Wilheru Criticizes Standing Up to Militant Atheists


Botticelli. 9 Circles of an Atheist

 

John R. Houk

© February 1, 2012

 

I blog at more place than my primary blog here at SlantRight.com. I was checking for comment at my Word Press blog known as the NeoConservative Christian Right (NCCR). Below is the comment to the post “Stand Up to Militant Atheists in Public Society” (SlantRight.com version). You can read the comment which is followed by my response.

_________________________

Wilheru Comment

January 31, 2012 at 10:10 AM

 

This doesn’t make atheists angry, it makes us laugh. It makes us laugh because, frankly, you are misrepresenting atheism. How silly would I be if I claimed that your particular brand of Christianity is all about a wicked ritual which includes cannibalism and drinking blood of other men? That’s how silly your post sounds.

Oh, and the Constitution forbids using government funds (taxpayers’ money, that is) to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system. It does not forbid religion to influence the government, nor should it. What I mean by that is the following: the government doesn’t have the right to forbid abortion because it says so in the New Testament (hint: it doesn’t.). That would be discriminatory against every other religion and some Christians too. It has the right to forbid abortion because it considers embryos entitled to protection. In this case, religions can solicit the cause. It isn’t based on their beliefs, but it suits them nevertheless.

You are right when saying that the Founding Fathers considered Christianity when creating the first amendment. That is because they didn’t want to have a war like those in Europe over whose interpretation of the Bible is correct.

I’m curious if you could substantiate: “[The founding fathers] considered Christian culture and Biblical values as the foundation for the rule of law in America.” I’ve read much about them, yet I recall nothing that would support that. Must be faulty memory.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wilheru says,How silly would I be if I claimed that your particular brand of Christianity is all about a wicked ritual which includes cannibalism and drinking blood of other men? That’s how silly your post sounds.”

 

That is the same ploy ignorant polytheistic Romans propagandized against Christianity until Jesus won the hearts and minds of Roman leadership. The bread as the body of Christ and the wine as the blood of Christ is a spiritual transformation of the inner man aka the human spirit from darkness to a new creation in Christ Jesus. The only argument within Christianity is if this spiritual transformation in the Communion/Eucharist is an actual outer manifestation or if it is an outer symbolic manifestation of a spiritual reality. But atheists cannot comprehend the spiritual because their spiritual eyes have been dulled and blinded to spiritual realities. Go figure.

 

Wilheru says,Oh, and the Constitution forbids using government funds (taxpayers’ money, that is) to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system.”

 

WHERE does the Constitution FORBID the use of government funds – e.g. taxpayers’ money – to promote or discriminate on the basis of any belief system? Perhaps you are thinking of 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.

 

I read absolutely NOTHING that forbids the use of government funds in promoting a religious belief system. Also keep in mind the word “religion” is a reference to Christianity in particular to the Founding Fathers. The big irony here is that the astute Leftist and atheist apology to the Founding Fathers were Christians is they were in fact Deists.

 

The apologists fail to tell the uninformed Deism greatly differed in America than the Deism in Europe. So what is a common definition for Deism?

 

Noun

 

1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).

 

2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. (Dictionary.com)

 

Deism does NOT deny the existence of God! Below is one of the best explanations I have read on the differences between American Deism and European Deism:

 

1. The Age of Reason was an English affair and should be severed from The Enlightenment, which was a later French affair, occurring at a different time with very differing results. The Age of Reason sought to reform religion, the secular Enlightenment sought to destroy it in total. That is what clearly differentiated the American Revolution from the blood-letting and violent French Revolution.

 

2. That preferred “deism” as defined today was that of the atheistic French Revolution, which set the stage for Humanism, Marxisn (sic), and endless ‘isms.’ The American was based on a Calvinist’ Protestant culture/ethics tempered and moderated by the philosophy of John Locke, a Unitarian. It was based on Freemasonry, which operated as an enlightened form of general monotheism uniting the many diverse religious sects of the American Colonies.

 

3. The idea was never to strip religion from the public sphere, but to preserve individual liberty. See On Separation of Religion and State. To further quote Jefferson to put this in context, I consider religion a supplement of law in the government of man. Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Foley 1900 (#7242).

 

4. That the Founders of America were not “deists” as defined Voltaire, Rousseau, and the French Revolution and the French Enlightenment. The Deism of the French Revolution would be the ‘Watchmaker” god of Voltaire that went away after creation and had no further interaction with the world. This was part of the French humanist/atheist effort to de-Christianize French society and substitute Eastern mysticism and Greek/pagan philosophy. See the Cult of Reason and Robespierre.

 

5. That the American Founders never called themselves “Deists” and Jefferson and Adams considered themselves Unitarians and said so. They are better defined as Unitarians because they believed God was active in the world, divine punishment for evil, and an afterlife. See Existence of Deity/God by Thomas Jefferson (Exploring Deism Its Origins and History; by Lewis Loflin; Sullivan-County.com)

 

In context of these thoughts American Deists considered themselves Christians and European Deists were anti-Christian believers of limited religion as defined by a secularist and humanist thought. I would argue that more of our Founding Fathers were more Christian than Deist because of the expectation of a supernatural act of God in their prayers in winning the Revolutionary War; however that is not really the point. The point is the Founding Fathers had a Christian world view which included the practice of Christian Morality and Christian Values. The Founding Fathers’ writings in private and public demonstrate that Christianity and Reason are the foundation of their thoughts on the rule of law, i.e. the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

 

Ergo it does not take a rocket scientist to comprehend that Christianity is the thought behind the First Amendment’s usage of the word “religion”. Since Christianity is meant by the word “religion” it should shed some light of the actual Founding Father meaning of the First Amendment religious clause:

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

 

Congress cannot make a law to establish a Christian Church Denomination as the State Church AND Congress cannot interfere with the free exercise of Christianity. Government had NO PROBLEM with this until some Leftist found an ally in the Supreme Court to interpret the religious clause in the First Amendment differently than originally intended. The result was a 20th/21st century reevaluation of the term Separation of Church and State which is NO WHERE found in the U.S. Constitution. Hence the Judicial Branch embarked on lawmaking that Congress was expressly prohibited to exercise. AND the Judicial Branch usurped the Constitutional purpose of Congress to enact law by creating law extra-constitutionally.

 

In saying all this I thereby refute you Wilheru that the Constitution prohibits the use of taxpayer money in the promotion of religion; however I agree the First Amendment says the government cannot use taxpayer money to discriminate against religion and Christianity in particular.

 

Wilheru says,What I mean by that is the following: the government doesn’t have the right to forbid abortion because it says so in the New Testament (hint: it doesn’t.). That would be discriminatory against every other religion and some Christians too. It has the right to forbid abortion because it considers embryos entitled to protection. In this case, religions can solicit the cause. It isn’t based on their beliefs, but it suits them nevertheless.”

 

I half-way agree with you on this Wilheru. Government does not have the right to forbid abortion based on the New Testament (Hint: the Old and New Testament both forbid infanticide and some Christian Books considered pseudepigrapha [Barnabas 19:5; Apocalypse of Peter 25]  now but as part of the New Testament by the Early Church Fathers also wrote against baby killing which is what happens when one murders an unborn baby). However, since the Founding Fathers visualized Christian Morality and Christian values as important to the rule of law (yes along with the Greek and Roman classics), I believe it is a good guess they felt a human life was a Christian life. That human life would be entitled legal protection.

 

Wilheru says,You are right when saying that the Founding Fathers considered Christianity when creating the first amendment. That is because they didn’t want to have a war like those in Europe over whose interpretation of the Bible is correct.”

 

Actually the Founding Fathers’ consideration of Christian religion had more to do with religious freedom among the traditions of Christian Denominations. Enforced religious freedom did mean taking religious violence off the table; however European wars of religion had more to do with suzerainty of Princes than religious freedom. Protestant Princes that supported Lutheranism and/or Zwingli were Princes that opened themselves up to be invaded with the sanction of the Catholic Church by Catholic Princes to acquire territory. Europeans that fled Europe for religious freedom to the American colonies did so to escape persecution from nation State Churches and not because of foreign invasion.

 

Wilheru says,I’m curious if you could substantiate: “[The founding fathers] considered Christian culture and Biblical values as the foundation for the rule of law in America.” I’ve read much about them, yet I recall nothing that would support that. Must be faulty memory.” (Bold Emphasis Mine)

 

George Washington

 

“I now make it my earnest prayer the God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and, finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation.”  June 8, 1783 in a letter to the governors of the states on disbanding the army.

 

Thomas Jefferson

 

“God who gave us life gave us liberty.  And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?  That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?  Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”  1781, Query XVIII of his Notes on that State of Virginia.

 

“My views…are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from the anti-christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.  To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.  I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be;  sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others…”  April 21, 1803 in a letter to Dr. Benjamin.

 

“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

 

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus….I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

 

James Madison (Known as the Father of the Constitution)

 

“Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government.” June 20, 1785

 

“It is not the talking but the walking and working person that is the true Christian.”  In a manuscript on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Madison makes this statement.

 

“We have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being, whose power regulates the destiny of nations.” March 4, 1809 Inaugural Address

 

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

 

There are more quotes – Check it out!

 

Yes Wilheru, it must be a faulty memory!

 

JRH 2/1/12

About oneway2day

I am a Neoconservative Christian Right blogger. I also spend a significant amount of time of exposing theopolitical Islam.

Posted on February 1, 2012, in Christian Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. I didn’t read through the whole thing just yet, but it seems like I’ve been talking to the wall. I’m very much aware that nobody in the Christian community, ANY Christian community claims to eat literal flesh of Jesus. It is always something spiritual and metaphorical. However, if I claimed notwithstanding that it were the case that ALL Christians believe to eat Jesus’s literal flesh, then I’d be misinterpreting Christianity, wouldn’t I? That’s what you did in the original post.
    As for the Constitution bit, it is in the First Amendment, true. And it implies “no government money to the churches”. If you don’t see why, your problem.
    It would be nice if your quotes (or at least the first, I didn’t check all of them yet) weren’t fake.

    • Implication is a Leftist/Atheist reasoning to abandon Original Intent in favor of the Living Constitution fallacy that Left Wing activist judges have employed since the middle 20th century.

      THOSE QUOTES ARE NOT FAKE! To say they are fake is like a person from Chicago talking about a river in Egypt – Da Nile.

      • What is the NeoCon (assuming) biblical literalist reasoning to abandon almost all laws from Leviticus? Besides, nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments is there any mention that churches should be subsidized by the Government, but there is a clear implication that they should not be subsidized because that would be a step in the direction of a state church.
        You’re right about the first quote thing, sorry. It isn’t fake, however it isn’t authored by Washington, so it’s hard to tell if he really believed that. Some quotes by Jefferson, on the other hand, are clearly quote mined. Reading the text in full contradicts the conclusions one might draw from reading just the quote.
        At some point I just gave up tracking down all quotes and am no longer interested. I have more important things to do than to argue with someone over the Internet who doesn’t accept reason (otherwise that one wouldn’t need to quote mine people) over what people who died more than three centuries ago felt. Goodbye and enjoy!

  2. Wilheru says:

    What is the NeoCon (assuming) biblical literalist reasoning to abandon almost all laws from Leviticus?

    John says:

    Hmm … I thought I had already covered my stand about the Law of the Old Testament vis-a-vie the New Testament. It could have been someone else though. Here it goes.

    Christ is the fulfillment of the Law which does not end the Law; however Christ’s Atonement expiates the penalty (aka curse) of the Law. Thus the Law of Moses is part of the Judeo-Christian foundation influencing the Founding Fathers and the Great Commission of Christ to share the Good News of Redemption has enabled the West (not just America) to move out of medieval punishments that are now considered ridiculous.

    Wilheru says:

    Besides, nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments is there any mention that churches should be subsidized by the Government, but there is a clear implication that they should not be subsidized because that would be a step in the direction of a state church.

    John says:

    Actually the Constitution says nothing about “Churches” and uses the term “religion”. From the writings of the most ardent of Deists as well as Christian Founding Fathers, it is evident that “religion” referred to Christianity.

    The First Amendment specifically says:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

    So let’s see. The Legislative Branch (i.e. Congress) shall make NO Law Establishing a State religion; which is to say in context of the Founding Fathers, Congress shall make no Christian Denomination the State religion of the USA.

    There is NO place here that forbids Christianity from being an influence or having a political voice in the U.S. Government (i.e. Executive Branch, Legislative Branch AND Judicial Branch). It is simple; Congress cannot establish a State Church. Since there is no mention of Christianity being forbidden from interacting with the government, any interpretation that presumes Christianity must stay off of taxpayer owned public property is a false assumption.

    AND to nail my point the First Amendment continues:

    … 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 cannot legislate the free exercise of religion which would include in government. Congress cannot legislate the abridgement of Free Speech which is inclusive of religion in government. Congress cannot legislate the abridgement of a Free Press which would include religion writing about government. Congress cannot abridge the right of people to assemble peaceably which would include a religious service on taxpayer-public property. Congress cannot abridge the right of people to petition THE GOVERNMENT for redress of grievances which would include the various Christian Denominations that may have a private or public grievance.

    There has been a lot of clarity there until the Judicial Branch began muddying that clarity by legislating from the Bench rather than interpreting the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution. The Judicial Branch has become nearly despotic in its authority in the last 60 to 70 years. The Judicial Branch needs reformed to restrict its duty to interpretation rather than legislating.

    Wilheru says:

    You’re right about the first quote thing, sorry. It isn’t fake, however it isn’t authored by Washington, so it’s hard to tell if he really believed that. Some quotes by Jefferson, on the other hand, are clearly quote mined. Reading the text in full contradicts the conclusions one might draw from reading just the quote.

    John says:

    As to quoting Jefferson, I don’t think there is as much quote mining as there is political spectrum mining. A Secularist (in the sense of Separation of Church and State Christians or other religions), Secular Humanist, and/or atheists can easily interpret Jefferson quotes as keeping Christianity out of the government as in the political process. Jefferson was clearly more Deist in the humanist sense than many other Founding Fathers; however some of the scholarship and writings of Jefferson also clearly shows he was not anti-Christian as the European Deists (as espoused by the French Revolution). Jefferson did write a Bible that included Christian Morality and Principles but abandoned the Christian Miraculous. I believe quotes of Jefferson read in the perspective of his own Bible demonstrates his thoughts that Christianity as an influence is something government should not restrict but rather to embrace as a way to keep society devolving into the dark side of majority rule democracy with the corruption of cultural values. In thus way the Right Side of the political spectrum can still claim Jefferson regarded the influence of Christianity as part of the Foundation (but CERTAINLY not the only influence) of the America Republic.

    Wilheru says:

    At some point I just gave up tracking down all quotes and am no longer interested. I have more important things to do than to argue with someone over the Internet who doesn’t accept reason (otherwise that one wouldn’t need to quote mine people) over what people who died more than three centuries ago felt. Goodbye and enjoy!

    John says:

    Actually Wilheru I believe I used a great deal of reason to demonstrate the Founding Fathers believed Christianity was a part of the foundation for America. I have to say also part of that foundation included the classics of Greco-Roman philosophy. However some of the greatest influence was from John Locke of which large portions of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution can be seen sometimes verbatim. Read John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, also titled A Essay Concerning the true original, extent, and end of Civil Government, Book Two. John Locke is steeped in the Christian faith as an influence on secular government. Locke was not too popular with the British Monarchy.

    Wilheru when you write in disdain of people who died more than three centuries ago you beckon to my point of Original Intent over the relatively modern political thought that the U.S. Constitution is a Living Constitution that can be molded to any interpretation a political ideology demands (typically judicial fiat) rather than the Constitutional process of Amendments.

    If this is the last we are to comment to each other I bid you farewell or as the Founding Fathers’ would have said, I bid you Godspeed.

  1. Pingback: I have given up on Christianity « The Haphazard Girl

  2. Pingback: What did the “Establishment of religion” mean in 1776 « Trutherator's Weblog

  3. Pingback: More Wilheru: Focusing on Founding Fathers and the Constitution « The NeoConservative Christian Right

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 86 other followers

%d bloggers like this: