How Dare He Make That Claim!

If you have read any news lately you certainly know about the earthquake in Haiti. And not long after that news broke, you probably heard that Reverend Pat Robertson made a statement along the lines of saying that God was punishing Haiti because of their "pact with the devil."

The media wasted no time in jumping on Robertson's comments. I would certainly not defend the reverend's take on this or his timing. But at least he was trying to interpret the Bible (presumably). One example of the news' reaction is from Time Magazine's blog section. Here is the account from Newsbusters:

Time's Karen Tumulty: Pat Robertson Akin to Terrorist-tied Muslim Clerics?

Such a comparison is as over the line as Robertson's comments. Now how about this comment from actor Danny Glover:

"When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin'?"

So who is Glover saying punished Haiti? Al Gore? President Obama? Or did God punish Haiti because of the richer nations' lack of decisive action at the Climate Summit? Here is what England's Daily Telegraph said about Glover's comment:

"His obscene opinion would be bigger news if Glover had – in the manner of others – idiotically blamed a less-fashionable deity."

I'm watching U.S. media to see if they also notice that Global Warming (sorry.. "Climate Change") has become almost a god-like concept.

Chris Matthews Wants to Censor Only Religious Voices

This is an issue that is in the news often these days, and it is not just from the rather outspoken Chris Matthews of MSNBC. But in this interchange he pushed a Catholic bishop quite hard on speaking out over abortion and the responsibility that Catholic politicians may have to their religion.

Is that a radical point of view, to think politicians who profess to be Catholic recognize certain core tenets of the Catholic Church? Look through this blog and you will find countless examples where the very men who founded this country thought it was important to have faith and to seek God's guidance. Many denominations can be a bit mixed or vague about some issues, and a politician of faith could see things one way or the other. But the Catholic Church is not at all vague on certain issues. Isn't it at least a fair conversation to discuss whether a Catholic politician who goes to Mass and takes communion could be chastised by church leaders if he or she goes completely against an absolute statement by the church?

Matthews seemed concerned that the church is telling politicians how to vote. But should the church not be a "special interest group" like any other? What if the NAACP speaks out about Sen. A's vote on an issue? What if a labor union criticizes Rep. B's vote on an issue? Should a labor union be allowed to tell Rep. B how to vote? If so, then is the church disallowed that opinion?

Read the interchange here:

MSNBC's Chris Matthews Brow-Beats Catholic Bishop Over Abortion



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/colleen-raezler/2009/11/24/msnbcs-chris-matthews-brow-beats-catholic-bishop-over-abortion

Judge in New Hampshire upholds ‘under God’ phrase in Pledge of Allegiance

The fight over our Pledge of Allegiance keeps popping up in various places. One such was Hanover, New Hampshire, where a suit was brought claiming that reciting the Pledge in public schools is unconstitutional. It was claimed that the Pledge, because it says we are one nation under God, amounts to a prayer. The federal judge who dismissed the atheist's lawsuit said that the Pledge is not a prayer and that it is voluntary.

Usually cases like this rest on the claim of a "separation of church and state." That phrase come from a single letter of Thomas Jefferson, and it is not found in any of our governing documents. But if you look at the previous post on this blog (Jan. 25, 2010), you will see that Jefferson believed one of his greatest accomplishments was drafting the Declaration of Independence (one of the USA's four foundational documents, according to the U.S. Code). In that document, Jefferson affirmed the fact that the rights of our citizens come from God, not from government. He said our Creator has given us unalienable (or inalienable) rights. That is a critical point. If our rights come from government, then government may take them away at will.

Given that our Declaration of Independence says our rights come from God, does it seem so out of place to say we are a nation under God?

Read about the New Hampshire case outcome here:

Judge in New Hampshire upholds ‘under God’ phrase in Pledge of Allegiance

Thomas Jefferson's Proudest Accomplishments

I have mentioned Thomas Jefferson many times in this blog. Probably his most common mention here is because he once used the phrase "separation of church and state" in a letter, and that phrase somehow has become our de facto guide to the meaning of the Constitution's First Amendment religion clauses. But does it really mean what some people take it to mean? Did Jefferson mean that there can be no governmental recognition or accmomodation of religion? Read on...

Of course, Thomas Jefferson is know for a great many things. But what did Jefferson himself consider his greatest accomplishments? Certainly not the letter mentioned above. At the age of only 33, he penned the words of the Declaration of Independence. Now that is definitely one for the history books! He was proud enough of that work to have it chiseled into his headstone. Sharing the honor (after the Declaration) is his authorship of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom and his role as father of the University of Virginia.

The statute was a law that, among other things, specified a fine for working on the sabbath.

And consider his work as president of the University of Virginia (a state institution).


The following was previously posted as Jefferson's Actions Speak Louder than a few of His Words:

In order to accommodate and perpetuate the religious beliefs and practices of students at the university, he recommended that students be allowed to meet on the campus to pray, worship, and receive religious instruction, or, if necessary, to meet and pray with their professors.

He provided in his regulations for the University of Virginia that the main rotunda be used for religious worship under the regulations allowed to be prescribed by law.

He proposed that all University of Virginia students be required to study as a matter of ethics "the proofs of the being of a God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all relations within morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer."

See a photo of Jefferson's gravestone here:
Thomas Jefferson’s Greatest Achievement

Stamford, CT - Early Education Was Christian

Remember the tussles some towns had this past Christmas about mixing religion with public school? There were debates about whether a concert of Handel's Messiah could be held in a school auditorium; there were debates about whether children's gift exchanges should prohibit items with a red & green color scheme; there were not too many debates about teaching the meaning of Christmas because no public school that I have heard of has the nerve to risk a lawsuit by doing so.

Yet in our past, from the earliest days of our country's founding, this was not a concern. I have pointed out before that it was not a concern of Thomas Jefferson, the many who is so often cited because he once used the phrase "separation of church and state." But there are countless other examples of the regular use of religious sources and/or teaching in public schools.

As one example, look at the Stamford Historical Society of Connecticut. Once of our original 13 colonies, Connecticut has a history that includes religion (President Jefferson's "separation" quote is from a letter to a group in Danbury, CT, who worried their religious freedom might be in danger). One of Stamford's first school house was also used for Christian worship services, a concept that might be challenged today (look through past blog posts on this blog to find examples). But that is an example of building use for convenience, not curriculum. An article from Stamford's historical society includes the following tidbits:

• Usually the Congregational minister had considerable influence in selecting a teacher, and any young man who voiced unorthodox opinions would quickly be turned down.
• ...the code of 1650 ruled that parents and schoolmasters must question children systematically each week in the principles of Christian religion. This catechism requirement persisted until 1821.
• ...the Bible undoubtedly served as a textbook for early Stamford children...
• The first edition of The New England Primer appeared in 1690, It introduced children to reading by means of a series of woodcuts, each with a letter of the alphabet used in a cheerful little rhyme such as, “In Adam's fall, we sinned all,” Next came easy syllables to be recited and memorized and then words, including words like “fidelity” and “fornication.” The primer did not shrink from letting its young readers in on the sins of the biblical fathers: “Uriah's Beauteous Wife Made David Seek his Life.”
• ...in 1731, a division of administration put the Stamford schools under church jurisdiction in what were known as Ecclesiastical Society Meetings. ... The School Society appointed “school visitors” who were delegated to inspect each school at least twice a season; without the inspections, the school would forfeit its portion of the public money. The visitors could “direct the public exercises of the youth, as well as their instructions in letters, religion, morals and manners.” Particularly, the visitors were supposed to direct the daily reading of the Bible, approve the weekly catechism instruction and recommend that the schoolmaster conclude the exercises each day with a prayer.

The header of this article is (boldface added):

Education Spelled Freedom

From:
Stamford Past & Present, 1641 – 1976
The Commemorative Publication of the Stamford Bicentennial Committee

The writer's opinion is that our American Revolution probably would not have happened were it not for the education of the general public. And part of that education included teaching about religion and reading from the Bible (the latter being a characteristic of the Washington, D.C. school district when Thomas Jefferson oversaw its operation).

Read the entire article here:

http://www.stamfordhistory.org/pp_ed.htm