As I currently reside in the city of Modesto, where a Catholic priest recently is quoted as saying “those who voted for pro-abortion candidates” should confess their sins. It got me to thinking about the lazy guidebook leftists and secular humanists will trot out whenever they hear a religious point of view. There is a wall of separation between church and state!
Now, I know what that term has come to represent. It can be hideous in its bigotry and ignorance. It has come to mean that religion shall not interfere in the public sector where Government chooses to reside. Freedom “of” religion has become freedom “from”. Well, let me be the first to explain to you that freedom “from” ends at the tip of your nose.
First, a lesson in the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law… or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Today, we have people who have twisted the meaning of this passage so inside out that they think it gives Government the right to enact laws based on the actions of churches. Writers on this blog have condoned violence and expressed bigotry of certain religions. Furthermore, they have advocated that because churches have taken certain public positions, they should be threatened with penalties and regulation. If that isn’t trying to prohibit free exercise, I don’t know what is. So, if the Government decided to take away public benefits to the teachers union because they gave money to Prop 8, that would be ok? After all, what is a teachers union, which should concern itself with EDUCATING its pupils better, doing giving money to ANY political cause? Especially since a majority of teachers feel just like the rest of us…
Note the other passages of the First Amendment. “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. So, Congress “shall make no law” abridging the freedom of speech. I read that to say that Government shall not abridge freedom of speech. By the logic of those who shout “Separation of Church and State”, that would read speech shall not interfere with Government or you might get a law passed to regulate your speech. Or the press shall not interfere with the Government, or we can regulate whether or not you have a license to print.
That’s the European way, by the way.
To argue that churches do not have the right to participate in the public square is basically reprising an early 20th century bigotry. It comes from Supreme Court Justice, Ku Klux Klan member and anti-catholic Hugo Black whose 1947 ruling created the “high and impregnable wall between religion and government” metaphor secular humanists and leftists trot out today. Don’t let them argue any different. It’s akin to someone finding a freedom loving way of burning a cross on your lawn and having to tolerate it because that person doesn’t realize burning crosses is a really nasty way of doing things.
The vast majority of Americans are comfortable with their local religious institutions guiding the values and principles of their day to day lives that Government has no power to be involved in. I would refer you to the 10th Amendment for clarification.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So here is the line in the sand. Where Church chooses to participate, Government has nothing to say about it.
Now, those who think differently and honestly and sincerely disagree, I can be on your side.
Advocate for a Constitutional Convention. I’m with you! And you can get a majority of the population to rescind at least 7 of the first 10 Amendments, maybe more. They really are in the way of your Progressive ideas, after all. And only 33% can identify the Bill of Rights. You have the majority on your side! I’m with you!
I’m not talking about just another Amendment on the ballot. A Convention can change them all. Change the Amendments. Add a few. Take away some others. I have a list of ideas of my own, did I mention that? First would be, as long as we’ve already found the right to “death by convenience” in the Constitution, let’s just add it right in there, make sure everyone who has someone they need to get rid of because they “mess up their lives” has a right to apply to do so with a doctor, without regard to sex, race, creed, color or state of pregnancy. Now that’s Progressive.
Pop Quiz: Who said: “Politics do not belong in the Church.” and “The Church must be separate from the State.”
You miss one thing:
Churches are tax-exempt, and their tax-exempt status puts certain limitations on them.
If they forgo their tax exempt status they are free to advocate whatever political positions they want. But having your cake and eat it, too, is not possible.
And with that, not surprisingly, the rest of your argument falls flat.
Well Joe, not surprisingly, a response which fails to address any of the issues does just exactly that, fails.
Your argument is thus – Since Congress has enacted a law saying that churches are free to exercise their religion without state interference, which is their Constitutional right, the state has a right to tell them what to do with that expression.
And don’t tell me it doesnt abridge the free exercise. This is the seed of the argument that Government can license the Press without abridging its free exercise.
Church can interfere with state, not vice versa. Press can interfere with state, not vice versa. Speech can interfere with state, not vice versa.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Nice try.
As usual, you completely missed my argument.
Here it is again:
My argument is that if a church *voluntarily* decides to apply for tax-exempt status in exchange for being politically neutral, they have to follow the contract with the government that they signed. They are free to not sign the contract, but if they sign it and become tax exempt, they have given up their free speech right. If they don’t want to give up their free speech right anymore, they could just cancel their contract with the government. The government then is free to tax them. As long as they prefer being tax exempt over their free speech rights, they have nothing to complain about. Plain and simple.
It is interesting that right-wingers like you fail to understand this simple concept. But it doesn’t surprise me.
As you so nicely say, “consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Indeed. Your post and your answer to my comment shows it nicely…
Again, it is not possible to have the cake and eat it, too. Very consistent, very clear, very easy to understand (except for right-wing ideologues like you, apparently, who seem to live in an alternate universe.)
Modesto? Is that still part of California or did we annex it to Kansas?
I grew up near Modesto. It’s not the worst place I’ve ever been in the US, but it’s close. Women who are 200 pounds overweight will spend an hour putting makeup on so they can go to the grocery store and buy a loaf of bread.
I’m not kidding.
My condolences. I hope you get back to civilization soon.
Writers on this blog have condoned violence…
Really, Terry. Who was that and when? Document, please.
My motorcycle broke down in Modesto 20 years ago. Man, that was depressing. I had to kill hours in a Modesto bar. Maybe I condoned violence that day, I don’t remember…
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Can you explain what that means? I don’t believe I have ever heard of that expression.
Thanks for any insight.
I believe, Vix, that that is from Ralph Waldo Emerson (I know, you or I could google it, but I’m trying to show off.)
Problem is, I don’t see how it fits Crowley’s argument. I’m pretty sure he wanted to accuse our friend Joe of having a little mind. But is he calling Joe consistent and himself insonsistent? Or vice-versa? It really seems Crowley if anyone is taking consistency to the degree of a vice here, and recklessly courting Emerson’s “little mind” charge.
I’m still waiting to see if I’m the OJ blogger he’s accusing of condoning violence. It’s been bothering me all day. What do you think, when and how will he respond?
Thanks for the source. I trust u on that 😉
What do you think, when and how will he respond?
That’s a lot like predicting the behavior of a lost kitten or what the weather will be in 3 weeks or what the stock market will do at then end of tomorrow. I know enough to know I wouldn’t ever know when/how/what he will respond!
Seriously, I don’t remember violence on this blog. I’ve deleted incivil posts, but those were not violent. ~Shrugs~ Maybe he made it up?
“I’m pretty sure he wanted to accuse our friend Joe of having a little mind.”
Yeah, that’s the only thing I could make out. Easy enough, since that’s pretty much how he sees everybody who has the audacity to take apart his shallow arguments…
“But is he calling Joe consistent and himself insonsistent? Or vice-versa?”
Upon re-reading his comment, I am not sure, either…
Yeah, Modesto sucks. I spent a little time in Yuba City/Marysville. That’s a smelly armpit compared to this dirty collar town. Jobs nowhere. Thanks to the freakin burdensome taxes in California, had to come to help my mom pay for her house.
no-vaseline… LOL! I was in line behind one of them today… its been 20 years since i’ve been here.
Has anyone heard that radio ad “You too can experience Car Windshield! The next time you are riding with a friend and they aren’t driving properly, speeding, not obeying the rules of the road, say nothing! You too can experience Car Windshield!”
Vern, you condone violence by saying nothing. I bring up facts of violence against people who are expressing an opinion and the response is “The other guys do it”, or “it’s the other guys saying they’re us”. Anything but confronting reality.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Consistency messes up little minds, so they don’t do it. I have laid down the consistent interpretation of the First Amendment. I have read no other opinion on this matter so I am left with the fact there is no response.
If anyone were to write on this BLOG that I hold some opinion that has such a history of bigotry, I would at least admit its worth reconsideration.
Whoever is reading this:
If you can’t even do that, how do you expect respect on your views? How do you not at least allow for consideration. This is a conversation I will have another time about FACTS having nothing to do with your opinions.
I’m not talking about you as a person. I’ll bet we could have a great conversation on the best set of steak knives. You might be that person who would pull over for someone in trouble beside the road. You might be that person who, when the moment to define you comes, you live that moment in hope without fear of what others think.
I might respect that about you.
But not this…
And Joe, the point is that churches don’t have to apply for tax exempt status. That tax exempt status violates passing laws regarding the establishment of the church itself. Churches do it so the State will quietly be satisfied. But it is nothing more than a form of extortion by the State to manage Church opinions. Its a good thing most churches don’t allow extortion to guide their values. Churches express public values all the time and the Government knows it. Its the oldest and worst “Don’t ask Don’t tell” policy in America.
Vern, you condone violence by saying nothing.
What nonsense. Neither you nor I have time to waste saying something as boring as “I condemn violence.” Of course we do. Just because you’ve said nothing against protesters getting punched and gays getting shot, doesn’t mean I think you condone those things. But since you insist, here goes: Those protesters should not have pushed that weird old lady who was dragging a cross, and nobody should be chanting “Mormon scum.” And whoever mails around white powder should refrain from such jackanapes shenanigans, and I hope the FBI figures out who did it. I can’t remember anything else in that post you cribbed from Chuck Norris that was actual factual.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. = Consistency messes up little minds, so they don’t do it.
Hmm, now I’m wondering if I’m the one who misunderstood that aphorism all these years. I always thought it meant little minds take consistency to an unhelpful extreme. This I gotta research. I’ll be BACH.
Oh, and Mister Consistent, did you bitch and moan when Bush’s IRS went after a liberal church in San Francisco a few years ago… for I forget what political indiscretion. I’ll wager the farm not.
I’m sorry, Terry. Believe me, I would like to be wrong, and for you to be right, just once in a while.
The actual quote:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
Bartleby’s interpretation:
“A great person does not have to think consistently from one day to the next. This remark comes from the essay ‘Self-Reliance’ by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson does not explain the difference between foolish and wise consistency.”
http://www.bartleby.com/59/3/foolishconsi.html
…its been 20 years since i’ve been here.
Hey, maybe you were still there when my bike broke down. Summer of ’87. I think I could find that bar again if I tried. I was on my way from Merced to Mariposa.
I dont know if I was making a quote or not. Consistency seems to me it would be the hobgoblin of little minds. Sounded good. I cant defend its source.
Describe where the bar is… I was in Yuba City in 87 I think. But down here often.
If I remember right, when you take the highway from Merced to Mariposa, that highway goes south thru Modesto, and stops at a few lights. You turn right on one of those lights and the bar would be on your left about three doors down. I think it had cowboy-type decor inside.
UPDATE: Just looked at Google Maps (too much time on my hands, I must be procrastinating something.) Scratch “Merced to Mariposa,” Merced is between Modesto and Mariposa. It was definitely off the 99, on the west side, I think F or H or J street. Not listed in any “bars of Modesto” sites, probably because it was the type of hole-in-the-wall to which I gravitate…
And …That tax exempt status violates passing laws regarding the establishment of the church itself. Churches do it so the State will quietly be satisfied. But it is nothing more than a form of extortion by the State to manage Church opinions.
Now you sound like you oppose churches’ tax-exempt status. You always want to go to the theatrical extreme. When you thought Prop 8 was going to lose you proposed abolishing marriage altogether, and today you want a Constitutional convention to get rid of most of the Bill of Rights but add the right to abortion on demand. Is there a category of logical fallacy or rhetoric identified by Aristotle which would be tantamount to a child holding its breath till it turns blue?
Red, you should add: … and posts containing arguments that I just did not agree with or people I do not personally like.
Sincerely – junior
Not true, junior. Moderation is all about keeping things in perspective. Opposing points of view can be done in a way that promote discussion and passion.
Some of the reasons that Stanley Fiala was banned was because he was constantly off topic and constantly firing personal attacks to disrupt this site. That was a decision done by Art. Stanley was constantly operating in the gutter.
“That tax exempt status violates passing laws regarding the establishment of the church itself.”
Name me one church, or one person who wanted to start a church, who was not able to do it because of the tax exempt status.
No, the tax exempt status is completely in line with the common understanding of the separation of church and state.
“the point is that churches don’t have to apply for tax exempt status.”
Indeed, they don’t have to. But *if* they do, there are strings attached with that tax-exempt status.
If they don’t want these strings, they are free to create their church without tax exempt status. The tax-exempt status is not automatic.
“Churches do it so the State will quietly be satisfied.”
No. Churches do it because they prefer to keep the money. The State would be very well satisfied if it got tax money. If you think there is any other reason you’d be incredibly naive.
Gotta respectively disagree with the author of the blog. The separation of church & state was an Enlightenment idea that sprang from the Baptists, who were the first to raise the issue as a theological concern. As their preaching spread in England, the secular notion gained the same footing. As the Baptists in VA influenced Jefferson & Madison, the principle found its way into the Constitution. Not only is the state not to run the church, but the church is not to run the state. We impose restrictions on all religious groups in order to keep the campaign laws from being thwarted: religious contributions cannot be laundered into political campaigns, even if it is a church skirting the rules.