Rodda on Christian Nation Resolution, Part 2 : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

The Week In ScienceBlogs: Sign up for our newsletter.

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« My Game Against Raymer | Main | Federal Court Win for Religious Student Groups »

Rodda on Christian Nation Resolution, Part 2

Posted on: January 22, 2008 9:02 AM, by Ed Brayton

My invaluable friend and colleague Chris Rodda has a second post at DailyKos critiquing the latest "Christian Nation" resolution in Congress. I've got a critique of the same resolution going up at the Michigan Messenger and the Colorado Confidential in the next few days.

Comments

Thanks for the link Ed.

Posted by: J-Dog | January 22, 2008 11:12 AM

Ed,

What is this resolution? I have heard some about it. The article was a bit confusing without some background. I guess my question is short of making this a "Christian Nation" do you have a problem with God, in general, being invoked?

It seems to many in the Evangelical community that your stance(I think you speak for many) on seperation between Church and State is being used to make a seperation between God and state. The former is clear to me. One can study the dangers of State Run churches and the absolute evil they perpetrated in the name of God. The latter seems impossible without attacking the very Declaration of Independence itself though I know this issue is not that simple.

It seems to me that our rights are derived from one of two sources:

1. God as the Declaration stated
2. Government itself

I see where the athiest would be in quandry. My argument would be that if they are derived from the government they are subject to change with a change in government. If they are from God then they are unchangable. But I can see where the problem comes in now that we have evolved from a Nation that was mainly different sects of Christians to a nation that includes every religion known to man. The obvious question to me then becomes for the minority factions: Which God?

That my friend opens a can of worms! There has to be some middle ground between moralists trying to force their values on everyone else through legislation and just throwing the idea of God out altogether.

Posted by: King of Ireland | January 22, 2008 2:57 PM

King of Ireland wrote:

I guess my question is short of making this a "Christian Nation" do you have a problem with God, in general, being invoked?

That is far too vague a question to answer.

It seems to me that our rights are derived from one of two sources:
1. God as the Declaration stated
2. Government itself

Are those the only two choices? I don't think they are. Even if they were, I would not consent to the first one being true without seeing some actual evidence of the existence of a God who commands such rights. The God of the Bible certainly does not have any such concept of political liberty or any right of conscience. The concept is entirely absent from the Bible. Jefferson believed in a benevolent God who wanted humans to be free, but his god apparently didn't leave behind any revelation; and while Jefferson also believes that the existence of that God flows logically from the application of reason, I find that argument quite unconvincing.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 22, 2008 3:34 PM

As I recall, there is no mention of the derivation. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." Translation into modern vernacular: anyone who can't figure out that these are good things is too stupid to concern ourselves with. It's his problem, not ours.

Implicitly, any philosophical background which can't hold these truths as self evident is intrinsically inferior and needn't be considered. Stated thus, it seems harsh, insensitive, but it's also probably right.

Posted by: Frederick Ross | January 22, 2008 4:08 PM

King of Ireland wrote:

It seems to me that our rights are derived from one of two sources:
1. God as the Declaration stated
2. Government itself

I realize Ed already responded to this, but I wanted to also.

The other option is the one that our founders held to: The humans have inalienable rights derived purely from the fact that they are alive.

Think about it. Predicating a concept of rights on the existence or authority of a God that even the founders didn't believe in is at the very least a logical fallacy (Appeal to Authority), and at the worst hypocritical. It is a far more convincing argument to lay out reasons that rights are inalienable and inherent to life based on rational argument than on 'God says so.'

This third option, the one that was widely held at the time of the Revolution and in particular by our nation's founders, presents no problem for atheists. It also lays the foundation of why even the atheist must find a moral basis for their lives, because man is a rational being and the application of reason leads us to be moral beings.

Ed:

while Jefferson also believes that the existence of that God flows logically from the application of reason, I find that argument quite unconvincing.

Jefferson also wrote that IF the application of reason finds that there is no God and we truly are alone, to not be afraid of that either, because he believed that the thorough application of reason would still lead men to act in each other's best interest and care for each other. In short, he believed it would still lead us to be moral beings.

I think he was right.

Posted by: Patrick | January 22, 2008 4:13 PM

King of Ireland,

It seems to me that our rights are derived from one of two sources:
1. God as the Declaration stated
2. Government itself

Did you not read the rest of the Declaration? The part that states governments are instituted among men to preserve these rights? Not to grant, not to give, not to dole out as it sees fit. I would contend that we have these rights not because we are "given" them, but because we can assert them, as reasoning human beings, with the caveat that no one else's rights can be infringed upon by our actions. In my opinion, the government is created to resolve, and in some cases prevent, the clashes that inevitably result from people interacting with each other.

