Mandate For Liberty - Why Christian Fundamentalists Are Good For Your Freedom

Whether it is optional or not is besides the point that when public servants suggest prayer in the work place they are taking the position of advocating their religious views on behalf of the state they represent. The point of seperation of church and state is that no citizen should have reason to believe that the government shows any favoritism in regards to faith and that they are never coerced into changing that faith in order to utilize public property.

None of this appears anywhere in the Constitution, the First amendment or otherwise.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


It says Congress. Not the state of Alabama or the state of Texas etc or the city/county of _______. Seperation of church and state appears nowhere in the document. It says Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion OR prohibiting free exercise thereof. In other words, we can't establish a national church like The Baptist Church is the Church of America and we must all pay taxes to support this church. It does not say that the government or it's officials cannot express or exercise their religion.

Why do you think Congress opens up with a word of prayer every day. Why do you think Ben Franklin ask the convention to pray about this after all the arguing and disagreeing (doesn't sound like much of a deist to me and he is the one Founding Father along with Jefferson who even comes close to sounding anything like a non Christian at certain other points in his life)
 
I assume all of you all are aware that at least one long established church does not have sunday school because they believe that sort of thing should be handled at home!
 
It does not say that the government or it's officials cannot express or exercise their religion.
True but this bit:

prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Is considered violated if a school principle prays over the loud speaker or if the teacher leads the class in a prayer. When I was in school we had the 'moment of silence' immediately after (or before, can't remember) the pledge (which has GOD right there! part of the reason I refused to recite it). That moment of silence was fine and dandy. Gave the religious kids a chance to pray, the non religious kids a chance to think about whatever they wanted, and me a chance to finish my math homework.

But if the principle had started praying that would've caused problems. I had no issue with the prayer group that met at the flagpole before class each day. I joined them on a few occassions. But a public school employee should not be suggesting one religion over another to children.
 
It says Congress. Not the state of Alabama or the state of Texas etc or the city/county of _______.
From this I assume that Texas can therefore abridge the Freedom of Speech?

If you believe the First Amendment is just about the kind of laws Congress can make, then there is no point having this discussion.:(
 
If you believe the First Amendment is just about the kind of laws Congress can make, then there is no point having this discussion


Handy,
as far as what the U.S. Constitution restricts, yes I do. What states or counties decide to do for themselves is another matter. 9 out of the original 13 states had established churches some of them well into the 1800s after the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

Redworm
Saying you (teacher, students, whoever) can't hold a prayer is prohibiting free excercise thereof. It's saying that people who want to can't do so because you Redworm or whoever doesn't like them to or want to hear it. If you don't want to recite it, then you are free not to, but you shouldn't be able to tell others they can not.
 
Redworm
Saying you (teacher, students, whoever) can't hold a prayer is prohibiting free excercise thereof. It's saying that people who want to can't do so because you Redworm or whoever doesn't like them to or want to hear it. If you don't want to recite it, then you are free not to, but you shouldn't be able to tell others they can not.
I'm not saying the teachers and students can't pray, simply that the teachers and other government employees cannot lead the students in a prayer.

If a christian principle can lead the school in a prayer than a pagan teacher should be allowed to lead her class in a pagan prayer. Would you be happy with the principle of your child's school leading a prayer to allah? Would you be comfortable with wiccan students performing their rituals in the company of your children?
 
Being a deist (deisim), believing in a God.

Not necessarily being a Christian. Big difference.

According to Oxford American Dictionary, it is believing in God, but not accepting revelation.

HQ:D
 
HarleyQuinn, more specifically a diest is a person who believes that there is a God who created the universe and then just left it as is long ago for everything to fall where it may. Everything from then on is just a tossup. To the Deist, God is not active in the affairs of men, has no interest in what is to come of creation.
This belief was more common in certain places in Europe around the 18th century but found very little favor in America. Ben Franklin is about the only Founding Father that I can think of that is seriously considered a "Deist." But if he was, his writings and his actions (such as praying for God it show them guidance) certainly didn't reflect this. And it certainly wasn't common throughout the rest of the Founding Fathers or their contemporaries. The loudest voices for colonial Independence in America came from behind the pulpit in Christian churches. The Founding Fathers and their like believed in Divine revelation. Clearly not deists.
 
Here is an excellent article by for those of you who believe that the church has been antagonistic towards science. The Church (Protestant and Catholic) is what has brought mankind out of darkness here is the actual link to the article http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html:

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.



Today is the official release date for my new book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. From the role of the monks (they did much more than just copy manuscripts) to art and architecture, from the university to Western law, from science to charitable work, from international law to economics, the book delves into just how indebted we are as a civilization to the Catholic Church, whether we realize it or not.

By far the book’s longest chapter is "The Church and Science." We have all heard a great deal about the Church’s alleged hostility toward science. What most people fail to realize is that historians of science have spent the past half-century drastically revising this conventional wisdom, arguing that the Church’s role in the development of Western science was far more salutary than previously thought. I am speaking not about Catholic apologists but about serious and important scholars of the history of science such as J.L. Heilbron, A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, and Thomas Goldstein.

It is all very well to point out that important scientists, like Louis Pasteur, have been Catholic. More revealing is how many priests have distinguished themselves in the sciences. It turns out, for instance, that the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Fr. Giambattista Riccioli. The man who has been called the father of Egyptology was Fr. Athanasius Kircher (also called "master of a hundred arts" for the breadth of his knowledge). Fr. Roger Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern atomic theory.

In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.

By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits

had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics – all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].

Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits that it has become known as "the Jesuit science." It was a Jesuit, Fr. J.B. Macelwane, who wrote Introduction to Theoretical Seismology, the first seismology textbook in America, in 1936. To this day, the American Geophysical Union, which Fr. Macelwane once headed, gives an annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young geophysicist.
rest of the article on next post
 
rest of the article

The Jesuits were also the first to introduce Western science into such far-off places as China and India. In seventeenth-century China in particular, Jesuits introduced a substantial body of scientific knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary motion comprehensible. Jesuits made important contributions to the scientific knowledge and infrastructure of other less developed nations not only in Asia but also in Africa and Central and South America. Beginning in the nineteenth century, these continents saw the opening of Jesuit observatories that studied such fields as astronomy, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics. Such observatories provided these places with accurate time keeping, weather forecasts (particularly important in the cases of hurricanes and typhoons), earthquake risk assessments, and cartography. In Central and South America the Jesuits worked primarily in meteorology and seismology, essentially laying the foundations of those disciplines there. The scientific development of these countries, ranging from Ecuador to Lebanon to the Philippines, is indebted to Jesuit efforts.

The Galileo case is often cited as evidence of Catholic hostility toward science, and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization accordingly takes a closer look at the Galileo matter. For now, just one little-known fact: Catholic cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were constructed to function as solar observatories. No more precise instruments for observing the sun’s apparent motion could be found anywhere in the world. When Johannes Kepler posited that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular, Catholic astronomer Giovanni Cassini verified Kepler’s position through observations he made in the Basilica of San Petronio in the heart of the Papal States. Cassini, incidentally, was a student of Fr. Riccioli and Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, the great astronomer who also discovered the diffraction of light, and even gave the phenomenon its name.

I’ve tried to fill the book with little-known facts like these.

To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public. In fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science suffered a "stillbirth." My book gives ample attention to Jaki’s work.

Economic thought is another area in which more and more scholars have begun to acknowledge the previously overlooked role of Catholic thinkers. Joseph Schumpeter, one of the great economists of the twentieth century, paid tribute to the overlooked contributions of the late Scholastics – mainly sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Spanish theologians – in his magisterial History of Economic Analysis (1954). "t is they," he wrote, "who come nearer than does any other group to having been the ‘founders’ of scientific economics." In devoting scholarly attention to this unfortunately neglected chapter in the history of economic thought, Schumpeter would be joined by other accomplished scholars over the course of the twentieth century, including Professors Raymond de Roover, Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, and Alejandro Chafuen.

The Church also played an indispensable role in another essential development in Western civilization: the creation of the university. The university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations, and degrees, as well as the familiar distinction between undergraduate and graduate study, come to us directly from the medieval world. And it is no surprise that the Church should have done so much to foster the nascent university system, since the Church, according to historian Lowrie Daly, "was the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge."

The popes and other churchmen ranked the universities among the great jewels of Christian civilization. It was typical to hear the University of Paris described as the "new Athens" – a designation that calls to mind the ambitions of the great Alcuin from the Carolingian period of several centuries earlier, who sought through his own educational efforts to establish a new Athens in the kingdom of the Franks. Pope Innocent IV (1243–54) described the universities as "rivers of science which water and make fertile the soil of the universal Church," and Pope Alexander IV (1254–61) called them "lanterns shining in the house of God." And the popes deserved no small share of the credit for the growth and success of the university system. "Thanks to the repeated intervention of the papacy," writes historian Henri Daniel-Rops, "higher education was enabled to extend its boundaries; the Church, in fact, was the matrix that produced the university, the nest whence it took flight."

As a matter of fact, among the most important medieval contributions to modern science was the essentially free inquiry of the university system, where scholars could debate and discuss propositions, and in which the utility of human reason was taken for granted. Contrary to the grossly inaccurate picture of the Middle Ages that passes for common knowledge today, medieval intellectual life made indispensable contributions to Western civilization. In The Beginnings of Western Science (1992), David Lindberg writes:

t must be emphatically stated that within this educational system the medieval master had a great deal of freedom. The stereotype of the Middle Ages pictures the professor as spineless and subservient, a slavish follower of Aristotle and the Church fathers (exactly how one could be a slavish follower of both, the stereotype does not explain), fearful of departing one iota from the demands of authority. There were broad theological limits, of course, but within those limits the medieval master had remarkable freedom of thought and expression; there was almost no doctrine, philosophical or theological, that was not submitted to minute scrutiny and criticism by scholars in the medieval university.

"cholars of the later Middle Ages," concludes Lindberg, "created a broad intellectual tradition, in the absence of which subsequent progress in natural philosophy would have been inconceivable."

Historian of science Edward Grant concurs with this judgment:

What made it possible for Western civilization to develop science and the social sciences in a way that no other civilization had ever done before? The answer, I am convinced, lies in a pervasive and deep-seated spirit of inquiry that was a natural consequence of the emphasis on reason that began in the Middle Ages. With the exception of revealed truths, reason was enthroned in medieval universities as the ultimate arbiter for most intellectual arguments and controversies. It was quite natural for scholars immersed in a university environment to employ reason to probe into subject areas that had not been explored before, as well as to discuss possibilities that had not previously been seriously entertained.

The creation of the university, the commitment to reason and rational argument, and the overall spirit of inquiry that characterized medieval intellectual life amounted to "a gift from the Latin Middle Ages to the modern world…though it is a gift that may never be acknowledged. Perhaps it will always retain the status it has had for the past four centuries as the best-kept secret of Western civilization."

Here, then, are just a few of the topics to be found in How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. I’ve been asked quite a few times in recent weeks what my next project will be. For now, it’ll be getting some rest.

May 2, 2005

Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send him mail] holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his Ph.D. from Columbia. His books include the New York Times (and LRC) bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, and the just-releasedHow the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.

Thomas Woods Archives

Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com


Another good article by Woods http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods42.html (A Gift From the Middle Ages)
 
Doug38PR

I'll go for the Oxford definition, thanks anyway.

Truth be known the church squashed science, for along time. The Persians brought it to new heights and then later the chuch got back into the picture.

The dark ages were only dark for the church not the rest of the world.

We are definetly not reading the same history books, yours must be church based.

I'll stick to the Encyclopedia's that are not controlled by the church, thanks.

edit for Doug.38PR:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason

HQ
 
Last edited:
I agree, christian fundamentals are very healthy for freedom.

It's the tax paid for state religion of liberalism that is brainwashing our kids into believing the government is almighty, and dangers such as guns and the people who own them should be controlled and banned.
 
HarleyQuinn,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Your definition is correct. I am just elaborating on it. What I described is classical Deism as it was in the 18th century. click the wikipedia link

As far as the church goes, check out the above posted article and the following link to the next article.
 
Micro do you think that these good folks would take my donation to their cause, considering I'm a gay friendly Papist? Considering they're 100% right about the schools. :D

I'd say it worked out better than the period of absolute faith, staggering ignorance and boundless cruelty known as the Dark Ages.
Marko, I'd have to say that you must not be aware that the poverty of the decline of the Empire into the Dark Ages was probably related to centuries of population increase due to the Peace of Rome plus cooling of the climate from the warmth of the Classic times. Basically the population rose and agriculture collapsed.

The Dark Ages were followed by the peace of the Carolingian Empire.

The Dark Ages had nothing to do with religion as you will see when our present 'global warming' is followed by the next mini ice age and all you yuppies have to eat your Mexican maids to survive. :rolleyes:
 
Another issue most people dont realize is hurting schools is athletics. When i was in high school if you werent a jock, you werent anybody. Jocks got by with any and everything they wanted to. Us "regular" people had to actually do our schoolwortk to get grades. The jock just "got" them for free. If our school had spent the amount of money on educational equipment that they spent on sports uniforms and stuff, we could have had a world class science lab or library. Instead we have fancy clothes and new 20k goalposts. I support the people who want to homeschool thier kids. the issue with public school is you can have satanists, gays and athiest spouting thier realigon but christains are SOL.

SW
 
Homeschooling

Homeschooling is a two edged sword, cuts both ways.

Christianity is the majority religion in the America's.
So if some small groups want to protest what is the big deal?
It is when it becomes criminal that it should be discontinued.

Truth is that if they knock a few more chunks out of the foundation of Christianity we might all get along better. The story has a terrible plot and it has been rewritten many times. Dualisim comes from Christian (early) thinkers.

Juadaism and Islam are closer to their way of thinking then the Christians are to them. So many various groups it is hard to know what is on their mind.

Red Jacket (a Seneca Indian) mentioned that in a speech to the Boston Missionary Society at the end of the 18th century, 1790's. Regarding the amount of religious groups and all reading the same book.

The atrocities done to the Seneca by our forefathers is a real blight on our nation IMHO. The Christian right was responsible for that one.

HQ
 
Any flavor of religious fundamentalism, allowed to tranform its theological "mandates" into law, becomes oppressive to the rights of others. While the Founders of our country had religious values, they developed a system of checks and balances to reduce the potential of tyranny by any group, be it atheists or theocrats. They knew full well how the power of a few could undermine a land of the Free. It would be dangerous to empower any groups based on agreement of a few or one aspect of that group's agenda. I have read enough history to know about political corruption and oppression. I have also seen how a group starts with a spiritually "enlightened" premise , but acts in reality, in a self serving, arrogant manner.
 
Harley, you do know that Red Jacket was named such because he wore the red coat that the British gave him when he fought with them against the Colonies? Do you know that he was a member of a tribe which practiced ritual torture or do you consider that form of atrocity to not really count since it wasn't done by the US?
 
Back
Top