Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Separation of Church and State’ Category

This blog has been lurking around in the corners of my mind for quite a while now, ever since July 1, 2016 when I passed a church bulletin calling for all to come to its celebration of God and America. This sign bothered me for several reasons.  Of course, me being an atheist will probably cause most to figure out some of the reasons it bothered me. But only some. As for the rest, well, the rest I thought would be surprising and I hope interesting.

It bothered me because not only is such a mingling of church and state bad for the state, but it is just as bad for the church.

il_570xN.472286975_c0u2

Let me first say that this church, and the many others that I saw with a similar message, have every right to do so.  However, not everything that is legal and that people have a right to do is also wise. And in this blog I plan to discuss why it is not wise for a religion, in this case Christianity, to mix religion and nationalism. To do so, I will speak as if I were a much younger me, young enough to still be a Christian.

Let’s start with a question – what is the purpose of the Church?

Answer, to spread the good news of the Gospels, the news about Jesus and his redemptive death and resurrection.  The church was also meant to provide support and teaching to fellow Christians, and to those who come to its doors seeking. And the church was also meant to serve as a moral guide and conscience of people, of societies, of nations, of the world.

While spreading the news of the Gospels might be easier done when part of a government, as part of the inside group, it does so at the expense of corrupting the church, and of causing great pain and suffering to others outside of that church.

A church is not the state.  Nor is it meant to be.  It is not meant to be a supporter of the state, an auxiliary of the state, a co-ruler with the state.

A church is meant to be an outsider in regards to government.

Christianity was born an outsider.

Jesus was born an outsider with Mary being pregnant before being married

Jesus was born into and preached to a people who were outsiders, the Jews.

Jesus served the outsiders among the Jews; tax collectors, the lepers, the unclean, the sinners.

An outsider preaching to a people of outsiders, that is part of what gave Jesus’ message its power.   His message was not to the rich and powerful, although it was theirs for the taking should they choose to listen.  His message was to the poor and powerless.

His message was not how to create a civil society, how to govern a country or state or city.  His message was about God’s love for humanity and how best to receive and spread that love.  It was a message of hope, not political positions.

Jesus, as the outsider, accepted all, but did not change his message, his standards, nor himself for any.

Jesus changed the world.

From its birth to its early years, Christianity was a religion off outsiders looking in.  Often ridiculed, sometimes persecuted, they nonetheless still for the most part, held firm to their standards and beliefs.  And they grew.

And then came the great split. No, not the Catholic and the Protestant split. Nor the disagreements among Christians, which had been present since the beginning as can be seen in the arguments about the nature of Jesus and his relation to God.

No, the great split I am referring to concerns the split from being outsiders to becoming insiders. The conversion of Emperor Constantine transformed Christianity from being a religion of outsiders to being a religion of the insiders, of those with power and money. Or rather, one particular set of Christians became insiders.  As part of the bargain, with Constantine, they had to have a uniform set of beliefs.  So, one set modified some of their beliefs and won, the others became persecuted and died, along with the pagans.

As Paul Johnson wrote in his A History of Christianity:

How could the Christian Church, apparently quite willingly, accommodate this weird megalomaniac in its theocratic system? Was there a conscious bargain? Which side benefited most from this unseemly marriage between Church and State? Or, to put it another way, did the empire surrender to Christianity, or did Christianity prostitute itself to the empire?”

Now, instead of criticizing the government and society, Christianity and the government tyndale-martyrdom-resized-600were one, and actions against the government were also actions against Christianity, and actions against Christianity were also actions against the government.  Given this, how could most Christians criticize any government action, no matter how bad or how flawed?  How could any government allow any deviation from the established religion, no matter how well argued and supported?

They couldn’t

An attack on the religion supported by the state was an attack on the state, and an attack vc006367on the state was an attack on the religion.  Such was the root cause of most of the religious violence and persecution throughout the years; the Inquisition, the forced conversion and persecution of the Jews, Catholics vs. Protestants, Protestants vs. Puritans, Puritans vs. Quakers, and on and on and on.

In addition to the violence against people, was the violence done to beliefs and morals as Churches assumed stately power. Compromises with principles and beliefs were common, as were the flat out ignoring of such principles and beliefs.

This violence against people and against the teachings of Jesus and of God is probably why the first person to propose an absolute and total separation of church and state was a Puritan theologian and the founder of the Baptist Church in America – Roger Williams. And he lived up to that ideal when he founded the state of Rhode Island.

The United States was the first secular government in the world. Something that the writers of the Constitution did intentionally, and with great forethought.

1st-Amendment_eroded_4

Their foresight and awareness of history is something lacking today by too many Americans, and is evidenced by so much more than just the signs I saw that inspired this blog.  This lack of forethought and awareness is seen whenever anyone:

  • Claims that the United States is a Christian country. And then advocates for laws to make it so – prayer in the schools, recognition of the Bible as the state book, etc.
  • Work to limit or take away the rights of those who are not the right sort of Christian or believer.
  • Tells Muslims to go home, even those who were born in the United States. And then tries to make it so.
  • Whenever permits are denied to religious groups due to their beliefs.
  • When President H. Bush commented that atheist could not be patriots due to not believing in God.
  • When Trump sends out a White House bulletin in which he states “America is a Nation of believers. As long as we have faith in each other, and trust in God, we will succeed!”

We, as a nation, as a people, have never been very good at remembering. But, today, that

two-kingdom-flag-church-cross-copy

lack of memory, of awareness, seems stronger than ever.  The evangelical support forTrump shows how far too many Christians and Christian organizations, are willing to go in dealing with the devil in order to gain political power.  And how many of their values and morals, and how much of the teachings of Jesus they are willing to ignore or give up in their quest for political power.

 

I think that they need to go back and read the history of religion, and of what happens when it becomes part of the state.  Some Madison, or Jefferson, or several others would be good.  But, perhaps, it would be best if they rediscovered the writings and thought of Roger Williams.  Before they manage to harm not just people, but the Constitution that will allow such harm to, eventually, be redressed.

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Finally, a short blog.  At least, shorter than the other two.

First and foremost:

dont-panic

Next:

2309

 

Now, big broad dramatic actions, while nice, are not necessary and are not what is going to turn things around.  It will be the actions of millions of people working on mundane and often boring tasks that will turn things around.  It will be the actions of millions of people donating time and money to organizations that work to protect our rights, our economy, our schools, our environment, our nation that will turn things around.  It will be us, the majority, who will turn things around.

National groups are nice, but look local too.  The Republican conservatives who support Trump control too many states, and that needs to change.

Write letters to your local paper, to your elected representatives at all levels from city to state to national.  This means be aware of what is happening both nationally and locally.  Join in local organizations that are working to improve the environment, poverty, homelessness, civil rights, and all of those things that are most in danger now.   If you are up to it, get involved in local boards on different subjects and problems.  Volunteer to testify on issues that most concern you – locally in city councils to testifying before state committees.

 

For myself, I have never registered as a Democrat or Republican, preferring to be considered an Independent.  And early one there were Republicans who I could and did vote for.  However, those have vanished over the years as the Republican Party became more radically conservative and radically right religious.

So, for the first time in my life, I will become a registered Democrat and work with the local party here in Beaumont.  There are other things I will be doing, and there are a great many groups and organizations that you could become a part of.  Here is just a short and not even remotely exhaustive list of them linked to their websites, in no particular order.

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Common Cause

National Center for Science Education

Texas Freedom Network –  for those living in Texas, this is a group I have worked with before and will become more active in now.

Planned Parenthood

Sierra Club

Friends of the Earth

National Organization for Women

League of Women Voters

American Civil Liberties Union

Southern Poverty Law Center

Center for Responsive Politics

Campaign Zero

Black Lives Matter

 

This is not a complete listing by far.  It barely scratches the surface in fact and doesn’t even cover all the areas of concern.  Look and find something that fits your interests and greatest concerns.

And, perhaps most important of all, remember we are all Americans.  We are all human.  Look at your neighbor, at your town, your city, your county, your parish, your state, and your country, and be aware of whatever threatens your neighbors well being whether it involves civil liberties and equal treatment under the law, the environment in which we all share, education or any of host of other areas that look like they may well be under attack during a Trump Presidency.

Because of this, of our shared humanity and identity as Americans, seriously consider even going beyond if things go badly.  If the Trump administration starts a registry for Muslims, register as Muslims.  If President Trump voids the Dream Act, write and call and protest – demonstrations and marches in solidarity with those who are most affected.  If you are white, go ahead and march in a Black Lives Matter protest.  If you are black, then demonstrate in support of that 18 year old American college student brought here from Mexico when she was 3 but being deported now, if you are an Atheist march with and in support of the American Muslims and the refugees.  Let your voice and presence be heard and seen in as many ways as possible.

Be aware and act.   And vote.  Vote in local elections.  In state elections.  And in National ones.  And, hopefully, we can blunt the damage that I fear is coming.  And in 2016 start to not only blunt but turn it around.

Read Full Post »

Republican presidential candidate Gingrich speaks at a meet and greet at the Willow Ridge Golf Course in Fort Dodge,

“We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background and if they believe in sharia they should be deported

…………

“Look, the first step is you have to ask them the questions. The second step is you have to monitor what they’re doing on the internet. The third step is — let me be very clear — you have to monitor the mosques. I mean, if you’re not prepared to monitor the mosques, this whole thing is a joke.” Gingrich on Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

how-much-donald-trump-makes-in-speaking-fees-compared-to-everyone-else

 

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” campaign press release

 

“Do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?” Yahoo Reporter

“We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.” Donald Trump response

……….

“Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?”  MSNBC reporter

“There should be a lot of systems. Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems.”  Donald Trump response.

 

And with these statements both Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump have stabbed with intent to kill that which both have professed to love and protect – the Constitution

religion 3

 “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States..” Article 6  United States Constitution

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”  First Amendment, United States Constitution

 

An integral part of being an American is being able to live your life in accordance with the dictates of your conscience and religion.

For those Jews so inclined there are rabbinical courts.  For those Catholics so inclined there are diocesan tribunals.   For other religious groups both Christian and not, there are organizations that, for  those so inclined, will resolve marital issues, individual disputes, business disputes, rule on inheritances, and more – all based on the precepts of that religion.

All of this is allowed by the free exercise clause as long  as they meet the following standards:

  • Participation is voluntary on the part of everyone.
  • What is decided does not violate US laws.
  • What is decided does not violate the US Constitution.

This is part of what being free to live in accordance with your conscience and religion means.  It applies not to just a few, not just to some, not just to most, but it applies to all Americans.

But Gingrich, Trump, and too many others wish to deny this Constitutional right to our Muslim citizens.  They would say to these Americans,

“No, you cannot follow your religious laws under the same guidelines as others follow theirs.  In fact, you are not allowed to follow them at all.  And yes, we are instituting a religious test on who is considered a full and good citizen of the United States.

And yes, although we may deny it, in doing so we are destroying that  which we profess to love and swore to protect.

And yes, by doing so we show that our true love is to the United States as a nation first and its ideals only a distant second.  And preferably a nation of Christians with a few Jews tossed in.”

 

Oh, what joy this must give our enemies who have charged us with hypocrisy, to have their once lies now made true.

Oh, what pain it gives seeing too many of our leaders recommending suicide as a way to protect our nation.

Read Full Post »

Words. I am amazed at how many people seem to believe that words mean something apart from how we interpret them. Yes, sometimes the interpretation is easy. Most often though, especially with those words whose groupings are considered to be among the most important, they are not.

Power of Words

Two recent claims of a belief in a literal view of words was brought to my attention recently. Or rebrought rather since I was already aware of them. And both dealt with the U.S. Constitution.

The first dealt with the 2nd Amendment and its use of the word “infringe”. As in “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This person had posted the dictionary definition of infringed in an attempt to show that our Constitution is against any sort of gun control and that all laws regulating the purchase of firearms is an attack on one of our most fundamental rights. Now, I don’t remember exactly which dictionary this person used, but its definition was similar to if not exactly like this one from the Merriam Webster dictionary.

“to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person’s rights)”

Of course, this person was focused on the words “limit or restrict” and interpreted “wrongly” as meaning all attempts to limit or restrict. However, I had a different take on this definition. Mine, and I believe most people’s, interpretation would be that “wrong” described a type of attempt, not that all attempts at limiting or restricting are wrong. In other words instead of any attempt then, wrongly means that some attempts are wrong but also strongly implies that there are also correct ways to limit or restrict.

I also pointed out to this person that they were ignoring the first part of the amendment, “well regulated”. Words when used in sentences or any other larger grouping cannot be understood fully in isolation Those other words can and usually do change or modify their meanings.
In this case, the dictionary definition supports the idea that there are ways to correctly “limit or restrict” this right, and when added to the words “well regulated”, then gun control laws are not unconstitutional. Some can be, others are not. This is recognized even in the recent Supreme Court case, McDonald v Chicago, that recognized an individual right to own a gun.
The other words under dispute was the phrase “separation of church and state”. As is usual for so many extreme conservatives, they like to point out that this phrase is not in the constitution. They then point out that what is in the Constitution instead is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Words known as the establishment clause.

And they are quite right about this. However, where they go wrong is in claiming that the establishment clause of the Constitution has a plain and literal meaning at odds with that of the phrase separation of church and state. They act as if the establishment clause needs no interpretation. And to add to the fun, they then often then go on to interpret it as meaning to establish a state church and nothing more.

To cap it all off, their interpretation flies in the face of how the word establishment was used during the time of the writing of the Constitution.

It ignores the fact that the man most responsible for writing the establishment clause and getting it passed, James Madison, also used this phrase of Thomas Jefferson to describe the intent of this clause.

They also ignore the history of the ratification of the Constitution and how, although its writers and promoters were justifiably gravely concerned about it being ratified, they did not respond to the many criticisms hurled their way that the Constitution did not contain a reference to Christianity or Jesus or even to just God.

They further ignore the historical fact that even after its ratification attempts were made to correct this supposed deficiency, attempts which were always defeated both during the time immediately after the Constitution and for all the years afterwards – during President Andrew Jackson’s presidency, during President Abraham Lincoln’s presidency and on into the 20th century.

So, in their attempt to say that it does not need to be interpreted, they interpret it in a way at odds with the writer of those words and with history. Seems to me that their view is more the result of their ideology than any sort of reality. Or laziness. After all, it is much easier to look at a word, put your interpretation to it, pretend it is THE literal meaning of the word, and then be happy that it confirms your own biases and prejudices. Look at how much easier that process is than the one I used in the last paragraph above, wherein I had to find out how the word establishment was used in regards to religion at that time, at who wrote those words and how he described the meaning of what he wrote, and at the history of the Constitution.

word-map-27092008
Of course, the greatest argument against this idea of a literal reading is the fact that those who claim to believe in such so often disagree on what those words mean when applied to life and when enacted in the world. This is true whether the words in question are those of the Constitution, the Bible, the Qur’an, or any other set of words.

Read Full Post »

Part of the problem in looking at any Supreme Court ruling, or, indeed, any government action is the tendency for people to look at each one as an end point instead of part of an on-going dialogue or journey.  There always has been, is, and always will be a back and forth between different views and arguments as culture and society changes, as legal thought changes, and as new arguments and ideas are brought forth.

iCjp6WYwASt4

It is also not given to any one side to win every time.  Not in war, not in government, not in judicial rulings, not in life. The Town of Greece v. Galloway decision, that Greece’s town council opening their sessions with sectarian prayer is constitutional is one of those ebb times when what I consider the wrong arguments and side won. It happens. The question now becomes is how bad a defeat is this decision?

My view is that it will have an impact, as all Supreme Court decisions do.  However, it will not be a major one; no old rulings were overturned and the basic idea that it is possible for town councils to go too far in their opening prayers still exists, even if the majority did not feel, for whatever reason, that Greece’s did not cross the line.

The majority based their ruling two arguments. The first is that if only nonsectarian prayers were allowed, then the government would wind up in the business of deciding which prayers were nonsectarian and which were too sectarian. Something that arguably should not be within the power of the government to decide.

Coupled with this argument is the decision in a 1983 Supreme Court case, March v. Chambers.  6_Supreme_Court_2010In this case the court ruled that Nebraska could begin its legislative sessions with a prayer from a state chaplain, citing historical precedent going back to the First Continental Congress. An important caveat in Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion though is that such sectarian prayers “over time is not ‘exploited to proselytize or advance any one or disparage any other, faith or belief.’”

The majority in this case decided Greece council prayers did not go over this line.  I would strongly disagree with them on this given that, except for a short period in 2008 when this case first started and they invited a few non-Christians to lead the prayers, the prayers had always been heavily Christian.

However, no matter how wrong they may have been about this specific situation, the general principle still holds and has not been repudiated.

Let me also state that I found the dissenters opinions much more forceful than that of the majority.  Justice Kagan in her dissent agreed with the1983 Marsh decision but instead argued that this case was more one of religious plurality than of prayer: “Greece’s Board did nothing to recognize religious diversity:  In arranging for clergy members to open each meeting, the Town never sought (except briefly when this suit was filed) to involve, accommodate, or in any way reach out to adherents of non-Christian religions, A public meeting that begins with explicitly religious prayer aimed at ordinary citizens does not square with the First Amendment’s promise that every citizen, irrespective of her religion, owns an equal share in her government.”

