Stephen wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:05 PM:The UDHR is based on the American Declaration of Independence. Both documents contain the words life, liberty, etc. The only differences are (a) that the Declaration of Independence says who gave us those rights and (b) that it is o.k. to overthrow the government if it abuses them.

3D wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:44 PM:Excellent letter from John Terrell, noting with respect the difference between those who accept the Bible metaphorically and those who insist that it be interpreted literally.
He accurately notes that the latter is rationally not possible because of its many internal inconsistencies and contradictions, as well as its many factual errors and failed prophecies that have been noted on other occasions.
Terrell's comments are especially appropriate juxtaposed alongside those of Irvin Forbing, who continues to make points that do not support his conclusions.
I like also the letter from Alexandra Cloney, who notes that it is not necessary to choose between a belief in god and recognizing the science of evolution. Theistic evolution can be made to be rationally plausible, although the theistic (god-controlled) aspect is not quantifiable, replicable or measurable, so cannot be consider part of science, though is not necessarily ruled out by science.

Conservative-1 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 5:31 PM:Edward Karlson suggests that were we to "get God out of politics," we should really begin to see "the Holy Spirit" begin to move. Let me add a modicum of historical precedent to Mr. Karlson's argument: Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh were all successful in ridding their nation's politics of any and all reference to God. They did so knowing deep within their hearts that it was the only way to ensure that their subjects would live happily ever after. Thank you sir, for the cogent reminder!

3D wrote on Mar 21, 2008 5:47 PM:Conservative-1 at 5:31 p.m. makes the absurd comparison that because a number of dictators (who all also agreed that the world is round and revolves around the sun) separated religion from government, therefore it is wrong (they also agreed the sun rises in the east).
What Concerned-1 fails to note is who else wanted to separate public policy (government) from private matters (religion).
Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Thomas Paine also felt that religion and government should be separate, and crafted the official founding legal document of this nation - the Constitution - which completely separated government and religion.
Essentially, Conservative-1 equates dictators with our Founding Fathers. He should be ashamed of himself.
In the meantime, he does not explain why he believes public policy should dictate private matters.
Get the government off private citizens' backs!

Conservative-1 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:20 PM:3D has an extraordinarily vivid, almost child-like, imagination and one that has piqued my curiosity, to say the least. If you would be so kind, 3D, as to permit me to ask a few rhetorical questions: From whence, pray tell, did you learn that the tyrannical atheist dictators I mentioned agreed that the sun rises in the east? Which Article of the Constitution or Amendment thereto completely separates government from religion? Where in my commentary did I “equate” dictators with our Founding Fathers or state that “public policy should dictate private matters?” You need not further dissemble nor attempt to salvage the straw man you created. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

John wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:09 PM:to 3D, re post of 3/21 4:44 PM, Thanks for the kind words.
Re post of 3/21, 5:47 PM; Excellent rebuttal. I'd like to add (I'm not sure if I've said this before), the essence of politics is the art of compromise. But no one should ever compromise their moral beliefs--whether or not founded in religion. I think our Founding Fathers understood that. Also, I find it interesting that Conservatives argue for limited government, but ultra-Conservatives are all for legislating morality, which would only add to the size and cost of government. As it is, Our federal government has more than enough matters--secular matters--to deal with. Regards.

John wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:33 PM:Forbing says "Our creation cannot be piecemeal". But he doesn't explain why. He gives a fair description of complexity, followed by this totally inaccurate depiction of evolution: "Evolution says this was piecemeal; one beneficial mutation saved at a time." He is still bogged down in Darwinism. He needs to come into the 21st century and the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution, which includes Population Genetics and Horizontal Gene Transfer. In the early stages of life, billions of bacteria didn't just sit around waiting foe one to have a beneficial mutation: mutation and gene transfer were taking place throughout the population, and as evolution proceeded,and sexual reproduction was added, the speed of gene diversification was further accelerated.

John wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:45 PM:Re: Closed minds can't be changed. Shari Land has missed the point of our letters and blogging defending evolution. We don't expect to change the minds of Creation Science proponents. What we can do is point out erroneous statements Creationists make about evolution and, for those of religious persuasion, to show them that religious belief and acceptance of evolution as a scientific theory are compatible.

Ruminator wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:47 PM:____TO JOHN & DAVE: I'm on the road (with an awkward and unfamiliar setup) but I was able to read your letters. The clarity, thoughtfulness, and relevance of both were greatly appreciated. Nicely done!

Liberal+ wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:27 PM:Conservative-1 at 6:20 p.m. asks which article of the Constitution completely separates government from religion.
Of course, the obvious is the First Amendment, but it is much deeper than that.
The core of the Constitution is that the entire original document never once mentions god or religion, other than to prohibit religious tests for holding office (Article VI).
By leaving religion (private) out of government (public) the intent was made clear.
Conservative-1 has it completely backward.
If he wishes to demonstrate a contrary intent by the Founders, let him cite his reference.
The absence of any such reference is the proof of the neutrality.

Liberal2 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 2:46 AM:Well said Liberal+
Many people don't 'get' it in regards to the intent of the founders. They attempt to influence policy by falsely claiming that religion should be involved in government per the founders and the Constitution. Some even say that all thought it is not explicit, it is implied. Wouldn't that be tantamount to reading the founders minds? Others want to amend the Constitution to include reference to religion, which I think is wrong. There is no need for it as no one is prevented from practicing their chosen religion freely. My objection is when their free practice involves harassment of others who don't believe or those who believe something different. That's where I draw the line. Otherwise I really don't care what anyone believes and the world would be a better place if others did the same.

Ruminator wrote on Mar 22, 2008 6:49 AM:____TO JOHN: RE: "Shari Land has missed the point of our letters and blogging defending evolution. We don't expect to change the minds of Creation Science proponents."

That's the one thing in this week's letters that most agitated me. She doesn't seem to understand that this isn't about 'believing' in evolution, it's about defending science from a political threat.

I'm torn between responding to her and waiting for a creationist to respond to my last letter, which was a setup to lead them into their wacky explanation of the fossil record.

Of this world wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:42 AM:During the history of humans on this planet, approx 20,000 'gods' have been created by man. Not the other way round. When you die your body rots and turns to dust. Your spirit doesn't go to some make-believe place. Be a good person during your life and make the most of it.

Kevin wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:37 PM:It’s hard for me to comprehend, why people can’t understand that our rights are “inalienable” natural rights, which “no man” has a right to usurp. This applies to everyone’s rights regardless of any belief in a higher power.

When we give governments comprised of men the authority to deprive people of these rights, that's when we create false Gods of men. I guess that’s why they like to prance around in those ridiculous black robes.

Anyone who wants to keep their freedom needs to see their rights as “inalienable without reservation” or get used to the idea of being a slave. Belief in a higher power has absolutely nothing to do with it.

John wrote on Mar 22, 2008 3:18 PM:I’m pleased by the lively response prompted by the Letters of Edward Karlson and Cy Chadley. Current efforts, primarily by the Evangelical Right, to get religion taught as science in our public schools and to sponsor legislation of morality are disquieting, to say the least. Did anyone see or hear Mike Huckabee's outrageous proposal to modify the Constitution? He said:...what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards..." You can see/hear it in context on youtube: Google "Mike Huckabee: Amend the Constitution" and select the youtube entry. I'm no scholar of the Constitution, but I believe Huckabee's proposal would have our Founding Fathers spinning in their graves. Regards.

John wrote on Mar 22, 2008 3:31 PM: to Ruminator, re post of 3/22 6:49 AM. I share your frustration. I had e-mailed a request to the Letters Editor to disregard my letter (above) and instead use my three for one rebuttal, which I submitted with my request. For whatever reason, that didn't happen: it may be things were too hectic and disrupted by their upgrade efforts. So now I have a letter pending that won't get printed for at least two more weeks. Regards.

Expat Doug wrote on Mar 23, 2008 2:28 AM:I would love to see God in politics, because maybe She could straighten the whole mess out.

Unfortunately what we are forced to deal with, is not God in politics, but religion or theology in politics.

This leaves us with bickering between denominations. We are forced to endure statements like, "Those Mormons are a cult," or, "The nerve of those Catholics praying for intervention from the saints, or from the Mother of Jesus."

Americans spend too much time building walls by defining just who is a "Real Christian", a "Real American," a "Real Patriot," even a "Real Conservative (or Liberal, or Republican, or Democrat).

I don't claim to be a religous man, but I am a believer in the Bible. However, I don't demand that everyone believe percisely as I do.

If we can't decide amongst ourselves just who God is, I would settle for just some morality in politics.

Ruminator wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:15 PM:____TO JOHN: If you want to make a change to a letter, you can call Pattie Leipert directly. I don't have her number with me but it should be on the contacts page.

John wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:28 PM: to Expat Doug, re post of 3/23, 2:28 AM: Well said! It is unfortunate, but true, that religion has been extremely divisive. And it seems that those who make it so divisive are the same ones who are so intent on interjecting their brand of religion into politics. Regards.

To Liberal + wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:48 PM:You failed to comprehend the dripping sarcasm of Conservative-1's riposte to 3D's fantastic extrapolations. As he stated, the questions asked were rhetorical. Interestingly enough, you responded to them and, as was to be expected, you asserted that old saw that the First Amendment "completely
separates government from religion." The First Amendment does nothing of the kind. Its intent was and remains a proscription against the "establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The wording is unambiguous. The land from whence the founders came had an established religion, the Anglican Church. Several colonies likewise had established religions. The founders intent was to ensure our absolute freedom of choice wherein religion was concerned. You, my friend, are the one who has it backwards.

Liberal+1 wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:38 PM:In response to the comments addressed to me at 4:48 p.m.:
I stand by my previous remarks.
You are the one who continues to have it backward.
As I said, the complete omission of all references to religion in the original Constitution (other than to prohibit any religious test or qualification for office) confirms the intent of the framers to keep the new government 100% apart from religion.
Your comment that some states had "official" religions is correct. The First Amendment says CONGRESS and an additional Amendment specifying states was rejected. The fact remains that the Federal government was to keep its hands completely out of religion, which was left to the states or to the people.
With the later passage of the 14th Amendment and the application of Federal rights to the States, the various protections of the Bill of Rights that had originally applied only to Congress and the Federal government were applied also to the states.
Complete neutrality means just that. Leave private, personal matters such as religion to the people and stay the heck out of such matters, and let the government deal with matters of public policy.
Why do you have more trust in politicians to manage your faith than in your church, synagogue, mosque, temple or religious officials?

John wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:49 AM:Re First Amendment: I understand the prohibition against a state sponsored church, but I wonder what our Founding Fathers would have thought about a church sponsored state, or a de facto (as opposed to de jure) state church? Regards.