Hannity vs. Newdow

It seems the theme of most political talkshows nowadays (mainly conservative), is the "attack" of Christianity by evil atheists. As I watch these shows with some Christian friends, they all think that the person pushing for more religion in government wins, and I always think the person pushing for secularism wins.Case in point would be the recent Hannity/North vs. Newdow "debate" that was on Dec 8 on Hannity and Colmes. I personally feel that Newdow won decisively, especially after he pointed out that Hannity was lying about James Madison and about the Declaration of Independence being banned.From my perspective, Hannity and North throw out a series of red herrings and lies, and Newdow does his best to argue for his position while having to correct the lies and address the herrings.The video can be found at
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141030,00.htmlOnce on the site, click on "Take Back America" listed under Video.I'm hoping Christians and atheists alike can respond to this, in order to determine whether the perception of a debate like this is heavily influenced by one's personal bias.

I don't agree, first of all, that 'hijacking' a conversation by repeatedly interrupting constitutes a "decisive victory" for Newdow. Rather, it puts him in a light of being afraid to listen quite possibly due to a fear of losing a point on the issue. As far as red herrings go, how about when Newdow (and all other proponents of "separation of church and state" for that matter) inevitably quote the portion of the First Amendment that reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." These people are effectively changing the intent of the First Amendment to benefit them. The First Amendment actually reads: "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." How does that fit with many of the 'anti-Christian' stances being taken today? As a matter of fact, on the subject of red herrings, when Hannity alluded to the remaining portion of the First Amendment, Michael Newdow referred to it as "a separate clause" WHICH IS A LIE, A MANIPULATION OF THE TRUTH IN A FLAGRANT ATTEMPT TO BENEFIT HIMSELF IN THE ARGUMENT.BTW, if you are not already aware, the term "separation of church and state" comes not from the constitution but rather from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in reply to a letter sent to him by the Danbury Baptist Association. They had, in a nutshell, requested to him that the Constitution be worded in a way that disallowed the formation of a powerful national religion...the very thing from which they had fled England. This phrase was meant to provide the Danbury Baptist with a feeling of security in this matter, a "wall of separation" had been erected in this matter by the United States Constitution in order to protect their "free exercise thereof".As a matter of personal opinion, I believe that the Christian majority should begin quoting the First Amendment as "Congress shall make no law ...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" until the athiests begin to quote this Amendment in the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.God bless you.ckelly33This message has been edited by ckelly33, 12-18-2004 09:27 AM

What anti-Christian stances? As a Christian, I haven't seen any so far and no one has been able to show me any.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Dunno about in the states but nobody in the uk has enough interest in christianty to take any sort of stance on it.

In what way is the rest of it relevant to the discussion? Among the things Congress cannot do is make a law that establishes a religion. Since that's what we're talking about - the government establishing Christianity as the de facto national religion - I don't see how the rest of it is relevant. Certainly the free exercise clause is irrelevant; your freedom to excercise your religion doesn't include a right to make me excercise your religion, too. So, you believe that Christians need to lie in order to accomplish something that they know is against the constitution? Why do you think that's a legitimate, or even admirable, strategy?

Good grief man, where have you been looking? You seem to indicate that you have made some sort of effort to find such "anti-Christian stances" either yourself or by listening to people who have attempted to point them out to you. I find it hard to believe that you cannot see that Christians, as a group, are more and more often being singled out and ruled against. From the Ten Commandments to the nativity, Christian symbols are being disallowed from the public square. All you have to do is look for yourself, but I will give you a few examples to get you started:Recently a man (a public school teacher) was in the news for passing out literature to his students that contained references to God to his students. When one parent complained to the principal, the teacher was disallowed to provide such materials to his students EVER AGAIN. The materials he was supplying his students? All were founding documents of the United States of America! Among others, a copy of the United States Constitution and Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense' are now banned from being provided to students in this Arizona(?) school.In Missouri, when fourth-grader Raymond Raines bowed his head in prayer before his lunch in the cafeteria of Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, his teacher allegedly ordered him out of his seat, in full view of other students present, and sent him to the principal’s office. After his third such prayer "offense," little Raymond was segregated from his classmates, ridiculed for his religious beliefs, and given one week's detention.In New York, kindergartner Kayla Broadus recited the familiar and beloved prayer — "God is great, God is good. Thank you, God, for my food" — while holding hands with two students seated next to her at her snack table at her Saratoga Springs school early last year. But she was silenced and scolded by her teacher, who reported the infraction to the school’s lawyer, Gregg T. Johnson, who concluded that Kayla’s behavior was indeed a violation of the "separation of church and state." - Source: Washington Times April 12, 2002Since, I could go on and on but don't have all day, with my final example, I'll even bring it closer to home for you: Texas.On May 5, 1995, Judge Samuel B. Kent of the District Court for the Southern District of Texas mandated that any student who dared to mention the name of Jesus Christ in a graduation prayer would be sentenced to six months in jail. Here are the judge's words: "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States Marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I'm kidding about this order...[or] expressing weakness or lack of resolve in that spirit of compromise would better think again. Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."How's that for an anti-Christian stance? Apparently the judge beileves that the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech and worship, applies to everyone EXCEPT CHristians who pray in Jesus's name.As a Christian, these examples should offend you deeply and cause great concern for our future within our own country which provides for "the free exercise thereof [of religion]; 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" until the athiests begin to quote this Amendment in the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Unless, of course it does not apply to CHristians.

Crash, all parts of the United States Constitution are relevant, that is my point. You cannot take how the Constitution reads out of context and expect to be able to make a case on a snippet of what it says. All I am saying (and this addresses both points) is that IF you are going to quote the Constitution, QUOTE IT. At least finish the sentence. If you haven't noticed, the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" ends in a COMMA (,) not a period (.)! Which means, according to basic English tenets, that there is more to follow.As far as that "against the Constitution" comment, you need to read the Constitution, its Amendments and the States Bill of Rights before I will discuss it with you. Please be familiar also with the history of the revolution and the original intent of the founding documents (all Christian by the way) before you post such ridiculous claims of something being "against" the constitution. To start with, I'll clue you in on a few issues: To the founding fathers, when considering the First Amendment to the United States , being a Christian nation was a foregone conclusion (READ THE DOCUMENTS, GO BACK AND READ THE DIALOG THAT WAS TAKING PLACE AS WELL!) What they were trying to avoid was the governmental power to select a single denomination as had been done in England.

I highly doubt it, or that you've even read those documents, because (for instance) the US Constitution doesn't mention God.Absolutely no mention whatsoever. So how could he be banned from passing it out? Either your story is a fake, you've been careless about the details, or you're a liar. Sorry, but you don't have a right to make other people, like graduation students, pray in Jesus's name. Pray all you like, but you have to do it in situations where other people can bow out, if they want. A graduation ceremony is not such an occasion.But I'm glad that a few schoolkids are the best examples that you have. On the flip side, there's a hundred examples of Christians inflicting their peculiar moralism on the rest of us, whether we like it or not. For instance, the 11 states that enacted discriminatory amendments against gay persons. Or the Christians that carry out murderous terror attacks on abortion clinics. (In fact prior to 9/11 the most deadly acts of terror in this country were of Christian origin.)We've had presidents who have said that atheists can't be citizens. And god forbid (if you'll pardon the expression) that a politician be allowed to be an atheist. We barely allow Jews in public office, and I'll be damned if I can think of a Muslim or Buddist member of Congress. Excercise freely. You can, you know. But you have absolutely no right whatsoever to make me worship your god, or to live by his unique and backwards rules.

Sorry Charley.You can't even get the town right in your first example. Not even the state.So pick one example that you can document and we'll examine it. Frankly, I don't believe you will be able to find even ONE such example.Good luck.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, they're not. For instance the 3rd Amendment is completely irrelevant to this situation. It's not out of context. That's literally what the constitution says. The context doesn't change the meaning; the context isn't relevant. We are. We're quoting the relevant material. To the contrary - some of them thought this. Others, thought otherwise. Like Jefferson, who was adamant that we were not, and never had been, a Christian nation. And few of the founding fathers were Christians, incidentally. Most of them were Deists, and had a very low opinion of the religion of Jesus Christ. Which is exactly what you people are trying to do. You people are trying to establish Evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity as the national religion, and it simply won't be allowed.

I would say from personal experience that personal bias does influence how people see the outcome of debates. I think the most obvious example of this bias shaping a persons opinion is the last American presidential election. Look at how polarized the American people were in their opinions of Shrub. You could take two people and they would use diametrically opposed words to describe the same action. People will see what they want to see, it is a rare person who is unbiased enough to make an objective decision.It is like the idea of the "liberal media". I can't see it but apparently a lot of people believe it exists. It is all a question of perspective. I think it was Rrhain who said something to the effect of "the line has been pushed so far to the right that anything that seems moderate is considered liberal." His actual quote was much better but I don't have the inclination to find it right now.

It seems that according to the Perdu English department he may be correct. I could be way off base here, grammar isn't my strong suit.

quote:

---

From: OWL // Purdue Writing Lab

​

An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought.

​

A dependent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb but does not express a complete thought. A dependent clause cannot be a sentence.

---

Anyway, you say that it is a manipulation of the truth but I'm not sure how adding the rest of the sentence really changes the meaning of that "clause".

Justin, as an atheist I too thought Newdow won the debate. Personal bias or cogntive dissonance? I dont know, I just made a judgment call based on the information that was passed around in the debate.

Crash, good point. Here is a link that does show some of those eleven states that do discriminate against atheists by not allowing them to hold office (I am posting this link for people that may have never seen this before, sorry if it is already posted elsewhere in the EvC forum). Religious discrimination in state constitutions--this message didn't post the first time so if it is doubled up I again apologize--

Jar,
I placed a question mark on the state because I wasn't sure of the state, so how's this for clarification: California(!). BTW I didn't name a city, so its not true that "You can't even get the town right in your first example".I did however make a mistake when naming one of those documents as the Constitution. It was actually the Declaration of Independence. I apologize and I stand corrected. It is sometimes difficult to type without mistakes with three kids running around the house. As far as the rest of your posting "So pick one example that you can document and we'll examine it. Frankly, I don't believe you will be able to find even ONE such example. " I GAVE YOU FOUR!!!! Only one of which had an error in it which I have now responded to.CRASHFROG:
Again, you also caught my mistake (as referenced above). Your quick internet search has indeed confirmed that there is no reference to God in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence, however, mentions both God and creationism. It too is a founding document of this country and further evidence of America being founded as a Christian nation.I have no time for you guys who present no fact only strong opinion. Your opinion doesn't matter. You may believe, for instance, that slavery should be legal. However, a clear review of history and the law reveals this not to be legal, regardless of your opinion. To put this in context, CRASHFROG, you might not think that the rights to the free practice of religion pertains to school children, but I (and the law) do. You might also be under the misguided theory that my examples of Ten Commandment displays or nativity scenes were involving only schoolchildren ("But I'm glad that a few schoolkids are the best examples that you have."), but alas, you were ONCE AGAIN mistaken, a quick internet search for the names ROY MOORE or ASHLEY McKATHAN might convince you otherwise. SO much for your rebuttal.Bob Gray, as I have stated before what people tend to quote regarding the First Amaendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,". Note the comma...while I am no English lit major either, I am aware that something follows the comma, always does. What follws the comma is the following: "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." This too does not represent a complete thought because the sentence starts with "or", also meaning there is more to be said on the matter, which would leave you thinking "Or.. what?" These things must be taken together to represent a comlpete thought. They are not separate thoughts nor are they separate thoughts.I REALLY do not have time for your personal opinions in this matter, they do not apply. Nor do I have the time to catch you guys up on 225+ year old issues AND issues on current events. You guys need to study this stuff BEFORE coming here. I present fact and you guys rebut with opinion or only portions of facts, leaving off anything that might not suit you. And any facts that you guys attempt to pass (no muslims in office) I have to correct. You guys have been presented with fact (one mistake-corrected), do with it what you will. But do it as a whole, not as part...it makes all the difference. I'm moving on to a brighter forum. You guys are gonna die from anger issues.See ya.
Merry Christmas.
God Bless.This message has been edited by ckelly33, 12-18-2004 01:49 PMThis message has been edited by ckelly33, 12-18-2004 02:27 PM