But Some Are More Equal Than Others

The Freedom from Religion Foundation says it simply wants all religions to be treated equally, including the religion of Atheism. (On second thought, they might object to being called a religion.) If the Illinois state government allows one religious symbol, a nativity scene, in the state Capitol, surely it must allow the religious or philosophical symbols of all other religions: a menorah, a crescent and star, or whatever would symbolize the sincerely held beliefs of atheists… the Great Black Bowling Ball of Oblivion, perhaps.

Obviously Mr. William J. Kelly, candidate for Comptroller of Illinois, wildly overreacted and displayed unlawful religious discrimination when he called the simple, heartfelt statement of first principles of the Freedom from Religion Foundation “hate speech” — and dared turn their little sign about so it couldn’t be read, at least temporarily (I’m sure someone would have turned it back eventually):

A conservative activist and Illinois comptroller candidate was escorted from the Illinois State Capitol building Wednesday when he tried to remove a sign put up by an atheist group….

But Kelly said when he turned the sign around so it was face down, state Capitol police were quick to escort him away….

Kelly called the sign “hate speech,” and said he does not believe it is appropriate for a sign that “mocks” religion to be placed next to a Christmas tree and also near a nativity scene.

“I don’t think the State of Illinois has any business denigrating or mocking any religion,” Kelly said, “and I think that’s what the verbiage on the sign was doing.”

How dare he trample on the FFRF’s freedom of mockery!

Except… well, it’s peculiar that such an obvious religious bigot as Mr. Kelly never objected to the Jewish menorah in the same Capitol rotunda display as the FFRF’s sign. Oh, and he also has no problem with other sundry symbols on parade there:

[Illinois Secretary of State's office spokeswoman Henry] Haupt said in addition to the sign, the Nativity Scene and the Christmas tree, there is also a Soldiers’ Angels wreath, and a tabletop display from the American Civil Liberties Union that says the group “defends freedom of religion.” A Hanukkah menorah had also been on display until the Jewish Festival of Lights ended on Saturday.

For the second year in a row, the Capitol also has an aluminum Festivus pole commemorating the fictional holiday created in “Seinfeld.”

Now that’s an odd duck of a religious extremist, one who seems to have no problem with other religious displays, including a fake religion created by a screenwriter — or even a display from the ACLU, which has far more often been on the side of, well, atheists and the anti-religious than believers in recent years. How to explain this seeming dichotomy?

Sometimes the devil (who doesn’t exist) is in the details; perhaps we ought to take a look at the actual wordage on the FFRF’s declaration, which they set up directly in front of the Christmas tree:

The sign reads: “At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Hm; in order to “let reason prevail,” let us consider how such a sign might look when pushing a different message; consider this hypothetical placard, which could have been erected directly in front of the menorah in the rotunda:

At the time of the Mass of Christ, let the Son of God prevail. There are no laws, no acts that can save you from hell. There is only the divine salvation that comes from the King of Kings. Judaism is just myth and superstition that bewitches believers and damns souls.

Does anybody believe that such a (purely hypothetical) sign would be allowed under the Illinois state Capitol dome? Obviously not, because it is not so much an expression of faith as an attack on other people’s faith.

As is the plaque placed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. It may be sincere mockery, but mockery and attack it clearly is.

FRFF plants their pugnacious sign like Cortez planting the flag of Spain in Aztec Mexico: Wherever it stands, it’s a deliberate and truculent affront to religions other than Atheism… as even the foundation’s co-president agrees!

As to Kelly’s claims that the sign mocks religion, foundation co-President Dan Barker said: “He’s kind of right, because the last couple of sentences do criticize religion, and of course, the beginning is a celebration of the winter solstice. But that kind of speech is protected as well — speech that is critical and speech that is supportive.”

Protected, yes; but not necessarily hosted. If the FRFF wants to put up a sign on private property proclaiming the falsity of Christianity and Judaism — or of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Wicca, though those other religions never seem to provoke such Vesuvian eruptions from the FRFF, the ACLU, or the United Separators (sorry, I meant Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) — let them.

But if they want to express themselves in a display in a public space devoted (for a time) to celebrations of religious faith, then let them simply state what they believe without mocking, attacking, deriding, or spitting on other faiths.

Mr. Barker seems to understand the thin ice on which he stands, for he attempts some sleight of hand to draw the false equivalence:

The foundation does not approve of the nativity scene, Barker said.

“We atheists believe that the nativity scene is mocking humanity,” by suggesting that those who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell, Barker said. “But notice that we are not defacing or stealing nativity scenes because we disagree with their speech.”

Of course, stating one’s belief in the divinity of Jesus is surely not the same as “mocking humanity.” In fact, a mere nativity scene doesn’t even argue that “those who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell.” I’m sure Christians generally believe that; but nothing inherent in a tableau of baby, parents, a trio of wiseguys, and a herd of barnyard animals makes any such case… no more than a Yule tree “makes the case” for Druidism.

(And why doesn’t the FFRF protest the menorah? It’s equally religious; why not equally offensive?)

There is certainly a fundamental constitutional right to freedom of religion (including the freedom to be of no religion); but there is no constitutional right to be free from religion: The latter would imply the right to remove all religious symbols from society, even those on private property, because the very sight of them — even the knowledge that they might be secreted out of sight inside a house of worship — could offend Mr. Barker’s “right” to live a life utterly devoid of contact with any religious beliefs, claims, sentiments, or values.

My freedom of religion as a non-Christian is not the slightest bit infringed by a nativity scene in a Capitol dome, nor by a cross in the seal of Los Angeles County, nor by an Islamic crescent erected decades ago in some state or federal park, if such a thing exists. Such symbols of faith do not assault my conscience; I am capable of passing them by, respecting them, even admiring the beauty of their designs without feeling any compulsion to convert.

I wonder at a religious zealot like President Barker, whose faith is so shaky that the sight of any other religious relic or symbol threatens it. Atheism must be a barren and comfortless religion indeed to provoke such insecurity, even in its most fervent defenders.

(posted in the Greenroom on hotair.com)

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

Newsweek magazine, one of the most influential news magazines in America, has decided to come out for same-sex marriage in a big way, and to do so by means of a biblical and theological argument.  In its cover story for this week, “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage,” Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller offers a revisionist argument for the acceptance of same-sex marriage.  It is fair to say that Newsweek has gone for broke on this question.

Miller begins with a lengthy dismissal of the Bible’s relevance to the question of marriage in the first place.  “Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does,” Miller suggests.  If so, she argues that readers will find a confusion of polygamy, strange marital practices, and worse.

She concludes:  “Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?”  She answers, “Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.”

Now, wait just a minute. Miller’s broadside attack on the biblical teachings on marriage goes to the heart of what will appear as her argument for same-sex marriage.  She argues that, in the Old Testament, “examples of what social conservatives call ‘the traditional family’ are scarcely to be found.”  This is true, of course, if what you mean by ‘traditional family’ is the picture of America in the 1950s.  The Old Testament notion of the family starts with the idea that the family is the carrier of covenant promises, and this family is defined, from the onset, as a transgenerational extended family of kin and kindred.

But, at the center of this extended family stands the institution of marriage as the most basic human model of covenantal love and commitment.  And this notion of marriage, deeply rooted in its procreative purpose, is unambiguously heterosexual.

As for the New Testament, “Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere” to be found.  Miller argues that both Jesus and Paul were unmarried (emphatically true) and that Jesus “preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties.”  Jesus clearly did call for a commitment to the Gospel and to discipleship that transcended family commitments.  Given the Jewish emphasis on family loyalty and commitment, this did represent a decisive break.

But Miller also claims that “while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.”  This is just patently untrue.  Genesis 2:24-25 certainly reveals marriage to be, by the Creator’s intention, a union of one man and one woman.  To offer just one example from the teaching of Jesus, Matthew 19:1-8 makes absolutely no sense unless marriage “between one man and one woman” is understood as normative.

As for Paul, he did indeed instruct the Corinthians that the unmarried state was advantageous for the spread of the Gospel.  His concern in 1 Corinthians 7 is not to elevate singleness as a lifestyle, but to encourage as many as are able to give themselves totally to an unencumbered Gospel ministry.  But, in Corinth and throughout the New Testament church, the vast majority of Christians were married.  Paul will himself assume this when he writes the “household codes” included in other New Testament letters.

The real issue is not marriage, Miller suggests, but opposition to homosexuality.  Surprisingly, Miller argues that this prejudice against same-sex relations is really about opposition to sex between men.  She cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary as stating that “nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women.”  She would have done better to look to the Bible itself, where in Romans 1:26-27 Paul writes:  “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Again, this passage makes absolutely no sense unless it refers very straightforwardly to same-sex relations among both men and women — with the women mentioned first.

Miller dismisses the Levitical condemnations of homosexuality as useless because “our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions.”  But she saves her most creative dismissal for the Apostle Paul.  Paul, she concedes, “was tough on homosexuality.”  Nevertheless, she takes encouragement from the fact that “progressive scholars” have found a way to re-interpret the Pauline passages to refer only to homosexual violence and promiscuity.

In this light she cites author Neil Elliott and his book, The Arrogance of Nations.  Elliott, like other “progressive scholars,” suggests that the modern notion of sexual orientation is simply missing from the biblical worldview, and thus the biblical authors are not really talking about what we know as homosexuality at all.  “Paul is not talking about what we call homosexuality at all,” as Miller quotes Elliott.

Of course, no honest reader of the biblical text will share this simplistic and backward conclusion.  Furthermore, to accept this argument is to assume that the Christian church has misunderstood the Bible from its very birth — and that we are now dependent upon contemporary “progressive scholars” to tell us what Christians throughout the centuries have missed.

Tellingly, Miller herself seems to lose confidence in this line of argument, explaining that “Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.”  In other words, when the argument is failing, change the subject and just declare victory.  “Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition,” Miller simply asserts — apparently asking her readers to forget everything they have just read.

Miller picks her sources carefully.  She cites Neil Elliott but never balances his argument with credible arguments from another scholar, such as Robert Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary [See his response to Elliott here].  Her scholarly sources are chosen so that they all offer an uncorrected affirmation of her argument.  The deck is decisively stacked.

She then moves to the claim that sexual orientation is “exactly the same thing” as skin color when it comes to discrimination.  As recent events have suggested, this claim is not seen as credible by many who have suffered discrimination on the basis of skin color.

As always, the bottom line is biblical authority.  Lisa Miller does not mince words.  “Biblical literalists will disagree,” she allows, “but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history.”  This argument means, of course, that we get to decide which truths are and are not binding on us as “we change through history.”

“A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism,” she asserts.  “The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.”

All this comes together when Miller writes, “We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future.”  At this point the authority of the Bible is reduced to whatever “universal truths” we can distill from its (supposed) horrifyingly backward and oppressive texts.

Even as she attempts to make her “religious case” for gay marriage, Miller has to acknowledge that “very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal.”  Her argument now grinds to a conclusion with her hope that this will change.  But — and this is a crucial point — if her argument had adequate traction, she wouldn’t have to make it.  It is not a thin extreme of fundamentalist Christians who stand opposed to same-sex marriage — it is the vast majority of Christian churches and denominations worldwide.

Disappointingly, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham offers an editorial note that broadens Newsweek’s responsibility for this atrocity of an article and reveals even more of the agenda:  “No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism,” Meacham writes.  “Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Well, that statement sets the issue clearly before us.  He insists that “to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt.”  No serious student of the Bible can deny the challenge of responsible biblical interpretation, but the purpose of legitimate biblical interpretation is to determine, as faithfully as possible, what the Bible actually teaches — and then to accept, teach, apply, and obey.

The national news media are collectively embarrassed by the passage of Proposition 8 in California.  Gay rights activists are publicly calling on the mainstream media to offer support for gay marriage, arguing that the media let them down in November.  It appears that Newsweek intends to do its part to press for same-sex marriage.  Many observers believe that the main obstacle to this agenda is a resolute opposition grounded in Christian conviction.  Newsweek clearly intends to reduce that opposition.

