<p>I noticed a few posts on the Patrick Henry College article in the New Yorker, and I’m fairly shocked and disappointed at what some of the content was like. I, for one, am a small-government, libertarian Republican. I’d vote for the likes of McCain, Giuliani, and Schwartznegger in a heartbeat. Thus, before you start calling me a, as paraphrased from another post, “liberal, leftists, progressive, socialist, anarchist - or whatever you call it,” know that I’ve got good credentials. </p>
<p>Here are a few questions for my fellow republicans who happen to be of the fundamentalist, socially ultra-conservative kind:
How do you not believe in global warming?
How do you not believe in evolution? Do you at least profess to believe in Intelligent Design? Or is even that too “scientific” and “logically sound” for you?
How on earth can you agree with the doctrine of these conservative colleges that espouse rhetoric along the likes of “physical, sexual contact between males and females is sin,” or “those who die outside christ are damned to hell.” </p>
<p>Before you go on yapping about ‘freedom of speech, thought and expression’ in this nation, let me say that you are certainly free to think in whatever you wish. However, I certainly would like to question how you can logically and empirically justify your beliefs. And before you even think about replying to this post, don’t tell me science is highly flawed or it isn’t the entire truth. The whole purpose of science is to seek the truth through various forms of reasoning and data collection. Our nation was founded upon scientific reasoning, founded on the ideas of the great enlightenment philosophers of locke, rousseau, montenesque, smith, voltaire. These were figures who despised those who took scripture by the word as some irrefutable doctrine. Lastly, pertaining to the article, realize that a college has a responsibility to educate students in the skills of reasoning. Students shouldn’t have to be anchored to any one particular ideology - they should be allowed to find their own through the natural human abilities of reasoning, deduction, induction and empirical observation. So, in my view, a college that trains its students to believe ONLY in christ, shoves down their throats untenable theories such as creationism and asexual marriage need to be shut down, let alone be training our future politicians. </p>
<p>And before I go, know that I will be challenging your fundamentalist asses in the Republican primaries. I can just feel our founding fathers, especially jefferson, turning in their graves</p>
<p>Being a moderate, quote unquote, “super-ultra-right-wing-fundamentalist-who-just-happens-to-be-mid-of-centre,” I’ll respond accordingly.</p>
<p>First, I’d like to state that I am a Republican, not card-carrying as of yet but soon will be. However, just because I am labeled under one party ideology does not mean I am completely deaf to the other side. I am a free and independent thinker, and I am not so vapid as to blindly follow the orthodoxy of the Republican party. I think our President has made mistakes, but I still would have voted for him nonetheless, because the alternative was not much better, but in fact worse. (At least in my opinion).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do believe in global warming. Most, wholehearted Christians do. It’s an undeniable fact that only the most extreme of the right-wing profess to believe. Moreover, it’s probably a feigned attempt at their part to ignore the environmental conditions of the world. I doubt that they don’t believe, somewhere deep down in their “extremist” hearts, that the world is being endangered by global warming. Perhaps, they don’t see it as much of a threat as you do, but…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Both Evolution and Creationism has its flaws. I’m one to believe that intelligent design (ID) was the way our Earth was created, and any blanks or illogical proofs that run against the ID theory can be displaced by faith. Neither theories are fully tenable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know. For some reason, I like to give some credit to Pascal’s Wager.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A freedom of belief doesn’t necessarily come with the requirement of justification. If that were true, and you were to empirically defend your meaning of existence, or our existence as a whole, then hell, we’d be fudged, wouldn’t we. In no way can you prove the value of your presence here on Earth, in any other fashion except by faith alone.</p>
<p>If I were to ask you, what is your purpose here on Earth? What is our purpose here on Earth? Could you logically defend your answer? Could you provide some form of empirical proof that solidifies your statement and thus, makes your belief an absolute truth? No. </p>
<p>Justification doesn’t have to accompany belief.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Before I continue, it’s Montesquieu, or Montaigne, whichever one you were aiming for. I have no idea who the hell Montenesque is.</p>
<p>Oh, and if it was Montaigne,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, and let’s get to the writers of the Enlightenment:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>L’Auteur, of course, being the Author, or the Creator.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Solely by scientific reasoning, eh?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I think you’re probably just referring to Voltaire. Many of them just challenged the religious establishment, less the idea of God.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet, you’re sort of shoving this topic down our throats yourself, are you attempting to tell us what to think, and not how to think? That reasoning should be based on empiricism alone, without any degree of faith? If this is what you are preaching, then you are, by God, no better than those of the religious zealots you criticize.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.</p>
<p>emeraldkity4, I’m not sure how that quote’s relevant unless you’re suggesting that denying the right of this university to teach as it sees fit is to give up one of those essential liberties.</p>
<p>I’m hardly a fundamentalist, but it seems when people insist on freedom of speech and academic freedom, we sort of have to accept which ever direction it goes. It may require its professors to have a common set of beliefs, but it’s not unique among American universities in that.</p>
<p>Doctorx, i’m a self proclaimed neo con that doesn’t go to Church, but is super spiritual and believes in Evolution! I want to go to the Galapagos Island because I find Darwin’s trip there SO incredibly fascinating. so um yeah… :-)! </p>
<p>stop being ignorant and anti-Christian because that’s how you sound. Locke and all those philosophers definitely had a HUGE part in terms of influencing the foundation of this country. WHICH IS WHY WE ARE NOT A THEOCRACY and never HAVE been. but that doesnt’ mean our country hasn’t been inspired by God, religion, and belief in Divine Providence etc (Manifest Destiny ring a bell? How many Quakers gave up their pacifist beliefs in order to support the Revolution? Even the first Abolition of Slavery movements have roots in religion!)… The reason why Jefferson, a deist himself, wanted to say that GOD created all human beings and GOD granted us rights in the Declaration of Independence was because it would have been stupid to say we were non-important random wonders of science that only had rights becuase some document said we did. But to say GOD emphasizes our fundamental connection to all human beings, our importance and dignity as individuals, and that NO person or government can take that away becuase it wasn’t a person or government that gave our rights to us in the first place. That the document (happy july 4th everyone!) is SACRED and untouchable. It’s hard for me to explain what I think his reasoning was but yeah. </p>
<p>Liberals in this country want to create their own Theocracy—that just happens to be the Religion with no “God” but it’s a religion in itself, and they shove it down people’s throats. The ACLU definitely is more of an annoyance to my personal life than any evangelist has ever been. </p>
<p>I don’t even think most people care all that MUCH about gay marriage—they were simply p i s s ed off at the fact that UNELECTED-appointed-for-life activist judges in state courts decided to rule in favor of it without any consent from the people, behind their backs, and so suddenly! nobody wants an institution like marriage to be changed just becuase a few judges felt it appropriate!!! what other aspects of our life are they going to try and control?</p>
<p>Even the states that were Blue and voted for Kerry voted against gay marriage legalization.</p>
<p>I admit the Patriot Act is similar to laws that have existed in Britian for years, but that’s a pretty odd tangent from the thread’s topic don’t you think?</p>
OMG!!11 The OP totally butchered his name! I mean everyone knows that there is no T in that guy’s name. Oh my gosh, I can’t believe she/he misspelled it!</p>
<p>v_v" I just hate it when people do that “you can’t spell because I found a small typo!” thing.</p>
<p>
I don’t see how its anti-christian to question their beliefs, especially when they don’t make sense logically. Don’t christian question the beliefs of non-christians? God gave us a brain and so why aren’t we to use it?</p>
<p>A “religion” with no God being shoved down our throats? This is America. And when you live in America you live by the constitution. And if I can recall correctly, I believe there is something in the constitution like “seperation of church and state”? Nobody is stopping you from worshipping. The point is that we, the people, are not to be governed by what an invisible man says unless you personally want to.</p>
<p>
I didn’t properly read through all the replies, but wow. If you are the one instigating the gay-marriage thing I have to ask… why?? Anyway, I have to say that who marries who is not your business. The court is not controlling any aspect of your life. I don’t see how it directly effects you if the gay couple down the street can get the benefits of legal marriage.</p>
<p>Actually, that light-hearted pointing out of the Governor’s name was a prelude to the defense of Creationism I wrote later on. I promise you, at least a quarter of the eighth-graders in civics class will fail to spell the name “Schwarzenegger.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Separation of church and state is an implied directive, not an explicit one. Nor is the separation of church and state in the original Constitution. The fundamental arguments for separation of church and state is derived from the First Amendment, which is an addendum to the Constitution, better known as the Bill of Rights (or at least, a part of it).</p>
<p>I would have posted this with my other post, but I want a greater number of posts on the post count. (Actually, I want to make a point… and I won’t have enough edit time for this post to go through in time.)</p>
<p>Just a brief overview of the cause for separation of church and state. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>The Blaine Amendment: Many states adopted this failed constitutional amendment to supplement their own state constitutions, in order to prohibit the use of public funds for religious purpose. (1875)</p></li>
<li><p>The Supreme Court bans prayer and religious readings from public schools. (1962)</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Although you want to argue that the Declaration and other Framist documents were produced with the notion that the Divine no longer held a relative position in the decisions of our government, that is not really the case. Even within the Declaration, there is an implied faith and belief in an Almighty, despite the fact that the Declaration was forcefully revoking the Divine Right of Kings.</p>
<p>Our Bill of Rights specifically says, and I quote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pray, do tell me, where does it say government and church must be wholly separate? The separation of church and state was first introduced by Roger Williams, then quoted often by Thomas Jefferson. Never once, on a legislative federal document nor executive order, did the government bar church affairs from interfering with the state.</p>
<p>However, in an attempt to separate ourselves with the “Divine” nature of many empires, the separation of church and state clause continuously was invoked. To be quite honest, having a Presidency being “ordained by God” would have been quite controversial, as that would have had us go one step closer towards the English monarchy. No, the church cannot completely envelop itself into the matters of state, for religion should tend to religion and the flock, while politics…you get the drift.</p>
<p>However, crying foul with “separation of church and state” every single time something of remote controversy occurs is ludicrous. Official sanction of religious bodies by the government is considered a violation of separation and church and state; a policymaker or a legislator elected on the basis of promoting “family values and a life of Christian faith” is not a violation of church and state. </p>
<p>Religion, or the absence of belief, cannot form a litmus test for entering politicians. Politicians cannot be barred solely because they run on a platform of atheism or Christianity. We cannot bar our legislators from promoting a certain lifestyle, because belief is the right of the individual, and actions resulting from the belief, on the legislative, judicial, or executive bench must be expected if one is elected/appointed with religious concerns in mind.</p>
<p>If we have our “religious” legislators in the chambers of our great Republic, what do you expect? It is an exercise of democracy, they have every right to be there and to dictate policy as they see fit if they are elected under the premise of religious beliefs. You cannot strip a legislator of his status because he is a devout Christian, nor can you impeach a Senator from her seat just because she is a devout Muslim. Voters are not brainless zombies, they know the religious tendencies of a person who they vote for.</p>
<p>Because of the state of our bicameral legislature and the fact that there can be no true barrier between separation of church and state, the impact of the doctrine of separating both religion and state should be minimal, at best. What we are trying to avoid is a complete usurpation of powers by the church; e.g. the Catholic Church dominating all of European affairs during the Middle Ages. </p>
<p>Neither evolution nor Creationism are absolutes. Education is relative. What is taught in an education is also relative. Relative as in, determined by the policymakers up on above. </p>
<p>Please don’t say the Founding Fathers would be turning in their graves; I doubt that very much so. This is democracy at work. You get who you elect. ;)</p>
<p>Also, with regard to “seperation of Church and State,” the clauses preventing the government from establishing a state religion were created to prevent the government from mucking around in religion, not to keep religion from interfering with the government. </p>
<p>Indeed, the Puritan churches of Massachussets and the Anglicans of Virginia all received state tax funding for their church establishments. The intent with regard to seperation was to prevent the Federal Government from favoring one church over the other through funding.</p>
<p>"nobody wants an institution like marriage to be changed just becuase a few judges felt it appropriate!!! what other aspects of our life are they going to try and control? "</p>
<p>Last time I checked, people and their rights come before an institution. </p>
<p>Btw, I’m no liberal by any means. Quite the contrary, given I’m a hugeass free-trade and free-markets advocate. I read Milton Friedman and FA Hayek, not the likes of Chomsky.</p>
<p>It always has seemed to me that if the founding fathers wanted to put God in the Constitution, they could have put it there. In fact, they made an affirmative decision NOT to do so. We know that because Patrick Henry opposed the ratification of the Constitution precisely because they left God out (among other reasons), but he wasn’t able to convince his colleagues that God needed to be put back in.</p>
<p>An “interesting” decision on their part, and one of which they were totally aware, especially as the charters of most of the former colonies they came from DID have mention of God.In fact, the U.S. Constitution is first constitution or foundation document in the history of the world to keep God out, a fact of which the founders were well aware. Strict constructionists should take note.</p>
<p>If marriage were a right, I would have thought it to be the right of children, while knowing that right could only be placed in the care of the potential parents as surrogates. </p>
<p>Why would two people who love each other or simply want to be engaged in a sexual union need special protection, straight or otherwise?
What is it about unmarried people that they should be denied such protections and benefits as our given to two people who simply choose to be called a couple? </p>
<p>If it is truly only about equality and respect, why should these rights be denied to any adult, whether in a sexual union or not?</p>
<p>I would have thought that the institution of marriage existed to protect the most vulnerable: children and for a time in our past, the welfare of women.</p>
<p>It always has seemed to me that if the founding fathers wanted to put God in the Constitution, they could have put it there.
…</p>
<p>It always seemed to me that if the founding fathers wanted to put a strict separation of church and state in the constitution, they could have put it there.</p>
<p>True. They were so non-faith oriented, that they wanted God kept out of government all together. In fact, that is precisely one of the elements that makes the U.S. Constitution unique in the history of the world, a fact of which the writers were aware, and against which Patrick Henry railed.</p>
<p>The words “separation of church and state” come from Jefferson shortly thereafter, he who was close friends of the authors. We tend to be ahistorical. The Great Awakening of 1805 brought God back into the conversation, but prior to that, as far the Constitutionalists were concerned, He was pretty much anathema. It wasn’t just that religion or church should be separate from the state, but rather that God was consciously edited out entirely.</p>
<p>But Jefferson and Madison were afraid that wasn’t a strong enough statement - the deliberate absence of God might be missed. Hence the 1st Amendment - which has to be put into the context of the missing God in the Constitution.</p>
<p>In fact, this is what makes Tlaktan’s posts so interesting. In the 1770s, the Revolutionists of the period spoke and wrote an awful lot of God-language. By 1789 with the Constitution, it is gone in its entirety. And they were very conscious of it.</p>