In my rebuttal to Charles Burnette's essay, I will be generous to the opposing viewpoint in assuming that everything he wrote is factually accurate. I'm willing to bet this isn't the case (it rarely is in openly one-sided essays), but I don't have the time nor the energy to research every claim.
Let's get started, shall we?
quote:
Originally posted by Bushsupporter:
The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
I think this pretty clearly implies the connotation of "seperation of church and state", and this article did not convince me otherwise. Unlike other parts of the Constitution, it is quite direct, and in my opinion, unmistakable in its meaning.
quote:
The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.
Had our Founding Fathers truly been out to create a one-directional wall to protect the church from the state, the First Amendment would not be phrased the way it is.
quote:
The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion.
This much I understand and I agree with. And, lo and behold, it's exactly what the American people are enjoying today. Contrary to the belief of
The 700 Club, this freedom of religion is not in jeopardy.
quote:
Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation.
Our Consitution would indicate that our Founding Fathers were indeed Christian men. As the article goes on to explain, many parts of the Consitution seem borrowed from the Bible. Yet, interestingly, they did not simply make the Bible the governing law. Why was this? Did they not like the part that would prohibit them from eating shrimp, or were they more bothered by the whole public stoning thing?
The point I am trying to make is that the Bible clearly has a lot of good parts. What our Founding Fathers were able to do was look at the Bible objectively and use parts of it selectively to shape a system of government. Of course, it is impossible to really know what our Founding Fathers were thinking when they wrote the Constitution. It is quite possible to go back now and find similarities between parts of the Constitution and parts of the Bible, but I simply do not believe that the Bible was the main source that was consulted in writing the Consitution. Our government bears a remarkable similarity to the government of other previously founded, civilized, first-world nations. I think our Founding Fathers got the majority of what they put in the Consitution from what they had seen work in other countries. The parts that they did take directly from the Bible, as I said, were
portions of the Bible. Therefore, they openly disregarded Christianity's crappy parts. In that light, they don't quite seem like the overzealous nut jobs Burnette wants them to be.
quote:
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.
This is nothing more than a ridiculous parody of logic. To begin with, the definiton of "pluralism" is "A condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society" (Source: Dictionary.com). Therefore, it is quite possible to have a pluralistic society with a dominant view. As for the part of the sentence that begins "Therefore", I feel it is my reluctant obligation to inform Mr. Burnette that when you start the second sentence in a paragraph with "therefore", you are implying that what was stated in the first sentence proves what is being stated in the second. Clearly, that is not the case here. All Burnette has done is demonstrated that he didn't consult his dictionary before using the word "pluralistic", thrown in a "therefore", and restated his stance on the overall issue.
quote:
Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear.
Just for fun, I ran a Wikipedia search on "Republican Democracy", and the word "virtue" appeared nowhere in the definition. But virtue does sound pretty good in the context Burnette has decided to use it, so I can understand why he chose to make a buzz word appear as a fact.
quote:
Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960).
This is all a lot of happy horseşhit that can be summed up in one sentence I'm surprised Burnette had the guts to write:
quote:
If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base.
As Burnette presents it, this line of thinking becoming mainstream (if it isn't already) is ideal. I beg to differ. This viewpoint is highly offensive to all people who do not believe in a higher power or who worship other deities. Throughout history, religion has been an evolving thing, and monotheistic societies have in no tangible way been "morally superior" to polytheistic societies. To buy into this attitude, a person must believe that religion is the only source of decency is the world. As for me, if I were to decide to do something "good" and socially productive on a Sunday morning, I would opt to volunteer in a soup kitchen rather than attend a church. That's just my opinion. But of course, based on this line of thinking, my opinion is invalid, becuase not being a Christian, I have no sense of what basic decency is.
quote:
And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community.
Goodie, let's take it a step further. If you don't agree with their way of thinking, you're not only a despicable human being, you're an active threat to society. Nope, nothing fascist-sounding about this. Nuh-uh.
quote:
The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church.
