Constitutional Amendment

[Jim Chabot]

I'm not going to argue with you Ben. You can throw darts at the Christianity of others all you want. You don't have a clue here.

I've been thinking on this Ben and I owe you an apology, my kneejerk reaction was to give back as you have been giving. I don't want to do that, I need to try harder. Returning fire for fire isn't helpful, I'm sorry for that.

I do get somewhat incensed with those who would deny that our country was founded by Christians in large part and further that Christian principles guided the revolution and formation of our system of government. I've read enough to know better than this. So while I'm not going to argue with you, I will continue to speak my mind on this. I believe that Joe and Larry are adding something positive to this discussion and I'm going to stand with them.

Funny the things you see around the area, when one lives where the revolution began. This of course predates the revolution by many years, Bradford was our first Governor here.



Then there is the revolution itself and strangely enough, the places where the revolution gathered steam and inspiration still stand. One may still attend services in these places. Our country was founded in church. (gasp!)



Recognize the fellow out front on a horse by chance?



He lived here, where he maintained a shop.



The good folks who attended the event known as the "Boston Tea Party" first met here;

[Benjamin Burch]

I assume that by this, you really mean: "I disagree with everything you wrote and I have no desire to discuss it with you."

I edited my post. Please go read it now. I'm Sorry. I do still hold that the premise is wrong, and therefore the conclusions are wrong. I should have worded it better and I am sorry to you for that, I shouldn't have done drive-by posting. That was stupid of me.

[Benjamin Burch]

I've been thinking on this Ben and I owe you an apology, my kneejerk reaction was to give back as you have been giving. I don't want to do that, I need to try harder. Returning fire for fire isn't helpful, I'm sorry for that.

I do get somewhat incensed with those who would deny that our country was founded by Christians in large part and further that Christian principles guided the revolution and formation of our system of government. I've read enough to know better than this. So while I'm not going to argue with you, I will continue to speak my mind on this. I believe that Joe and Larry are adding something positive to this discussion and I'm going to stand with them.

Funny the things you see around the area, when one lives where the revolution began. This of course predates the revolution by many years, Bradford was our first Governor here.

Attachment 3957

Then there is the revolution itself and strangely enough, the places where the revolution gathered steam and inspiration still stand. One may still attend services in these places. Our country was founded in church. (gasp!)



Recognize the fellow out front on a horse by chance?



He lived here, where he maintained a shop.



The good folks who attended the event known as the "Boston Tea Party" first met here;

None of this supports the idea that the country itself, as a country, has ever actually relied on Jesus Christ, the God of the Bible. And I stand by what I said, "cheap and vain." I'm sorry, but Wesley, Kierkegaard, and Barth would all agree with me, and I have no shame saying it.

All of those three men lived in countries who claimed (or had) to "rely on the God of the Bible." However, it was not true that they did, and Wesley, Barth, and Kierkegaard all saw it as their responsibility to be honest about the cheapness of the idea of buying it. Christianity wasn't so cheap as to be bought by anyone claiming it. It isn't something where someone can just say it, throw some words out there that sound nice, and we suddnely buy it and get swept up by it.

If it isn't true, and the god they follow is not the God of the Bible, it needed to be said. And these men said it. We are in the same position in America. We do not, and have not, ever relied on the God of the Bible. It has always been some worthless national god who is no god at all and has never existed. I think it is important to stand firm on that, and I'm sorry, but i think "cheap and vain" are the only fair characterizations of the version of our faith we'd have to accept in order to believe such a thing.

A snapshot:

Both of our country's most celebrated wars were civil wars. Both of them were wars where "Christians" fought and killed "Christians" because one side believed their own desires and conceptions of rights were more important than the lives of those who were a part of Christ, while the other side believed that the interests of a nation were more important than the unity of the Body of Christ.

It is very simple. We were founded upon unjust war, we kept it together upon unjust war, and all along we built it on the back of oppression. We can give lipservice to the idea of "relying upon Christ" all we want. There is, however, a huge difference between relying upon the God of the Bible on the one hand and attempting to enlist this God in our selfish national pursuits on the other. Equating the two is a cheap and vain idea.

[Joseph Ellis]

Sorry about that. I was doing drive-by reading and wanted to get my "input in", and that was stupid of me. I'm sorry.

All is well, Ben. I get in a hurry from time to time as well, and often in those cases, I don't leave the impression I intended to leave.

However, what bothers me about this post is that it is based upon a backwards understanding of freedoms and rights and the way they work in the USA. Rights are not something we are free to use in reckless fashion without regards for the rights of others. Our rights have always ended where others begin. My right to own and fire a gun ends at another's right to live. My right to say whatever I want ends at others' right to truth/integrity.

I agree with your premise that an individuals rights end when the infringe on other's rights. I agree 100% that our right to bear arms must not be allowed to infringe on the right of someone else to live. I am a bit more confused by your "right to truth/integrity." You say I approach freedom backwards, and perhaps from your point of view, I do. Because in this instance, I believe it is the reverse of what you've stated. My right to truth/integrity cannot trump someone else's right to free speech.

Our right of religious freedom ends where it begins to be forced upon others. Public school is for everyone, from all faiths. Therefore, it is absolutely not my responsibility to remove my child from a school that my taxes have paid for if I don't like the religion being forced on my child. Instead, it is the school's responsibility to ensure that every student has the freedom to practice their religion at school without any interference from teachers, and without adults having undue influence upon impressionable students without their parents around and against their parents' will.

A small point, but I didn't say it was your responsibility to remove your child from public school. I simply said that was an option that I would take in order to defend my child from influences that I feel would be harmful. Removing your child isn't the only available course of action. You could let your disapproval be known and hope it would be acted upon by the teacher, administration, or school board. I'm sympathetic to your argument about protecting impressionable children from influences under which we wouldn't want them. I just can't support the federal government coming in and telling the teacher to stop praying. If it came to such an impasse, private school or home school seems a far less drastic solution to the problem than government interference.

So, I'm very sorry for the way I worded my post originally. I shouldn't have done that. I do, however, still hold to the basic point - I disagree with your entire post, because it works from a backwards -- and wrong -- understanding of how religious freedom, and freedoms in general, work in the USA.

Thank you for the clarification and your discussion. You have helped me to understand the idealistic principles I sometimes hold to involve realities that are much more complicated than I make them out to be. In that regard, your post is valuable to me. I think I will likely continue to hold a "backwards -- and wrong" understanding of religious freedom at least from your point of view. But I hold my ideals more aware of the complexities that would arise should I ever get my way (which I highly doubt).

[Jim Chabot]

None of this supports the idea that the country itself, as a country, has ever actually relied on Jesus Christ, the God of the Bible. And I stand by what I said, "cheap and vain." I'm sorry, but Wesley, Kierkegaard, and Barth would all agree with me, and I have no shame saying it.

All of those three men lived in countries who claimed (or had) to "rely on the God of the Bible." However, it was not true that they did, and Wesley, Barth, and Kierkegaard all saw it as their responsibility to be honest about the cheapness of the idea of buying it. Christianity wasn't so cheap as to be bought by anyone claiming it. It isn't something where someone can just say it, throw some words out there that sound nice, and we suddnely buy it and get swept up by it.

If it isn't true, and the god they follow is not the God of the Bible, it needed to be said. And these men said it. We are in the same position in America. We do not, and have not, ever relied on the God of the Bible. It has always been some worthless national god who is no god at all and has never existed. I think it is important to stand firm on that, and I'm sorry, but i think "cheap and vain" are the only fair characterizations of the version of our faith we'd have to accept in order to believe such a thing.

A snapshot:

Both of our country's most celebrated wars were civil wars. Both of them were wars where "Christians" fought and killed "Christians" because one side believed their own desires and conceptions of rights were more important than the lives of those who were a part of Christ, while the other side believed that the interests of a nation were more important than the unity of the Body of Christ.

It is very simple. We were founded upon unjust war, we kept it together upon unjust war, and all along we built it on the back of oppression. We can give lipservice to the idea of "relying upon Christ" all we want. There is, however, a huge difference between relying upon the God of the Bible on the one hand and attempting to enlist this God in our selfish national pursuits on the other. Equating the two is a cheap and vain idea.

Surely this country has it's failings, no question there. Yet this country has relied upon the God of the Bible more so than any other, this country has been possessed by men of faith more so than any other, this country has been used as an instrument of God more than any other, and this country has done more to advance the gospel. More than any other. If there ever were a nation which could possibly be called "Christian" this is it.

[Jim Chabot]

Well what do you know, there is actually a statue erected to our founder's faith in Plymouth, MA. For some strange reason I stopped by to see it a couple of weeks ago. On the fourth, I think it was.



Exceptional value in illustrating our history it says.

Hey look what they put at the very top!



Why you don't say, could it be true.

But what faith? In whom? How would this certain faith possessed by these men shape our laws?



Yeah, that's the ticket.

What are these guys doing? looks like they are writing something.

Whatever could it be?

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.
In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.

[Joseph Ellis]

Jim,

Thanks for these posts. Some (if not all) of us would probably argue about to what extent we have placed our reliance upon God as a nation, but it is pretty hard to say that we have never relied upon the God of the Bible in any official way. These monuments and sites that you've posted pictures of can never substitute for personal faith, but I do believe they reflect the personal faith of our founders.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim,

Thanks for these posts. Some (if not all) of us would probably argue about to what extent we have placed our reliance upon God as a nation, but it is pretty hard to say that we have never relied upon the God of the Bible in any official way. These monuments and sites that you've posted pictures of can never substitute for personal faith, but I do believe they reflect the personal faith of our founders.

I agree, we can erect monuments and statues on every street corner, yet faith could be absent. Yet as I've read the biographies and autobiographies of some of our founders, I've witnessed a vibrant faith in the God of the Bible. I've read of men who's reliance was truly upon our God and these men were instrumental in the founding of our country. Have we completely relied upon God? No, of course not. Should we? Of course we should!

I believe that we can return to this faith and reliance as a nation, nothing prevents us from turning around humbly submitting ourselves and turning from our wicked ways. I can't support the idea that we as a church must be at odds with our government, or that we are somehow loftily lifted above those whom we choose to govern us.

I believe in what this amendment seeks to accomplish. That of allowing the "advancements of the Christian faith", just as was written in the Mayflower compact. We were founded upon Christianity, our government should not be prevented from promoting this. Freedom of religion, yes! Freedom from our religion, no!

[Benjamin Burch]

All is well, Ben. I get in a hurry from time to time as well, and often in those cases, I don't leave the impression I intended to leave.


I agree with your premise that an individuals rights end when the infringe on other's rights. I agree 100% that our right to bear arms must not be allowed to infringe on the right of someone else to live. I am a bit more confused by your "right to truth/integrity." You say I approach freedom backwards, and perhaps from your point of view, I do. Because in this instance, I believe it is the reverse of what you've stated. My right to truth/integrity cannot trump someone else's right to free speech.


A small point, but I didn't say it was your responsibility to remove your child from public school. I simply said that was an option that I would take in order to defend my child from influences that I feel would be harmful. Removing your child isn't the only available course of action. You could let your disapproval be known and hope it would be acted upon by the teacher, administration, or school board. I'm sympathetic to your argument about protecting impressionable children from influences under which we wouldn't want them. I just can't support the federal government coming in and telling the teacher to stop praying. If it came to such an impasse, private school or home school seems a far less drastic solution to the problem than government interference.


Thank you for the clarification and your discussion. You have helped me to understand the idealistic principles I sometimes hold to involve realities that are much more complicated than I make them out to be. In that regard, your post is valuable to me. I think I will likely continue to hold a "backwards -- and wrong" understanding of religious freedom at least from your point of view. But I hold my ideals more aware of the complexities that would arise should I ever get my way (which I highly doubt).

Thanks for the response. What I mean by right to truth/integrity was in reference to libel. You can say whatever you want, but your right to do so stops at the other individuals right to not be libeled. I don't know how to express that well. Maybe someone could help? Lol.

[Benjamin Burch]

Surely this country has it's failings, no question there. Yet this country has relied upon the God of the Bible more so than any other, this country has been possessed by men of faith more so than any other, this country has been used as an instrument of God more than any other, and this country has done more to advance the gospel. More than any other. If there ever were a nation which could possibly be called "Christian" this is it.

Nope. That would belong to the Byzantine Empire under Constantine. America is not special in his regard.

[Joseph Ellis]

Thanks for the response. What I mean by right to truth/integrity was in reference to libel. You can say whatever you want, but your right to do so stops at the other individuals right to not be libeled. I don't know how to express that well. Maybe someone could help? Lol.

That makes more sense. Thanks! I do agree that criminal libel is not protected free speech.

I thought you were arguing that people in America have a right to be protected from unwanted exposure to the ideas/speech (or religious practice) of others. I firmly deny that such a right exists. If my practice of religion infringes upon another's rights, than I cannot justify that infringement by calling it religious exercise. (An extreme and ridiculous example would be trying to say human sacrifice is religious exercise that cannot be infringed upon.) However, if my practice of religion does not infringe on another's actual rights, I have the freedom to practice it, even if I do so in sight of or within earshot of someone who disagrees and doesn't want to see or hear me. There is no constitutional protection from being annoyed or offended by another's ideas.

[Jim Chabot]

Nope. That would belong to the Byzantine Empire under Constantine. America is not special in his regard.

Not even close, Constantine didn't even know that half the world even existed. We are most assuredly special. We can be more so.

[Benjamin Burch]

That makes more sense. Thanks! I do agree that criminal libel is not protected free speech.

I thought you were arguing that people in America have a right to be protected from unwanted exposure to the ideas/speech (or religious practice) of others. I firmly deny that such a right exists. If my practice of religion infringes upon another's rights, than I cannot justify that infringement by calling it religious exercise. (An extreme and ridiculous example would be trying to say human sacrifice is religious exercise that cannot be infringed upon.) However, if my practice of religion does not infringe on another's actual rights, I have the freedom to practice it, even if I do so in sight of or within earshot of someone who disagrees and doesn't want to see or hear me. There is no constitutional protection from being annoyed or offended by another's ideas.

Agreed. However, leading children in prayer is most assuredly infringing upon the religious freedom of the parents. I would see a Reformed Baptist leading my child in prayer as infringing upon my right to religious freedom.

[Jim Chabot]

Thanks for the response. What I mean by right to truth/integrity was in reference to libel. You can say whatever you want, but your right to do so stops at the other individuals right to not be libeled. I don't know how to express that well. Maybe someone could help? Lol.

There are two terms for what I think you are describing. Slander is defamation by oral transmission, while Libel is written or printed defamation. Truth is never considered Slander or Libel, there must be a falsehood involved. This makes both difficult to prosecute because the defense is to claim truth. Unless there is a clear easily provable and damaging falsehood involved, a pyrrhic victory is the best outcome that can be anticipated.

So yes, one does have the right to truth, although probably not to integrity. Even then this hope is often illusory. One's rights are severely diminished when one becomes a public person. A public person can pretty much be accused of anything other than a crime.

[Jim Chabot]

Agreed. However, leading children in prayer is most assuredly infringing upon the religious freedom of the parents. I would see a Reformed Baptist leading my child in prayer as infringing upon my right to religious freedom.

I'm pretty sure that you don't remember school prayer. School prayer in America consisted of a recitation of the Lord's Prayer from the Authorized Version of the Bible. Neither a Reformed Baptist nor a Hindu is going to cause you the extreme duress you are imagining. In fact, it may help the Hindu to seek and find truth, same goes for any Jewish or Muslim children present. There is no infringement upon freedom of religion, no one was compelled to recite.

Such is the nature of this proposed amendment. Freedom of religion is not infringed upon in any way. What would be allowed is governmental expressions of Christian origin, in keeping with our heritage. While you don't remember school prayer, I do. It is something we as a country observed for most of our existence.

[David Graham]

I'm pretty sure that you don't remember school prayer. School prayer in America consisted of a recitation of the Lord's Prayer from the Authorized Version of the Bible. Neither a Reformed Baptist nor a Hindu is going to cause you the extreme duress you are imagining. In fact, it may help the Hindu to seek and find truth, same goes for any Jewish or Muslim children present. There is no infringement upon freedom of religion, no one was compelled to recite.

Such is the nature of this proposed amendment. Freedom of religion is not infringed upon in any way. What would be allowed is governmental expressions of Christian origin, in keeping with our heritage. While you don't remember school prayer, I do. It is something we as a country observed for most of our existence.

I have only been marginally following this thread, mainly because it's more of a US thing and therefore mostly none of my business.

However, Jim's post just reminded me of the futility of constitutional law to guarantee our freedoms.

The US bill of rights is supposed to ensure religious freedom, and yet from what I can understand no one is allowed to "officially" pray in your schools. In my country, we have no such bill of rights and yet religious freedom is enjoyed by all including the ability of teachers, clergy and chaplains to "officially" pray in our public schools. And such a prayer is not limited to the Lord's Prayer. In addition, local churches are allowed to participate in the life of the local public school, including Religious Education and prayer at official functions, such as the invocation at the end of year "Speech Nights" etc.

Every week I teach religious education in our local public school and every week I pray for the students and their families. I am not monitored in what I say nor am I restricted in what I teach the students providing it represents the views and values of my church.

On top of this, our public schools can opt into having a chaplain funded by Scripture Union with the financial support of the Federal government.

Recently an athiest from the Toowoomba region (interestingly enough a region renouned for its conservative Christian views)
brought a high court challenge against the notion of public school chaplaincy. He and his lawyers scoured the constitution to find a couple of little phrases which spoke about the "Commonwealth not making any law in support of or in opposition to the practice of any religion etc...." and yet after due consideration, the high court threw out his challenge saying that while the government could not support religious practice nor did it oppose it. Besides that the work of the chaplains went beyond merely religious work and was thus beneficial to the whole school community. The high court did have some concerns about how the chaplains were presently funded with the support of public money but this was more to do with how funding regulations were framed rather than the actual principle of the government funding chaplains. Both the Government and the Opposition have agreed to pass the amendments necessary to "fix" this regulatory issue. And so public school chaplaincy will continue as before!

Sometimes I wonder whether constitutional law really helps at all or whether it only creates problems by establishing parameters which require constant interpretation. Just a few "outsider's" observations on this issue.

[Joseph Ellis]

Agreed. However, leading children in prayer is most assuredly infringing upon the religious freedom of the parents. I would see a Reformed Baptist leading my child in prayer as infringing upon my right to religious freedom.

Ben, I definitely respect your opinion on this point. I think it is a sensible position. It is simply one I disagree with. Depending on the type of prayer, I would see it as anything from wonderful to mildly annoying to a dangerous situation that I need to deal with as a parent. But I in no case see it as an infringement on my religious freedom as a parent. As I stated in a previous post, I am still free to remove my child from the situation if all other options fail. Removing my child from that classroom might be extremely inconvenient, but if my convictions are strong enough about the situation, then I will do what I must. After all, there's another one that's not really a constitutional right: the "right" to convenience.

I think that like you, I'd prefer not to have to deal with that situation. But our real disagreement here lies not in the definition of the problem, but in the identification of the solution. I don't want the federal government to step in and stop it. I'd rather deal with it individually. When it comes to government, my general philosophy is that the federal government should interfere as little as possible and should always look for the least intrusive solution. I expect that we will not come to agreement, considering two very different starting points. However, we can perhaps understand each other better. I'm certainly capable of respecting a person, even if I don't agree with him.

[Jim Chabot]

Depending on the type of prayer, I would see it as anything from wonderful to mildly annoying to a dangerous situation that I need to deal with as a parent. But I in no case see it as an infringement on my religious freedom as a parent.

As a parent, It's possible, all right it's probable, that I may be annoyed. Although I don't believe any type of Christian prayer would bother me in the least.

I'm thinking back to when our oldest son was younger. We sent him to youth group at the Assembly of God church nearby so that he could be with his cousins. We would talk often about what was going on there and I found it to be a wonderful opportunity to teach him how it is that Christian beliefs may differ on some things and why I believe as I do. I believe this experience helped draw us closer.

[Jim Chabot]

The US bill of rights is supposed to ensure religious freedom, and yet from what I can understand no one is allowed to "officially" pray in your schools.

David, first thanks for your post, it is encouraging to hear how your country has dealt with this. Bravo for Australia! I may be incredibly proud of my country and I think it's the best in the world. So much more the reason to offer praise when I hear of a country doing things better than we do.

As to "officially" praying in school, it is actually worse than our laws would indicate. I have heard of a few cases where the Valedictorian or Salutatorian wished to present a Christian themed message or offer a prayer at their time during graduation and was told that it was not allowed. Sure it is their time, they are not a representative of the government and our laws say that they should be able to preach a sermon and give an alter call if they want. However school officials know that by the time it gets to court, the graduation will be over.

Even worse we are starting to experience separation of Flag and State. Our President has expressed disdain for our Flag, objection to our National Anthem and lack of pride for our nation. This has been spilling over into the public square. Just this week I have heard a news report about a State owned housing development in a neighboring town where they are attempting to enforce a ban on all outside displays of our Flag, because a resident was "offended." Today I heard a report of a Fire Department in Rhode Island where they will be removing the Flag decals from the fire truck and exchanging them for smaller ones.

Pray for our country, we are a people losing our vision.

[David Graham]

As to "officially" praying in school, it is actually worse than our laws would indicate. I have heard of a few cases where the Valedictorian or Salutatorian wished to present a Christian themed message or offer a prayer at their time during graduation and was told that it was not allowed. Sure it is their time, they are not a representative of the government and our laws say that they should be able to preach a sermon and give an alter call if they want. However school officials know that by the time it gets to court, the graduation will be over.

Thanks Jim, these officials who "work the system" to achieve their own ends, are spoilers. They are so fixated upon their own opinions that they are blind to joy other might receive through a practice of which "they" don't approve. I wonder if what they will achieve long term is in sowing the seeds of the destruction of the very system that gives them the right to "spoil" in the first place? The legal system was never designed to handle "Spurious" claims.

Just this week I have heard a news report about a State owned housing development in a neighboring town where they are attempting to enforce a ban on all outside displays of our Flag, because a resident was "offended."

This is just madness!

[Nate Pruitt]

Happy to see how everyone agrees here that the other doesn't have a clue and therefore discussing it makes no sense. I like unity.

Perhaps instead of all parties agreeing to disagree they've decided they all disagree to agree.

I'm not entirely sure what the difference is, but I'm pretty sure I'm seeing it lived out before my very eyes.

[Rich Schmidt]

Our President has expressed disdain for our Flag, objection to our National Anthem and lack of pride for our nation.

Hmmm... I can't seem to find any evidence to support these claims about our President, Jim. The third (lack of pride) is broad enough that I don't know how to look for it, but Googling for the first two (flag & anthem) finds mainly debunked rumors and hoaxes. Did I miss something? Or is this an example of that libel thing you were talking about earlier?

(Edited to add: I didn't vote for him in 2008 & don't plan to vote for him this November. Please don't anyone read this as a pro-Obama post. Or this disclaimer as anti-Obama. Oh, brother... )