My other blog feeds

Collected Miscellany

Free stuff Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:30:18
Book cover via Amazon FYI, for those interested in these sorts of things: Women on the Web, an online women’s magazine, is giving away a beach bag containing an autographed copy of Jane Green’s The Beach House, Lancaster sunscreen products and a custom beach towel to five lucky readers. addthis_url = ‘http%3A%2F%2Fcollectedmiscellany.com%2F2008%2F09%2Ffree-stuff%2F’; addthis_title = [...]
Constellation Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:34:42
I hope this means more books available for Kindle and available on the publication date. I seem to have looked at a few books who were not available on the Kindle until after the hardback had been released. Might have something to do with the publisher’s profit on each item. I would love to see digital [...]
Lamplighter (Monster Blood Tattoo, Book 2) by D.M. Cornish Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:00:32
Book cover via Amazon Way back in May when I saw that the second book in the Monster Blood Tattoo series by D.M. Cornish, the sequel to Foundling, was being released I was excited. But I will admit that I was a little nervous when I saw that Lamplighter was such a large tome (over 700 [...]

Obama's con

Great Blogger Headlines Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:30:17
Fisking Obama on his ridiculous attacks on Sarah Palin is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I wanted to draw your attention to two of my favorite responses. Ace has a long but effective title to his post: Extremely Confused Would-Be Commander-in-Chief Launches “Harshest Attack Yet” on Woman Who’s Not Technically Even His Opponent Ace links to [...]
Obama’s false bravado on change Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:54:00
Obama has clearly decided to run a campaign against President Bush. And he has also lost any sense of shame. He is constantly accusing his opponents of things that apply equally, or even more so, to himself. Take today: “Don’t be fooled,” a particularly punchy Obama told a crowd this morning at a town hall meeting [...]
Obama continues to smear opponents Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:02:40
Obama goes back to the “they will try to scare you” complaint: “I know that I’m not your typical presidential candidate,” Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told executives and employees of the Schott glass company Friday afternoon, “and I just want to be honest with you. I know that.” “And I know that the temptation is to say, [...]

Political Blogs
Arts and Culture Blogs

Jun

19

Separation of Church and State

Filed Under Politics

My old friend Sam Fulwood, from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is back at it. This time with on the separation of church and state.

Fulwood goes a bit overboard on the issue. First he gives this definition:

It’s a simple concept. The government avoids promoting religious ideas and icons. No exceptions.

And that is Fulwood’s problem. The issue is not so simple or people wouldn’t be fighting over it. The definition he gives might be what many have come to believe but I don’t believe that is what the framers of the constitution meant about “establishing religion.” The issue is not the promotion of religious values or icons but rather the establishing of one specific religion approved of and favored by the state.

Fulwood goes on to assert that:

Every few months, somebody tries to abuse the authority of government by pushing religious ideas down our throats, leading to court battles.

This too seems a bit OTT. I mean is posting the Ten Commandments really pushing religious ideas down people’s throats? I am not a legal expert so maybe Fulwood is right and the courts will rule this unconstitutional but it seems far from shoving something down their throats. It seems to me people are acting in what they consider reasonable ways and the ACLU is the one bringing the suits and taking everything to court. Is the Ohio State motto clearly unconstitutional? Was someone shoving that down people’s throats? No, the ACLU just got a bee in it’s bonnet about it and went to court.

Fulwood takes it further:

It’s all the more confusing when he argues he posted the Ten Commandments because “God is the ultimate authority in law as opposed to the view that man is the ultimate authority on law.”
That’s not blind justice. It’s religious intolerance.

Now Fulwood would be correct in criticising the judge if he based his rulings on nothing but his own religious beliefs but surely a belief that God is above man, and the true basis for law, is not religious intolerance. The judge is not saying that if you do not hold the same doctrinal or philosophical beliefs as he does that you will be treated differently. All he is stating is a philosophical belief common to many religions and a concept not that far removed from a natural law position that can be disconnected from any religion. Is it intolerance to dispaly important cultural and legal influences on the law becuase they are part of a religious document? Is this imposing religion - shoving it down their throats?

The point Fulwood is really trying to make is that we should remove any hint of religious belief from public spaces so no one is offended. This is wrong. Religion should not be banned from public discourse as long as government is not showing favoritism to one particular faith. What confuses me is who is against the idea of the ten commandments? They have had a huge influence on this country’s culture, laws, and ethics. A simple posting of them on the wall should not be deemed religious intolerance.