Ed Brayton has his panties in a bunch about my defense of religious freedom.
Ed, with my replies:
Ed finds it odd that I would interpret that as a denial of freedom.
The First Amendment restricts the use of government force in religion. It does not restrict expression, civic or private. In fact, it protects expression, explicitly, for all citizens. A prayer mural on a wall in a school is expression, not force. A judge ordering the mural removed is force, not expression. The First Amendment protects the former, and prohibits the latter.
At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, there were countless civic displays and endorsements of religion, and countless displays and endorsements remain today. They all were and are Constitutional, and in fact are protected by the Constitution. Presidents invoke God in speeches, crosses and Stars of David grace graves in Arlington, national monuments are slathered with references to God (have you ever stood in the Lincoln Memorial and read the stuff on the walls, Ed?)
Wanna rip this down too, Ed? It's a display of religion a whole lot more egregious than the Cranston High prayer mural. You'll need a sandblaster, or some black paint or a chisel, and you'll need to get past the National Park Service police. Tell 'em you're an atheist and it's demanded by the Constitution, Ed. See how far you get.
Well, maybe you can make the Cranston High School kids wear blindfolds when they visit the Lincoln Memorial on their Senior Class Trip?
How about this unconstitutional establishment of religion:
Is display of this old document in Cranston High School unconstitutional, Ed? Do the kids have to scratch out the "... all men are Created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...".
Does that illegal "Creator" talk make you feel 'excluded and ostracized', Ed?
How about this old document, Ed? The one that contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state"... oh... wait.... it doesn't say anything about separation. Not a word.
Actually, Ed, what it does say is that free exercise of religion has a protected place in our nation's law. It gives place of primacy to protection of religion, even before freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.
Of course Ed, that violates the Lemon Test (second prong), which requires that
In your batshit world, Ed, the First Amendment is unconstitutional.
Ed:
I have never sued anyone for expressing beliefs, neither in a civic forum nor in a private forum. I find the idea of calling the police when you see a belief expressed that you don't agree with to be abhorrent.
I repeat: You're the censor, Ed. Not me. Don't dare compare me to you.
Our respective positions on freedom of expression are publicly expressed and crystal clear. You're the censor, Ed. Not me.
There's a deeper contradiction, here, worth some discussion.
Why is Ed so... so... angry? He won, after all. Why would censors be angry with a victory for censorship? The prayer mural was chucked into the judicial fire. The judge ruled that the First Amendment demands censorship. A real victory for atheists.
So why is Ed-- along with other godless gendarmes-- spitting pea soup?
Atheists fear that their book-burnings are pyrrhic victories. They don't just want enforcement of civic atheism. They need us to like it, to comply. Not to ask questions. They need us not to look at the plain text of the Constitution, and not to point out what it actually says. State atheism brooks no questions, and certainly brooks no defiance. Their job is to tell us what our Constitution says. Our job is to comply.
Atheists understand the danger that their censorship poses to their larger agenda. A tiny faction risks a lot by telling the majority that their rights-- rights plainly enumerated in our nations founding document-- aren't really rights at all. Transparent lies are dangerous, to the liars, and are potentially lethal to the atheist agenda.
Atheists need to hide behind sophistry, behind euphemisms ("separation of church and state...") that are nowhere in the Constitution, even hide behind schoolgirls, because plain talk about what the Constitution says and what our rights actually are is catastrophic to their agenda. Honest discussion of our First Amendment rights is the last thing atheists want us talking about.
Censorship is risky business, and atheists understand the risk. The American public has largely taken this assault on their freedom with equanimity. But we need to stand up and defy the censors-- we need to tell the truth. It won't be an easy fight-- the censors are ruthless-- but we the people are soverign in this nation, and we need to take it back.
Without God we have no rights, because without God there is no such thing as rights. There is merely applied secular power. So we need to demand our First Amendment rights, particularly the right to acknowledge in our civic life that God is the source of our rights , because respect for the right of free expression-- civic and private-- is the basis for our nation, and the Christian understanding of man is the rational basis for that respect, and God is the only Source of our rights.
Ed, with my replies:
Egnor Loves Palumbo
January 18, 2012 at 11:59 am Ed Brayton
Leave it to ID advocate and first class jerk Michael Egnor to..."First class jerk" is not easy to get. I started in "Coach Jerk", but I've accumulated enough blogger miles to be upgraded to First Class.
... actually support Rep. Peter Palumbo for calling Jessica Ahlquist an “evil little thing.”An atheist Mini-Me.
JT has the details. Egnor, who is as clueless about constitutional law as he is about biology,Yea. I've got this singular delusion that the First Amendment is the charter of our freedom, and that freedom includes freedom of civic expression. I still can't find the Censorship Clause that atheists keep invoking.
actually thinks it is our side that is trying to deny religious freedom:The prayer mural has been ripped down by federal court order, with federal marshals posed to shred it if the defendants-- now convicted in court-- hesitate to obey the court order.
Ed finds it odd that I would interpret that as a denial of freedom.
[Egnor: "]I strongly support your statement, and I share your dismay at the unconstitutional denial of the right to free exercise of religion inherent in the judge’s decision.["]
No, you dolt. This has nothing to do with free exercise of religion.Censorship has nothing to do with freedom? Say again, Ed?
Having the right to exercise your religion does not include the right to have the government endorse and display your religious beliefs.Endorsement and display of religious beliefs on public property by government agents occur everywhere and always. The Constitution prohibits an established national church. It protects endorsement and display, which is not establishment; the Constitution guarantees Free Exercise of religion and makes no distinction whatsoever between private and civic free exercise. It places no constraints whatsoever on what government agents may say. It restricts legislation they may pass ("Congress shall make no law..." not "Congressmen shall make no endorsement and display...".
The First Amendment restricts the use of government force in religion. It does not restrict expression, civic or private. In fact, it protects expression, explicitly, for all citizens. A prayer mural on a wall in a school is expression, not force. A judge ordering the mural removed is force, not expression. The First Amendment protects the former, and prohibits the latter.
At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, there were countless civic displays and endorsements of religion, and countless displays and endorsements remain today. They all were and are Constitutional, and in fact are protected by the Constitution. Presidents invoke God in speeches, crosses and Stars of David grace graves in Arlington, national monuments are slathered with references to God (have you ever stood in the Lincoln Memorial and read the stuff on the walls, Ed?)
 |
| Excerpt from Lincoln's Second Inaugural, Lincoln Memorial |
Wanna rip this down too, Ed? It's a display of religion a whole lot more egregious than the Cranston High prayer mural. You'll need a sandblaster, or some black paint or a chisel, and you'll need to get past the National Park Service police. Tell 'em you're an atheist and it's demanded by the Constitution, Ed. See how far you get.
Well, maybe you can make the Cranston High School kids wear blindfolds when they visit the Lincoln Memorial on their Senior Class Trip?
How about this unconstitutional establishment of religion:
 |
| Declaration of Independence |
Is display of this old document in Cranston High School unconstitutional, Ed? Do the kids have to scratch out the "... all men are Created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...".
Does that illegal "Creator" talk make you feel 'excluded and ostracized', Ed?
How about this old document, Ed? The one that contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state"... oh... wait.... it doesn't say anything about separation. Not a word.
 |
| Bill of Rights |
Actually, Ed, what it does say is that free exercise of religion has a protected place in our nation's law. It gives place of primacy to protection of religion, even before freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.
Of course Ed, that violates the Lemon Test (second prong), which requires that
2) The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion...The First Amendment explicitly has the primary effect of advancing religion, by guaranteeing free exercise of religion.
In your batshit world, Ed, the First Amendment is unconstitutional.
Ed:
... And I guarantee you that Egnor himself would suddenly discover that I am right the moment someone tried to put up a mural of a Muslim prayer in a public school.You're the censor, Ed. Not me. I'd be fine with a Muslim prayer, or a Jewish prayer, or a Buddhist prayer, or a secular humanist pra... whatever. Free expression is guaranteed by the Constitution. I love the First Amendment, and I hate censorship. I want kids to see a variety of viewpoints, different beliefs and lack of beliefs. I want them to know what Muslims believe, and what Jews believe, and what atheists believe, and what Christians believe. I want religious beliefs of a variety of faiths displayed and discussed in school, and everywhere. I have nothing to fear from the expression of beliefs with which I disagree.
I have never sued anyone for expressing beliefs, neither in a civic forum nor in a private forum. I find the idea of calling the police when you see a belief expressed that you don't agree with to be abhorrent.
I repeat: You're the censor, Ed. Not me. Don't dare compare me to you.
Suddenly all that flowery talk of the free exercise of religion would go flying out the window and he would be ranting about the evils of this religious establishment.
Our respective positions on freedom of expression are publicly expressed and crystal clear. You're the censor, Ed. Not me.
Because “freedom of religion” for him really only means the authority to impose his religion on others.The Cranston High School prayer mural didn't "impose" any religion on anyone. Note the irony: atheists call the police and get a judge to silence others who disagree, and then accuse the people they've silenced by force with "imposing" their beliefs. It's like a rapist accusing his victim of sexual assault.
There's a deeper contradiction, here, worth some discussion.
Why is Ed so... so... angry? He won, after all. Why would censors be angry with a victory for censorship? The prayer mural was chucked into the judicial fire. The judge ruled that the First Amendment demands censorship. A real victory for atheists.
So why is Ed-- along with other godless gendarmes-- spitting pea soup?
Atheists fear that their book-burnings are pyrrhic victories. They don't just want enforcement of civic atheism. They need us to like it, to comply. Not to ask questions. They need us not to look at the plain text of the Constitution, and not to point out what it actually says. State atheism brooks no questions, and certainly brooks no defiance. Their job is to tell us what our Constitution says. Our job is to comply.
Atheists understand the danger that their censorship poses to their larger agenda. A tiny faction risks a lot by telling the majority that their rights-- rights plainly enumerated in our nations founding document-- aren't really rights at all. Transparent lies are dangerous, to the liars, and are potentially lethal to the atheist agenda.
Atheists need to hide behind sophistry, behind euphemisms ("separation of church and state...") that are nowhere in the Constitution, even hide behind schoolgirls, because plain talk about what the Constitution says and what our rights actually are is catastrophic to their agenda. Honest discussion of our First Amendment rights is the last thing atheists want us talking about.
Censorship is risky business, and atheists understand the risk. The American public has largely taken this assault on their freedom with equanimity. But we need to stand up and defy the censors-- we need to tell the truth. It won't be an easy fight-- the censors are ruthless-- but we the people are soverign in this nation, and we need to take it back.
Without God we have no rights, because without God there is no such thing as rights. There is merely applied secular power. So we need to demand our First Amendment rights, particularly the right to acknowledge in our civic life that God is the source of our rights , because respect for the right of free expression-- civic and private-- is the basis for our nation, and the Christian understanding of man is the rational basis for that respect, and God is the only Source of our rights.
Once again, Egnor smears on his clown makeup and announces to the world that he hasn't got the first clue about the meaning of the Establishment clause or Constitutional law.
ReplyDeleteI find his refusal to pretend that you atheists actually believe your convoluted, sophistic "interpretations" to be rather refreshing, personally. Nobody actually, genuinely believes that the Constitution forbids things like that school prayer mural (unless they've been lied to about it by other atheists and never bothered to look into the question themselves), especially not the people who argue it the loudest. Trying to rationally argue with an atheist on this matter is as pointless as trying to prove to a solipsist that other minds exist. It's impossible to have a rational argument with someone who refuses to recognize (or pretends to) the most basic facts of the matter. Better to expose your dishonesty, idiocy, and true motives to the public, and then marginalize your totalitarian worldview as much as possible.
DeleteNobody actually, genuinely believes that the Constitution forbids things like that school prayer mural.
DeleteExcept the judiciary (including the Supreme Court), most lawyers in the U.S., and a large proportion of the population. It violates established case law which is built upon the 1st and 14th Amendments. The reason you lose is not because of some shadowy atheist conspiracy. It is because most people agree that having schools promote religion via things like the prayer banner is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
So why is Ed-- along with other godless gendarmes-- spitting pea soup?
ReplyDeleteThe same reason the Soviets couldn't be satisfied with merely outlawing expression of religion. What really bothers the totalitarian mindsets shared by most atheists is that there are still so many people who still have internal beliefs that contradict their own, and they can't be happy and satisfied until they're certain that this is no longer the case (which can never happen of course).
I notice that the churches are still open (and tax exempt) and the ACLU fights frequently for the rights of people to engage in worship. I wonder what alternate reality you are living in in which the practice of faith in the U.S. is in jeopardy.
DeleteI'm referring to what your actions and attitudes imply about what motivates you (which just happens to be the same authoritarianist hatred motivating most politically active atheists through history, unsurprisingly), of course, not what you've succeeding in accomplishing.
DeleteAnd yet no one has tried to close down churches. Or even said they want to close down churches. And the same people who are advocates of the separation of church and state go to great lengths to try to ensure that religious expression by individuals is protected.
DeleteIt seems difficult to treat your claims as anything but spurious hogwash in light of the actual actions taken by the people you are complaining about.
@TheDeuce,
DeleteThe motivations of the individual militant/political Atheist are varied, I would guess. I would suspect a great of it has to do with latent adolescent desires and angst- to rebel against daddy and that kind of thing. But they are just tools. Pawns if you like.
What interests me is the larger picture of who is moving the pieces or using the tools, and to what end. Is it merely agitation and generated controversy to enrich and empower a few individuals, akin to a corrupt politician or preacher (ie the 'four horsemen')? Or is it a long term function of a larger organ(s) like the internationalists or even another cynical global movement?
I think we may be seeing both.
Useful idiots, sure.
But useful to whom?
Well the answer MAY be in the TYPE of idiot.
Or is it a long term function of a larger organ(s) like the internationalists or even another cynical global movement?
DeleteAre the black helicopters coming to get you too? Was 9/11 an inside job? The moon landing was a hoax?
Only when I officially request them to, but they're blue and cost quite a bit and so I better have an urgent need to OFFICIALLY get somewhere fast.
DeleteBesides rotor wings (even the usual 2) leave me a little nervous. Give me a fixed wing any day.
As for 9/11, you're chatting with a veteran combat officer of the Afghanistan campaign.
The answer is NO. I know who attacked us. I made war on them. Don't be ridiculous.
Lunar landings? What the hell does that have to do with Internationalism? Are you trying to suggest that to believe there is a real alliance of hostile nations, and their respective intelligence services that put out propaganda and thereby use malcontents in other nations is the same as thinking the lunar landings were staged?
That is just weird, Anon.
A little pronoid, too.
No. I do not think the lunar landings were faked.
Men DID go to and walk on the moon.
They also had an official PRAYER for each mission, said prayers on the moon (recorded), and even left microfilmed versions of prayers on the moon for posterity.
(Maybe you should send a lawyer to take those down!)
On the other hand: Yes, I do think Communism and Communists are real. I do think they intend to win the ideological long war, and I do think they use people (malcontents, pawns, students, idiots etc) to further their agenda in nations other than the one's they have established a regime in.
Communists and communism EXIST.
I have seen them and spoken with them. I even have photographs of / with them.
They are real.
Ditto for Islam and Muslims.
Sorry if that frightens you.... but it is, as they say, 'just the facts'.
I think you will find, however, that the hostiles themselves are quite unapologetic for their existence.
Lunar landings? What the hell does that have to do with Internationalism? Are you trying to suggest that to believe there is a real alliance of hostile nations, and their respective intelligence services that put out propaganda and thereby use malcontents in other nations is the same as thinking the lunar landings were staged?
DeleteYes. You are in lunatic conspiracy theory territory, and you don't even realize it.
They also had an official PRAYER for each mission, said prayers on the moon (recorded), and even left microfilmed versions of prayers on the moon for posterity.
You need to brush up on your facts. The official prayer was "Dear Lord don't let me fuck up." Very pious.
Aldrin said this on the first landing:
"Houston, this is Eagle. This is the LM pilot speaking. I would like to request a few moments of silence. I would like to invite each person listening in, whoever or wherever he may be, to contemplate for a moment the events of the last few hours, and to give thanks in his own individual way."
Which isn't a prayer. Aldrin had intended to say a prayer after this over the radio, but this was vetoed by Deke Slayton. Aldrin observed a private prayer (which is perfectly fine).
Aldrin took prayers on paper with him, but brought them back. Some astronauts later took microfilm copies of the KVJ to the Bible, but they weren't paid for using government funds or given government sanction.
"Yes."
DeletePlease clarify: You do NOT believe in communists or communism and that makes ME crazy.
"You need to brush up on your facts. The official prayer was "Dear Lord don't let me fuck up." Very pious."
Even if that was the official prayer of a single mission (it was not), it is far more prevalent and invokes the name of God in an OFFICIAL and PUBLIC capacity.
"Which isn't a prayer. "
Well seeing as you are the anointed one who can lead us all to truth, I guess we'll have to take your word over Aldrin's. But that is only a single incident, oh anointed one. You have forgotten, in your galactic calculations, the MANY other incidents - like the Christmas Even broadcast from Apollo 8. The FIRST manned mission to the moon. (Audio here)
"Aldrin took prayers on paper with him, but brought them back. "
Too funny for words.
"Some astronauts later took microfilm copies of the KVJ to the Bible, but they weren't paid for using government funds or given government sanction."
Better send up the ACLU!
"Please clarify: You do NOT believe in communists or communism and that makes ME crazy."
DeleteI don't believe there is a vast international conspiracy dedicated to eradicating religion from U.S. public life. You're in Strangelovian "steal our vital essences" territory there. Communists have other things to worry about.
"Even if that was the official prayer of a single mission (it was not), it is far more prevalent and invokes the name of God in an OFFICIAL and PUBLIC capacity."
Umm, no it isn't. It is an informal personal invocation.
Let's see these "official mission prayers" you keep harping on.
"Well seeing as you are the anointed one who can lead us all to truth, I guess we'll have to take your word over Aldrin's. But that is only a single incident, oh anointed one."
Aldrin's message was specifically vetted prior to the mission by NASA to ensure that it was not a prayer. Aldrin wanted an additional portion that was a prayer, but that was vetoed.
"You have forgotten, in your galactic calculations, the MANY other incidents - like the Christmas Even broadcast from Apollo 8. The FIRST manned mission to the moon. (Audio here)"
Which was not sanctioned by NASA, and for which the Astronauts drew substantial criticism. And which was the reason that Aldrin had to get his message approved before he could use it, and why it was specifically made not a prayer.
"Too funny for words"
Take it up with Aldrin. His missives can be found at the Presbyterian Church where he was an elder.
You still haven't substantiated your silly claims. I guess you think just saying these things are true (and like the Apollo 8 example, without understanding the fact that the prayer caused justified backlash, or that Aldrin's message was vetted so as not to be a prayer) means they are true.
"I don't believe there is a vast international conspiracy dedicated to eradicating religion from U.S. public life."
DeleteEh? Non sequitor.
What the hell are you on about now?
"You're in Strangelovian "steal our vital essences" territory there."
It is actually 'contamination our precious bodily fluids'.
Funny you should see yourself in the role of Mandrake. I imagine you more like a President Muffly or maybe even Miss Scott.
"Communists have other things to worry about."
Worry? Again, you are having a conversation with someone else, or yourself. Maybe these are arguments for your father or some authority figure? I have no idea what you're on about.
Please tell me - no tell us all: What do Communists worry about?
"You still haven't substantiated your silly claims. I guess you think just saying these things are true (and like the Apollo 8 example....."
Face it, kid: You're just plain WRONG.
You can't have it both ways, either Aldrin's prayer is a prayer - or the banner is not.
Either prayers were said on / for each Apollo mission or they were not. They could not be unsaid, and there would be not 'controversy' if they were NOT said.
Just make up your mind.
As for the Apollo missions, I will leave it to our educated readers to discern that for themselves. They can read a book or two, watch a film or five, or research online to see what they make of that HISTORIC Christmas Eve broadcast from Apollo 8.
I do not need to spin it.
Nor do I need to educate you... but somebody sure does. Frankly, the education you need could be done in about 16 weeks...provided you're old enough. Post grad would be 24 months (min) of reality.
Then maybe - just maybe - we could begin to discuss rights and freedoms, faith, and even silly things like satire.
Till then - keep on arguing with yourself.
Infantile git.
Without God we have no rights, because without God there is no such thing as rights. There is merely applied secular power. So we need to demand our First Amendment rights, particularly the right to acknowledge in our civic life that God is the source of our rights , because respect for the right of free expression-- civic and private-- is the basis for our nation, and the Christian understanding of man is the rational basis for that respect, and God is the only Source of our rights.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution disagrees with you. The rights contained therein do not cite God as their source. Perhaps you should read the document some time.
"first class jerk Michael Egnor... [the] dolt... impose[s] his religion on others..."
ReplyDeleteAm I sensing a new by-line for the blog, Mike? :P
I think you may have hit a sore spot!
"Atheists understand the danger that their censorship poses to their larger agenda."
They sure get sore when you point them out like that!
Good stuff. Spot on.
Yes, Michael does love it so when he gets noticed by another blogger. And the good news doesn't stop there! He's now up to 19 members!
DeleteYou go, Mike!
Aw Gee Whiz, Mike.
DeleteLooks like the cool kids won't be inviting us to the Eugenics themed dance to meet the 'females'.
I guess we just don't have enough facebook friends and blogger buddies to 'get on the in' with the pocket protector punk rockers. That's okay.... We're through with being cool, anyway
@crus,
Delete[Am I sensing a new by-line for the blog, Mike?]
Good suggestion! I put it up.
Thanks.
"Endorsement and display of religious beliefs on public property by government agents occur everywhere and always."
ReplyDeleteWell, not "everywehere", and there are a number of court cases that have stopped it from happening "everywhere". And, as soon as the Cranston school board comes to its senses, there will be one less place.
I know of another lawbreaker who tried to use this same justification. He was a thief. His defense was, "People steal all the time, some of them get away with it some times, so I should get away with this time". I mean, just because O.J. got away with murder doesn't mean everyone gets to.
It was goofy when he used it and it is goofy when you use it. It is like the same tired old, "But, it has been that way for so long." The thief tried that one, too. He said, "I've been stealing since 1961, when the prayer banner went up. You can't bust me now, or take the banner down, because we have both gotten away with it for so long."
As the judge in the Cranston trial pointed out in his decision, "At any rate, no amount of history and tradition can cure a constitutional infraction." I understand YOU don't think it is a constitutional infraction, but you do not have the legal authority to make that call. The ones who DO have the legal authority to make that call have clearly made it in favor of separation.
You can hold your breath until you are blue in face and kick your heels on the floor until they are sore, but the duly constituted referees have made the call and it is strike three for you.
"...the duly constituted referees have made the call and it is strike three for you." How many strikes until he is out? I know it's three in baseball, but I'm not sure what sport you're thinking of here. As any dim-witted nose-picking 4 year old will tell you, there are no referees in baseball. Not to put too fine a point on it, 23cal, but you're a drooling moron. Or as the umpires say in football, "You're out! Game, Set, and Match!!!"
DeleteAh, the reply devoid of any substance. How very predicable from the faith-addled brain of Don Austen. He can't say anything on the actual subject, so he just drool and spouts inanities.
Delete@RickK,
ReplyDelete[Yes, Michael does love it so when he gets noticed by another blogger. And the good news doesn't stop there! He's now up to 19 members!
You go, Mike!]
Quality, RickK, quality.
Speaking personally, I think they should have just covered up the school prayer with pages torn from the new politically corrected version of "Huckleberry Finn." That would kill two wildly offensive birds with one stone. Peace out.
ReplyDelete