Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 22:39:50 0600
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: File
Vote for you??? Well, you're not running now, and we Christians have faith. If God could part the Red Sea for your forebears, there is a chance he can bring a intolerant, left wing, anti-Christian lawyer more toward the middle of the road. In which case, I'd be happy to vote for my friend. (Surely you wouldn't expect me to vote for someone I perceived as a threat to the freedom I hold dear.)
More on your response to my opinion of your Opinions coming.
Regards,
"Constituent" Frank
Date: Sun Nov 16 00:45:38 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Legal Opinions
I've been concerned about some things you said before. What you say here concerns me more.
At 07:26 PM 11/15/97 0600, you wrote:
Rob, I am going to try to do a brief response to some of your counter points. First, let me once again apologize for the frankness (no pun intended) of my comments. I'm sorry for getting personal, but I was really speaking of how I perceived the Opinions based on what I thought you were being asked to do in your job. I do believe you to be a man of integrity. And I believe that part of that is because of your heritage.
I just don't know that you're up to this dialog sometimes. "Because of my heritage"?! Where does that stuff come from? After everything I tried to tell you about not making some "chosen people" assumption about me, you're still doing it. You don't see it, do you? It's a label Frank. When you put a label on someone you don't have to listen and grapple with what they're trying to convey, because you've already got them in a box that you can understand. The point is that you don't understand where I'm coming from, and I'm not sure you’re ready to. “First, you did an incomplete job.” “The job wasn't incomplete. I began with the precedent applicable to the issue at hand. The law has been quite settled since 1962.” I find your last statement somewhat surprising! It may be settled in your mind simply because in 1962 and subsequent, the Court decided in your (collectively) favor. What about all the cases prior to that? No mention in your Opinions. Was it because there were no decisions, or was it that they didn't support the conclusion you wanted the AG to come to? This is the problem I have with the current legal argument. They exclude that which isn't favorable to them. Perhaps I misunderstood the issue you were asked to address, if so, another apology is in order and made.
I addressed this quite clearly why I didn't go into pre-1962 cases. Accept the fact that for over 30 years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution the way it has. Even assuming Barton's arguments carried any historical credence, it's not enough to just say, "let's go back the way we think it was before 1962, because we like that result better." That's not a legal argument. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (meaning denomination) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Taken at face value (which I believe the founders labored to make the meaning clear), the contemporary arguments and court decisions are absurd.
Gee, Frank. If it was so clear, why isn't that parenthetic "(meaning denomination)" in the amendment itself? Because there were many versions being thrown around of what eventually became the 1st amendment. It was left vague and overinclusive. The issues then became: what does "respecting" mean? What does "religion" mean? You say it means just no law elevating one denomination over another, but it's otherwise okay as long as it's generically Christian. I say it means government shall have no role with respect to religion at all regardless of denomination. The founding fathers didn't labor to make it any clearer than that. They left it intentionally vague to cover circumstances they might not imagine. Let me issue you a personal challenge. Go back and study the court decisions that are supportive of religious expression as though you were retained to defend it. If you have ever done this, it isn't evident. For a person in your position, I believe it to be essential so you get a balanced view.
I re-read the first memo this afternoon. The other one I don't have at home. It is a very balanced memo. It acknowledges cases that are arguably contrary to the conclusion I reach. How you can derive "anti-Christian" sentiment from that will be forever beyond my grasp. Let me help. The excerpts below are from the narrative of David Barton's video tape "America's Godly Heritage." "The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent to the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions. "Those discussions – recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789 – make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don't want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We *do* want God's principles, but we *don't* want one denomination running the nation."
And these would be quotes from ... what? This is Barton hypothesizing. The journals are very sketchy. The bill of rights wasn't even a high priority at that Congress. 1789? You got the year right? The Constitution hadn't even been ratified by September of that year. "This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings *after* the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared: "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." (Runkel v. Winemiller, Sup.Ct. Md. 1799)
A 1799 case from the Supreme Court of Maryland? A State that was originally founded as a Catholic colony? Assuming I could find that case, it's not evidence of what the founding fathers believed was to be applied to the federal government, and the first amendment wasn't even hinted at being applied to the states until the late 1920's. "Jefferson's letter (to the Danbury Baptists Association, 1802) had remained unused for years,... But now seventy five years later -- in the case Reynolds v. United States (1878), the plaintiffs resurrected Jefferson's letter, hoping to use it to their advantage. "In that case, the Court printed a lengthy segment of Jefferson's letter and then use his letter on "separation of church and state" to again prove that it *was* permissible to maintain Christian values, principles, and practices in official policy. For the next 150 years during that legal controversy, the Supreme Court utilized Jefferson's letter to ensure that Christian principles *remained* a part of government.
