Eid revises history to back his view

Robert R. Tiernan Colorado Chapter, Freedom From Religion Foundation Denver

Published March 3, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

March 3, 2008

7:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

becca00 writes:

Indeed.

The major point of debate regarding religion in the U.S. Constitution was in regard to the "no religious test" clause of Article VI. However, when it was finally settled, what was enshrined in the Constitution was a prohibition against requiring religious tests for our civic leaders.

The First Amendment went largely uncontested because it was understood by everyone that it was necessary to keep the spheres of religion and state separated. To that end, the First Amendment accomplished the goal of allowing people to subscribe to whatever religion they chose without interference from the government, and allowed government to function without interference from religion.

The position promoted by people like Eid is a perversion of history with no basis in fact.
March 3, 2008

9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Another attempt by atheists to remove Christianity and God from America.

Though Mr. Tiernan uses a lot of words to try to make his point, he purposefully leaves out the FACT that America was founded by Christians.

And the atheists telling us unending lies doesn't change that fact.

The readers of the RMN need to beware of this deception.
March 3, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

becca00 writes:

@ NotChasB: You might be surprised to find that the major premise of the political philosophy which gave birth to this country and our constitution was that religion has absolutely no place in politics or government. It was a premise held by nearly every one of the Founding Fathers, and is embodied in Article VI and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

@ belltennis: "America was founded BY Christians" is not the same thing as "America was founded AS A Christian nation." To not acknowledge this distinction is about as intellectually dishonest as one can get. The degree to which the founders were devout Christians is a point of much debate, and rightly so, since several of them were professed atheists or deists, or openly expressed skepticism of Christianity (specifically) and all religion (generally).
March 3, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

So we take quotes from two founding fathers, one from one side and one from another, and from that propose to build policy. Let us, instead, take a wider poll of our founding fathers:

Noah Webster: When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting... remember that God commands you to choose just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty.

John Jay (First Chief Justice of the United States): Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

John Adams (2nd President and author of the oldest constitution in the world - Massachusetts): [I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.
AND
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Thomas Jefferson (writer of the Declaration, 3rd President): The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Updegraph v. Commonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824)): No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.

Or, how about another founding father speaking from the bench, Chief Justice Kent of the NY Court? "While the constitution of the state has saved the rights of conscience, and allowed a free and fair discussion of all points of controversy among religious sects, it has left the principle engrafted on the body of our common law, that Christianity is part of the laws of the state, untouched and unimpaired" and "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice…”, People v. Ruggles, 1811.

There are MANY other, public notices by the founding fathers that this is, or supposed to be, a Christian Nation.
March 3, 2008

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

Well, we have the establishment clause (no law establishing religion) and the religious test prohibition (no religious test required as a qualification for office). That suggests the idea of a separation between chuch and state to me, but what do I know?
March 3, 2008

noon

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Anderson, what you mentioned, those two things, are about all that is necessary to protect the people from religion, and religion from the government. It works both ways.

In order for this to be a Christian nation, we would have to pick from the hundreds of Christian groups for the one that would represent all of them. The infighting would be awful, but fun to watch.

Then it would be necessary to pick which Christian laws or customs go into the laws of the land. Should I go to jail for not honoring my mother and father? How can someone prove I do not keep Sunday holy? Can they read my mind? What if I covet my neighbors house? How much jail time for that?

Just using the Ten Commandments alone, I see that rape would not be a crime since it isn`t mentioned in there. Neither is sex among teen agers or unmarried people, only adultery is mentioned. Since Jesus drank wine often, then all sales and age restrictions regarding alcohol are against the Christian religion.

Jesus was an uncircumcised Jew so no more circumcision, even for health reasons.

I think it is kind of fun to rearrange the country into a Christian nation. The Bible says nothing about birth control, but I suppose the punishment for masturbation should be to cut off someones hand.

Can anyone add some more ideas on what this country would be like if it were a true Christian nation?
March 3, 2008

12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

becca00 writes:

@ NotChasB: You're not even making sense.

@ Ted_in_Vegas: Nice quotes. All appropriately ripped out of context and no cognition given to the actual words of the ratified U.S. Constitution. Nor do those quotes account for the actual basis and discussions relating to the language of the U.S. Constitution and the provisions contained therein. I can provide a number of quotes that illustrate a quite different and opposing point of view. However, that's not the point. The point is what principles were actually embodied in the language of the final, ratified version of the U.S. Constitution?

Can you provide any evidence--any at all--that the U.S. Constitution represents a Christian God or requires Christian beliefs in any way, shape, or form?

Exactly what is a "Christian Nation"? Is it a theocracy premised on Christian beliefs? Which Christian beliefs? Catholic? Protestant? Baptist? Quaker? Jehovah's Witness? Is it based on a literal or figurative interpretation of the Bible?

Can you provide any evidence that indicates the language of the U.S. Constitution should be read to permit the inter-mingling of religious and civil affairs?
March 3, 2008

12:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

becca00 writes:

@ me2: Another example is that we wouldn't have a space program. Or at least not a successful one. Personally, for the sake of the space program, I'm glad that the "opinion" of the Bible (that above the clouds is Heaven, warm kittens, and oxygenated happiness) wasn't adopted in favor of the "opinion" of science (that space is an atmospheric vacuum with no oxygen or other elements supportive of life).

Of course, following the biblical belief that the sun revolves around the earth would have also prevented us from reaching the moon, Mars, the Voyager programs, or any of the other extra-terrestrial activity we've made in the last 50 years.
March 3, 2008

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Tbone: I didn't cite the Treaty of Tripoli for two reasons: 1) those who cite it take it out of context and 2) it, alone, runs counter to many other Supreme Court decisions and international treaties and agreement.

Think about it, the opposing side said, and because I'm at work I do paraphrase: "If all Christian nations were the American type rather than the European type, he wouldn't have any problems with the American Christian Nation."

Oh, and the treaty failed anyway...

and, Becca... Care to prove the context is wrong??? A bald assertion, in opposition to facts, does not make it true... But then, I've debated you before and fact don't seem to bother you...
March 3, 2008

1:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

A Christian nation raises some interesting possibilities. No more messy divorces, just a few unhappy marriages. Well, the Italians did it.

With the commandment against worshipping false idols, I guess we'd have to give up American Idol, our John Elway adulation, our brand new cars, and most of our consumer-driven culture.

With the commandment against stealing, as well as the money-changers thrown out of the temple, we'd have to get rid of pay day lenders and credit card cos. and, oh my, what would we do without them?
March 3, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

I always enjoy watching the far religious right go through this exercise with our local experts. It's great tutoring for them, but it's too bad that they have to repeat it every time the far right chooses to shake the etch-i-sketch.

It is a sad state of affairs regarding religious fundamentalists. It is tough for them to rationalize away the damage they do in a number of countries and regions across the planet. It is certainly an unfortunate dilemna the US shares with several countries in the Middle East.
March 3, 2008

1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Thanks for all the additional remarks on what a "Christian American Nation" would look like.

Would all the ladies be required to wear those little house on the prairie dresses? Would it be illegal for us to cut our hair? Would all the people look as generic as they do in Utah?
March 3, 2008

2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ted_in_Vegas writes:

Tbone- I'm left wondering if you've written it; your argument doesn't even make sense!

First you say that that the Treaty says we're not a Christian nation, then you say it doesn't even address the issue?

I never said that the Treaty had our opponent's remarks; this came from other historical data that I don't have access to right now because I'm at work. (I work for a living too.)

The Treaty failed because they continued to raid our shipping, leading to our 1803 expedition to pummel them into leaving our merchants alone ("From the halls of Montezuma, TO THE SHORES OF TRIOIPLI!!!")

As for what a Christian nation would look like, its simple. Follow simple Christian morals and respect others; of course, you'd have to get a realistic - non-Hollywierd - idea of what Christianity is about first. A good place to get an idea what it would be like is to check out the Founding Fathers' comments...
March 3, 2008

2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Old_Grouch writes:

me2,

Hi Sharon,

One small correction. Jesus was a Jew. Circumcision was - still is - part of the Jewish Law. So, as the Scripture tells us - and the Early Church Celebrates as a Feast - Jesus was circumcised.

jay, et.al.

The Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ (Prote$tanti$m) - in all its various gatherings and groupings of nuts, loose screws, kooks, cranks, crazies, fanatics, and cults, is noted for its method of offering argument for its endless host of self-contradictory positions, laws, points of view, political actions, etc., etc. Indeed, the name of this method is, "Proof-texting". The pulpit jackass picks out his - or her - buzz-words/phrases, strings them together, and, Voila! One has an "established doctrine"; and "Scriptural establishment" to back it up.

This line of postings has brought out a couple of good "proof-texters", who interpret history according to this, that, or the other, favorite sentence, or phrase out of context, that their pulpit jackass quotes in support of whatever political idea happens to flit through the count of the day's take from the suckers, and appears to be a good place on which to base another attempt to grab more than the other pulpit jackass down the street is raking in.

In presenting their idea that the ACLU, among others, is responsible for "distorting history" - a subject that they long ago flunked in early grade school - they insist that their own "proof-texting" revisions somehow restore the REALITY of what the actual historical record "means". For the most part, this is amusing - even hilariously ridiculous - though at times it does become quite tedious, and illustrative of the vacuous emptiness between their ears that marks them as apt followers, and perfect sheeple.

I suggest, as a mild antidote, a little "Proof-text" from their own Scripture; every word of which can be found in the New Testament, the supposed "source" of their own Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ Franchi$e. It goes like this:

"And Judas went out and hanged himself. Make Haste! Go thou and do likewise."

Then, for the sake of HISTORY, read: "Cases on Church and State", a Harvard Casebook, Harvard University Press, (1960's dating), or "Church and State in the United States", MJF Books, New York, NY, 2003; and/or both.

Then, just tune in on the blog and watch all the frothing at the mouth! More fun that a visit to the monkey house at the zoo. And far more entertaining that sitting in a Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ barn of a Sunday morning, listening to the local pulpit jackass bray.
March 3, 2008

2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

Why shouldn't we have freedom from religion? I don't share those beliefs. Don't tread on me. (I've heard that somewhere)
March 3, 2008

3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

becca00 writes:

@ Ted_in_Vegas: It's easy enough to prove your context wrong.

First, start with John Locke and his "Second Treatise of Civil Government" which begins with the premise that neither the Christian God, not the Christian religion can assert any right to exercise an inherent right to govern (or exercise dominion) over mankind. Locke is important because his philosophy of political organization forms the basis of democratic enlightenment, and is what the Founding Fathers understood to be the basis of civil government. This philosophy is also the basis from where modern concepts of property and economic theory originate.

Locke's view of individual liberty and civil government was a view where individual liberty was paramount and the only purpose of civil government was to keep the peace amongst its citizens and benefit the whole of the body politic over which a government was allowed to have authority. Central to ensuring the preservation of individual liberty was the premise of limiting the power of civil government to only that which is necessary, and all other rights, or powers, being retained by the people. As a result, government only holds that power which is granted by the people, and government may exert its authority only insofar as it has been empowered to do so.

Both Jefferson and Madison drew heavily from Locke's philosophical template when putting together the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution (respectively). Locke's views on liberty are fully present in the Preamble's declaration that the U.S. Constitution is established to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Ultimately, the Founding Fathers understood, regardless of whatever their religious views may be, the constitutional guarantee of "liberty" is without meaning if one of the essential components of liberty, the freedom of conscience, is not guaranteed first and foremost. Because government only has that power surrendered by its citizens, and the right of conscience--the right to believe what you want to believe--is an inherent individual right and a core element of liberty, the government must be forever banished from exercising any influence or dictate over what beliefs a free people would adopt.

And it wasn't just Jefferson and Madison that believed this. It was every one of the Founding Fathers that participated in the Constitutional Convention, and the vast majority of our founding citizens in every state that ratified what currently stands as the Constitution of the United States.
March 3, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

becca00 writes:

@ jay: "I always enjoy watching the far religious right go through this exercise with our local experts. It's great tutoring for them, but it's too bad that they have to repeat it every time the far right chooses to shake the etch-i-sketch."

Ha ha!! Excellent! :-)

I've gotten to the point where I keep most of my research in a text file and when they shake their Etch-A-Sketch, I just copy/paste to refresh their memory.

Fast-food-style education for those with fast-food-style brains.
March 3, 2008

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

becca i've started to do the same thing...even pasting old threads where we've taken the discussion to its logical conclusion. definitely saves time
March 3, 2008

4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

3rdGenerationNative writes:

beca00;
Can you provide any evidence that indicates the language of the U.S. Constitution should be read to prohibit the free exercise of worship and civil affairs?
March 3, 2008

4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

anderson writes:

The bill of rights explictly tells us we have the free exercise of religion. But that has to be considered within the context of other provisions, such as the prohibition on state established religion.
March 3, 2008

4:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

3rdGenerationNative writes:

Why is it France's revolution failed, when they patterned their democracy after ours? It was based on every citizen having a vote - true democracy. But they grew tired of voting on every issue (should my neighbor be guillotined, maybe SOME prisoners should be returned to the Bastille, etc. ad nauseum). The very founders like Rabellais died at the hands and votes of their fellow citizens. No, the constitutional principle our founding fathers had was based on the fact that all men are depraved. Heeding the words, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and there being none righteous even among such upstanding patriots as the Continental Congress, they set out the system of Checks and Balances. No king, even a Christian (Anglican Pope, Holy Roman or other European-style monarch) could gain dominance over the people without challenge.

Where do you think they learned that? It wasn't from an established church and was not driven by any particular denomination. It wasn't from the Old Testament, the 10 commandments or any arcane Jewish custom (unless you're Hebrew, don't insult them trying to keep their laws and traditions), it was a New Testament Christian concept. Church-versus-State: which church does that refer to, precisely?
March 3, 2008

5:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

becca00 writes:

@ 3rdGenerationNative: The U.S. Constitution should not be read to "prohibit the free exercise of worship and [sic] civil affairs."

The concept of the "free exercise" of religion guarantees that individuals are free to believe or speak as they wish with regard to the dictates of their religious views--and within the context of other constitutional guarantees. Thus, you are free to hold discriminatory beliefs about another person based on what your religion tells you, but you are not always free to act on those beliefs, e.g., Muslims can't kill Jews (or vice-versa) because their religion tells them to, you can't instigate or advocate for the murder of an individual based on religious beliefs, and you can't discriminate in employment or public accommodations because of those religious beliefs.

But that's not what you're getting at, is it? You want me to address people making religious statements in the context of civil affairs. That requires an "it depends" approach. Is the person speaking as the leader of a civil/government organization? Or are they speaking as an individual? If George Bush wants to say a prayer to himself, fine. If, as President of the United States, he wants to lead the country in prayer, not fine. Granted, the lines are typically not quite so clear cut, but that is one of the reasons the the judicial branch exists.
March 3, 2008

5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

3rdGenerationNative writes:

The Muslim world wasn't fooled by the Treaty of Tripoli; as far as the Barbary pirates were concerned, we inherited our 19th century Christian identity from 14th century European Crusaders. To them, we all look the same, Protestant-Catholic Zionist sympathizers - call it guilt by association. If the ACLU had any scruples, they would go after the Taliban for mislabelling us as Christians (try to overlook the 80% minority of Americans who profess that faith). For me, that is not so much 'religion' as it is relationship.
March 3, 2008

5:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

3rdGenerationNative writes:

And under which religious figures does the judicial branch sit? See the bas relief above the columns in the US Dept. of Justice building.
March 3, 2008

5:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

becca00 writes:

@ 3rdGenerationNative: "Where do you think they learned that? It wasn't from an established church and was not driven by any particular denomination. It wasn't from the Old Testament, the 10 commandments or any arcane Jewish custom ..., it was a New Testament Christian concept. Church-versus-State: which church does that refer to, precisely?"

Actually, no, it was not a New Testament concept.

First, the similarities between the French Revolution and the American Revolution end at the use of the term "Revolution."

The French Revolution was driven by pure classism and resentment (or rather, "ressentiment" as characterized by Nietzsche), the foundation of which being solidly based on wealth (real or perceived). The guillotine remained active because there was no government to provide any reasonable sense of justice. Being perceived to be better off than any of the poor was reason enough for the mob to haul one off to the guillotine.

As for the "constitutional principle" upon which the Founding Fathers based our government, it was most decidedly NOT what you describe--some Hobbes-ian purgatory. The British government was--and still is--established on the Anglican church. It is the Anglican church that executed and imprisoned blasphemers and non-believers. In fact, it was only last year that Great Britain finally did away with civil laws prohibiting blasphemy (much to the chagrin of British citizens who have been violating it for centuries). It doesn't really get much more "New Testament" than that, does it? As a matter of fact, it is the New Testament, through the words of your so-called god, Jesus, that gives you the biblical admonition to "render unto Caesar all things that are Caesar's, and unto God render what is God's." (Matthew 22:21) That sounds to me like a clear biblical dictate of the separation of church and state.

In making our own government, the Founding Fathers sought to do away with the trappings of historical British/Anglican rule and put forth a new government founded not on religion, but a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Missing from the U.S. Constitution is any statement that says our country belongs to God.
March 3, 2008

6:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

becca00 writes:

@ 3rdGenerationNative: The caption above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court says "Equal Justice Under Law," and the frieze above the caption shows Lady Justice with her scales, surrounded on both sides by Roman soldiers, one carrying her sword, and the other carrying her scroll. She is further flanked by Roman politicians.

What does that say? That we're a Roman nation?
March 3, 2008

6:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spinoza writes:

It was with the usual trepidation that I read the musings of Mr. Eid, a U.S. Attorney who seeks to champion the perverse faith-based attempts to undermine one of our bedrock Constitutional principles: separation of church and state. On the one hand he (correctly) states: "This enormously popular phrase by Jefferson, celebrated author of the Declaration of Independence, reflects the Founding Fathers' consensus that religion should be kept out of public life." But proceeds with the complete non-sequitur, "Or does it?"

Me. Eid blithely goes on to ignore the weight of jurisprudence and historical scholarship which is indeed a consensus that the First Amendment's plain meaning and intention was revealed in that Jeffersonian phrase contained in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. This "Wall of Separation" is a foundational principle that not only serves both church and state well, but distinguishes our still free Republic from most other nations and the Talibanesque machinations of radical Dominionist Christians who whose aim is to subvert the Light of Reason with their oppressive, intolerant version of "God's law".

Thankfully our Constitution is a wholly secular document, utterly silent regarding a god, a god-man, religion or a holy book. Not even a vague reference to "Divine Providence". Could any sane person actually confabulate that this was somehow an oversight by these meticulous men, following a rigorous deliberative process, with great determination and foresight?

Author Martin E. Marty (Modern American Religion, Vol II) used as an introduction to his article "Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics" (The Christian Century March 23-30, l994, pp 316-27): "It is one of the striking facts of American history that the American Revolution was led by men who were not very religious," wrote Gordon Wood in New York History. "At the best the Founding Fathers only passively believed in organized Christianity and at worst they scorned and ridiculed it." When asked why the Constitution did not mention God, Alexander Hamilton is said to have answered, "We forgot."
March 3, 2008

6:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spinoza writes:

Comment Continued:

Rev. John Leland, a leader of the Virginia Baptists, from July 4, 1802, chastised the politicians who included religious imperatives in the Church-controlled Massachusetts colony with these words: "In the second article [of the Massachusetts state constitution of 1780] it is said, 'is the right and duty of all men publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being.' This article would read much better in a catechism than in a state constitution, and sound more concordant in a pulpit than in a statehouse."

Rev. Leland typified several devout Christian leaders who were also champions of religious liberty during the formative stages of our Republic... ministers like the Baptist Issac Backus or Presbyterians Caleb Wallace and John Witherspoon. However, recall that much earlier, Reverend Roger Williams who founded the colony of Rhode Island had these sharp words to all who would conflate religion and The State: "... against the testimony of Christ Jesus for the civil state to impose upon the soul of the people a religion, a worship, a ministry." Williams was a passionate defender of the individuals freedom to follow the dictates of ones conscience, and thus captured the very essence of Religious Freedom enshrined in the Constitution.

Yes Mr. Eid, there is a Constitutional Wall that every citizen should cherish and defend.
March 3, 2008

6:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

Why again can't we be from from your religion?
March 3, 2008

8:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Hi Old Grouch, I muddled my point. In A Christian America, since Jews circumcise, Christians should not. Small point in my satire.

Christians should question why they dislike government on the one hand, and yet seek to link it with their religion on the other.

Because this is not an official Christian nation, no religion can take over the law. some other religion could become the majority, and the adherents of that faith would want their religious beliefs the law of the land. That should not be possible.

Imagine a Mormon Christian nation, where they are 86% of the population, as Christians now claim they are. Imagine them making the civil laws from their religion dogma.

The separation of church and state protects us from all religions and protects us from religious interference in the future.

Don`t Taliban America.
March 3, 2008

8:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spinoza writes:

First of all, kudos to Becca00 for having the patience to deal with the stunningly misinformed conservative christians on this thread. Regarding what one of those lemmings posted on the desirability of a 'christian nation' and what form it would take, one only has to look to the South, aka 'bible belt'.

The churches there are like kudzu, (which is to say everywhere) and every other sentence is 'lordy' this and 'jesus' that. The science teachers there regulary envoke 'god' when their youngsters have problems with scientific concepts, like that pesky EVOLUTION. The result of this hyper-religiousity?

This humid Christian Nation leads more secular regions of the U.S. in: DIVORCE, CRIME, INCARCERATION, DRUG ADDICTION & OVERDOSE, STD'S (GONORRHEA & CHLAMYDIA); TEEN PREGNANCY; POVERTY; POOR EDUCATION; OBESITY AND DIABETES; SMOKING... not to mention RACIAL HATE CRIMES. Only in America with cartoonish buffoons leading pew-lemming by the bus-load (Robertson, Roberts, Falwell's ghost, corpulent Hagee, Haggard... Kennedy, Graham and others) would almost 40% of the population actually believe our planet is 6000 years young!

Internationally, sholarship has revealed that in every measure of societal health, the more secular a society, the healthier.

NEXT!
March 4, 2008

12:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

becca00 writes:

@ Spinoza: Thanks! All in a day's work ;-)

Also, as follow up reading for either side of the discussion, I'd highly recommend picking up a copy of "The Godless Constitution," by Kramnick and Moore. An excellent treatise on the role and history of religion, U.S. government, and how the two have evolved over the centuries.
March 4, 2008

7:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Old_Grouch writes:

becca00,

I have posted, repeatedly, two texts that the funny-mental-cases either are unable to read - since there are a good many multi-syllable words in both - or simply refuse to read, because the texts refute their positions completely.

The time, effort, and energy you have expended on the topic here merits very high praise; and I certainly extend this whole heartedly. However, having had nearly 8 decades of dealings with the endless variety of religions that currently infest the nation, I do have to observe that the level of followers who keep bringing up the topic of "Christian/religious-American-Nation" is so far below even an average mental level as to be totally unable to even begin to deal with John Locke, or any other area of philosophy for that matter.

Indeed, most of them couldn't even begin to pass Logic 100, as witness the remarks about "freedom OF religion, but not freedom FROM religion" which abound here. The concept of "opposite sides of a coin" - to use the metaphor - is so completely beyond them as to render any attempt at simple education futile.

I am printing off the whole of this line of postings. Much thanks for the work you have done. It is heartening to find at least one good scholar who is willing to put out the effort to keep a degree of intelligent sanity on the blog.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Eid revises history to back his view

Robert R. Tiernan Colorado Chapter, Freedom From Religion Foundation Denver

Published March 3, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs