU attorney Lili Lutgens said she was pleased with the judge's order and "very proud of my client for standing up for the Constitution." Lutgens said prayer would be unconstitutional because it would endorse a specific religion and religious views.
"He did not feel that he should have to sit through government-sponsored prayer just to receive his diploma," Lutgens said of the student.
The student, through his attorney, had previously appealed to Russell County High principal Darren Gossage to cancel the prayer, a request Lutgens said the principal denied.
Keith Ellis, an assistant principal at Russell County High School, said the school has a long tradition of prayer at graduation, something that will change with the judge's ruling.
"It will definitely change what we've done in the past," Ellis said.
Russell County School Superintendent Scott Pierce called himself a "person of faith" and said he was pleased with the response to the ruling by the senior class.
"This was a good learning process for them as far as how to handle things that come along in life," Pierce said. The response of the students showed an ability to be "critical thinkers."
"They exhibited what we've tried to accomplish in 12 years of education - they have the ability to make these compelling decisions on their own," Pierce said.
Chapman said the ceremony turned out better than it would have without the controversy.
"More glory went to God because of something like that than if I had just simply said a prayer like I was supposed to," Chapman said......
As Solomon rightly pointed out in a comment on another post, the phrase "Separation of church and state" do not appear in our Constitution. Here is the relevant letter, in its entirety, from which we get the aforementioned thorn in our Constitution's side...
"Gentlemen, — The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
--Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT
January 1, 1802
You can interpret this any number of ways, as is demonstrated in the ongoing clash between religionists and secularists today, as highlighted in the article I'm quoting above, but the fact remains that the 1st Amendment was written to insure that the new and burgeoning republic that was the United States of America would not create a state church as did England. No one would be forced to attend, no one would be forced to belong, and no one would be forced to tithe to any one specific and Lawful-- under the Constitution --Church of America. Congress would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Sadly, Secularists only see the Establishment clause. And ignore altogether the Free Exercise clause.
If any law or judge abridges the rights of American citizens to exercise freely their constitutional right to worship as they choose, when they choose, and where they choose, that law or judge has forsaken his/her oath of office.
Perhaps a town council somewhere wants to avoid allowing Muslims from staging a 'stoning of the devil' in the town square. How can they say no if they allow Christians to drag a cross through downtown during Easter week (which frequently happens where I live)? They can't. But neither can they deny either party the right to publically proclaim their faith. Quite simply, the town council's hands are tied... they must allow Muslims and Christians their public displays of faith equally. This does not amount to an endorsement of religion, only the allowance of the free exercise thereof... and it's most decidedly "Constitutional."
A manger scene is no longer allowed on public property? THAT is unconstitutional. By very definition, the Public Square belongs to the public... not to any town/city council. At any given election, the "Public" can vote out every member of the city council and begin anew-- it rarely happens but the possibility remains. The City, being an entity incapable of owning anything*, has no power in itself to deny or approve anything. It is to the elected officials that the public looks to for answers and services.
So... Where in the Constitution is a single individual, or minority of individuals, allowed to effect the abridegment of the rights of the majority, in respect to the worship of God?
Nowhere.
I am personally proud of these young Americans for expressing their "Free Exercise Thereof."
There's hope for America yet.
----
* The Public owns the city, and the Public governs the city through the offices of city and county commissioners, judges, district attorneys, and school board members, sheriffs, police chiefs, managers and mayors. Buildings and streets don't own anything, people do.
the same is true of taxes... Corporations don't pay taxes, Business don't pay taxes... People do.
from the mind of... Eric | 5:50 PM
22 Comments:
"There's hope for America yet."--EL
That's what the Brit told me a few months ago when I voiced my belief that America could be lost.
"If my people, who are called by...."
ELAshley, in your post, "Scott Pierce called himself a "person of faith" … AND he stated … "The response of the students showed an ability to be "critical thinkers."
SG: These two positions seem in opposition to one another.
From 'thefreedictionary.com
CRITICAL THOUGHT: Within the framework of skepticism, critical thinking is the process of acquiring information and evaluating it to reach a well-justified conclusion or answer … Critical thinking may be seen as involving two aspects:
- a set of cognitive skills,
and
- the ability and intellectual commitment, to use those skills to guide behavior.
It does not include simply the acquisition and retention of information, or the possession of a skill-set which is not used regularly, nor is it mere exercise of those skills without acceptance of the results
FAITH: The word faith has various uses; its central meaning is similar to "belief", "trust" or "confidence", but unlike these terms, "faith" tends to imply a transpersonal rather than interpersonal relationship – with God or a higher power. … [T]he faithful subject's faith is in an aspect of the object that cannot be rationally proven or objectively known.
So ELAshley ... though I don't agree with some of your analysis and conclusion, I do see a mind at work. Consequently I am wondering how you see the two processes of CRITICAL THOUGHT and FAITH interacting. For example, if one 'reasons' to support a proposition accepted on FAITH, they are RATIONALIZING rather than reasoning.
Snerd
Belief in God is an issue of faith. Salvation is also an issue of faith. Understanding what we know of God through His word, however, requires critical thought.
In order to "rightly [divide] the word of truth"* one must employ a little reasoning, and common sense. To take someone's word on what God is saying in any given passage of scripture is foolish... There are fakirs at every turn, liars on every street corner, and apostates in many pulpits.
It takes a lot of faith to believe a man rose from the dead by his own power-- after 3 days! It takes a lot of faith to believe that this very same man will return again from Heaven to bring every believer home, as it were, that "Where [he] is [we] may be also."
Understanding points of doctrine; what they mean, how and when they apply, and reasonable extrapolations based on said doctrine, requires the use of a critical, reasoning, mind. However, this can also be dangerous. Many people can't divorce their own ideas from honest evaluation of scripture... wanting to insert a personal interpretation, rather than allowing the verse to say what it says, where it say it, in context with the given passage, and previous relevant statements. This is where we get the "Name it, and Claim it" doctrine of the modern church. The phrase, "God has a wonderful plan for your life" is another such misnomer, as Jesus Himself said the servant is not above the master; if He was persecuted, so too will the servant. Jesus never promised anyone wealth and prosperity in this life... that is a promise made solely to the Jewish nation.
As to these students who defied the judge's order not to pray, they rightly understood that no man, let alone a judge, has the right to deny free people the right to pray, and pray publically. That's what I applaud. That and their decision to "earnestly contend for the faith." --Jude 1:3
In the name of tolerance, every religion is seemingly welcome in the public square... except Christianity. I believe this is wrong.
Thank you for your comment, and welcome.
----
*"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15
Snerdy,
Faith requires as much critcal thinking--probably MORE critical thinking than modern "science" does.
"Science" makes fact out of speculation. Is that rational?
ELA: "... Many people can't divorce their own ideas from honest evaluation of scripture... wanting to insert a personal interpretation, rather than allowing the verse to say what it says, where it say it, in context with the given passage, and previous relevant statements.
SG: Thanks for the kind welcome and thoughtful response. It deserves more time than I have at the moment, so I hope you'll allow me to get back to it soon.
This particular phrase above really grabbed my attention though ... Again I appreciate the challenging response
SNerd
Science is evidence-based, Dad. Those speculations are formulated into testable hypotheses, their predictions subjected to repeated trials. They are either refuted or gain the weight of evidence behind them to form new theories with real predictive power. There is no more powerful system of building reliable and testable knowledge known to mankind.
But what happens when new discoveries contradict someone's beliefs?
An answer from (Thomas) Jefferson:
"They [preachers] dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."
Doesn't sound like he was talking about UCC preachers. Some more Jefferson quotes on sicence:
"The generation now in place... are wiser than we were, and their successors will be wiser than they, from the progressive advance of science." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:215
"When I contemplate the immense advances in science and discoveries in the arts which have been made within the period of my life, I look forward with confidence to equal advances by the present generation, and have no doubt they will consequently be as much wiser than we have been as we than our fathers were, and they than the burners of witches." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, 1818. ME 15:164
"The light which has been shed on the mind of man through the civilized world has given it a new direction from which no human power can divert it... the unwise alone stiffen and meet its inevitable crush." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1820. ME 15:299
The position of the scientist is summed up in this last Jefferson quote:
"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead."
Even if it challenges your beliefs.
I'm beginning to think there's a quote from Jefferson that can shed light on just about anything. That man was an astounding and prolific thinker.
D Dad: "Science" makes fact out of speculation. Is that rational?"
SG: I don't know ... what do you think (as in hypothesize)?
Okay, just being a 'smarty pants' there. Really thanks for a considered and succinct response.
The topic is in fact a very complex one, I feel, and in some ways I might not be far from your position while in others, I might be quite far.
For example, I 'think' that the axioms of Science and Empricism (the axioms of anything for that matter), are articles of 'faith'. David Hume argues quite effectively that just because the sun came up for 6000 years plus a few billion, doesn't mean it'll come up tomorrow. Science in response to this, when it is self conscious of its claims and methodologies acknowledges that it doesn't prove things, rather it just eliminates false hypothesis - something it does quite well, but not flawlessly. A true scientist is left with tentative hypotheses, not proof. A very 'challenging' place to live, since it takes courage to live amid the unknown ... A courageous 'unearthing' of one's "talents", to "coin" a phrase, as it were.
Snerd
Right you are Snerd! Despite the tremendous power of the scientific method, any scientist worth his or her salt will readily admit that science can never prove anything with 100% certainty. Heck, we may all be living in a "Matrix"-like computer program, and the rising sun could just be smoke and mirrors. Prove it wrong! Nothing is ever 100%. 99.9999 maybe, but not 100.
Ah ... the Wisdom of Solomon ...
Predictability and proof are entirely different beasts. One is absolute one is relative - one is "The Way" it is, the other a tool.
A bone I have to pick with the "common sense" view of science (and from my experience often includes scientists) is the conflation of these two. When it comes to 'Proof', 99.9999 is eqivalent to 0.00001, since Proof is either 1.0 or NOT.
Eastern philosophy which uses the Laws of the Cycles of Nature as predictive tools could also be describes as a type of science, an Aristotilian or Baconian type of empiricism. But who is watching the observers? Replication and Reliability address this problem, but do not eliminate it ...
The view of science I appreciate most is that of Thomas Kuhn ("Structures of Scientific Revolutions"). For me he best explains the type of 'hypothetical' world scientists inhabit. They 'live' dogmatically within a paradigm, until such time as a better one replaces it - but it is most often a change they accept with a great deal of reluctance, if at all.
A scientist's use of scientific models is like trapeze artists, who swinging from one trapeze to the other but with little or no 'free' hang time, where almost at no time do they let go of one bar before the have a grasp on and are able to use the next.
The entire scientific enterprise however, allows 'us' the luxury of 'free hang time', of open ended speculation ...
Snerd
Nothing to disagree with here, Snerd, and Kuhn's view is undoubtedly true. Witness how much evidence it took for continental drift to be accepted- even with the shelfs of different continents fitting together perfectly and tropical fossils in Antarctica (etc)! Science can be very conservative, and it takes an awful lot of evidence for a new theory to overturn old beliefs.
Evolution is no discovery.
It's completely guess-work.
I've been through this wash-cycle on several occasions. I don't trust modern science. Too many alterior motives.
So science is all just one huge conspiracy to deny God? Why?
If there were any evidence turned up of a divine role in creation (and maybe there will be), it would be the greatest scientific discovery of all time, and there would be a land rush to explore it. What could be more exciting?
Science is not a matter of trust. It's an entirely open process, if you take the time to read and learn about it. Then you can read the papers and weigh the evidence for yourself. It's complicated, but not to keep you in the dark. It's complicated because life, the world, and nature are complicated.
Evolution was certainly a discovery (made before Darwin, by the way, who simply discovered the mechanism by which it operates). And it's not guesswork. Many independent lines of evidence from biology, geology, and other disciplines intersecting.
Evolutionary theory has become the bedrock of modern biology (and modern medicine)- nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Next time you use an antibiotic, or have a loved one with a disease treated with a new therapy, you can thank modern science and the study of evolution. Would you trust a faith healer more?
Firstly, I'm at work right now so I don't have the luxury of delving too deep into this fascinating discussion... And I write that without the barest hint of sarcasm.
Snerd--
"They 'live' dogmatically within a paradigm, until such time as a better one replaces it - but it is most often a change they accept with a great deal of reluctance, if at all."
Well put. I think Copernicus and Galileo would have understood this statement all too well. I find it interesting that the Jewish people understood the true nature of our solar system long before these notable scientists... to say nothing of the Roman church. Job 26:7 Job at least knew there wasn't a endless stack of turtles supporting the earth. Erastothenes [circa 275-192 BC] calculated the circumference of the earth at 45,460 kilometers... Extremely close to the actual figure.
Daddio--
"I don't trust modern science. Too many alterior motives."
There's a lot NOT to trust in modern science. Just look at all the recent problems in the drug industry. A lot of modern science is all about the money, but that's not to say ALL science is untrustworthy. As to the "alterior motives" bit, allow me to repeat a line a little ways up the page:
"Many people can't divorce their own ideas from honest evaluation of scripture."
We could easily replace 'scripture' with 'science' or any number of other 'things' and the statement would still be true. For myself, I don't trust the religion of evolution any more than you do. I also believe there is enough evidence to put into question the assertion that man and dinosaur are separated by millions of years. I simply don't buy the current "accepted" facts that say otherwise.
Solomon--
"If there were any evidence turned up of a divine role in creation (and maybe there will be), it would be the greatest scientific discovery of all time, and there would be a land rush to explore it. What could be more exciting?"
Deoxyribonucleic Acid -- DNA
I can't imagine how anyone looking at the complexity of DNA, and the role it plays in all carbon based life, could say it is the result of billions of years of evolution... that at some point in time inanimate matter became animate.
The hackneyed assertion concerning an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters eventually producing a complete work of Shakespeare... the odds are so beyond astronomical as to label it all but impossible.
Thanks everyone, it's been a very interesting discussion thus far.
EL,
"at some point in time inanimate matter became animate."
You're right, and science at this point has little to say about how that happened. The study of evolution has been more concerned with how life evolved from a single common ancestor following the ultimate origin of life. And that includes the study of how DNA itself evolved- the most likely candidate for DNA's precursor being simpler RNA molecules. In other words, it didn't just spring into being all at once by chance.
Maybe it was God that started it all. I sure don't know, and make no claims on that point.
But the idea that evolution has happened since that dawn of life is indisputable. And the idea that humans and dinosaurs lived together has been quite soundly rejected by many independent lines of evidence (fossil, DNA, geologic).
And evolution is not a religion. I know folks like to say it is because their beliefs are threatened by its implications, but it's been demonstrated to be true far beyond any reasonable doubt over and over again.
Here's just a teeny, tiny slice of the kind of research that is going on right now, relating different lines of evidence not to show evolution has happened, but how it has happened:
Primates- Real Player
But it's very hard to communicate this to the public, and thus there is an awful lot of confusion about science, how it works, and why the evidence is so solid.
Thanks for hosting the discussion.
D Dad: Evolution is no discovery. It's completely guess-work.
SG: Is there a better 'guess', then?
D Dad: ""I don't trust modern science. Too many alterior motives."
SG: Well if you're part of the 'We're all Sinners' School of Belief, how does this separate modern science from any of activity involving human beings?
Secondly 'hammers' have been used to commit murders, so if we were to use your reasoning, 'hammer users' are all suspect and we can not trust them ... any of them. Now this sorta reasoning might be just a little problematic for some Christians ...
Would you then agree that science is a tool, where bad science is reflective of bad tool users and good science is reflective of good tool users ... just like anything in life?
Snerd
Snerd--
"...science is a tool, where bad science is reflective of bad tool users and good science is reflective of good tool users..."
Me thinks that's a right fair assessment.
Prove your theory, guys!
"Snerd--
"...science is a tool, where bad science is reflective of bad tool users and good science is reflective of good tool users..."
"Me thinks that's a right fair assessment."--ELAshley
Snerd and I actually agree on something!
That makes four of us!
One thing to say here:
"Chapman said the ceremony turned out better than it would have without the controversy."
God bless the ACLU. Don't y'all think that maybe the ACLU could be used as a springboard for revival? That's exactly what happened in this case!
I won't enliven the dead argument that because the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution that they aren't a critical part of our heritage and tradition. The concept is foundational.
God help us if the wall ever comes down. God help us from our mean, selfish selves!
"Prove your theory, guys!"
It was proven decades ago, Dad. But here's a nice essay on how DNA is shedding new light on our evolutionary history, offered as another little piece of the picture.
Affairs to Remember
By OLIVIA JUDSON
NYT Op-Ed Contributor
Published: May 28, 2006
London
EVER since scientists realized that the fossilized bones of ichthyosaurs and mastodons were relics of organisms past, debates have raged about what fossils mean for our understanding of the history of life on Earth, and especially of evolution. No longer. Fossils have become unnecessary to the argument: since we've learned to sequence whole genomes, we've had far more powerful ways to examine the past.
This point is the most significant aspect of a recent study of primate genes published in the online edition of Nature. The researchers matched big chunks of the human genome to the genomes of several other primates, including gorillas and our close cousins the chimpanzees. By dint of evolutionary forensics, complex statistical analyses of DNA sequences, the researchers revealed that the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees exchanged genes — they had sex — a million or so years more recently than we had thought.
Prurience aside, our ancestors' antics are of no particular note. The claim that humans and chimpanzees started to become different species but then some individuals got back together for a final fling — well, such shenanigans go on in nature all the time. For example, Europe's white-headed ducks are supposed to be a different species from North American ruddy ducks. Yet some years ago, a few of the ruddy ducks arrived in Europe and to the consternation of conservationists, who tend to disapprove of such miscegenation, white-headed ducks have been getting it on with the ruddy ducks. As a result, "pure" white-headed ducks are disappearing.
No, the remarkable fact is not what our ancestors did five million years ago, but that we can find out about it by scrutinizing our genes.
Bit by bit, our ability to penetrate the mists of time is improving. At first, using only single genes, we began to reconstruct patterns of human migration. Then it became possible to examine small stretches of DNA, like the Y chromosome (passed from father to son). The immense sexual success of Genghis Khan is witnessed by the large number of men today who have his Y chromosome. Now that we can sequence whole genomes, we are undertaking investigations of far greater scope to reconstruct our ancient history and that of other organisms.
But that's the least of it. A less salacious but more salubrious use for this data is to observe, in rich detail, how organisms are made and how they evolve. This has led to some surprising discoveries. For instance, the number of genes has turned out to be lower than expected. We once grandly estimated ourselves to have around 100,000 genes. Now we know the number is more like 23,000 — only a few more than chickens have.
Another fascinating find: genomes are complex patchworks of genes from a startling variety of sources. Moreover, we can use the data to trace exactly which genetic changes have led to changes in an organism's appearance, or in what it does. In other words, we can examine evolution with a sophistication and subtlety that, even 10 years ago, we could only dream of.
This is not to say that the study of fossils is unimportant. Without fossils we would know nothing of life's also-rans — trilobites and pterodactyls, giant carnivorous sheep and vegetarian crocodiles, humongous dragonflies and the myriad other marchers in the parade of the extinct. Fossils also provide a measure of the passage of time. And excitingly, some fossils — mammoths, cave bears and Neanderthals, for instance — are yielding DNA, allowing us to examine the genomes of organisms that lived tens of thousands of years ago. But when it comes to the traditional use of fossils — the demonstration that evolution has happened — that's antediluvian.
Olivia Judson is a research fellow in biology at Imperial College London.
...And here's just one example of how the study of evolution has real consequences for human health. 65 million cases of AIDS worldwide, and now we're closer to understanding the source because of DNA and evolutionary biology.
Post a Comment
<< Home