I'll just have to find this case, and put it in context. I suspect it was a case from the territory of Utah, where a Mormon was being tried for bigamy. Oops, okay, I thought I knew it. I was right. Let me get it for you. It's attached now. Read it for yourself. Here's the holding from the case though.
"In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice? So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
That case is no authority to suggest what the "right" would make of it. The reference to it out of context is exactly what the "left" takes issue with. "Following this controversy, Jefferson's letter again fell into disuse. It then remained silent for the next 70 years until 1947, when, in Everson v. Board of Education, the Court, for the first time, did *not* cite Jefferson's entire letter, but selected only eight words from it. The Court now announced: "The First Amendment has erected 'a wall of separation between church and state.' That wall must be kept high and impregnable." "This was a new philosophy for the Court.
It's a new philosophy only because it's the first time the court is asked to deal with that particular fact situation as applied to the first amendment. But I'd say it's pretty consistent with the Reynolds case, if you read it in context instead of relying on what someone else tells you it means. Why would the Court take Jefferson's letter completely out of context and cite only eight of its words? Dr. William James, the Father of Modern Psychology -- and a strong opponent of religious principles in government and education -- perhaps explained the Court's new strategy when he stated" "There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it."
Careful here Frank. You're giving away all the "right"'s secrets. "This statement so precisely describes the tact utilized by the Court in the years following its 1947 announcement. The Court began regularly to speak of a "separation of church and state." broadly explaining that "This is what the Founders wanted separation of church and state. This is their great intent." The Court failed to quote the Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.
Look, do you want to use Jefferson or not? Frankly, I think it's inescapable that you have to, even though he wasn't at the Convention, nor a member of Congress when the bill of rights came out. Because he was a major influence on Madison and the Virginia delegation. But if you decide you don't want to use him to ascertain "original intent" then you can't use any of him at all.
You haven't studied the founders. You're reciting predigested versions of it, often misquoted, often out of context. Those sites on my page have an incredible amount of scholarly work on them going through these arguments point for point. "The courts continued on this track so steadily that, in 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges was tired of hearing the phrase and wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of church and state," people were going to start thing it was part of the Constitution. That warning was in 1958!
Ah, a prophetic judge. And evidently, without reading that case or knowing what it was about, he was right. And if he had a complaint about the direction the law was going, he was in the dissent. There's no need to cite dissenting opinions when you're talking about what the law is, unless you can predict that the court will change according to the dissent. "Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June 25th, 1962, when, in the case Engel v. Vitale, the Court delivered its first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles form education; the case struck down school prayer. Even in the "World Book Encyclopedia's 1963 Yearbook" noted that this case was the first time there had been a separation of church and state in education.
Not just ordinary education, but public education. Government run schools. Is there anything about government funded education in the constitution? Did we know the founders knew there would be? Of course not. Certainly not at the federal level. So it wasn't until the first amendment was applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment that the issue even came up. In that 1962 case,the Court redefined the meaning and application of a single word: the word "church." For 170 years prior to that case, the word "church" -- as used in the phrase "separation of church and state" -- was defined to mean "a federally established denomination." However, in 1962 the Court explained that the word "church" would now mean "a religious activity in public." This was the turning point in the interpretation of the First Amendment.
A turning point perhaps, because it was clarified at that time where before there was not a reason or a case to make it clear. "Understand that what the Court had just announced: no longer would the First Amendment simply prohibit the establishment of a federal denomination, it now would prohibit religious activities in public settings. This current doctrine of separation is a brand new doctrine; it is *not* something from the Founding Fathers, and it is *not* in any founding document. Even outside observers recognize that this policy is a recent one. Ye, notice how much has been relinquished in recent years under this new doctrine.
Y'know, the free speech clause was only applied to the states beginning in 1929 or thereabouts in a case called Gitlow v. New York, where the Court assumed it applied, without deciding it. Six years later, it held, "yup, the free speech clause of the first amendment applies to the states." It's not a "policy" or an "agenda." It's the application of the evolution of legal principles in specific factual contexts as they arise. "That 1962 case which first redefined the First Amendment and then removed school prayer was notable in a number of aspects. Recall that the 1892 Supreme Court case (Church of the Holy Trinty v U.S.) offered 87 precedents to maintain the inclusion of Christian principles in our laws and institutions.
