July 06, 2021
Arguing with Idiots: First Amendment Edition
Timothy Birdnow
On Facebook Andy Garcia argues that the First Amendment does not justify separating religion from government. He says:
The Bible and the Constitution are not supposed to be separate.
David Short, an obvious atheist, takes umbrage with that statement:
The 1st Amendment says different.
I dispute that:
No it does not David Short. The Firsrt Amendment says "CONGRFSS shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof". It says nothing about religion having to stay out of politics. Short responds:
It very clearly places government in the position of agnostic as it relates to policy. A politician can be just bad religious as he or she wishes, that's between him and his constituents. But there is zero place for legislated religion.
To whit, what religion gets favor? Why? And what about those of us who hold different or no religious views? Are we to be held accountable to this religious edict? By what right?
As I said, a politician can warble on and on about this magical sky daddy or that, but it has no place in legislative action, morally or constitutionall
And we cannot overlook the axiomatic fact that one cannot have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. One leads to the other, one demands the other.
I reply:
I gave you the exact quote and you still miss the point. The State must stay out of religion but religion is under no obligation to stay out of the state. I would add America was founded on Christian principles and the Bible was in no small part one of the primary source documents for this country. We do indeed have freedom of religion, and that includes no religion at all. But to argue this means the state is formally agnostic is both historically inaccurate and intellectually dubious. Where do you think most of our laws come from? We have laws against things like slavery, which was perfectly fine until Christians moved against it. We have laws against torture. We have laws against pedophilia. Where do you think these came from? These came out of our Judeo-Christian
Short snorts:
Alright. What if Omar decided to legislate from the Koran? You'd be good with that as there is no prohibition?
And I am only demanding what I he Constitution has dictated: the separation of the State from religion. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't get how christians don't get this simple concept.
I retort:
"What if Omar decided to legislate from the Koran? " What do you think she's been trying to do? The fact is the very idea of separation of church and state comes from Jesus (remder Caesar that which is Caesars and render unto God that which is God's) and the New Testament in particular is at the root of our founding and our system of jurisprudence. Islam is alien and at odds with much of this. But isn't that ultimately what you yourself are advocating, allowing Omar to legislate from the Koran? After all, you insist there is no final moral arbiter, and as such anybody's opinion is as good as anybody elses. So Omar developed here worldview from the Koran. Seems that is precisely what you are arguing for.
David Short sneers:
Just because I am not rolling over for a Christian theocratic tyranny does not mean I am advocating for an Islamic theocratic tyranny. I am advocating following the text of the 1st Amendment and prohibiting religious legislation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Religion is up the private individual, not public edict.
I reply:
You say "And I am only demanding what I he Constitution has dictated: the separation of the State from religion. " And what is it you don't understand about the actual words in the Constitution? It does not say "separation of Church and state" but rather "Congress shal make no law concerning the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Your whole argument is predicated on a falsehood. The term "seperation of church adn state" came from a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church in which he was trying to explain it (to quell their fears the government was going to take over religion) "it is as if a wall of separtion were formed between church and state". It was NOT in the Constitution, it did NOT say religions had no right to be in the public sphere or active in government. it did not say religion was to be banished from public life. That is a modernist interpretation based on the lie that we have absolutte separation of church and state. And in fact we now pretty much have a state religion, a secular religion revolving around atheism/
Oh, and I posted a number of quotes by the Founders where they make it quite clear their intent was a Christian nation. Here is a link with some of them. https://undergod.procon.org/founding-fathers-on-religion-in-government/?fbclid=IwAR385-KI1GrVs9UZa4GRTUDcQ11alMAN46GIV4ZaeWvpGhwNRRsivJ-K6pg
Short gets short with me:
My whole argument is legislated religion is a violation of the 1st Amendment. A concept that seems just beyond your grasp.
Or you think Christianity is exempt from the Constitution for some perverse reason. You know, freedom for me but not for thee. Which is apropos for the religious Right.
And it doesn't matter even in the slightest what the Founders intended, only what they passed. And what they passed was a prohibition on legislating religion. I know, like the Left, you zealots get ever so cross when the Constitution puts up a barrier between you and your aims, but that is the very reason we have a Constitution.
I retort:
I seem to have touched a nerve David Short. First, what do you mean by "legislated religion"? Does that mean no school prayer? No funding to Catholic Charities for taking care of children? Does that mean devout Christians can't run for public office? That is what you people mean, even though it has always been the tradition and culture of America itself. And the intent of the Founding Fathers is critical, whether you believe that or not. Or should we simply ignore them now that the laws are more to your liking? I guess misuse of eminent domain is fine because, hey! we have a supreme court ruling that says so! I guess Dredd Scott was fine in it's day. I guess anything that is legislated now is just fine if it somehow passes some sort of court challenge. (Another example of how your idea of popular morality is a huge fail.) The Founding Fathers only passed a law preventing Congress from establishing a state religion or prohiting religioius practices that did not comport with their own. I'm sorry you don't like that but it is what is written.
Short falls short:
I see you are well versed in confusing issues. Also typical and expected. We can run through the litany of abuses our government has perpetrated if you wish. But I thought you wished to discuss the simple text of the 1st Amendment? Why the diversionary tactic?
I conclude:
No these are all the same issues and you know they are. It is YOU who are trying to confuse the issue David Short. Now, having just denounced the original intent of the framers who actually wrote the First Amendment you come out with "I thought you wished to discuss the simple text of the 1st Amendment". Why change up like that now? I brought these other issues in because they are not other issues at all, but rather real world applications of the First Amendment and the so-called wall. Again, the text of the document in no way supports your rather radical interpretation that the Amendment somehow kicks Christians out of rthe public sphere. At this point I really don't see you aruing honestly..
On Facebook Andy Garcia argues that the First Amendment does not justify separating religion from government. He says:
The Bible and the Constitution are not supposed to be separate.
David Short, an obvious atheist, takes umbrage with that statement:
The 1st Amendment says different.
I dispute that:
No it does not David Short. The Firsrt Amendment says "CONGRFSS shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof". It says nothing about religion having to stay out of politics. Short responds:
It very clearly places government in the position of agnostic as it relates to policy. A politician can be just bad religious as he or she wishes, that's between him and his constituents. But there is zero place for legislated religion.
To whit, what religion gets favor? Why? And what about those of us who hold different or no religious views? Are we to be held accountable to this religious edict? By what right?
As I said, a politician can warble on and on about this magical sky daddy or that, but it has no place in legislative action, morally or constitutionall
And we cannot overlook the axiomatic fact that one cannot have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. One leads to the other, one demands the other.
I reply:
I gave you the exact quote and you still miss the point. The State must stay out of religion but religion is under no obligation to stay out of the state. I would add America was founded on Christian principles and the Bible was in no small part one of the primary source documents for this country. We do indeed have freedom of religion, and that includes no religion at all. But to argue this means the state is formally agnostic is both historically inaccurate and intellectually dubious. Where do you think most of our laws come from? We have laws against things like slavery, which was perfectly fine until Christians moved against it. We have laws against torture. We have laws against pedophilia. Where do you think these came from? These came out of our Judeo-Christian
Short snorts:
Alright. What if Omar decided to legislate from the Koran? You'd be good with that as there is no prohibition?
And I am only demanding what I he Constitution has dictated: the separation of the State from religion. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't get how christians don't get this simple concept.
I retort:
"What if Omar decided to legislate from the Koran? " What do you think she's been trying to do? The fact is the very idea of separation of church and state comes from Jesus (remder Caesar that which is Caesars and render unto God that which is God's) and the New Testament in particular is at the root of our founding and our system of jurisprudence. Islam is alien and at odds with much of this. But isn't that ultimately what you yourself are advocating, allowing Omar to legislate from the Koran? After all, you insist there is no final moral arbiter, and as such anybody's opinion is as good as anybody elses. So Omar developed here worldview from the Koran. Seems that is precisely what you are arguing for.
David Short sneers:
Just because I am not rolling over for a Christian theocratic tyranny does not mean I am advocating for an Islamic theocratic tyranny. I am advocating following the text of the 1st Amendment and prohibiting religious legislation. Nothing more, nothing less.
Religion is up the private individual, not public edict.
I reply:
You say "And I am only demanding what I he Constitution has dictated: the separation of the State from religion. " And what is it you don't understand about the actual words in the Constitution? It does not say "separation of Church and state" but rather "Congress shal make no law concerning the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Your whole argument is predicated on a falsehood. The term "seperation of church adn state" came from a letter written by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church in which he was trying to explain it (to quell their fears the government was going to take over religion) "it is as if a wall of separtion were formed between church and state". It was NOT in the Constitution, it did NOT say religions had no right to be in the public sphere or active in government. it did not say religion was to be banished from public life. That is a modernist interpretation based on the lie that we have absolutte separation of church and state. And in fact we now pretty much have a state religion, a secular religion revolving around atheism/
Oh, and I posted a number of quotes by the Founders where they make it quite clear their intent was a Christian nation. Here is a link with some of them. https://undergod.procon.org/founding-fathers-on-religion-in-government/?fbclid=IwAR385-KI1GrVs9UZa4GRTUDcQ11alMAN46GIV4ZaeWvpGhwNRRsivJ-K6pg
Short gets short with me:
My whole argument is legislated religion is a violation of the 1st Amendment. A concept that seems just beyond your grasp.
Or you think Christianity is exempt from the Constitution for some perverse reason. You know, freedom for me but not for thee. Which is apropos for the religious Right.
And it doesn't matter even in the slightest what the Founders intended, only what they passed. And what they passed was a prohibition on legislating religion. I know, like the Left, you zealots get ever so cross when the Constitution puts up a barrier between you and your aims, but that is the very reason we have a Constitution.