Again, an opinion. I personally believe that sometimes people develop morality on their own. Perhaps this makes me one of those dangerous "secular humanists", but I'll address that part later.
quote:
The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice.
Righteousness and virtue are both extremely subjective concepts. To a member of Al Qaeda, killing a Christian is righteous, and bombing Jews with precision is a virtue. Something this subjective cannot possibly be "our foundation". We might as well say that we are a country founded on the principle of "being good". What scares me is that some of you probably wouldn't see the problem with that.
quote:
It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.
To sum this viewpoint up in words a Kindergartener could understand: God is "good". The church is "good". Taking the Church away would be "bad". We don't want to be "bad". Let's be "good".
I think it's worth noting that plenty of the more religious "public servants" have entered the political arena not to aid the American public as a whole, but to aid the portions of the American public they agree with. In this sense, they are doing exactly what Burnette condemns: putting their personal good ahead of the good of the country. Of course, they
think their personal good
is the good of the country. And this, boys and girls, is why a government founded on subjectivity cannot work.
quote:
The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place.
Yeah, that's probably
part of why the system of checks and balances was put in place. I'm inclined to believe that the bigger reason, though, was to give all sides a fair say. Maybe I'm not cynical enough, but I still believe most of our public servants are truly interested in benefiting our country above all else. The reason the system of checks and balances exists is because different public servants have different opinions as to what will benefit our country. A fully functional system of government has not been found yet, and people of all political parties are still arguing over what system would work best if given the chance;
that is the main reason the system of checks and balances exists.
quote:
They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness.
I do love how Burnette puts words in our Founding Fathers' mouths. Maybe this was the case. In fact, I have a hunch that this largely was the case, as humanity can be pretty corrupt at times. But I also think part of the reason we don't have a direct democracy is that people are stupid. If majority rule simply determined everything, God knows where our country would be. The nation would not fall to the dogs because of wickedness, but because of stubborness, ignorance, propoganda, and misinformation.
quote:
We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources.
Okay, sounds like a plan. Now, let's analyze their findings carefully:
quote:
The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible.
A shame Mr. Burnette was not better at math, or he could have saved himself the humiliation of having this published. Let's break this down: 34% of all citations came from the Bible. 60% of all citations came from men who
used the Bible to form their conclusions. I would like to remind everyone that if these men so much as used one Bible citation a piece, or even read something in the Bible that vaguely persuased their line of thought, they would be included under this umbrella. Now, for the mathematically challenged (like Burnette), these two numbers, 34% and 60%, reflect different stastistics. Therefore, if they are to be added together, the 94% they reflect must be a logical conjunction of the two statistics being presented. Unfortunately, to say that 94% of all citations were "based on the Bible" is in no way a logical conjunction. 34% of all citations
came from the Bible, and 60% of all citations came from
men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That is all that was proven. Burnette would want you to believe that 94% of these citations were based on the Bible; in reality, the only thing these stastistics prove is that
at least 34% of them are. Funny how much using actual math can change things.
quote:
The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government.
This is a proven fact.
quote:
If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government.
This is not a proven fact. This is more of that "therefore" crap designed to insult your intelligence. Allow me to use this type of pseudo-logic against Mr. Burnette: There are no Bible passages in our Constitution. The ideas in our Constitution that came from the Bible do not have the part of the Bible they came from listed next to them. If it was their intention to allow the church to have power over the state, they would have included their sources.
quote:
Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?
Bushsupporter, I know you didn't write this article, but you seemed to like it enough to post it. Just for fun, I have a task for you: visit the most liberal area in your city. See all those damn hippies waving signs to legalize murder? No? That's because there aren't any. Leave it to this schmuck to actually have the gall to imply that if you are not for public displayment of the Ten Commandments by the government, you see nothing wrong with murder, theft, or adultery. Contrary to Christian extremist opinion, the belief that murder is wrong would exist without Christianity ever having been invented, and exists outside of Christianity quite fine today.
Not even the liberalist of liberals are in favor of publicly banning every idea that can be connected with the Bible. Hell, not even Al Qaeda members want that! What we liberals want is a nation that thinks things over, that draws conclusions from all sources and attempts to be fair and balanced. Simultaneously following the Bible and being reasonable is quite possible in some places. In others, it is simply not. All of us who are crying "seperation between church and state!" are not trying to get all Bibles burned, but are just making sure that society and the government does not immediately look to the Bible and disregard all else when making decisions. This philosophy seems to be much more in line with the one our forefathers used than what Burnette suggests.
quote:
He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)
One man's opinion. Unfortunately, being old and frequently quoted does not make him correct. That aside, as I said above, nobody is trying to "destroy religion".
quote:
If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings?
I say this was no absolutely no sarcasm: because it was the style at the time.
quote:
Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."
I don't believe any books should be banned from public school, the Bible included. And in my city, which is pretty liberal, it isn't. This is a case of citing one specific event in an attempt to whip up fear. The boy's teacher was just misinformed.
quote:
Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point.
The point that we've come a long way? The point that after 161 years people are finally coming to realize the moral values are subjective and that there is no universal precedent? These make sense to me, but I somehow don't think they're what Burnette was getting at.
quote:
It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country."
Some people do not acknowledge God's presence, and we have no right to alienate them. These people are not being unreasonable, they are simply going against the majority. As Burnette said earlier in the article: "Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err." The Christian argument for why God needs to be acknowledged is basically "we know we're right." In this regard, Christians passionately fighting for their faith to directly affect government regulations resemble toddlers pouting and stamping their feet, yelling, "But I
know he's up there! I
know it!"
quote:
What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth.
I urge anyone who agrees with this passage to prove a connection between the two. Even a functional theory rooted in logic will do. Hell, I'll take anything more concrete and logical than "People who stray from God go bad" or "God is angry."
quote:
The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.
The SATs have changed over time. I don't think it's fair to pin the drop entirely on this; the simple fact is, children seem to be getting stupider, and I haven't noticed any vast intelligence differences in the children that bring Bibles to school versus the children that bring Stephen King books. Although once more, I must commend Burnette at his bullşhit logic and scare tactics. I'm surprised he didn't come right out and blame "the sodomists" for 9/11.
quote:
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society
False.
quote:
there will always be one dominant view.
Technically true, but inconsequential. Our collective "moral values" are not determined democratically.
quote:
Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose?
Here's an earth-shattering idea: let's not leave morality to be taught by public institutions! Rather, let's have parents actually
talk to their kids and try to pass on their system of beliefs! Or crazier yet, let's encourage kids to form their
own opinions about the world, and pursue their own spiritual paths! For the life of me, I do not understand how society can be so close-minded as to be fiercely (sometimes even violently) opposed to these ideas.
quote:
The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity.
I don't even want to know how many of Hydrok's common logical fallacies this falls under. When you remove the sugarcoating, Burnette is saying that there are two religions in the world: Christianity and Not Christianity. If our government does not respect Christianity, it is respecting Not Christianity, which is a "religion" all its own, and is therefore being hypocritical. I honestly do not know how to respond to an argument that has delved this low into the depths of stupidity. All I can say is that I'm reminded once of a toddler, this time saying, "The sky isn't white so it has to be green ha ha ha I win!"
The moral of the story is that with clever enough wording, you can create a seemingly substantial argument for most anything. It all boils down to this: the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I think this is pretty clear. It is childish to try to change the facts so that they fit your opinion better, which is exactly what Burnette has done, via an argument with effective enough pseudo-logic to get published. The problem is, there will always be those quite capable of seeing through the protective barrier of advanced writing techniques and seeing the argument for the pile of cow dung it really is.
And then, as the books were told, Fina replied: "A can of worms, my dear friend? What has this to do with reason?"
Topics 
