Today on Blogcritics
Home » Moronic statement of the day

Moronic statement of the day

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

From Peter Steinfels’ column in the New York Times

Thus the devoutly religious judge who works within a secular framework of constitutional interpretation, the scientific researcher who rules out divine interventions in her empirical search for causes or the entrepreneur who operates on the basis of market dynamics may be doing so not because they have set their religious faith aside, or compartmentalized it into their personal and family lives, but precisely because their faith informs them that these may be the best ways of putting their particular talents at the service of God and their neighbors.

Oh, let’s not stop there. Why not use rapists who rape, while claiming to hold a religious view opposed to it? How about murderers who kill innocent people while still claiming to believe in a faith that calls murder sin?

But look at Steinfels’ examples. What secular framework of Constitutional interpretation? The Constitution was written by mostly Christians, and those few who weren’t Christians, by their writings, were much more religious than many who claim to be Christians today. This imaginary “secular” framework is a myth forced on us by those opposed to the true framework of Judeo-Christian values. Such a judge would be ignoring the very heart of the Constitution and imposing an artificial interpretation. One could do the same thing with Moby Dick and finish it believing they’d read War and Peace.

What about “the scientific researcher who rules out divine interventions in her empirical search for causes” (don’t you just love the pronoun gender-switching these Liberals do?) What could be less scientific than excluding a hypothesis without a valid reason to do so. But that is exactly what “scientists” today do. How is that serving anyone, let alone God?

Is he seriously advocating the practices of “the entrepreneur who operates on the basis of market dynamics” (presumably void of any moral factors) as something good? When you remove morality from economics, you get slavery. That’s the plain and simple of it. Even the most callous businessmen knows the value of the appearance of virtue.

The vast majority of Americans derive their morality from their faith. Those that don’t, typically have a hard time explaining their morality. When we are asked to remove our faith from politics, economics, even science, we are asked to do that which empowers our present and future, void of morality. Does anyone seriously imagine that’s not a recipe for disaster?

I had a friend that was once considering Amway, but one of their meetings was on a Sunday, and he didn’t like the idea of missing church for a business meeting. The Amway guy who was trying to convince him to join said something to the effect of, “Don’t you think you’d be serving God better by making more money so you can tithe more?” That, to my friend’s credit, was the end of his involvement with Amway.

I don’t want judges that are willing to divorce their morality from the law. I don’t think much of “scientists” who are willing to dismiss possibilities simply because someone might think it’s silly. I don’t like the idea of businessmen who thinks anything and everything must take a back seat to money. Our values are what make these ventures worthwhile. Without them they become empty, meaningless and ultimately fruitless.

Crossposted at: JackLewis.net

Powered by

About Danny Carlton

  • alethinos59

    Danny you might want to enroll in some history courses that are NOT given at the local Christian college… The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution specifically BECAUSE they did not trust human nature. It was irrelevant whether that person claimed to be Christian or not, the point is they didn’t trust anyone who thought they and ONLY OTHERS that thought just like them knew what was best for every one else. That’s why we have the governmental design we have.

    Do I want a judge that has an upright character? Sure. Do I want someone who believes in justice? Absolutely. Do I want someone who’s own religious convictions convinces him or her that they know what is better for me than I do? Hell no! I want the judge who, to the best of their ability, will understand the Constitution and its philosphical underpinnings – not someone who’s so full of himself that he assumes that his mind is in complete harmony with humans that lived over two centuries ago – people who could not – in their wildest dreams – have forseen the world we live in today.

    And that’s just it… The one thing the Founders really got from Plato was this – and I am paraphrasing (Plato)widely here:

    Men constantly argue over natual rights. They don’t seem to realize that the moment you write a LAW into the books it becomes STATIC. For law is not JUSTICE – which is a living thing.

    That is why the Supreme Court exists – among other reasons – to help “interpret” the Constitution (despite what Scalia likes to fantasize).

    And for your information, a good many of the central Founding Fathers were not church going types at all. They believed in a Supreme Being but they were loath to put all their stock in what that guy on the pulpit was saying… If you don’t believe me you might actually want to read THEIR OWN WRITINGS…

    If the Founding Fathers were as “Christian” as Christians today like to “believe” they were – the US would have been a Theocracy right from the start…

    Do some more reading fella…

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    That’s a good way to put it 59, even if you were paraphrasing

    >> Men constantly argue over natual rights. They don’t seem to realize that the moment you write a LAW into the books it becomes STATIC. For law is not JUSTICE – which is a living thing.

    That is why the Supreme Court exists – among other reasons – to help “interpret” the Constitution (despite what Scalia likes to fantasize).

  • billy

    based on the context of this post, i nominate the author for the moronic statement of the day.

    the founders were deists, and the church is banished in the first amendment. if you havent even read beyond the first amendment, why comment on con law.

  • Duane

    Danny wonders: What could be less scientific than excluding a hypothesis without a valid reason to do so.

    The hypothesis (God’s existence) is entertained far and wide. But it goes nowhere. It is not excluded. It is simply ignored, because it leads to no testable predictions. That is scientific. By allowing God to fill in the gaps, science is completely stifled.

    I see that you also have no understanding of the scientific method.

  • gonzo marx

    oh my stars and garters….seems like we have another one that has no clue when it comes to the writings and history of our Founders and their philosophies…once again, the false assertation that the Founders intended any kind of “christian” nation…rather than a clearly secular governmet, to establish and maintain a very secular Rule of Law…

    to clarify and elucidate…let me share with you the contents of a letter written by Jefferson on this very subject, written to a Danbury church’s clergy.

    *Gentlemen,
    The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

    I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.*

    Jefferson’s Words say it all , so much better than i ever could…

    there yoiu can see very clearly the use of the phrase “wall of separation between chu8rch and state”…this is from Jefferson, you know..the guy who quilled the very documents we are talking about…he might have a clue as to the cveracity of this position, so much so that the SCOTUS has agreed with this position…

    in another Thread, Bennett came up with a few others…i’m willing to guess you might recognize who they were…

    thanks for these Bennett

    John Adams The second president of the United States

    “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”

    “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”

    “Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years?”

    Thomas Jefferson The third president of the United States

    “Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

    “On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.”

    “The priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, are as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.”

    “I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.”

    “We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication .”

    “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.”
    -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

    James Madison The fourth president of the United States

    “Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

    “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”

    “Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.”

    “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”
    -1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

    Benjamin Franklin

    “Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”

    “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”

    “In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it.”

    George Washington The first president of the United States

    The father of this country was very private about his beliefs, but it is widely considered that he was a Deist like his colleagues. He was a Freemason.

    Historian Barry Schwartz writes: “George Washington’s practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian… He repeatedly declined the church’s sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary… Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative.”

    and there you go…just a sampling form some of the Founders to show how moronic the baseling Posulate of this original post is…

    i’ll lay out the same challenge here as on the other Thread…

    show some direct Quotes from a Founder stating your point of view..direct Quotes from someone that signed either the Declaration or the Constitution, please

    until then, you are “bearing false witness”…and spewing words with no basis in fact or reality

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Other than “Oh god what have I done?”

    :-)

  • http://ochairball.blogspot.com ochairball

    That Peter at the New York Times can write a really loooong sentence.

    But Danny, you changed the story’s theme from “religion” to “morality.” You can have one without the other.

    I know some Christians that aren’t very moral. They lie, cheat, drink excessively but they’ve accepted Jesus.

    I know some moral people that aren’t religious. But they know that it’s not right to kill, steal, covet thy neighbor’s wife…

    I don’t want someone in high authority positions imposing their religious beliefs on me through laws or healthcare or whatever — look at what the religious zealots are doing today. These so-called terrorists (now being called extremists) believe that God is leading them, but morally, we know it’s not right to kill. In this case is it better to be religious or moral?

    We don’t need religion to tell us that it’s wrong to kill (i’m using extreme examples for illustration). A sense of right and wrong does, a sense of ethics.

    Granted, some people need religion to tell them how to be moral. But there plenty of us out here that don’t need that. Some of us are religious, some of us are spiritual, some of us are atheist….But we can all figure out how to be moral without getting dosed with one group’s religious faith.

  • PseudoErsatz

    Hmmm… what does the archaic irrelevant text have to say about those who rely on their own moral compass:

    He (Jesus) went on, “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ For from within, out of men’s hearts–except 21st century humans–come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance(!) and folly.” Mark 7:20-22

  • gonzo marx

    arrogance and slander…???

    like what Pseudo just laid down her for us?

    can ya smell the Irony here , kiddies?

    Pseudo…i can readiloy admit that folks have all that inside them…and more…and Christians have no more or less than anyone else

    which seems more ethical and/or moral to you?

    someone that struggles against all the Dark inside, and leads a good life, and helps his/her community and family

    or…someone that does what they like, strives for the material, lives for personal greed, does not hesitate to screw any “them” that comes along, because they don’t count…but tityhes regyularily and “accepts Jesus as his personal saviour”?

    just curious…

    Excelsior!

  • Bennett

    Well said all. Thanks for the cookie gonzo!

    Quite tasty!

    :-]

    Are we ever going to get quotes?

  • PseudoErsatz

    Gonzo:

    Logic test: If (hu)man’s heart is filled with evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly, and I am a human, am I capable of being able to judge between these two examples? I would continue to treat both as humanely as possible, and leave the judgment up to one who was tempted in every way as I am, yet did not sin–Jesus Christ.

    More ramblings from the archaic irrelevant text:

    “ But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”- 1 Samuel 16:7

  • http://trollville.com troll

    Holy shit Pretender

    If you’ve turned your rational jugement over to God why bother posting

    Just sit there and be quiet… He sees your heart and you’ll be fine

    Now, get off my bridge

    troll

  • PseudoErsatz

    Yes, this is often the case. I am to either sit down and shut up–be intimidated into silence, or risk getting angry when, the discourse turns to personal attacks, I make the mistake of replying in like kind, which misrepresents the Gospel–well, I have just justified the christophobic’s attacks.

    It is too bad that we cannot have a level playing field–free from intimidation and anger–to actually discuss this matter in a civil way.

  • gonzo marx

    to Pseudo…

    you have an open and even Forum here to discuss these matters…certainly you will not allow someone with the screen name of “troll” influence that…it is merely criticism…i am certain your “faith” can sustain you from such a feeble obstacle…

    back to our section of the discussion..
    you bring up some interesting points…however, 8i must state that although “man’s Heart” does contain all the things you mention..it also contains all the “good” that you fail to mention…

    hence the crux of our differing in these matters…according to what you have commented so far here, and the quotes you have chosen, you appear to Postulate that Man is inherently evil, and only can find the Good via adhering to the religion and dogma you espouse…

    i stipulate that all Men have the Potential for both Good and Evil, and that finding individual Balance in this conflicting Duality is what shapes and dfines one’s Life…

    now , if your would..scroll up to Comment 5…read what the Founders wrote there, and perhaps you will understand a bit more why all Religions are free to practice in our Nation BECAUSE our government is secular by it’s very Constitution…

    hope that helps..

    Excelsior!

  • http://hungrytroll.com troll

    yummy

    Pretender – what personal attack

    just guffawing at your ‘logic test’

    your own ‘liar’s paradox’ – poor suffering christians

    get off my bridge or I’ll eat your toes

    troll