Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
I wonder if Mr. Darby's effort is not redundant. Do we not already have the ACLU, ABA and the three branches of our national government which are, de facto, operating atheists? Just wondering...John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com and Recovering Republican...Also, an interviewer of Mr. Darby re: the Roy Moore case, the audio of which may soon be posted on our page... ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
By saying, carefully, that the ACLU, ABA and the three branches of our national government are “de facto, operating” atheists I sought to head off the type of response below. Oh, well….So, please, let me, briefly, elaborate on what I meant by interspersing my comments among the comments of Ed Brayton. Thank you. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com. Mr. Brayton: I cannot let this go by without comment. I simply know too many members of the ACLU and the ABA who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or another faith to buy the argument that these are de facto atheist organizations. Comment: Saying someone is a “de facto, operating” atheist means, of course, that it doesn’t matter what this individual says he is. What matters is how this person, in fact, operates. For example, most public school teachers are, personally, probably some kind of Christian. But, this does not mean the public schools are Christian. They are de facto, operationally, atheist. In addition, according to my faith, Biblical Christianity, Old and New Testaments, Jesus says it is by one’s fruits, actions, that one is known, not by what one simply says. Mr. Brayton: Taking a strong policy on separation of church and state, as the ACLU does (sometimes too strong, in my view, but that's another matter), does not require that one be an atheist. Comment: True. But, as the old joke goes, paraphrased for this context: You don’t have to be an atheist to believe what the ACLU believes re: church-state, but it helps. Mr. Brayton: There is no atheist position on such questions, in fact, as you will also find atheists who favor an accomodationist view or even seek to have government endorse religion (Allan Bloom is one prominent example, as are many of his fellow Straussians). Comment: Of course there are de facto, operating “atheist positions” on such questions – by which I mean Godless positions, positions which leave out entirely and ignore the God of the Bible and His Word. Mr. Brayton: As for the three branches of our national government being atheist...I am tempted to denounce this as utter nonsense, but Prof. Volokh would no doubt say that's not being collegial enough for this list. But once in a while, you come across a statement that is so absurd that it would be perverse to pretend that it's not; I would politely suggest that this is one of them. Comment: Well, let’s see, please, if what I said is “utter nonsense” or “absurd.” In the New Testament, in Romans 13, 1-8, God tells us the purpose of civil government. It’s powers are ordained of God and our rulers are to be ministers of His Law. Do any of our three branches of national government acknowledge this verbally or actually strive to do God’s Will through applying His Word? No. Mr. Brayton: Can you name an atheist in Congress? If you can, I doubt you can name more than a handful. No one openly atheist could get elected in America or stay in office for long, for reasons Prof. Volokh spelled out yesterday based on public opinion polls. Our government is run almost exclusively by theists, mostly of the Christian variety, and has for a very long time. Comment: Not talking about anyone “openly atheist” but rather de facto, operational atheists. That being the case, I would say that virtually every member of Congress – de facto, operationally – is, in terms of their works, an atheist. I may, however, be wrong. Tell me, please, who in Congress says he believes about civil government what Romans 13:1-8 says and he acts like he believes this? When was the last time you heard a member of Congress oppose or endorse anything because it was against or in conformity to God’s view of civil government? Our government may, indeed, be run almost exclusively by “theists,” mostly Christians. But they are “Christian” in name only. We do not have a Christian government. Why? Because the so-called “faith” of these “Christians” is not applied to their works. And this means their “Christian/theistic” faith is DEAD because Scripture says a “faith” which produces no “works” is dead, no faith. Finally, a footnote on my use of the word “atheist.” It is my not really Biblically accurate shorthand for an unbeliever, meaning one who is not a Bible-believing (OT NT) Christian. St. Paul, in Romans 1:18ff, makes it clear that ALL men know there is a God; some worship Him, others don’t and hold down this truth (that there is a God) in unrighteousness. Thus, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an “atheist” – meaning a person who really believes there is no God. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Re: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
This sounds chillingly like the Stalinist insistence that people deserved to be purged because they were objectively counter-revolutionary. And serves handily for labeling whoever the speaker has decided to dislike as objectively fascist or objectively racist, or perhaps even objectively Christian. Mr. Brayton: I cannot let this go by without comment. I simply know too many members of the ACLU and the ABA who are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or another faith to buy the argument that these are de facto atheist organizations. Comment: Saying someone is a âde facto, operatingâ atheist means, of course, that it doesnât matter what this individual says he is. What matters is how this person, in fact, operates. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
In a message dated 12/13/05 2:42:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: St. Paul, in Romans 1:18ff, makes it clear that ALL men know there is a God; some worship Him, others don’t and hold down this truth (that there is a God) in unrighteousness. Thus, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an “atheist” – meaning a person who really believes there is no God. Yes; as many atheists have long understood, no one *really* believes in God, many people just think they believe that. :) Art Spitzer (ACLU) (does not believe himself to be an atheist) ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
Hi, In one sense, John Lofton's notion of operational atheism has much more to it than meets the eye. Consider, for example, the views of Radical Orthodox Christian theologians (e.g., John Milbank) and some other important post-liberal contemporary Christian thinkers (e.g., Stanley Hauerwas) who tend to take the view that much of modernity, including the underpinnings of our social science, the basis of our economic system, and the assumptions of our political theory, are profoundly at odds with the world-view of the Bible. If you're looking for an uncompromising, religiously-inspired, critique of the operational assumptions of our government and society, this is it. Significantly, though, these thinkers are _not_ sympathetic to the so-called religious right. To the contrary, they tend to find much of the religious right agenda to be either beside the point or perniciously Constantinian. Moreover, to the extent that they have public policy views (though they dislike the term), they tend to focus on issues such as justice for the poor (and skepticism about capitalism) or, in Hauerwas's case, an uncompromising opposition to war. So, at the end of the day, Ed Brayton is also profoundly right to point out that staunch religious believers can end up taking what might, in crude shorthand, be called the ACLU position on many of the issues that divide us, while proud atheists (including many neoconservatives) can easily take what might loosely be called the anti-ACLU position. The interesting question, though, is why this is, at least in popular discourse, so little noticed and appreciated. Perry *** Perry Dane Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law -- Camden 217 North Fifth Street Camden, NJ 08102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/bio/925/ Work: (856) 225-6004 Fax: (856) 969-7924 Home: (610) 896-5702 *** ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment: Well, let’s see, please, if what I said is “utter nonsense” or “absurd.” In the New Testament, in Romans 13, 1-8, God tells us the purpose of civil government. It’s powers are ordained of God and our rulers are to be ministers of His Law. Do any of our three branches of national government acknowledge this verbally or actually strive to do God’s Will through applying His Word? No. I'm sorry, I had no idea I was dealing with someone who thinks that any government that is not explicitly theocratic is de facto atheist. Had I known that, I wouldn't have bothered to attempt to dissuade you of your views. And thank God (ironically) that so many other Christians (I mean de facto atheists) don't agree with you in that regard. Take care. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Hmmm, Atheist Law Center, Eh?
I appreciate Prof. Dane's serious response to what I wrote. And, for-the-record, I would like to say that although I am a Bible-believing, Calvinistic, postmillennialst, I (we) are very critical of the so-called Religious Right because most of their leaders are Republican Party cheerleaders and not first,Christian, leaders. See, please, our Mission Statement. May God bless us all -- as He does when we obey Him. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