I retort:
I seem to have touched a nerve David Short. First, what do you mean by "legislated religion"? Does that mean no school prayer? No funding to Catholic Charities for taking care of children? Does that mean devout Christians can't run for public office? That is what you people mean, even though it has always been the tradition and culture of America itself. And the intent of the Founding Fathers is critical, whether you believe that or not. Or should we simply ignore them now that the laws are more to your liking? I guess misuse of eminent domain is fine because, hey! we have a supreme court ruling that says so! I guess Dredd Scott was fine in it's day. I guess anything that is legislated now is just fine if it somehow passes some sort of court challenge. (Another example of how your idea of popular morality is a huge fail.) The Founding Fathers only passed a law preventing Congress from establishing a state religion or prohiting religioius practices that did not comport with their own. I'm sorry you don't like that but it is what is written.
Short falls short:
I see you are well versed in confusing issues. Also typical and expected. We can run through the litany of abuses our government has perpetrated if you wish. But I thought you wished to discuss the simple text of the 1st Amendment? Why the diversionary tactic?
I conclude:
No these are all the same issues and you know they are. It is YOU who are trying to confuse the issue David Short. Now, having just denounced the original intent of the framers who actually wrote the First Amendment you come out with "I thought you wished to discuss the simple text of the 1st Amendment". Why change up like that now? I brought these other issues in because they are not other issues at all, but rather real world applications of the First Amendment and the so-called wall. Again, the text of the document in no way supports your rather radical interpretation that the Amendment somehow kicks Christians out of rthe public sphere. At this point I really don't see you aruing honestly..
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:08 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1454 words, total size 9 kb.
1
"We have laws against torture. We have laws against pedophilia. Where do you think these came from? These came out of our Judeo-Christian background."
Not really, Tim. These laws, like the law against murder, are based on maintaining an orderly social fabric. The fact that you and I consider them to be wrongful (sinful) acts does not justify prohibiting others, who may not agree with us, from doing them.
The fact that doing them is harmful to the social fabric, that they are acts which interfere with the safe pursuit of life, liberty and happiness for the people of which that society consist, does justify creating laws against them even if one does not consider them to be sinful acts.
I fully agree with your philosophy of the ban being a one way street. A politician should be free to discuss religion to his hart’s content. But government may not pass laws based on religion – pro or con. Doing so interferes with the "free exercise thereof.â€
If you pass a law against murder based on the belief that murder is "wrong,†a sinful act, then you are infringing on the free exercise of a religion which does not adhere with that belief. But if you pass that law based on protecting a free citizen from the physically harmful action of his neighbor, then you have done nothing with respect to religon.
Not really, Tim. These laws, like the law against murder, are based on maintaining an orderly social fabric. The fact that you and I consider them to be wrongful (sinful) acts does not justify prohibiting others, who may not agree with us, from doing them.
The fact that doing them is harmful to the social fabric, that they are acts which interfere with the safe pursuit of life, liberty and happiness for the people of which that society consist, does justify creating laws against them even if one does not consider them to be sinful acts.
I fully agree with your philosophy of the ban being a one way street. A politician should be free to discuss religion to his hart’s content. But government may not pass laws based on religion – pro or con. Doing so interferes with the "free exercise thereof.â€
If you pass a law against murder based on the belief that murder is "wrong,†a sinful act, then you are infringing on the free exercise of a religion which does not adhere with that belief. But if you pass that law based on protecting a free citizen from the physically harmful action of his neighbor, then you have done nothing with respect to religon.
Posted by: Bill H at July 06, 2021 09:29 AM (/sW5m)
2
Perhaps giving him some context would have helped -- after all, context is everything to the Left. The Founders knew that most settlers here had come from a country where the state established the religion, and they wanted no part of it. It's one reason so many of the settlers of the colonies ended up here in the first place. That's why the First Amendment says, in effect, the government can't mess with religion. (It's immaterial to this argument that for a long time, many individual states DID establish a religion.) Nothing is said in the constitution about religion -- actually religious leaders -- from criticizing the government and trying to get favorable legislation passed.
Short seems not to understand that, or else he's stuck in the "if this, then also that" mindset. You did a great job in your debate, but to no avail, obviously.
Short seems not to understand that, or else he's stuck in the "if this, then also that" mindset. You did a great job in your debate, but to no avail, obviously.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at July 06, 2021 09:32 AM (qoFp/)
3
But Bill before Christian values extended across Western Civilization torture and pedophilia were the norm. While you make a good point I would argue that we believe this is for a good social fabric because of Christian values and not because these things are self-evident; they weren't at one point.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at July 07, 2021 07:13 AM (pzbSR)
4
Yeah Dana. I think this guy reached a point where he wouldn't accept anything because it was going to mess with his chosen worldview. You could see the chip on his shoulder over this early on.
As you say, context is everything and I should have added that point about why everyone was here. If he had continued the argument I probably would use that.
As you say, context is everything and I should have added that point about why everyone was here. If he had continued the argument I probably would use that.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at July 07, 2021 07:15 AM (pzbSR)
33kb generated in CPU 0.0861, elapsed 0.3211 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2958 seconds, 188 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2958 seconds, 188 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
