Amazing VIDEO: 18 stops and 2,070 miles for traditional marriage in Illinois
September 2nd, 2011
State-Wide Tour for Traditional Marriage Meets Incredible Support in Illinois
In some areas of Chicago, there was so much supportive honking for God-ordained marriage that TFP volunteers could hardly hold a conversation on the sidewalk — really unbelievable.
Watch what the media will not show you
And at almost every stop, pro-life leaders joined the caravan.
Fighting the good fight,
John Ritchie
Tradition Family Property
Student Action Director
Do you guys realize that the more you talk about making sure civil marriage law is dictated by your view of “God-ordained marriage,” the more your cause looks like a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution?
It’s nice to hear about this, but . . . a “statewide” tour? From what I can tell from the article, the tour didn’t make any stops in the entire southern half of the state. Which is very much understandable, since at least half of the population of Illinois is in the Chicago area, with other significant pockets mostly in the northern and central parts of the state (with the Illinois portion of the St. Louis metro area being the only significant exception). But I wouldn’t call this tour “statewide” when there are people who live in Illinois who would have had to drive more than four hours (across half the length of the state) to get to the closest stop on the tour.
But I do apologize for what I’m sure is an overreaction on my part. It’s just that as a native southern Illinoisan, I have had more than my fill of the Chicago-centric attitude — which is typified by comments like referring to a tour as “statewide” when it never ventures south of Springfield. I imagine that people who live in the northern parts of New York, or in northern California (i.e., truly northern California, near Oregon) probably have similar feelings.
(Though I have to admit that I have seen worse, like people who think that “southern Illinois” means Joliet.)
Excellent video as they do a great job of protecting marriage from the attacks by homosexuals. On YouTube I watched some of the other videos, the one where the homosexuals demanded that the rainbow flag be above the American flag. The TFP student group showed bravery in going to Berkely. The intolerant homosexuals showed their true colors in the San Diego State University video.
The more marriage discrimination is associated with religious belief and bigotry, the more courts will have no choice but to strike down discriminatory marriage laws. I thank God for every amicus brief filed by a religious group, and every organization like NOM supported by religion dollars, advocating to ban gay people from marrying!
@Rob Tisinai No, Rob, it does not violate the “establishment clause.” All that says is that the government will not establish a religion as the state religion; it doesn’t say it can’t foster religious beliefs. And the intent originally, if you read a bit of history and the original documents, was that Christianity was indeed the national religion but that there was to be no national denomination as there was in Europe.
@Glenn: “And the intent originally, if you read a bit of history and the original documents, was that Christianity was indeed the national religion but that there was to be no national denomination as there was in Europe.”
Interesting assertion. Evidence, please (preferably from those original documents you mention).
@Rob Tisinai Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) in his Commentaries on the Constitution, said, “The real object of the [First] Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national, ecclesiastical establishment [being given] the exclusive patronage of the national government.”
I found it interesting that Story stated the intent of the Amendment was NOT to foster Islam or any other faith by “prostrating Christianity.” Yet this is what we see in America today, especially with the promotion of the Muslim faith.
Now, if we really want to look at the original intent of the Amendment, all we have to do is look at what the writers left behind as alternate proposals. Here are a couple for your perusal:
“[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.” George Mason (the “father of the Bill of Rights’).
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.” James Madison
It is apparent that the founders of this nation believed that the Christian faith should be fostered and considered our national faith, and the only restriction being that no denomination be favored.
Let me again cite Joseph Story: “We are not to attribute this [1st Amendment] prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence, than the framers of the Constitution)…. Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendment to it now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragements from the State…. An attempt to level all religions and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created universal disapprobation if not universal indignation.”
I suppose according to the Left, Justice Story was in error.
The James Madison quote? Nothing to do with Christianity.
The George Mason quote? Very strange that you should rely on a statement that was REJECTED. This would seem to go against your interpretation.
In fact, we can glean quite a bit by looking at what the Founders left out of the US Constitution. Many state Constitutions had clauses allowing only Christians to hold political office. The federal Constitution, however, makes no reference to Christ or Christianity at all. That was a deliberate omission! More here;
http://volokh.com/2011/03/25/islam-and-the-first-amendment/
As for your quote from Justice Story — Thomas Jefferson certainly wouldn’t have agreed with your analysis. And in fact, Justice Story himself probably wouldn’t have either. In the same book from which your draw your quote, Story also wrote:
“It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject… The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it has not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.”
You can check out more here at Dr. William Throckmorton’s site:
http://wthrockmorton.com/2011/03/23/
Not exactly correct.
The Constitution refers to Jesus Christ where it says, “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.”
It also identifies Sunday as an official non-business day for Congress, “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted…”)
You rightly note that, “Many state Constitutions had clauses allowing only Christians to hold political office.”
However, when the states ratified the U.S. Constitution it did not mean they were obligated to eliminate those clauses.
It actually meant the Constitution prevented the federal government from interfering with those clauses!
It meant each state was free to continue as a Christian state.
Note, first, that Justice Story says “the national government” was excluded from acting on the subject but that “the whole power over the subject of religion” was left to state governments.
This aligns with my point above that each state was free to continue as a Christian state after it ratified the U.S. Constitution.
Your citation about “the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition” should also be interpreted by what Justice Story said in section 1866 about three ways government can interact with religion.
Option 1: …a government affords aid to a particular religion [Christianity], and encourages all the varieties of sects belonging to it, leaving all persons free to adopt any other…
Option 2: …it creates an ecclesiastical establishment for the propagation of the doctrines of a particular sect of that religion, leaving a like freedom to all others..
Option 3:….it creates such an establishment, and excludes all persons, not belonging to it, either wholly, or in part, from any participation in the public honours, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities of the state…
In other words, the excerpt you quoted most likely meant the national government was not allowed to practice Options 2 or 3, and was left with Option 1 only.
The national government could afford aid to Christianity and encourage all the varieties of sects belonging to it, while leaving all persons free to adopt any other.
Here is the excerpt from section 1866:
Lord, almighty. You’re really counting on the expression “the year of our Lord”? That’s as valid as claiming that someone who uses the term “A.D.” is avowing their faith in Jesus.
“This aligns with my point above that each state was free to continue as a Christian state after it ratified the U.S. Constitution.” True (until the Bill of Rights was extended to include state government). Yet that does absolutely nothing to counter my point that Christianity was deliberately left out of the Constitution, and there is nothing in the Constitution that privileges Christianity.
“In other words, the excerpt you quoted most likely meant the national government was not allowed to practice Options 2 or 3, and was left with Option 1 only.”
It’s not enough to assert such a thing. You must support it with reasoning and evidence.
And bman, you can bring up as many options as you wish, but none of them alter this unambiguous statement from Justice Story:
“Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.””
This leaves NO DOUBT that he believed the First Amendment covered non-Christians — which of course is my point of contention with Glenn’s error.
Let’s not stray from the point. We can debate other items if you wish, but not until we’ve acknowledge that Glenn is wrong in saying, “Christianity was indeed the national religion.”
You know what? Here’s the Establishment clause of the First Amdendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
That’s pretty darn clear. It does not say denomination. It says religion. If the Founders meant it to say denomination, they would have used that term.
@Rob Tisinai
“You know what? Here’s the Establishment clause of the First Amdendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
That’s pretty darn clear. It does not say denomination. It says religion. If the Founders meant it to say denomination, they would have used that term.”
The Founders were the bravest of God fearing men, who risked their own lives and their families’ very existence to break free from tyranny in order to establish a state where people of all religions could pray to the God they knew exists, in whatever religious language they spoke, in order that HE could direct them in liberty, freedom and justice.
It is plainly evident that it was never their intention to establish a government of economic oppression and atheistic moral anarchy. If think you have found the legal loophole in the Constitution which will allow you to do it anyway, by all means, take your best shot. But don’t suggest that any US Citizen with an ounce of moral concience should believe that that is what the brave, holy men who established this Country “meant to say”.
“If you think….”
I notice that you have changed the subject: the subject of the video was the rude behavior of the Marriage Redefiners, and the widespread support for man/woman marriage among the average people of IL.
All the major religions hold that murder is wrong and perjury is wrong. That doesn’t prove that civil laws against murder and perjury amount to an unlawful ‘establishment’of religion. The common good of those prohibitions can be understood without specific reference to religion. Marriage as the union of a man and a woman promotes the common good, and can be understood without specific reference to any particular religion.
But you guys know that already.
@Jennifer Roback Morse
But laws against murder and perjury aren’t on the books because of religious ideology–they are on the books because of the harm to the individual caused by either prohibited behavior. There is no harm to so-called “traditional marriage” (or the individuals likely to be involved in it) by extending the rights and responsibilities of marriage to LGBT persons. Those laws against murder and perjury are not about the common good–they are about the right of the individual to be free from violent harm and to be free from false testimony against him or her. And limiting marriage to straight persons harms individual LGBT folks and our children.
However, if you insist on talking about the common good, it is certainly in the interest of society to promote monogamous long-term relationships between spouses, regardless of whether they have children or not, and regardless of whether the couple is comprised of opposite sex individuals or same sex individuals. The more we encourage individuals to take on the responsibility for another human being, the less the state need support those persons, in old age or otherwise. Stable relationships are in the interest of society and the common good.
@Heidi There is INDEED harm to real marriage, and to those who speak against homosexuality in general, when you give state sanction to same-sex unions. This has been demonstrated on this site over and over again, yet you, like Sean, pretend the evidence doesn’t exist. There is no harm to “LGBT” by denying marriage any more than there is harm to a brother and sister who want to marry or a guy who wants to marry his goat. It is the interest of society to NOT sanction harmful behaviors and to not sanction that which is unnatural. It IS in the interest of society to foster real marriage, which happens to be the bedrock of society.
@Anne: “It is plainly evident that it was never their intention to establish a government of economic oppression and atheistic moral anarchy. If think you have found the legal loophole in the Constitution which will allow you to do it anyway, by all means, take your best shot.”
Did you intend this post for someone else? Because nothing I’ve said can be construed as establishing “a government of economic oppression and atheistic moral anarchy.”
If you believe otherwise, please demonstrate by quoting what I’ve said.
@Heidi
“The more we encourage individuals to take on the responsibility for another human being, the less the state need support those persons, in old age or otherwise.”
Except that the exact opposite is what actually happens with regard to gay couples:
Sterile homosexual couples will rely on the physical and financial support of the children of heterosexual couples in their old age and infirmity.
Homosexual couples are marrying for the express purpose of procuring financial benefits for themselves at great cost to society (read: heterosexual offspring) in the way of increased insurance premiums and decreased contributions to social programs, as sterile homosexual relationships do not produce into the future generation where the burden of physical and financial care is carried.
I have mentioned my cousin before who will “marry” his boyfriend for the purpose of attending the college his boyfriend works at free of charge. You know, “marriage benefits”. Who contributes and who receives?
I know how you like to remind us that you are raising two children who will contribute to “the system”. Let’s just remember that they are both the product of “unstable” heterosexual relationships, and so, your contention that ‘stable relationships are in the best interest of society whether the couple is comprised of opposite sex or same sex individuals, really doesn’t hold up. If not for “unstable heterosexual relationships” you wouldn’t be raising any children at all.
As for stable environment, the presence of a homosexual lover isn’t part of the definition.
@Rob Tisinai
“Did you intend this post for someone else? Because nothing I’ve said can be construed as establishing “a government of economic oppression and atheistic moral anarchy.”
If you believe otherwise, please demonstrate by quoting what I’ve said.”
The post was inteneded for you Rob.
@Rob Tisinai
“In fact, we can glean quite a bit by looking at what (is) left out……..”
Atheistic moral anarchy is both the source and product of “gay marriage”. Economic oppression is necessary to implement and sustain it. (see post#18)
@Anne: “In fact, we can glean quite a bit by looking at what (is) left out……..” My point is that the First Amendment means the government should take NO POSITION on the divinity of Christ. This quote of mine had nothing to do with establishing atheism as the official government position. I have no idea why you think that’s the case.
“Economic oppression is necessary to implement and sustain it. (see post#18)”
Is it really necessary to point out that two members of the opposite sex could purely marry for economic benefits, too? Or that the taxes I pay (and the insurance deduction my employer takes from my paycheck) go to provide benefits for spouses of opposite sex couples (whether they have children or not)?
Or this:
“Atheistic moral anarchy is both the source and product of “gay marriage”. ” Mm hmm. Just like dancing, having a sip of wine, or going out in public without your burqa?
Oh, but those don’t count because they’re not part of YOUR religion. I get it. You see the world in terms of two choices: atheistic moral anarchy or a government that forces everyone to live by your the rules of YOUR religion.
Finally, this: “As for stable environment, the presence of a homosexual lover isn’t part of the definition.” That’s an unjustified, unproven, blanket denigration of every individual in an entire group of people, including the ones you’ve never met, based on a single characteristic. What’s that sort of attitude called again?
@Rob Tisinai
The three options came from Justice Story, I merely elaborated on them.
Also, your view would be “a 4th option” that you, “must support with reasoning and evidence.”
Its not like your view stands unless I prove mine first.
If anything, given the preponderance of evidence that this nation was founded on Christianity, your view is the one that is suspect, and most in doubt.
I agree it would allow persons of any religious faith to hold national office.
However, that should not be construed to mean national government was indifferent about the public support of Christianity. That is a different matter.
Its simply a case where Christianity was preferred but individuals were left free to believe as they chose even when taking office.
Most Christians believe, for example, that good moral character can be found in people of other religions, and that this would make them acceptable candidates for public service.
But that is not the same as saying the nation was meant to be secular, or that it was meant to be indifferent to promoting Christianity to its citizens, which seems to be the option you intend.
Given the mere fact virtually ever state constitution endorsed Christianity, and those same states ratified the Constitution, its unrealistic to think the states intended to create a secular nation.
My post responded to your previous claim. You had said, “the federal Constitution…makes no reference to Christ or Christianity at all.”
On that point, the claim was false. The Constitution refers to Jesus Christ where it says, “the year of our Lord. ” The reference to Sunday also implies a recognition of Christianity.
By itself, it presumes government was representing a Christian culture as opposed to a non-Christian one. Its a link in the chain of evidence that America is Christian nation.
With regard to other links in the chain of evidence, some of the strongest proof comes from the Continental Congress.
The Continental Congress authorized May 17,1776 as a day of humility, fasting, and prayer to God for obtaining forgiveness though the merits of Christ for the nation:
In December 1777 they mentioned God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost when they issued a Thanksgiving proclamation,
References with photocopies linked here
As you can infer from these excerpts, Christianity was very strongly endorsed by the government, especially when we add the fact nearly every state constitution specifically endorsed Christianity.
The Constitution privileged Christianity indirectly by leaving all power over matters of religion with the states, which were decidedly Christian.
I’m sorry, bman — what do proclamations issued in 1776 and 1777 have to with the First Amendment? Except perhaps to make it all the more clear that the authors of the First Amendment deliberately left out any mention of Christianity?
I’m not here to argue about whether many of the Founders were Christian. Many undoubtedly were. I’m here dealing with Glenn’s ludicrous claim that the First Amendment established that “Christianity was indeed the national religion but that there was to be no national denomination as there was in Europe.”
Are you saying you actually agree with him?
@Rob Tisinai
“Evidence, please (preferably from those original documents you mention).”
“It’s not enough to assert such a thing. You must support it with reasoning and evidence.”
“If you believe otherwise, please demonstrate by quoting what I’ve said.”
Your constant battle cry: “Where’s the evidence?” “Show me the proof.”
That’s not how Truth works Rob. No amount of science, history, law or quoting just the right line from just the right document proves that anything is true. The Truth is what is right and it is written in our hearts. By God, the Author of Truth. Our Founding Fathers knew where to find it: They prayed. And when they found it, they wrote it into the documents that established this Country. They knew that it was necessary that we pray to the God of Truth in order that He would guide us in our freedom.
That is why they established the Constitution: To PROTECT our right and need and obligation to pray.
You know where to find the Truth too, Rob. But you don’t want it. Atheism is what people do when they don’t want to be bound by Truth. When someone wishes that their desire were truth, they tell themselves that there is no “proof” that their desire is a lie. And there is no amount of “evidence” that will convince you of what you have already decided you don’t want to know.
But the lie you choose to live by will not change what is right. The Truth which you work so hard to deny is that after this Country removes the True intention of the Constitution in order to unbind itself from the Truth they think they don’t want to live by, they will be bound by something else. And the chaos and destruction which will inevitably result from the lie that they will have bound themselves to, will teach them first hand why the authors of the Constitution were willing to die so that they could pray.
@Anne: I’m flabbergasted. I’ve never read such impassioned, modern-day statement against reasoned, fact-based discourse in my life. I’ve never heard anyone claim that didn’t need to back up assertions about the real world with reasoning and evidence.
It’s an astonishing statement and it’s a great description of life in Dark Ages, when children died in infancy from infection and dysentery because no one understood germs, churches persecuted brilliant minds for claiming the earth revolved around the sun, the ill were bled to death by doctors trying cure them with leeches, and accused witches were drowned to determined their guilt.
It sounds like someone needs to read “Those Terrible Middle Ages” by Regine Pernoud.
As stated before, its false to say there is “no mention” of Christianity in the U.S. Constitution. It mentions “our Lord” referring to Jesus Christ, and mentions Sunday as a non-business day for government.
There is no mention of Christianity beyond that, but that simply raises the “why” question. It does not prove why.
What, then, “do proclamations issued in 1776 and 1777 have to with the First Amendment?”
They help eliminate some of the “why” options such as you might imply, and they help establish Option 1 as the most reasonable option.
I agree with Glenn’s position as he stated it,
What he describes is the same thing Joseph Story described in Option 1.
As for your statement, however, it misrepresents Glenn’s position.
Compare your statement next to his:
Glenn’s actual view: “…government will not establish a religion as the state religion..”
RT’s version of Glenn’s statement: “…the First Amendment established that “Christianity was indeed the national religion…”
As all can see, there is a world of difference between what Glenn said, and your version of what he said.
That is called, “the strawman fallacy.”
It occurs when you set up your own version of the opponent’s position and then knock it down.
So, it would seem, you have been arguing against your own straw man, and not what Glenn actually said.
That’s an interesting perspective bman, and it may be true. I’ll have to admit that it’s hard to get a clear idea of what Glenn means when he says the authors of the Constitution said the government will not establish a state religion and also intended the First Amendment to regard Christianity as the national religion.
Actually, bman, now that I think of it, you focused on what you call “Glenn’s actual view”, you kind of gave short shrift to this part of Glenn’s quote: “the intent originally, if you read a bit of history and the original documents, was that Christianity was indeed the national religion”
Anyway, it was wrong of me to ascribe such definite sentiments to Glenn based on such a confused and contradictory statement.
@Rob Tisinai
“I’ve never read such impassioned, modern-day statement against reasoned, fact-based discourse in my life.”
I didn’t say I was opposed to reasoned fact-based discourse. I said it doesn’t prove what is true. And it doesn’t.
“It’s an astonishing statement and it’s a great description of life in Dark Ages, when children died in infancy from infection and dysentery because no one understood germs, churches persecuted brilliant minds for claiming the earth revolved around the sun, the ill were bled to death by doctors trying cure them with leeches, and accused witches were drowned to determined their guilt.”
Do you mean to say that technology and knowledge have propelled humanity to a superior age? Are the attrocities of the modern day: communism, atomic weapons, holocosts, terrorist attacks, AIDS, child slavery, child pornography, abortion, drug addiction…..somehow superior to those produced of the naivete of the Middle Ages?
Do you mean to say that while I’ve had my head foolishly bowed down in prayer that the battle of good vs. evil has been resolved? Who won?
@Rob Tisinai
Even here Glenn never said “the First Amendment” established his point.
Rather, he appealed to “history” and “original documents” [draft versions of the Constitution] for his support.
Sorry, bman, but he was replying to my statement about the Establishment Clause, and used that term in his reply, and gave us his opinion of what the Establishment Clause says and what its intent was.
And the Establishment Clause is, as I’m sure you know, part of the First Amendment.
@Anne: Right, because disease, tyranny, slavery, abortion, and addiction didn’t exist in the Middle Ages? Uh huh.
Really, Anne, you can’t dismiss my request for evidence and reasoning, and then claim you’re a fan of reason-based discourse. It’s impossible — by definition — to have a rational discussion with someone who is dismissive of simple requests for evidence and reasoning.
@Rob Tisinai
“I’ve never read such impassioned, modern-day statement against reasoned, fact-based discourse in my life. I’ve never heard anyone claim that didn’t need to back up assertions about the real world with reasoning and evidence.”
I think your comment might be another example of what bman refers to as a “stawman argument” in light of the fact that its not what I actually said.
With regard to your concerns for “fact-based discours” and the “need to back up assertions….with reasoning and evidence”:
The “FACT” of the matter is that the Authors of the Constitution prayed and practiced religion. That is a VERY significant piece of “EVIDENCE” in establishing what their intent was with regard to prayer and religion in their newly established government. It is a piece of evidence which you consistently ignore in your alleged to be “fact-based discourse”.
When participants in discourse disregard the presence of evidence and facts, they render them irrelevant and the practice reduces the discourse to mere chatter.
The consistency with which you dismiss facts and evidence presented which challenge your position, begs the question,: Who is it really that is “against reasoned evidence and fact based discourse”?
Personally, I’m all for reasoned evidence and fact based discourse. But the greatest of all sources of reason and fact still lies with Him who created it. And is still most accessible through the greatest of all discourse: Prayer.
Afterall, that’s where the geniuses who you keep quoting (The Founding Fathers) got theirs from.
Anne, snark aside, what you said is “No amount of science, history, or law proves that anything is true. The Truth is what is right and it is written in our hearts.”
That’s a pretty broad interpretation of truth, with no stable ground beneath it. What is written in your heart is clearly not the same as what is written in mine, and yet I would imagine we both believe with all our heart in our own truths.
Did you ever read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn? There’s this one chapter in it that reminds me of you, and of this argument of yours for “Truth.” The main character, Francie Nolan, a school girl from a poor neighborhood and a poor family, writes stories about her alcoholic father who is also charming and charismatic and wonderful, in his way. The girl’s teacher is angry with her for writing these ugly stories and quotes to her, “Truth is beauty, and beauty truth…”
That’s pretty much what you’re saying, it seems, but it has no more basis in reality than the teacher’s disregard for Francie’s truth, for Francie’s stories and histories.
Well that’s just not true. The Bible is a great source for a lot of things, but historical fact isn’t one of them. Not many historians (and definitely not many scientists) base their findings solely on the Bible. The Bible contains statements which may or may not be true, but they haven’t been verified to the extent as other historical sources.
@Spunky
“The Bible is a great source for a lot of things, but historical fact isn’t one of them.”
I didn’t say Bible. I said Prayer.
@Emma
“What is written in your heart is clearly not the same as what is written in mine, and yet I would imagine we both believe with all our heart in our own truths.”
Truth is not what we believe. And its not relative. Its what God tells us when we are ready to hear it whether we like it or not.
Prayer is not something I read about once, Emma. Its what I do when life drives me to my knees because the world has no answer.
““Truth is beauty, and beauty truth…”
That’s pretty much what you’re saying, it seems”
I didn’t say anything like that. Truth does lead to beauty. But the road is rough.
“but it has no more basis in reality than the teacher’s disregard for Francie’s truth, for Francie’s stories and histories.”
Prayer would have Francie’s father on his knees asking God what he should do. And of course the answer (Truth) would be, “Stop drinking and tend to your daughter”. (As opposed to the lie he tells himself that ‘he’s a consenting adult and has the Constitutional right to drink if he chooses and who is anyone else to tell him that his daughter isn’t doing just fine’.)
Prayer would have the teacher asking God with an open heart how to best help Francie. Instead, she decided for herself and moved to action without considering what was really going on. That is self justification. Not selfless love.
The prayer of love is the prayer of abandoment. We let go of our selfish desires for the sake of what is right, and then we find the fulfillment we were made for.
God will grant us the wisdom we desire when we ask Him with sincerity on behalf of people we are called to love. He doesn’t ever lie to us. But if we insist on what we want instead of what is right, we impose the lies we want to live on the people we are supposed to love.
“Anne: “The Truth is what is right and it is written in our hearts.”
Emma: “That’s a pretty broad interpretation of truth,”
Actully Emma, its quite narrow. The Truth is written in our hearts. The broad interpretation is that you can actually find it in law or history or science. They can help if you let them. But when you turn to the world without your heart, they will send you far and wide on a journey to nowhere.
Anne’s post was actually recommending prayer.
The principle is also found in the Bible, of course.
Anne’s post means we can all turn to prayer so that God can lead us to the truth.
Even if those who doubt the Bible can pray to God for truth.
@Anne
“The “FACT” of the matter is that the Authors of the Constitution prayed and practiced religion. That is a VERY significant piece of “EVIDENCE” in establishing what their intent was with regard to prayer and religion in their newly established government. It is a piece of evidence which you consistently ignore in your alleged to be “fact-based discourse”.”
@Rob Tisinai
“Really, Anne [Rob], you can’t dismiss my request for [reference to] evidence and reasoning, and then claim you’re a fan of reason-based discourse. It’s impossible — by definition — to have a rational discussion with someone who is dismissive of simple requests for [specific examples of] evidence and reasoning.”
Amen Rob.
@Anne
@bman
Sorry guys, I misread.
@Rob Tisinai
Yes, Glenn was replying to your statement about the Establishment Clause, but you are still not making a proper distinction.
Glenn’s first comment was this: “All that says is that the government will not establish a religion as the state religion; it doesn’t say it can’t foster religious beliefs.”
There, he clearly states the first amendment prevented the [national] government from establishing a state religion, contra your version of what he said.
In Glenn’s second comment he said, “…the intent originally, if you read a bit of history and the original documents, was that Christianity was indeed the national religion but that there was to be no national denomination as there was in Europe….”
Here, the word “indeed’ simply means Christianity was “indeed” the national religion as a matter of historical fact at that time.
It does not mean the First Amendment “indeed”established that. It means it was “indeed” a fact already, but what the first amendment did was prevent Congress from “establishing” a central church as England had done.
The Massachusetts case faced a similar issue.
The state constitution said, “the reversal of a judicial decision” was not permitted to the voter initiative process.
Gay activists tried to use that clause in court to stop a voter initiative on marriage that would reverse the Goodridge case.
The court, however, rejected their argument by referring to an earlier court ruling that based the meaning on the original intent before the edit occurred:
And so, the court essentially took the same approach Glenn did above.
It used the original intent prior to an edit to interpret the meaning of the edit, rather than use the edit to reject the original intent.