I also found it interesting that the majority did not consider the differences between how prayers are delivered within the Nebraska legislature and how they are done in small towns such as Greece, New York.  When the clergy deliver prayers within the Nebraska legislature it is to the whole assembly of elected representatives.  In the Greece town council the clergy delivers the prayer to the town residents with the board members sitting on high and watching.  That is not to even mention that the sectarian nature of the prayers is much greater in Greece than in the Nebraska legislature, nor the fact that those who do not pray  are visible and their business could well be on the agenda for the council to consider.

As I said, a defeat. But not a disaster. It will cause problems, but not catastrophes.

 

Let me close this by noting one thing I found of interest. All three non-Christian justices ReligiousLibertydissented from this ruling. Only one of the Christian judges did. To me this is just another indicator that the concerns of many of our founders on the rights of the majority being used to suppress the equally protected rights of the minority were valid.  Those that have the power of the majority on their side are often as unaware of this as a fish is of the ocean it swims in. However, those who are not fish and are trying to survive in its waters are very much aware.

.

 

Read Full Post »

Most of the time it is fairly easy to see the difference in quality between creationist “evidence” and that of evolution.  For example, this link of creationist explanations for the Grand Canyon isCreationismTextbook not going to fool anyone who has any knowledge of science and of how science works.  However, recently some creationists have managed to create faux science journals and faux science conferences that take on the trappings of science, the language of science, and the appearance of science. But, despite appearances, its content is most assuredly not science.

A problem for the layman though is that these papers read like a genuine science paper.  Which means that for most people, myself included, it is a hard slog trying to understand it and almost impossible to criticize it.  But, when coming across such a paper there are some quickly discovered clues that can alert you that this paper should be read with great care and skepticism if you do not have the time to do the research needed to find the flaws in the science.

Initially in reviewing creationist literature on the age of the Grand Canyon (chosen because of how impressed I was with Carving Grand Canyon: Evidence, Theories, and Mystery by Wayne Ranney)   I came across article after article of shallow and easily demolished creationist explanations of the Grand Canyon.   Other than using a few scientific words, they made no pretense of being a serious scientific study.   In many of these papers it only took creationists three hours of examining the rocks and strata of Grand Canyon to be able to clearly see that creationism was correct!   No serious testing, no serious analysis or experimentation, nothing.  However, I then, eventually , came across what gave every appearance of being an actual science paper.  Even then, though, there was a problem in that, at first, I could not find any in which the authors of the papers did any actual field work themselves – something very prominent among geologists in Ranney’s book  – merely criticism of published research.  Looked nice, but why not go out and find the conclusive evidence?

But then I came across a couple of papers that actually not only looked scientificy , but also discussed actually going out in the field.  I will be using a creationist paper that is a fine representative of this genre of creationist literature, the faux science report; “Discordant Potassium – Argon Model and Isochron ‘ages’ for Cardenas Basalt (Middle Proterozoic) and Associated Diabase of Eastern Grand Canyon, Arizona” by Steven A. Austin PhD and Andrew A. Snelling PhD.

The first thing to note about this paper is that it has the appearance of a scientific paper.  It has a nice long title that provides specifics on what the article is about; a nice abstract, nice technical jargon writing filled with numbers and graphs and charts; and has a nice references section at the end.  It wears its scientific clothing well. But, is the clothing just a covering for a particular religious belief or does it fit upon a true exercise of science?

Now, in reading this paper I found  its content above my head; I am not a geologist and have no Fox-in-the-Henshouse-500x397geological background. I think, though, that even without fully understanding the content, there are things that you can quickly look at that would allow you to assign a rough probability on whether the paper is going to be real science or faux science.

Without even looking at its content, a bit of quick research turned up information that set off a three alarm warning on this paper: the authors are affiliated with a religious organization, it was presented at a religious conference, and it was not submitted to a peer review scientific journal.

The Fourth International Conference on Creationism, where this paper was presented, tries to put on a scientific gloss, but it is only a gloss and a thinly applied one too.   For example, in a the Conference Report there is a criticism of one of the speakers, Steve Robinson, a member of  “a small but vocal group of British creationists” who have “for several years abandoned traditional flood geology, apparently for what they see as insurmountable geologic difficulties.”:

“It seems clear they are not working from the Bible, but instead are reaching conclusions about the evidence and then interpreting the Bible within the constraints imposed by their conclusions. This is a backwards and, as history shows, doctrinally dangerous approach. “

I do not know of any science conferences or journals criticizing a paper for basing their conclusions upon evidence..  Having your primary ground being a belief in a religious book instead of evidence is indeed “backwards” from science and thus not science at all.  It is like calling up down and black white.

However, to be fair, of the  authors of this paper  have actual PhD’s in geology from reputable universities.

Steven A. Austin is a co-author on both papers and received a PhD in geology from Pennsylvania State University in 1979, an actual accredited university.  So, by his educational background he is a geologist.

But we need to look further than just his degree. For example,  I see no geological papers of his published in peer reviewed science journals, just plenty of papers in religious publications and presented at religious conferences.  That is not to say he has none, but I would be willing to wager that those he does have published in peer reviewed scientific journals are not about young earth or creationism, but instead are about actual science.  And that such papers are not nearly as numerous as those to creationist non-peer reviewed journals.

Also note that Austin is Professor of Geology and Chair of the Department of Geology , Institute for Creation Research (USA).   A quick look at the Institute of Creation Research (USA) finds this:

“After more than four decades of ministry, the Institute for Creation Research remains a leader in scientific research within the context of biblical creation. “

Note the word ministry.  Note that any “scientific research’ is done within the straightjacket of “biblical creation”.  In other words, religion first, actual science a very very very distant second.

If more were needed to convince someone that this is religious institution and not a scientific one, a quick read of their tenets should finish their convining.

A listing of results already predetermined and a process in which any research that conflicts with these beliefs is discarded and automatically rejected. This organization is well fitted to that of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism.

images11-jpg

 

 

 

Andrew A. Snelling is another real geologist by education, having been awarded his PhD in geology from the University of Sydney in Australia in 1982.  What I found interesting is that in his biography he states that at the end of 1983  he “commenced in full-time creation ministry” and became a member of the Creation Science Foundation of Australia before moving to the US and eventually becoming Director of Research of Answers in Genesis.

Again, the word ministry.  And again another religious, not scientific, organization.  Here is a bit From Answers in Genesis’ Mission Statement that I found very informative:

“We relate the relevance of a literal Genesis to the church and the world today with creativity.”

Creativity in this case means ignoring evidence, twisting evidence, and outright lying about evidence.  Their version of science is indeed more a work of creative fiction than of actual science.

Here is another telling statement from their Statement of Faith (whose very name shouts religion):

“The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.”

In other words, if the evidence conflicts with their understanding of the Bible, then get creative.  I should also mention that Snelling’s publication list is even thinner than Austin’s.

So, we have scientists by education associated with  primarily religious groups and their view of science, delivering papers to a religious conference about scientific subjects, and which criticizes those who dare let their views be shaped by the evidence instead of by doctrine and the Bible.   In other words, they already know the conclusion they want, don’t confuse matters by trying to objectively looking at the evidence;  it might lead to having to change their doctrine.

That alone should start ringing humongous alarm bells that these papers may not be science at all, no matter how scientific they look, and are, instead, religion in scientific clothing. An attempt to set a faux science loose in the henhouse, rending and destroying science and our efforts to understand both ourselves and the universe around us, with the result that we, both personally and as a society, become the poorer.

Now, while allof the above does not mean that the paper is wrong and that it is nothing more than dressed up trash, it does mean that  you should be extremely skeptical about its results and before you ever begin to accept its findings and results do some serious research first.  For example, on this paper there is already a good post showing the many scientific flaws in it titled “Inventing the isochron: Steve Austin, Andrew Snelling, and the Cardenas Basalts of the Grand Canyon”.  In it you find such interesting tidbits as :

“To Austin and Snellings’ (1998) own admission, most of the rock samples are highly altered. Moreover, several of the samples (especially those high in potassium) contain abundant glass. When volcanic glass is altered, its ability to retain argon (an assumption of the K-Ar method) is significantly lowered. Faure and Mensing (2005, p. 121) put it this way:

“Samples that have been altered or that contain devitrified glass…and xenoliths or xenocrysts should be avoided…the Ar retentivity of devitrified or hydrated glass is questionable.”

From the outset, there is no reason to expect that the whole-rock samples of Austin and Snelling (1998) met the conditions assumed by the K-Ar method. If anything, they should be analyzing mineral isochrons, where some quality control is practical. Instead, we must expect that altered volcanic glass sufficiently retained the argon over time. If it did not, however, we might expect to see significant scatter in the isochron plots. In fact, that is exactly what we find.”

………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

“Even apart from the model above, there is good geological and statistical foundation on which to reject the isochron from Austin and Snelling (1998) as an indicator of the rocks’ age (crystallization or metamorphism). Coincident magmatic events are recorded on the North American continent, and date near 1100 Ma using several methods (Rb-Sr, U-Pb, and K-Ar).

Furthermore, several good 40Ar/39Ar dates (with undisturbed age spectra) are available for the dikes/sills, and agree with the Rb-Sr isochron age of 1103 Ma (Weil et al., 2003; Timmons et al., 2005). For the argument of Austin and Snelling (1998) to have any relevance, they must be able to account for this data. Instead, they propose the unrealistic “model” of accelerated nuclear decay (i.e. change in decay rates) to account for the apparent discordance, despite the fact that it would contradict regional K-Ar and Rb-Sr data already available to them (e.g. Larson et al., 1994). Despite their in-depth, technical discussion of the isotope geochemistry and petrology of Grand Canyon samples, the conclusions of Austin and Snelling (1998) are the result of bad scientific practice and a propagandist effort to dissuade uninformed readers from lending any credibility to geochronology.”

 

Let me end this with a link to an article in Earth: the Science Behind the Headlines titled “Creationism Creeps Into Mainstream Geology” for a bit more about how creationism wearing scientific clothing and putting out faux science in trying to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.

almost-half-of-americans-believe-in-creationism

In a world dependent on science, this deception is dangerous.

Read Full Post »

Even though Arizona Governor Brewer has vetoed the legislation that would have allowed those with religious objections to deny service to gays, the debate will still go heatedly on.   The Christian right who pushed for the passage of this bill will condemn Governor Brewer, those business groups who pressured her into vetoing it, and the gay rights movement and their supporters.  However, the Christian right will also continue to push for similar legislation that has already been proposed in Missouri, Georgia, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, and Tennessee.   And I am sure that with the recent federal court decision to overturn Texas’ law against gay marriage that one will be proposed in Texas too.   That will keep this issue simmering in the press for months to come.

However, I can’t help but wonder if these Christians have really thought this through in terms of their faith and beliefs.   While no longer a Christian, I was at one time and still have many Christian friends and relatives.   Based on knowing them and on knowing Christianity and the Bible, I think that the Christian conservatives who are supporting these sorts of laws are not following their faith faithfully.   To my mind, and in the minds of many Christians too, there are three good reasons for why even a Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin should be against these laws.

 slide_34981_314204_large

First,  there is the example of Jesus.   He did not shun the sinners and the tax collectors, he did not refuse to see and deal with the Samaritans and the pagans.   If he did not, then why should the Christian businessman of today refuse to serve gays?     This refusal to deal with gays seems to me closer to the actions of the Pharisees who condemned Jesus than that of Jesus.

Now it can, and I am sure will, be argued that Jesus did so to save them, to show them the way. However, I do not believe that all such sinners were saved, and yet he still met and socialized with them.   Further, consider your actions if you turn away a gay person from your business.   What sort of witness does that provide?

You deal with other sinners (something I deal with in the second reason), yet you refuse to deal with them.   Where is the loving acceptance?   Where is the chance to show the much touted Christian love and care?   Instead what you have done is shown a cold heart.   You are providing a business service for a person.   You do not have to condone the sin of your customers, but you should not reject the sinner in doing so – which is what the refusal to provide that business service does.

 born-sinner

Second , why refuse to deal with gays but still deal with other sinners?   Since many of the examples I have heard of deal with weddings, let me use and example appropriate for weddings.

You are a Christian baker of very conservative and very deep and sincere beliefs.  Because of these, you refuse to create a wedding cake for the wedding of a gay couple.   So, do you also reject the business of a Jewish and Christian couple getting married?   What about the marriage of an atheist and Christian, or a Baptist and Catholic?    After all, according to the Bible:  Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” 2 Corinthians 6:14 (NIV)

For many conservative Christians this is a command not to marry those of different faiths.   So, for those Christians, will they continue to marry couples who are unequally yoked despite what the Bible says?

Or what about divorced couples?   After all, Jesus said:  But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”  Matthew 5:32 (NIV).

This means that any divorced couple who were divorced for any reason other than adultery are themselves committing the act of adultery by getting married again.   Do you bake their cake, for these sinners?   If you do not for gays, then, to be consistent, you should not for the divorced and for the unequally yoked.   Yet I know of no one advocating for that, nor engaging in such discrimination.

So, why the double standard?  Is not hypocrisy also a sin?

Further, according to standard Christian doctrine, all of humanity is fallen with a sinful nature.  We all sin.  Most do not repent or regret many of their sins.  So, given this, why provide a cake for most sinners but not those sinners who are gay?

The problem here is two-fold.  First off, homosexuality as a sin is treated differently by conservative Christians today than most other sins.   Yet, it is a sin not mentioned by Jesus (adultery was, yet that does not seem to be as great a concern in regards to being a customer for a business owned by a Christian),   It is not one that takes up that many verses within the Bible.   Many other sins take up much more space of the Bible than homosexuality does.   In fact, homosexuality does not even make it into the 10 commandments.   Yet so many treat it as if homosexuality is the worst of sins, so terrible that, in their business, they will deal with all manner of other sinners except the gay sinners.

The other fold of the problem is that in taking this attitude, it assumes that the businessperson, in providing the service of his business is in some manner condoning the morality of his customer.  It does not.  You are providing a service, a product for the public – all of the public.   Doesn’t matter if the person is a smoker, you create a wedding cake.  Doesn’t matter if one is an alcoholic, has lied on their tax returns or resume, has cursed his parents and refuses to have anything to do with them, eats too much, has a bad sense of fashion, is a Muslim or atheist – you create them a cake.   Your business is to create a wedding cake, and that is what it is, a business, not an endorsement.

Providing a service to the public does not mean that you condone that person’s lifestyle and choices.   If it did you would have to start having people fill out a questionnaire before serving them; after which your client base would become so sparse as to force you to close your doors due to lack of viable customers.

 Constitution

Third, the United States has a secular government.  Our founders created a secular government – the first one in the world – in order to protect the freedom for every citizen to believe as they saw fit.

While your religious beliefs may be the basis of your morals, and may be one reason why our representatives propose a law, they should not be the sole reason for our laws.   There should always be some secular reason, a reason common to all regardless of religious belief, for all laws.   To do otherwise would be to prefer one religion over all others in our nation, and thus set the stage for the same strife and war that we see in much of European history and in the Middle East today, and that the American colonies started to experience in the beginning.     But perhaps a few examples would help bring this into focus better.

There has been a great deal of push to have the 10 Commandments posted in schools and courthouses, so let us use that as an example.  And using the version of the 10 Commandments used by Orthodox and Reformed Christians (but not Lutherans, Jews, and Catholics), consider the 1st and 4th Commandments.

The first commandment – You shall have no other Gods before me.    That is a commandment.   It is part of your strong religious beliefs, so strong that you try to get it put into our nation’s schools and courthouses.   Yet, to enact this as law would be to violate our Constitution and its religious freedoms.   After all, you are first going to have to decide whose God should have no others before him.   And won’t that be a fun conversation, one that will be as divisive and, probably, wind up as violent as the conversation our nation had about slavery in the mid 19th century.  After all, whoever loses this argument, their religious beliefs wind up being deemed inferior and decidedly second class with only second class protections, at best.

The fourth commandment – Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.   First question that comes up in making this the law of the land, whose Sabbath day?   That of the Baptists, the Methodists, and the Catholics?  The Jews and Seventh Day Adventists?  What about the Muslim?

Then comes the question of what it means to keep it holy?  This question is followed closely by one asking, what about those U.S. citizens who are not part of that religious belief?   I imagine this would include, at the very least, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and Atheists.   Dependent on the answer, many forms of Christianity would also be on this list.   Again, what about their rights to practice their beliefs in the way they see fit, without interference from the government?

Trying to base a law solely on a religious belief is an act of exclusion and not inclusion and is what has torn nations and countries apart in the past.  It is something that our founders realized and why they created a secular government.   It is why there needs to be a secular reason for laws, reasons that will impact a person regardless of their religious belief.    To not hold to this standard is to trade a possible short term gain for the majority religion into a long term disaster for all – including those in the majority.

And, finally, in regards to this point, do you really want your religion to be linked with the government?   History has shown that linking religion to government damages both.   This fact, that linking religion to government causes great harm to religion, is why it was a Puritan theologian and founder of the Baptist Church in America who first argued for a complete and total separation of church and state (one more thorough than our own today), and who then proceeded to create the first government to embrace this ideal – Roger Williams.

 1781892_10153899283950393_396915548_n

Final Thought Each of the above arguments alone should be enough to make a Christian who believes homosexuality to be sinful to pause and think again before pressing for such discriminatory laws such as the one that almost passed in Arizona.   Together though, these arguments support and aide each other so that the sum of these arguments is greater than each part.    Laws allowing discrimination in business based upon religious belief is a bad idea, even from the standpoint of those Christians who believe homosexuality a sin.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »