Two weeks ago I posted my take on the new abortion law in Texas. A new commenter — Annsley Smoak — appeared there yesterday and launched into a religion-based assault on my views. That’s fine. I encourage dissenting comments. But I will rebut them at every opportunity. Especially when they violate the separation of church and state. We are not yet, and hopefully never will be, a theocracy. Anyway, I thought I’d mention it in case you want to catch up on or add to the conversation.
I don’t think anything you or I have ever experienced classifies as a “religion-based assault”. If you are a Christian being murdered by the Taliban for your beliefs, you can say that. Otherwise, you’re being a snowflake.
I never said I wanted a theocracy. I like our constitutional republic because it is the greatest experiment in human freedom since the beginning of time. But separation of church and state does not mean that the church has nothing to do with the state or that those in the state should not be part of a church. The phrase was first used in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, the third United States president, to a minister to assure him that the “separation of church and state” would always be there to prevent the state from ruling the church. Jefferson was not what you could call a devout person, but he understood that morality cannot exist where biblical ethics are outlawed, and that where morality dies so does mankind as a whole.
I try to be courteous in every conversation and I apologize if I came across in a way I did not intend. However, I am not apologetic for what I said, and I would still like an answer on the last question regarding Roe vs. Wade and the Dred Scott decision.
After commenting on the earlier post, I came here to reconsider my use of the word “assault. (I thought “verbal assault” would be obvious.) For that I apologize. “Opposing views” or something similar was more my intent.
Separation of church and state also prevents the church from ruling the state. They are and should always remain separate entities. Your remarks, with references to sin and evil, sounded decidedly religious in nature. I don’t expect you to apologize for your beliefs. But I do believe you should not try to impose them on others or use them as a basis for overturning Roe v. Wade.
As for Roe v. Wade and the Dred Scott decision, I’m not familiar with that issue, but at first glance (more than half a century beyond my last classroom) I fail to see a connection between a decision about women’s rights and a decision about slavery. Different issues, different times, different courts. Personhood, perhaps, although the original concern in Roe was a woman’s right to privacy. Science and society advance and change, as do legal precedents and thinking.
And btw, ethics needn’t be “biblical.” We atheists can be just as ethical as you or anyone else. We’re ethical because we choose to be, not because we are told to be.
As for Jefferson’s letter … if you are referring to his letter to the Danbury Baptists, I interpret it only as saying the state will not interfere with their religious beliefs.
So Ashley, do you also consider it a religious assault when Christians murder Muslims? See, I do. I shudder when I see those portraits of a blue eyed, blond haired Jesus, when in actuality he would have resembled the very people our country has spent the last 20 years pursuing and killing whenever possible.
Christians don’t murder. (Matthew 5:21-22)
Army of God ring a bell?
Until you mentioned it I’d never heard of them. And as displayed by their actions, they are not Christians. “You shall know them by their fruit” Matthew 7 tells us.
Hate to break it to you, but those who wrote the Bible knew nothing about modern-day organizations and politics. Keep your scripture in your heart, home, and church where it belongs. It carries no weight here.
Why are you allowed to defend, speak, and attempt to spread your beliefs, but I am not supposed to be allowed to do the same?
Good grief, woman. You do try my patience.
I’m not trying to “spread my beliefs” to anyone. I’ll discuss them when appropriate but I certainly don’t go around trying to teach or spread them to anyone else. That would be presumptuous and rude.
This is my blog, my house. Here I can and do speak freely. Others who come here are guests, hence I try to treat them politely and with respect, and expect the same from them. Visitors can read my “About” page if they want to know about me, and there are more than 3,000 posts here if they want to know my opinion about things.
For you I would suggest “Atheist by default.”