Newsweek could have offered its readers a careful and balanced review of the crucial issues related to this question.  It chose another path — and published this cover story.  The magazine’s readers and this controversial issue deserved better.

Atheists abandon attempt to ban baptisms

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

An atheism-promoting organization has withdrawn its lawsuit demanding Christian baptisms of children be banned in Italy after a U.S.-based legal team took on the defense of a bishop and the Roman Catholic Church there.

“This was a preposterous lawsuit, and we are pleased that it has been dropped,” said Joseph Infranco, a senior counsel for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.

However, he said, “Americans should be aware that such lawsuits may seem far-fetched, but they really are happening … and foreign legal decisions are increasingly cited in American courts.”

The ADF stepped into the battle when the Italian Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics filed a lawsuit seeking an end to all baptisms of children in Italy. The organization alleged the practice encroached on its religious freedom and violated Italian Constitutional Court precedents regarding free will and personal privacy in religious decisions.

The organization alleged the law does not allow parents to enroll their children in certain groups such as trade unions, therefore, the law also “does not allow, as well, that the parents may decide their children become members of a religious association.”

The Alliance Defense Fund reported the plaintiff in the case was demanding that his name be erased from a baptism registry in what was described as a type of “debaptism.”

But the petition was withdrawn just before a court hearing was to take place.

Gianfranco Amato, an ADF-allied attorney, said the plaintiff became convinced that the nation’s legal precedents would not support such demands.

“It’s unthinkable to ask the government to force the church to abandon one of its sacraments to appease a radical, anti-religious agenda, yet that’s what this activist group did,” said Amato.

“According to Italian law, the demand to remove a name from the register must be made by an individual with a personal interest, rather than by a private association such as the UAAR,” said Amato. “Also, it was easy to demonstrate that the group had no legal leg on which to stand.”

Infranco said, “All parents have the right to raise their children in their religious tradition, which obviously includes participation in the historic rituals associated with that religion.”

The website for the atheist organization is in Italian, but an English translation describes the group as being based on the values of human rights, democracy, pluralism, equality and individuality.

The website has been highlighted among a listing of resources on the website of prominent atheist Richard Dawkins.

I am getting a bit discouraged with the people of America.

Where is our pride, our passion for what is truly moral and right?  Years ago we would not have tolerated an individual with the likes of Barack Hussein Obama running for president of the greatest nation on earth.

But today we do, why?

It is like we would sell our soul to the devil to get what we think we want.  We cry out for freedom, yet demand more government, more government intervention?  The government owes us and we want it all.  We have become the “what’s in it for me” society.

Freedom is not being able to do whatever one wants.

Morality is almost non-existent and replaced by deviant groups with an agenda that spews immorality -

Political correctness is no longer what is “right for America” but rather what is right for me; regardless of how illegal, immoral it may be -

Our judicial system is in shambles.  Self interest and “bought” judges have infiltrated what was once the greatest judicial system in the world.  Today it serves nothing but self interests supported by group agendas that decay America’s moral fiber.

Christians are persecuted in this country at an increasing rate, in favor of immorality and the @#!%# ALCU, which is one of the greatest threats to our great country and the very foundation it was founded on.  The principles this nation were founded on are being manipulated right before our eyes, and we do nothing.

As long as I can continue to drive my nice car, go to work, drink my alcohol, have sex and so on – without fears, the government can do whatever they want.  Our society has become stagnant, lazy – no longer demanding of righteousness and morality – all in the sake of “feeling good”.

The liberals of America want you to believe that this is good.  That as long as you feel good, everyone should feel good – regardless of what  makes others feel good.

Gay marriage, open prostitution, gambling as a tax, and much more has MORE importance than allowing a group (majority group) recite prayers at school or other public gathering – BECAUSE IT OFFENDS a few.  Where are MY rights where people must stop what they do because it OFFENDS ME?

Why have my rights been taken away in favor of immorality?

Who determines one’s rights?  When has inalienable rights been trumped by self interest rights?

Who has determined it is the right of the Muslim to openly practice their faith and yet, the Christian cannot?

Sign of the times…..beware of a wolf in sheep’s clothing….or in this case a pack of wolves.