<completelyUnrelatedAdHominem>I'm not too surprised that someone who has the word "King" in their pen name would disagree with me on that case.</completelyUnrelatedAdHominem>

Posted by: Shawn Smith | January 22, 2008 4:14 PM

Ed Stated;

"Are those the only two choices? I don't think they are. Even if they were, I would not consent to the first one being true without seeing some actual evidence of the existence of a God who commands such rights. The God of the Bible certainly does not have any such concept of political liberty or any right of conscience. The concept is entirely absent from the Bible. Jefferson believed in a benevolent God who wanted humans to be free, but his god apparently didn't leave behind any revelation; and while Jefferson also believes that the existence of that God flows logically from the application of reason, I find that argument quite unconvincing."

What other choices do you feel there are to explain where we derive our rights? While Jefferson was the writer of the Document, he was expressing common ideals that many groups were rallying around. He had to take in the ideas of all groups to declare American Independent and not just himself. My point is that I fully agree that Thomas Jefferson by his own words was not what we would call an "Evangelical" today by any means. But I do not think to look at only his view of God in regards to the ideal he was setting forth of the very reason we could not longer follow the King of England is wise.

The Kings always cited "Divine Right to Rule" when they wanted to be jerks and have people just swallow it. I think the Patriots were firing back with a different view of what God had to say about who rules. How does it apply to us today? I think it is a good question. How do you reconcile your atheist views with advocating rights that were initially set forth as being given from God? That is not an attack Ed. It is an honest question? I used to be an atheist so I can relate to much of what you say. If that is not a fair question ignore it I do not want to offend you.

Posted by: King of Ireland | January 22, 2008 5:07 PM

Ed Stated;

Posted by: King of Ireland | January 22, 2008 5:10 PM

Patrick Wrote:

"This third option, the one that was widely held at the time of the Revolution and in particular by our nation's founders, presents no problem for atheists. It also lays the foundation of why even the atheist must find a moral basis for their lives, because man is a rational being and the application of reason leads us to be moral beings.

The very word moralimplies right and wrong. Who decides? Modern relativistic thinking says that it is situational. Well if it is then our rights as humans are situational. This scares me in that if they are situational then at some point someone can come and say the situation has changed and take them away. I am fairly sure inalienable in this context and at that time meant could not be taken away.

I hear your thought about Jefferson and will think about it more before I respond. But in general while I think it dangerous to do one of two things:

1. Overstate the goodness of man and not have some sort of safeguards in place to curb the dark side of human nature.

2. Overstate the depravity of man and bring cynicism to the whole situation and make people wonder why we should bother making society better.

The latter is the error in most Evangelical circles in my opinion. The former is just as dangerous to trying establish a just society. Finally, who are you saying were the Founders? It was a diverse group of people with many beliefs in my readings. I am no expert though by any means.

Posted by: King of Ireland | January 22, 2008 5:20 PM

King of Ireland said:

The very word moral implies right and wrong. Who decides? Modern relativistic thinking says that it is situational.

There are choices other than "God decides" and "It's all relative". I think it's possible to use reason and logic to decide what is moral and what isn't. I don't think God exists, and I don't practice any religion. Yet I don't run around committing crimes or causing harm. I provide for my family, and help others when I am able. Why? Because I think it's the right thing to do, not because some magical sky fairy or some book written by men tells me to. I agree that there are certain inalienable rights, and I think Patrick was right when he said we have those rights by the virtue of us being here, not because some ethereal being said so.

Posted by: Jason I. | January 22, 2008 5:47 PM

King of Ireland -

I've read most of your posts that hit this blog recently. Please consider the following advice:

1) Read Ed's blog daily and not post.
2) Start doing some serious research on your own on America's founding, history, and constitutional law.

If you haven't noticed, Ed and most of his commenters distinguish themselves on this blog by insuring their premises are sound and therefore are able to make reasoned arguments based on solid evidence. It's a great blog because Ed makes only strong arguments and his comment threads are manageable, relatively short, and with added insight.

I think you've got at least a couple years of hard work ahead of you before your capable of providing us with a perspective all of us haven't knocked down before and contributes to the individual threads that get posted rather than filling our computer screens with chaff.

There is no shame in this advice, all of us were ignorant at some point on these topics; becoming informed enough to add perspective came only through hard work, though work I personally find rewarding. I applaud your finding this blog and seeing the value of it, you'll find insight and history very few people know about, including those with formal duties requiring this level of knowledge.

One place to consider starting is to build up a library of your own, you could use my name (Mike Heath, not Michael on Amazon) and search Amazon as a starting point. I've got about 80 books I've reviewed there, many of which will provide you the history and theories you require in order to make a solid argument here (on America's founding and constitutional law, not on science). You'll also start to notice other reader reviews, where those readers are much more prolific in their reviews than I and do a better job of providing a wealth of source material to get you started.

Good luck, I hope to see pithy, unique perspectives from you in the future.

Posted by: Michael Heath | January 22, 2008 5:50 PM

Micheal Heath stated:

I've read most of your posts that hit this blog recently. Please consider the following advice:

1) Read Ed's blog daily and not post.
2) Start doing some serious research on your own on America's founding, history, and constitutional law.

and

There is no shame in this advice, all of us were ignorant at some point on these topics; becoming informed enough to add perspective came only through hard work

I am by no means an expert on these topics but to call me ignorant is inaccurate. I was a Social Studies teacher. Most of my courses, other than the Education ones, were in American History, Social Geography, and Economics. I also have been to 4 Continents and 30 states and have talked with about every kind of person there is about various subjects. I am not sure what the credentials of the people who comment on here are but I do wonder why the only one questioned is the Christian. I have seen some dribble on here that poses as sound argument and just pass it by as not to get into heated discussions. I have also seen some arguments that I thought were well thought out and made me think. Many of the questions I have asked Ed I have asked countless other in conversations I have had all over the world and to me are fair questions.

With that said, I acknowledge that I have to adjust to the blog format of media and shorten what I am trying to say. I also understand that I need to read some more about all this and am and will continue to do so. I will take your advice into consideration. You may well be right. Or you may well have no answers to the questions I pose and wish not to think about it at all.

While Ed and others here do a great job in general and I actually agree with a lot that is said, much of it is slanted and is preaching to the choir. I see very few challenge anything he says. I am trying to bring a different perspective and see where people are coming from. In doing that, Ed has gotten me to look at some things different and is affecting positive change with a person that comes from a group of people that he usually does not agree with. That is my goal as well.

Posted by: King of Ireland | January 22, 2008 6:14 PM

King of Ireland wrote:

What other choices do you feel there are to explain where we derive our rights?

I think we can make a perfectly sound non-theistic argument for the concept of unalienable rights as derived from first principles. We begin with the principle of self-ownership, that each of us owns only ourselves. All else flows logically from that axiom. Ultimately, every argument collapses down to a set of axioms and that is mine (and please do not make the argument that you can't know anything is true unless God says so - that begs the obvious question of whether God actually did say so, among many other questions).

How do you reconcile your atheist views with advocating rights that were initially set forth as being given from God?

First, I'm a deist, not an atheist; that isn't terribly relevant here, of course, but let's at least be minimally accurate. Second, I simply reach the same conclusion from a different starting point. Why should that be at all problematic? People do the same thing on virtually every issue. I know atheists who are anti-abortion; they reach the same conclusion that many Christians reach but they reach it from a different starting point. I've gone to gospel missions and served food to the homeless. The people there do it because they think God commands it; I did it because I think it's worthwhile to do. Again, similar conclusions with different starting points. I don't think that rights are derived from God because I've never seen any compelling evidence that a rights-endowing God exists. But that doesn't mean I have to jettison the notion of individual rights, I just have a different path to that conclusion. The fact that I can't claim "God says so" as the warrant for that belief means nothing to me, for one simple reason: those that do claim "God says so" as a warrant for their beliefs can't logically do so either unless they first establish that such a god exists.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 22, 2008 6:49 PM

The problem with "god decides" morality is... God doesn't decide. We do.

We decide what god to follow (or not). More precisely, we decide which human institution claiming to follow god we will follow. We, further, then decide which aspects of those human institution's rules we will actually be following, because I'm not aware of any religion where anyone follows ALL of them.

So, to anyone who demands that, say, God finds homosexuality immoral, I'm fine with that. I'm just waiting for God to tell me himself, because the Shinto gods disagree and I don't know if they're real or not either. The Bible, of course, says people wearing clothing made of two fabrics is a sin, so if the person telling you what God wants is wearing cotton-polyester, you have his permission to kill him.

Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | January 22, 2008 6:51 PM

Shawn Smith wrote- "Did you not read the rest of the Declaration? The part that states governments are instituted among men to preserve these rights? Not to grant, not to give, not to dole out as it sees fit. I would contend that we have these rights not because we are "given" them, but because we can assert them, as reasoning human beings, with the caveat that no one else's rights can be infringed upon by our actions."

And this is worth reposting because it's exactly what the Declaration means.
Whether or not an individual decides to believe in a God or not, said individual possesses inalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Just because they are human.
"Morality" is subjective and none of the government's concern. ORDER is the government's business.
"Murder is a crime" is a concept enforced by government to maintain public safety (and has existed in nearly every society regardless of the prevailing religion). "Thou shalt not kill" is a christian religious concept meant to protect the soul of the killer from grave sin.
Just because they seem to overlap doesn't mean government is deriving the intent of the law from the christian bible.

America is a big place with a diverse population. We aren't all going to agree on what is "moral". Our laws (should) follow from the idea that each is free to pursue their lives as long as they do not harm others. This was a radical idea at the time of the revolution, and it is just as radical today. It is what keeps the American idea of freedom daringly new and relevant even after 200+ years. We should do everything we can to preserve it.

Posted by: Rick R | January 22, 2008 6:55 PM

I am always amused by the argument that any non-theistic moral code is "relativistic." In fact, divine command theory is clearly relativistic. It requires you to say that anything God does or commands is moral, even if it's self-contradictory. The Bible contains many examples. God says in one place that it is immoral to punish the sons for the sins of the father, and then he goes and strikes down the child of David and Bathsheba as punishment for their sins. And if you accept divine command theory, you MUST believe that both are moral no matter how obviously contradictory. God can command in one place that you must treat your neighbors well and with hospitality and then in another place command you to slaughter them all and take their virgin daughters for yourselves as the spoils of war. Moral relativism, indeed.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 22, 2008 7:09 PM

More like moral chaos. The bible is anything but consistent. The notion of basing a civil government on it's "laws" is lunacy at best.

Posted by: Rick R | January 22, 2008 7:17 PM

Ed Stated:

"Second, I simply reach the same conclusion from a different starting point."

I will have to give this some thought. But starting point is very important. I read on here that you used to be with Youth for Christ. I was with a similar organization for a while. I was taught to go and tell them they were sinners and that Jesus saves for years. Thank God I went to China a while back and the missionaries put me under some rules. I had to be asked first before I could say anything. I learned to listen more and see where people are coming from. I thought you were crazy when I saw you on CSPAN. Now that I have bothered to try and see where you are coming from I can see your point on many things. I disagree on some things but I am a better man for having listened. I hope you do not think I came on here to give you a hard time man.

Posted by: King of Ireland | January 22, 2008 7:26 PM

Rick R Stated:

More like moral chaos. The bible is anything but consistent. The notion of basing a civil government on it's "laws" is lunacy at best.

I am not advocating at all, and have been consistent in this, using the 10 Commandments or any other part of the Biblical Law as the law of the land. I am questioning the idea of where our rights are derived? I think Ed's point about a starting point is good. I will leave it there before this delves into an evolution discussion. Maybe another time.

Posted by: King of Ireland | January 22, 2008 7:42 PM

No evolution discussion.:)

I'm swamped just trying to process Heath Ledger's death. What a tragic waste.

Posted by: Rick R | January 22, 2008 8:55 PM

King of Ireland-

I don't begrudge you your questions at all. In fact, I appreciate your willingness to consider other points of view and engage them in an honest manner.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 22, 2008 8:56 PM

Rick R:

I'm swamped just trying to process Heath Ledger's death. What a tragic waste.

I was floored when I read of his death. I happen to really, really like the guy and this makes me very sad :(

Posted by: Patrick | January 22, 2008 8:58 PM

Re Rick R

""Thou shalt not kill" is a christian religious concept meant to protect the soul of the killer from grave sin."

Excuse me, this commandment is not a Christian religious concept as it appears in the Hebrew bible. It is a Jewish concept that has been incorporated into Christian theology.

Posted by: SLC | January 23, 2008 8:43 AM

You're right, and it's a perfect example of the kinds of arguments we can expect to see if our government swallows the "Christian nation" koolaid.

Posted by: Rick R | January 23, 2008 2:26 PM