ACLU fights Commandments in Tennessee
Posted on January 14, 2006
Via WND
In the wake of major decisions on public display of the Ten Commandments, the American Civil Liberties Union is asking a federal court to order removal of a Tennessee courthouse exhibit.
“The posting of the Ten Commandments sends the message that only certain believers can receive justice at the courthouse,” said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of ACLU of Tennessee.
The ACLU filed the motion yesterday in U.S. District Court.
Weinberg said “residents should not be made to feel like second class citizens because they do not hold the prevailing religious beliefs promoted by the county government.”
The display in Rutherford County was approved by a 16-5 vote of the county commission in April 2002, but two months later, federal court Judge Robert Echols issued a preliminary injunction removing it.
The decision was stayed, however, pending a decision on similar cases in two Kentucky counties, McCreary and Mercer.
In each of the counties, the Ten Commandments is displayed among historical documents. The Rutherford County display includes copies of the preamble to the Tennessee Constitution, the National Motto, the National Anthem, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the United States Constitution and the Mayflower Compact.
Last June, the Supreme Court in a split 5-4 decision upheld a preliminary injunction against McCreary County because the court said the prior history of the county’s evolving display suggested a religious purpose. However, the court permitted the case to return to the trial court for a final ruling.
In the meantime, Dec. 20, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court to which the Rutherford County case will be appealed, upheld Mercer County’s identical display.
That court scolded the ACLU, rejecting its “repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’”
“This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome,” the court said. “The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”
Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which represents all three counties, notes it also defeated the ACLU in defense of a similar display in Elkhart County, Indiana, before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I believe the tide is turning on the ACLU in the area of ten commandment cases. The “seperation of Church and State” argument has grown tiresome, and hopefully more judges will start ruling on what the Consitution really says, and not what revisionist have twisted it to say.
Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel believes that with Judge Samuel Alito’s expected confirmation to the Supreme Court, “the ACLU can no longer count on the High Court to further their agenda.”
I hope he is right. I’m tired of the ACLU trying to secularize our history.
SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU
Linked at Point Five
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News, Supreme Court
Trackback URL
Comments
18 Responses to “ACLU fights Commandments in Tennessee”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
So they are suing the same court in the same county raising the same case that they already lost?
Sounds like they are resorting to simply raising the cost to keep it there by making them keep fighting.
‘Should not be made to feel’ is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.
If the ACLU wins and is able to remove the Commandments from the court house, then it world be saying that atheism is not the “official” religion.
“The ’seperation of Church and State’ argument has grown tiresome…”
I suppose that’s one way to acknowledge the fact that the ACLU and the SCOTUS continue to pursue and hand down decisions reflecting that church-state separation is both desirable and constitutional. You sound like the deluded creationists who warble about “Darwinism” being in its death throes, apparently believing that the more they say it, the more likely this fallacy is to become true.
“I’m tired of the ACLU trying to secularize our history.”
The ACLU is probably tired of Christians propagating the myth that their role in American history is unique and overarching. (Well, that it is — just not from a positive viewpoint.) I don’t give a flip if the Ten Commandments are posted in courthouses (where I never spend time), but I can understand why others object. And anyone who thinks that the Commandments have any direct bearing on U.S. law is an imbecile. I’ve never heard of anyone being jailed for fashioning a golden calf and dedicating it to God.
“‘Should not be made to feel’ is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.”
Interestingly, Christians don’t embrace this credo when the tables are turned and someone is mocking Christianity (e.g., Penn & Teller’s “Bullsh*t!” show). Evidently it’s okay for Christians to perpetrate all sorts of idiotic nonsense that offends others, but not okay for people to strike back, even when using humor and not the court system.
Like I said: Christians are the biggest hypocrites on God’s green earth. Look at the “Michigan” post: The same decerebrate dingbats ever complaining of “communism” are more than happy to police people’s bedrooms. Losers.
The ACLU is probably tired of Christians propagating the myth that their role in American history is unique and overarching.
I would say that people that make a claim like that have no idea what so ever what the history of this nation is. Our laws come from the Ten Commandments. Christianity played a major role in the founding of this nation. Check out the link
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html
“Our laws come from the Ten Commandments.”
Christy, where do you live? I ask only because I want to be sure to avoid this place that apparently imprisons people — or puts them to death — for worshipping the wrong god, making graven images (including statues and crosses in churches), taking the Lord’s name in vain, lying, adultery, failing to honor abusive parents, coveting their neighbors’ animals, spouses and slaves, and working on Saturday.
Laws against murder and theft are intuitive in any functioning society and can hardly be construed as being divine in origin.
“Christianity played a major role in the founding of this nation.”
That’s an intriguing claim, given that neither Christianity nor Christ are given a single mention in the Constitution. Kinda makes you question the founders’ dedication to Jesus, especially in concert with their scorn for all things blending sectarian faith and government, eh?
“church-separation is both desirable and Constitutional.”
Sure. That’s why separation of church and state are not in the Constitution. I guess that’s why the guys that actually penned the Constitution sat by and watched as 10 Commandment displays were placed everywhere.
“Christians don’t embrace this credo”
Sure we do. We don’t protest someone’s right to mock us. Telling us its illegal to practice our religion publicly when the Constitution says otherwise is definitely worthy of protest. What you can’t stand is that the liberal viewpoint in the debate obviously doesn’t have one leg to stand on.
“Christianity nor Christ are given a single mention in the Constitution.”
No, but God is mentioned quite a bit in documents like the Declaration of Independance, the document that this country was truly founded on. Its funny, in all these fedaral documents “God” pops up quite a bit, as opposed to “In the year of our Lord Physics.”
“scorn for all things blending sectarian faith and government, eh?”
Like Ben Franklin’s advocation for teaching in PUBLIC school the “necassity of a public religion, and the excellance of Christianity above all others.” Yeah that sounds like scorn. Oh wait. Forgot who I was talking to. “Excellance” in science means good and bad at the same time. What does Ben know anyway? Dumb Christian scientist discovering electricity, inventing daylight savings time…
“can hardly be construed as being divine in origin.”
Sure they can. Not murdering isn’t exactly something that is a natural way of life that we’re all born with. Plently of humans think murder is okay. (abortionists for example) Without an absolute authority, no human can claim an absolute right and wrong because one human’s stance is no more authorative than the next. (Unless you believe our ape ancestors taught Adam and Eve do’s and don’ts.
“Plently of humans think murder is okay. (abortionists for example)”
Right. Abortion is murder — termination of the life of a human being with malice aforethrought. Well, except for the “human” and “life” and “malice aforethought” parts.
The founders’ god that’s mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is not your god. They made this abundantly clear. You should read Thomas Paine’s “Age of Reason,” a titillating and excoriating treatise on Christianity and the Bible.
Also, Ben Franklin was demonstrably not a Christian. His views, like those of many of his well-known contemporaries, were those of a Deist. He believed in a humane god, not the [edited] entity cooked up by Christians. To wit, from his biographer:
“He escaped the theology of terror, and became forever incapable of worshiping a jealous, revengeful, and vindictive God” (Life of Franklin, Vol. i., p. 71).
So your quote-mining jamboree once again has gotten you nowhere. (Oh, and Franklin did not “discover” electricity — not by a long shot. He did a lot of valuable experimentation with it, but that ain’t quote the same thing.)
But really, it doesn’t matter so much what men who lived 230 years ago believed (they thought that a slave was worth only 60% of a person, for example); what matters is how the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the First Amendment in recent times. It’s amusing that you would propose that I “can’t stand” that “the liberal viewpoint in the debate obviously doesn’t have one leg to stand on” when it’s the Christian supremacists who are constantly whining about being unfairly smacked down in the courts by liberal activist judges. I like what’s being down with “the liberal viewpoint” just fine.
“‘Excellance’ in science means good and bad at the same time.”
I’m sure you believe as much. To someone who is utterly addled by anything more complex than basic arithmetic, I’m sure something can occupy two opposing states simultaneously. Hey, you’ve stumbled upon something useful –quantum stupidity! “Necassity”…”excellance”…”Independance”…the beat goes on.
“Without an absolute authority, no human can claim an absolute right and wrong because one human’s stance is no more authorative than the next.”
No, some people are more authoritative than others. For example, based on your meandering thought processes, inability to analyze even the simplest imformation presented, and third-grade writing skills, I strongly suspect you have been coded as LD (learning disabled). Therefore, your ideas concerning morality (and everything else) are not as valid as those of someone of above-average or even average intelligence.
Regardless, the idea that morals spring from deities can plainly, even trivially, be shown to be false, but I don’t want to explode your head by delving into superficial logic.
I see. Talk a lot of trash, and say absolutely nothing. Now, try again: explain to me where morals come from, if not a higher authority, and why if its all natural, isn’t everyone born with the same morals.
By the way, I’m sorry I can’t analyze imformation, but I don’t know what imformation is. Lot of typing errors there. Must have pissed you off pretty good to get you typing that fast.
Please don’t quote Thomas Paine without refering to his belief that science should be taught as theology, because it attempts to explain what cannot be proven. Nice try.
“Now, try again: explain to me where morals come from, if not a higher authority, and why if its all natural, isn’t everyone born with the same morals.”
Well, genius, let’s start with the fact that the claim that everyone is born with the same morals is the bailiwick of those who think morals are god-given, not those who understand that they are learned. So right off the bat you’re facing in the wrong direction.
Stable societies derive their own moral standards; otherwise they wouldn’t be stable. Humans are not the only animals that recognize that rampant killing, plundering and general chaos run contrary to the stability of any ecosystem, although we, unlike other animals, do so consciously.
From an evolutionary standpoint, how fruitful would it be in terms of species survival and DNA propagation for species members to kill one another off with aplomb before they can reproduce? Surely even you can get your mind around that one.
Ask yourself this: If morals are god-given, why do gods apparently decide that, for example, killing is bad and “love” is good? Gods must have reasons for establishing such guidelines, meaning that some things are simply inherently “good” and others are not. In other words, gods can be nothing but brokers or messangers in terms of morality. Evidently, all they do is inform their eager servants of what is intrinsically true. In other words, even all-powerful deities cannot arbitrarily design moral frameworks. Thus the notion of a “higher authority” is clearly useless.
Let’s assume that god suddenly made it clear that killing, theft, and adultery were all morally good. Do you really think all of its devout followers would adopt this backward system without hesitation? Obviously not, and the reasons are clear (think back to what I wrote about animal communities if you still don’t get it). And if you claim that gods would never do such a thing, all you’re doing is reinforcing the fact that certain acts are understood by civilized human beings to be fundamentally amoral. Attaching deities to this is superfluous at best (as demonstrated here, it adds nothing but a middleman) and ridiculous at worst. Assigning credit to gods for the morals developed by human societies is simply one more retrospective and groundless manner in which believers with no evidence for their object of worship attempt to strengthen the notion that such objects are real, when they are clearly nothing more than outcroppings of human psychology.
Then there’s the issue of the great many amoral people out there: kiddie rapers, serial murderers, murderous robbers and pepetrators of other heinous solecisms. In a world in which people are allegedly assigned morals by an all-knowing, all-powerful god, why do these morals fail to stick to so many, and better yet, why do atheists behave no more immorally (you can check the stats) than do supposed believers? America’s prisons are chock-full of born-agains, who in the penal system far outnumber the godless. And don’t throw in any garbage about Communist Russia or the Nazis — those were nothing more than religious societies in which the object of worship was the state itself instead of a skygod; free thought and critical thinking, the hallmarks of genuine atheists, were not exactly encouraged, given that they meant trips to the gulag and worse.
“By the way, I’m sorry I can’t analyze imformation, but I don’t know what imformation is. Lot of typing errors there.”
You can’t tell information from imformation anyway. And this from someone who not only makes a slew of typos with every long-winded bleat, but plainly can’t spell or form coherent sentences, and loves accusing the other guy of talking trash and saying nothing? Another irony meter bites the dust. Here’s another couple of typos for yuo to mailgn so that you dont have to adress any isseus.
“Please don’t quote Thomas Paine without refering to his belief that science should be taught as theology, because it attempts to explain what cannot be proven. Nice try.”
I didn’t quote Paine, I referenced one of his works, oh bastion of keen observation and attention to detail. But you’ve again got it backward. What Paine said was that science was *the* true theology — that the only path to understanding God (a different god than yours, to be sure) was through the pursuit of scientific knowledge:
“That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology…It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God.”
Since Christians of your ilk reject science outright as the purview of atheistic charlatans and liberal muckrakers (you said yourself that biology as a whole is a crock, a statement that still has me chortling), I highly doubt he would claim to have anything in common with the religious stances of the fundagelical Christians of today’s America. In fact, he wrote:
“As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of Atheism — a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness.”
Not exactly a guy you’d want in your corner, eh?
Thus Paine was, like Franklin before him, a Deist with a rabid distaste for Christianity (see again “Age of Reason”). It’s amazing what sort of misperceptions can arise from a less-than-nimble mind imbued with ample wishful thinking.
Also, I noticed that you quickly abandoned your Ben-Franklin-as-Christian stance. What a surprise it is to see you doing your own scaled-down version of the Gish gallop.
No, I didn’t abandon any stance, I just don’t prattle. Paine was a deist. It makes no difference. He believed in a god, so referencing him in an attempt to show how neutral he was to religion is still bunk. Ben was not a deist, Ben openly accepted the deity of Christ, while Paine ane Jefferson rejected it.
As to the rest of your long, meandering post: That doesn’t answer my question. You just basically said that morals are both natural and cultural. Sorry. That doesn’t cut it.
Then there’s this:
“the claim that everyone is born with the same morals is the bailwick of those who think morals are god-given,”
Well genius, no Christian doctrine anywhere states this, so I guess you’re trying to twist it around. I was not born to believe in loving my neighbor as myself. I was taught that in the Bible. Its not that you’re wrong, but that you’re trying to paint Christianity as saying something that it does not. Not even close.
“why do these morals fail to stick to so many?”
Because God doesn’t brainwash, or supercede man’s will. People have a choice. That is what separates us from the animals. God wants us to love Him. Love is a choice. Not a warm fuzzy emotion. Those come and go. Which would make you feel more loved by your wife: “Honey, I’m so in love with you I can’t help myself.” Or “Honey, you annoy me, you’ve failed me over and over again, but with all your imperfections and flaws I CHOOSE to love you and dedicate my life to your happiness.”
“why do atheists behave no more immorally than do supposed believers?”
Believers and atheists all sin alike, and though I admit there is a form of Christianity that tries to rub your nose in their rightousness, all are guilty. The only difference between me and you spiritually is that I’m forgiven. It is not about do’s and do not’s. God isn’t sitting up in Heaven with a calculator counting sins waiting to pull the plug. Bad morals will not keep us from Heaven. Sadly, good morals won’t get us in. Jesus Christ allows us that. There is no other way. Truth is narrow.
“killing is bad and love is good.”
Lets take love then. The Bible says God is love. Where does love come from if not from God? Human love is meaningless and empty, because it is conditional. There is always a line, no matter how far, that people cannot cross. Look at marriage. Even some of the strongest marriages can’t withstand adultery. (One reason why when I get my license the vows will be love, honor, and FORGIVE.) We are not creatures of instinct, we are creatures with choices. You made the statement that morals are learned, and you’re right. But if we are just creatures like any other why can’t animals tell right from wrong? Sure they can be trained through positive and negative reinforcement. Bash a dog in the head when he bites peopleand he’ll stop. But he won’t understand WHY its bad to bite people. Morals are not just about doing one’s duty to avoid consequence, its obeying laws that no one enforces, and swearing an oath that no one else hears. (That sounds rather poetic) Animals are also not capable of love. Everything, even the care of offspring is strictly instinct. Has anyone ever observed a female bear with cubs just get fed up with her life and walk away from them? Has a pregnant cow ever decided to kill the calf she knew was growing inside? No. They can’t make that choice. We can choose good and we can choose evil. Love, being unconditional and self-sacrificing, is not something we are born with, because it is not natural to put one’s needs in front of our own.
Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.” 2 Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.” 3
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine’s Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”; 4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine’s work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”; 5 John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; 6 and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine’s work. 7 Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine’s work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.” 8
When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine’s work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?” 9 Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” 10 John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine’s attack,“I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.” 11 In fact, Paine’s views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains. 12
Endnotes
1. Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1840), Vol.X, pp. 281-2.
2. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles Little and James Brown, 1841), Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.
3. William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), Vol. III, pp. 372-373, to Thomas Paine on November 30, 1802.
4. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. II, p. 770, to John Dickinson on February 16, 1796.
5. Joseph Gurn, Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: P. J. Kennedy & Sons, 1932), p. 203.
6. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), Vol. III, p. 24, n. 2, from “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men,” delivered at Princeton on May 17, 1776.
7. Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), pp. xii-xiv, from the prefatory remarks to his daughter, Mrs. Susan V. Bradford.
8. S. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry of Virginia (Auburn and Buffalo: Miller, Orton and Mulligan, 1854), p. 250, to his daughter Betsy on August 20, 1796; see also, George Morgan, Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1929), p. 366 n; and Bishop William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1857), Vol. II, p. 12.
9. John E. O’Conner, William Paterson: Lawyer and Statesman (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1979), p. 244, from a Fourth of July Oration in 1798.
10. Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), Vol. II, pp. 323-324.
11. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833) Vol. II, p. 266, to the Rev. Uzal Ogden on February 14, 1796.
12. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Thomas Paine.”
In light of your past comments, I can see why you would refer to “Age of Reason”.
Paine was a Deist but he did not fit into the irreligious category, which is the usual portrayal.
apostle,
“Ben openly accepted the deity of Christ, while Paine ane Jefferson rejected it.”
“Jefferson’s religious thoughts are well-documented. As he fought the battles of dogmatic, sectarian divisiveness, one can find religious quotations both positive and negative… They reveal both his dislike of sectarianism, as well as his love for what he considered the pure doctrines of Jesus:”
“To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others.” 27
27. Bergh, Writings of Jefferson, Vol. X, p.380, letter to Benjamin Rush on April 21, 1803.
“But the greatest of all the reformers of the depraved religion of His own country, was Jesus of Nazareth.”28
28. Bergh, Writings of Jefferson, Vol. XIV, p.220, letter to William Short on October 31, 1819.
And Ben Franklin was not a Christian.
Franklin knew quite well the value of Christianity to society. In the context of teaching history to the youth of Philadelphia, he said:
History will also afford the frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion, from its usefulness to the public; the advantage of a religious character among private persons; the mischiefs of superstition, &c. and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern. 18
This is not to say that Franklin was a Christian; he did not believe in the divinity of Christ. This is easily documented. However, he was well aware of the utility of religion in general and Christianity specifically.
18. Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1749), p. 22.
* apostle: So you agree that morals are learned, passed along from generation to generation and sometimes derived loosely from a religious text assembled by human beings, who in turn learned their own morals from other people.
If morals were god-given and hence absolute, we might still keep slaves, rape would be fine and dandy, and it would be okay for old men to have sex with teenage girls, including family members (like Lot). All of these things and worse occur in the Bible.
I don’t disagree that humans are more intelligent than other animals, and can hence place labels on the reasons why they choose to act as they do. It’s just that the claim that gods are responsible is spurious as well as arrogant.
* lobo: I’m not sure what you’re trying to convey. I’m well aware that Paine’s writings earned him a great deal of scorn and outrage, just as Richard Dawkins and others with the temerity to highlight the failings of religion draw the ire of fundagelicals today. I was merely demonstrating for apostle’s benefit what his attitude toward Christianity was.
“Paine was a Deist but he did not fit into the irreligious category, which is the usual portrayal.”
I would hope you wouldn’t find many people who would simultaneously identify Paine as a Deist and claim he was irreligious. The point, again, and made in light of the never-ending “America’s-founders-were-heaty-Christians” canard, is that he wasn’t a Christian. As for Franklin, I’m sure you’d agree that if he lived today, contemporary fundamentalists would howl with outrage over his take on Jesus, while he would be aghast at their steady interference with progress and their efforts to use Christ as a frequent means of fomenting hatred toward others.
“All of these and worse occur in the Bible.”
People try this all the time. It never gets old. First, God in no passage of Scripture stated or demonstrated that rape was fine. Lot was raped by his daughters, and I’m assuming that because its not spelled out for you that God punished them, that you think He condoned it. This would be valid except God’s law was not established to man until He established Israel as a nation, which is why we don’t read about lying being wrong in Genesis either. Comparing slavery in the OT is always being compared to slavery of blacks in America and that is like comparing apples and oranges. Slaves in the OT were paid, and were not slaves for life. Not to mention that God had strict instructions on their treatment. (Though it is noteworthy that they were allowed to hit their slaves if they got out of line. But then, you could hit anyone that got out of line)
As far as sex with teenage girls go, men and women BOTH were getting married at a very young age sometimes. Humans hit puberty around 12-13 (still do) and they could get married. Man in his infinite wisdom decided they were not mature enough until 18, and God is chuckling at that one. There are many things that happen in the Bible that seem gross or horrible, but that’s like saying an encyclopedia should be rated R because it describes past wars. Don’t get me wrong, you make some good points, but saying the Bible advocated the type of immorality you are describing is totally inaccurate.
Please don’t attempt to backpeddle. You were not trying to refute Ben’s Christianity, the debate was over whether or not our country was founded on Chrisitan principles. I’m well aware of the disdain some of our forefathers had for the CHURCH (difference between love for Jesus and His church.)but that in no way refutes the original point. While some were not Christian, they all (including Paine and Franklin) agreed that the Bible gave the most wisdom and that Christian principles were the best foundation for a free country.
“Please don’t attempt to backpeddle. You were not trying to refute Ben’s Christianity, the debate was over whether or not our country was founded on Chrisitan principles.”
No back-pedaling required. My main point was and is that if the founders intended for Christianity to predominate in government, they would have not stated exactly the opposite in the (notably Jesus-free) Constitution.
As far as the claim that our nation is rooted in Christian principles goes, it’s spurious. To hear some tell it, Christianity is the only religion or identity espousing moral precepts which are in fact common to many if not most world religions. One might just as easily say that the country’s origins lie in secular humanism (which is fundamentally more just and humanistic than Christianity is), given that the values (the worthwhile ones, anyway) are the same and there’s no need to invoke imaginary observers and puppeteers.