OK, I've attached the Trinity case too. From a cursory reading of it, the case suggests that we are historically "a Christian nation" and that therefore it would be incorrect to assume that alienage laws preventing the contracting for alien labor would apply to a church hiring a rector or professional. The language in there is dicta. The precedents cited are from state courts, not the Supreme Court. They are historical background used to interpret intent of a specific statute on specific facts. Whether it is good law or even good legal analysis today, it is not a statement that the first amendment was intended to protect "Christians" generally, so long as a specific denomination is not preferred over another. This 1962 case which removed school prayer was just the opposite; it was the first case in Court history to use zero precedents -- the Court quoted "zero" previous legal cases. Without any historical or legal base, the Court simply made an announcement: "We'll not have prayers in schools anymore; that violates the Constitution." A brand new direction was taken in America."
Perhaps, so..... In referring to the 1892 case, Barton writes: "This Biblical heritage was so well understood during the early years of the nation and the writings of the numerous Founding Fathers were so well known that in later years the Supreme Court ruled according to the Founder's intention, keeping Biblical principles as the basis. For example, notice this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1892: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian." "This case was not long (only 16 pages in the Court records), but the Court provided 87 different historical precedents to support its conclusions. The Court quoted the Founding Fathers, the acts of the Founding Fathers, the acts of the Congresses, the acts of the state governments, etc. At the end of 87 precedents the Court explained that it could continue to cite many additional precedents, but that certainly 87 was sufficient to conclude that our laws and our institutions must be based on and must include the teachings of Christ."
The opinion says no such thing as that last sentence. It recognizes the role of religion in the history of our nation, it recognizes the many state references to "Almighty God." It says nothing about mandating that we "must include the teachings of Christ." The Court later grappled with many of those examples in the case, and put them in a category called "ceremonial deism" which I discussed in the memos. What followed the 1962 decision was a series of cases against Christianity.
Frank, you make another statement like this again, and we might as well just hang it up. I'm dead serious. You want to play like you're persecuted because you're not allowed to use my tax dollars to pray to your God? What is so difficult for you to understand? Just quit taking my money to pray to your God. Don't make my kids listen to your catechism just so they can get a public education. Let me raise my kids teach them my religion without worrying about having to undo what the teachers I pay for are doing to undermine what I'm trying to teach. You don't have a clue what persecution is, and it's not an attack on Christianity. Abington v. Shempp and Murray v. Curlett removed Bible reading from schools. (BTW, prior to becoming President, Jefferson was president of the D.C. school board, and while in that capacity made the Bible and the Watts Hymnal official textbooks to be used in school.)
D.C. had a public school? If that were true you have to bear in mind that what the federal government could do was far less than the states, and D.C. would have been treated like a state. At the time, these were limitations on federal power, not state. Jefferson's view of what each could do differed considerably. Reed v. Van Hoven determined it was permissible for students to pray over their lunch at school so long as no one knew they were praying. DeKalb v. DeSpain declared a 4 line nursery rhyme used by a kindergarten class to be unconstitutional because if someone were to hear the rhyme, he might think it was talking about God. Stone v. Graham removed the Ten Commandments from schools. (Quoting from Barton again.) "... notice the Court's ruling under the redefined First Amendment: "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate, and obey, the Commandments....[This] is not...a permissible...objective."
I don't have time to get you all the cases as I respond. If you want, send me a list of the cases and I'll send them to you. I've seen enough of Barton's style from what you quote to know he doesn't give you the context of the case, and that he makes wild generalities from specific instances of prohibited conduct. "That's quite a statement! You can't let kids see the Ten Commandments, because if they do, they might obey them things like "don't steal," "don't kill" and that would be unconstitutional! "When the Court declares something unconstitutional, it is inferring that our Founding Fathers -- the men who drafted the Constitution -- would have opposed it. However, notice what James Madison -- the "Chief Architect of the Constitution" -- said about the Ten Commandments: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves... according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Compare this quote to those "quotes" pages on my web page. I sure would like to know what context this is in. I doubt it has direct application. What the founders believed as to the conduct of their personal lives and how government should behave were different. "It is ironic that that which the "Chief Architect of the Constitution" considered to be the most crucial aspect of American constitutional government, the current Court has now declared to be unconstitutional! "The entire controversy over God and religious activities and teachings in schools had bug with the twenty two word prayer in the Engle v. Vitale case. That twenty two word prayer -- the prayer that led to the removal of all prayers form America's schools -- simply said: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." "That prayer -- which only acknowledged "God" and didn't even contain the word "Jesus" -- was a bland prayer. It was so bland that eight years later when a court was discussing that prayer, it that prayer as "To Whom It May Concern" prayer. (State Board of Eduction v. Board of Education of Netcong, Sup.Ct.N.J.) Well so much for my goal of a brief response. But I took the time to type all this in to show you why I felt you had done an incomplete job, and to question your statement that "The law has been quite settled since 1962." If Barton's summary of history is correct, the issue was settled until 1962. Understanding and believing the above, perhaps, you can better understand the position I, Governor James, Judge Moore, and the "Christian right" take on prayer related issues. The 1962 ruling was simply wrong. And to assert the current trend is not anti-Christian considered fallacious. Now, I am not accusing you of intentionally being anti-Christian, but the effects of writings such as your Legal Opinions, are anti-Christian nonetheless. It is analogous to the link you make with your "one way leads to anti-Semitism" argument.
It's not analogous. You asked me about what the rabbi said about the threat from the "Christian right" and to what degree it was perceived as true and why. Suggesting paranoia on my part about anti-Semitism was always a leap you made. I was talking about how moral superiority and the "one way" mentality, leads to intolerance of all faiths, which as applied to Jews can manifest itself in anti-Semitism. “I've not listened to Barton's tape, but I presume from what you say that it's similar to Gov. James 36 page missive to Judge DeMent that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states through the 14th amendment, which I *have* read.” Since I have not read the document to which your refer, I cannot confirm or deny your presumption. However, presumptions are frequently not valid.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? From what you quote, it looks like Barton wrote the primer for the document I was referring to. Barton wants analysis of the first amendment to go back to the fantasy days before 1962 when the court didn't even say the things he said. Barton cites pre-1962 cases out of context, doesn't apply the holding of the case, doesn't acknowledge that what he's quoting is dicta, relies on "precedent" from state courts instead of the federal courts, and his whole analysis is based on a theory as though the fourteenth amendment didn't make the first amendment applicable to the states, all pre-1960 jurisprudence. Of course, in those days, the fourth and sixth amendments didn't apply to the states either. Shall we return to the days when you have no federal recourse against the sheriff of Limestone County when he violates your fourth amendment rights? Could it be that you haven't listened to the tape becuase you might hear something that don't quite fit comfortably in your frame of reference?
Playing psychoanalyst is a very dangerous thing to do. I didn't even open the package you sent me until the other night. I assumed it was another Missler tape, and listening to tapes is too slow for me unless I have a long car ride somewhere. I read faster. My frame of reference is that I've studied the law for better than a decade. My frame of reference is that I've read briefs from lawyers who've taken Barton's position in actual court cases like Judge Moore's and have seen damn good lawyers try to make credible arguments from it. I told you that in the beginning. I'm way ahead of you in being familiar with the arguments on the other side, and I acknowledge decent ones when I see them. In my memos I acknowledge arguably contrary cases like Marsh v. Chambers and I show why they'll be distinguished and rejected ultimately as applied to Moore's case, or the case in public schools.
As I suggested at the top of this memo, I've been concerned about where we're going. I've reviewed all of our emails. Many, many of the questions I ask you remain unanswered. Questions where I ask you to delve deep and try to understand what it's like to walk a mile in the shoes of someone who doesn't believe as you do, what it's like to be in the minority. I've reminded you gently that that's the best way to start to grapple with the real issues. And you haven't done it. You won't do it. You can't, and I'm beginning to understand why through some of my other readings and discussions with people who want to help me understand you. People think I'm on a fools' errand in these discussion with you. You offer me predigested pap from people like Barton when I've already anticipated those arguments as contextually inaccurate, incomplete and misleading, historically selective or just downright speculative. I offer you analysis of what the law is, and you chastise me for not describing what the law ought to be based on legal theories that pre date the invention of the microwave. The reason we're not communicating is because you are unwilling to challenge your own frame of reference by answering the questions I've posed all along. I don't consider Barton a zealot, but one who provides factual historical information. If you find him to be otherwise, I'd like to know it. The purpose of the tape was to, hopefully, fill in some (apparent) gaps in your education and knowledge on this issue. I trust that (being a man of integrity) you will embody all knowledge on the subject and use it forthrightly in your official work.
You damn me with faint praise. I don't have to think he's a zealot. I certainly had no preconceptions before you transcribed the video. He's making arguments that sound wonderful to you, but the courts won't buy them. “But going back before 1962 was irrelevant for purposes of the memo, because I was asked to discuss what the law was, not second guess the doctrinal basis of 30 years of law.” What about the previous 170 years of law?
What about it? If you're relying on Barton's analysis there's nothing there, because there's too many presumptions that don't hold water. In your September 25, 1989 memo, you quoted the AG's questions. With regard to the first question, you deftly sidestepped the question. Given the 170 years of history (above), question 1 properly addressed may have affected the answer to question 3. This is a layman's opinion, of course (for what it's worth). Your answer to question 2 is in keeping with the current Court rulings (even though they are based on a fallacious foundation, e.g. Engle v. Vitale). “I was not asked what arguments could be made to change 30 years of precedent.” Granted. But, for balance, you could have pointed out that history did exist prior to 1962.
For balance, I pointed out what arguments could be made in favor of what he was asking. Then I showed why I thought it would be inadvisable for him to make them. Those same arguments, found in Marsh v. Chambers, are being tendered today in the Moore case. I don't think the court will buy them, and I said so. “You're confusing the idea that you *want* the law to be different with what it actually is, you *want* it to be different than I've described in the memos, based on the suggestions of people like Barton. But their ideas are not precedent, they do not reflect the law, and they will not reflect the law at any time in the near future absent a constitutional amendment.” Perhaps. Barton is not my only source, however. Regardless, I recognize the current law (baseless as it is). It is just that I don't agree with it because of the nature by which it was derived. Unfortunately, I don't think it will change in the near future. Challengeable? I believe so (provided that the Court were agenda free).
An agenda free court. That's just downright sophomoric. Loads of the justices that were in the middle of those decisions that you decry, including now Judge DeMent, were conservative republican appointees, god fearing church going Christian men and women. How much more can you stack the deck in your favor and still argue they have an agenda? But then, isn't it easier to stick your head in the sand and wonder why someone's kicking you in the butt, than to stand up and grapple with the ultimate issue? When you learn to stop turning everything into us versus them, you may begin to be able to address some of the questions I've been asking you. But that is highly unlikely for the near future. I don't happen to believe a Constitutional amendment is necessary. A correct rendering of the First Amendment would suffice. But that not being likely, perhaps I should be discussing such with my Congressmen.
Yes, perhaps you should. The answer's been there all along. It's the way our government was designed. If you don't like it, change it, but quit hitting your head against a brick wall and telling everyone you're being attacked. “I will let pass your suggestion that my ethics are due to be questioned.” I regret making that comment. Sorry. It wasn't necessary. It all goes back to my "less than the whole story." If you have rationalized what you did in your mind, and think you did a fair job (based on far more knowledge of the environment, local and legal), perhaps I was off base.
There's a lot I forgive for two reasons. First, you're not a lawyer. Second, you believe what you believe, and it is not my mission on earth to separate you from your God. But this is not a painless experience if you are going to grow, and I don't think you're ready for the pain. “Dispute my analysis if you want. Show how I'm leaving out cases that are relevant (i.e., binding today) or misquoting precedent if you can. You haven't done that,…” I hope I have done just that by the lengthy quotes above.
No, you haven't done it. You just laid on more of what I said you need to avoid doing. Perhaps it's that you don't understand the nature of the law, what it is, how it evolves, that it is dynamic. Perhaps you don't really understand the constitutional framework of our government. Perhaps you just believe what you need to believe, hear what you already accept, because that's what you need in order to make it day to day. “I'll admit though that I couldn't pass up the opportunity though to write those memos.” Just as I thought! A made to order opportunity! Your dream come true!Hey, I guess I don't blame you for taking the opportunity.
It was an opportunity to educate, to prevent or delay the foolishness and divisiveness we're seeing today with Moore and DeKalb County and Pike County. It was an opportunity to try and bring some semblance of tolerance and understanding into the world, to prevent political grandstanding and hypocritical political and religious demagoguery, an opportunity to protect and preserve religious freedom from politicians who would use your faith in God for their own personal self aggrandizement. Yeah, I'd say it was too good to pass up. But then, I'm a law and order kinda' guy, and I believe in the constitution. “It may be hard for you to separate the personality of the ACLU with their legal arguments, but it's not for me. When they're wrong, I say so, and have said so. When they're ever right, will you say so?” What I know is that the ACLU shops for judges who will give them the precedent setting decision they seek, and that is used to deprive Christians of their Constitutionally guaranteed right of religious expression from that time forward.
