Re: Stealth attack on evolution

In reply to Ted:

1. I preface these remarks by quoting from Jefferson:

"Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We are all Republicans. We are all Federalists."

Ted: "... to state or imply that what he supports now is really very similar to what he supported then, is IMO to state falsehoods."

I hope I did not state such as "fact." I may be wrong. But so far I have not found any reason to suspect so.

Ted: "I trust my friends and the Time article more than I
trust Americans United for the Separation of Church and State."

I confess that while I once studied AUSCS some, that was (gasp) 40 years ago, and I have not followed them since then. I had assumed they were a reputable source.

Ted: "...you will note that Ahmanson is also funding Diane Knippers ... She's in no way a theonomist. She does however believe that she has a right to try to let her religious values and beliefs influence public policy."

I know little of Knippers, except that she appears to be trying to split a church over what I consider to be a secondary issue. How she brings that into the public square I just have no idea.

Here, perhaps, is the rub. A person wishes to have some coercive law passed. The reasoning and arguments for passing that law are all religious. In this case, is the person acting morally to argue (religiously) for that law? Or does he or she have the obligation to find secular arguments?

I wrestle with that question myself. I read an entire ethics book last year (don't recall the title) on the subject. It did not persuade me one way or another.

Ted: That's the part that AUSCS simply cannot tolerate, and why I
am not sympathetic with them. They want what Richard John Neuhaus calls a naked public square."

If their argument counters those of Stephen Carter, I probably agree with you. This is one I guess I'll have to research a bit.

Ted: "To be frank, AUSCS would probably take a similar tone in talking about me, ... I support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage,... ."

Let's focus on that one. Do you support it only on religious grounds, or do you have secular arguments for it?

I personally do not support it -- my reasons are similar to those of John McCain (which are secular). I think there are religious reasons to oppose it also, but thats another story.

Ted: "The public airwaves are IMO full of demogoguery on both ends of the political spectrum. And truth is IMO very often the chief loser, along with the general public welfare."

We certainly agree on that! Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore, to name two. You may be interested in the book LIGHTNING MAN, the accursed life of Sauel F. B. Morse. He falls into that category, and it made life miserable for him and many others. My review of it (just submitted to PERSPECTIVES) is at www.burgy.50megs.com/morse.htm.

Ted: "My best to you, Burgy, I know you have to put up with a lot of extreme stuff right where you live."

Yeah. But that is true of many people in many areas. Southwestern Colorado is really pretty laid back.

Ted: "... please at least give the guy the opportunity to change his mind."

Like John Newton did, I expect some public acknowledgement of that. I'm still looking.

best

JB

___________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!
Received on Thu Feb 10 17:55:54 2005