What Are the Atheists So Afraid Of?
Regardless of their bluster and apparent confidence, secularists and atheists (like Michael Newdow) continue to be hysterically threatened by anyone who points out the fact that our nation was founded by Christians, and continues to be overwhelmingly Christian in composition. While some Founding Fathers were tepid Christians (Madison), and some were philosophical Christians (Jefferson), and some were out-right hostile to Christianity (Tom Paine), most would be considered devout Christians, even by today's standards. In fact, the Second Great Awakening was taking place around the time the Constitution was being written, and there was much debate as to how religious to make out new nation. In the end, the First Amendment recognized man's inherent right to worship as he pleases, unencumbered by a state religion, i.e. the Church of England. However, this was different than banning religious expression in the public domain. In fact, Jefferson, who was excessively sensitive to claims that he was a "pagan" and a "Satanist", and who wrote often about his disdain for intolerant religions, also recognized that the Federal Constitution only prohibited the Federal Government from establishing a religion, and did not prohibit each sovereign state from setting its own religious laws and requirements, as they had always done. This was certainly the understanding among those who voted to include that phrase in the First Amendment. Paul Johnson, author of "A History of the American People", says that the Founding Fathers would be insulted indeed to find out that their words have come to supposedly prohibit individual states from establishing prayer in schools, placing religious symbols on state-owned property, or banning state textbooks that give equal weight to both evolution and Creationism. These religious pursuits would not have been considered "unconstitutional" by Jefferson, Madison, or Adams, as the First Amendment referred to Federal action only. Constitutional purist, meaning those who reject the very notion that it is a "living, breathing document" open to unintended interpretation, need to speak loudly regarding this issue. It may be too late, but it is certainly enjoyable to watch the hysterics from the left as a result.
posted by Mark Outland at 1:31 PM
5 Comments:
Great Post!! I agree 100%!! I wrote a similar post entitled "sign of the times", check it out sometime!
I’ll try not to be too hysterical.
One of the fundamental errors of our age in the inability to distinguish the general from the specific. This takes several forms. Of note here is the conflation of the general ethical and moral principals that inform the Constitution and the specific historical events and persons that created them. A successful ethical code makes no reference to history or habit. It applies equally well in the Eighteenth Century and the Twenty-First. It makes no distinction between Christian, Jew, Muslim or Atheist.
It is a matter of some historical interest that many people today underappreciate the radicalness of the Enlightenment and the willingness of the intellectuals of the time, who afterall are the writers of the Constitution, to question the fundamental certainties of their age, such as the very structure of social and political society. But this makes no difference in attempting to understand and apply the principals they laid out for us.
It is also a matter of some historical significance, that among western democracies, the US has the strongest language in its constitution separating church and state. And, among western democracies, the US has the strongest religious tradition. These are not, I don’t think, unrelated. The wall between church and state strengthens religion. Faith is strongest when it is freely chosen.
And yet, it has become not uncommon for ordinary, sensible people, to claim, nay boast, that this is a “Christian Nation” founded by “Christians” presumably writing the Constitution with “Christian Pens” on “Christian Parchment” while sitting their “Christian… But I digress.
This is supposed to confer some special claim or entitlement to Christians to write their faith into the laws that we all must obey and have governmental institutions acknowledge and reinforce those beliefs in ways that would be unthinkable for Jews, Muslims or Atheists. Ironically this claim to special entitlement due to historical precedent is often made as a defense to claimed persecution by a secular society. This is a Christian Nation. And this nation persecutes Christians.I, for one, have no intention of allowing the prejudices and idiosyncrasies of a bunch of Eighteenth Century men dictate the content and conduct of my life. I suspect, excepting where convenient, neither do you. I will, however, take quite seriously the important principles of liberty and equality before the law embodied in the Constitution. It makes no difference to me whether those principles were written by Christians, Jews, Muslims or Athiests. And it shouldn’t to you, either.
I appreciate the comment from JimG. However, it is extremely important for me to know the source of moral or philosophical reasoning. Since it is my belief that freedom and liberty are inherent human rights given to us by God and described in the Bible, and that the Framers used this understanding as the very basis for our Constitution, I believe it is relevant, indeed. Conversely, knowing the basis for Islamic beliefs, i.e. the Koran,which I have read three times, explains to me why that moral and philosophical belief system is so dangerous and destructive. I am certainly thankful that America's founders were followers of Christ and not Mohammed, and believers in God and not Allah (they are not the same God). Because of this alone, and the fact that America's Christian philosophy tolerates other religious belief systems (unlike Islam)only someone in pathological denial would discard the Christian roots of America and her laws as "irrelevant".
I should only add that a selective reading of the new and old testaments might give one more than one reason to pause too. One cannot use the least defensible parts of the Koran as an indictment unless one is prepared to defend the least defensible parts of the Christian Bible. For example, the Christian sacred texts mention slavery often, yet never once say that slavery itself is wrong.
In case I was too subtle in my first comment, I'm one of those hysterical atheists referred to in the initial post. So I have no stake defending or diminishing any sacred text. They're all fiction to me.
The genesis of great ideas is quite independent of their validity. As someone interested in history, I am quite interested in the historical antecedents of great ideas of human society - liberty, equality.
In the matter of political and social philosophy, it matters not one bit who said what or why - only if the idea is valid and provides a sound foundation for an ethical and moral system.
Although we will never reach agreement on this subject, I do appreciate your response. It was literate, reasoned, and respectful. Good luck with your blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home