This is a generality that has no basis in fact in any recent case involving school prayer. If anyone had to predict, you couldn't ask for a more anti-ACLU judge than DeMent. No one knew how Price was gonna' go on Moore's case. In fact, all things considered that it was in state court, the odds were that it would go the other way, politics being what they are in state courts. The ACLU may have some redeeming value, but I have no use for the organization. ACLU is a four letter word to me! Where have they been on the Second Amendment fight? Silent, as far as I know.
Well, they'll be there when you need them. They were there for the Nazi's in Skokie, Ill., they were there for the KKK in Texas and Montgomery. They'll be there for the Christians if Christianity is ever truly threatened. What is it with you and boxing people into stereotypes? You are right that I don't speak for most Christians, but not in the way you are probably thinking. Most Christians are not into the political and legal fray represented by what you call the "Christian right." A large percentage of them don't even bother to vote. As a group, it would probably be accurate to call us ignorant and apathetic. And that is precisely what has created the climate to permit anti-Christian laws and court decisions to flourish. We, as a group are not fighting back. Somehow, I just don't think that is what Jesus had in mind when he said, "Turn the other cheek."
Boy, I would love to hear from Jesus right now, particularly what he has to say about Matthew 6:5, 6 as applied to the Roy Moore case. Christians are a disjointed bunch! We've been accused of having firing squads in circles, and of shooting our own wounded. Regardless the resistance to the anti-Christian movement is a noble cause. Hey, your side is winning... for now.
And what exactly does your side want Frank? The unfettered right to teach my children your religion in our public schools? That's all this is about. That's the only thing this is about. I don't want you teaching my kids your religion with my tax dollars. Simple as that. Couldn't be more fair, because I can't do the converse either. We're both protected from each other. As a matter of fact, I do respect and admire you. Despite our differences of opinions (personal opinions), I enjoy our relationship. Our dialogs helpful and insightful (mutually, I hope). Beside, you just sound like a neat guy.
I am a neat guy. It just seems to me that you throw the baby out with the bath water when you say you wouldn't vote for me because of my views on religion in government. With everything else government has to worry about, why elect someone on the basis of what he's going to do for your religion? Tell that to the 1962 Court. Could you respect the government of Hitler? Look at my page again. Did you see the quote from Pastor Neimoeller? He was talking about Hitler. That is precisely why I take the stand on the first amendment I do. Regarding the Baptist question, not being a Baptist, I am not familiar with the actions of which you speak.
The Alabama Baptist Magazine came out with a statement basically saying DeMent's order was OK, that it didn't infringe on their right to pray, something actually very consistent with Baptist thought as I understand and consistent with the Danbury Baptists' concerns that Jefferson was addressing when he identified the "wall of separation." “Because the basis of its protections for people like me is to be protected from the strong arm of the majority.” Perhaps you have it a little backward. One or even nine judges are a minority, an oligarchy when it comes to making law (which they are not supposed to do). Their acts (baseless decisions) affect the majority. Where does restriction of freedom and malignment of a class turn to real persecution. As a Jew, you should be more appreciative of that than I am. In fact, it is somewhat surprising to me that you are not more sensitive the campaign against Christians than you are. You still may not accept it, but American Christians today are more supportive of Israel than anyone else.
You still don't get it. (Sigh) “That you don't accept it or agree with it doesn't mean I'm anti-Christian;…” You make sweeping claims about "one way" as leading to anti-Semitism. I maintain that Christians (today) are not anti-Semitic. You are not convinced.
I've never said that Christians today are anti-Semitic. You keep reading that into it as though it's something to convince me of. Read my stuff again. We're talking about the threat from the right, the mentality that it's all one way or no way, that anyone that doesn't agree with Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed or Phyllis Schafley or whoever is, by definition, the anti-Christ. That kind of thinking can lead to anti-Semitism. It's the mentality I'm addressing. You say you are not anti-Christian, yet your work and your personal opinions seem to support the anti-Christian agenda.
They do not. The only anti-agenda they support are those that lead to intolerance and lawlessness. I am no more anti-Christian for arguing against the narrow minded intolerance of the right than I am anti-Muslim for being against Louis Farrakhan for what he says about everyone who doesn't believe as he does. It is imperative that you get past this labeling if we are going to proceed.
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment