Planning this series has been quite a task, but a necessary one. The idea of "the separation of church and state" has been a hot button issue for me for a long time. And the more I learn, the more irritated I become. So irritated, in fact, that I feel the need to speak out.
As you follow along with me, please know this is not an attempt to shove religion down anybody's throat. I still maintain that each person has a right to his/her beliefs. Nobody should be forced into any religious practice. However, I also believe nobody should be denied his right to his religion. And that's where the problem is.
The supposed demand for the "separation of church and state" is to blame. That phrase is listed nowhere in the United States Constitution, and it is certainly not implied by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, that phrase is tossed around as if it is absolute truth.
When I consider the reasoning used by the Supreme Court in their decisions of cases involving religious matters, I wonder what our Founding Fathers would say. However, more than two hundred years have passed since they wrote the Constitution, and the men responsible for this document that Americans consider to be the law of the land cannot defend their positions or their decisions. Thankfully there are many documents we can look to, and we should look to them.
As you follow along with me, please know this is not an attempt to shove religion down anybody's throat. I still maintain that each person has a right to his/her beliefs. Nobody should be forced into any religious practice. However, I also believe nobody should be denied his right to his religion. And that's where the problem is.
The supposed demand for the "separation of church and state" is to blame. That phrase is listed nowhere in the United States Constitution, and it is certainly not implied by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, that phrase is tossed around as if it is absolute truth.
When I consider the reasoning used by the Supreme Court in their decisions of cases involving religious matters, I wonder what our Founding Fathers would say. However, more than two hundred years have passed since they wrote the Constitution, and the men responsible for this document that Americans consider to be the law of the land cannot defend their positions or their decisions. Thankfully there are many documents we can look to, and we should look to them.
This is the beginning of my First Amendment series. Specifically, I will be discussing the the first portion of the amendment, which deals with religion. My purpose in writing this is mainly to share the knowledge I have gained regarding the intent of our Founding Fathers when they framed the United States Constitution.
Over the next several weeks, I will be sharing what I have learned about our nation’s history. This series is meant to be educational, and I hope you will find it to be so. Whenever possible, I will include links so you can verify the information I give. If none are available, I will let you know where I obtained the information. Two books that inspired me to take this stand are America's Providential History and Original Intent. Needless to say, you will see references to both those books.
A new essay will be posted each Friday of the week. I hope you'll follow along.
Coming next Friday... 1. The First Amendment
Do you realize that the two books upon which you propose to found your series have been panned by many critics and scholars as thoroughly flawed--notoriously so?
ReplyDeleteAs revealed by the meticulous analysis of Chris Rodda and many others, zealotry more than fact shapes their "work," which is riddled with slipshod research, shoddy analysis, and downright dishonesty. See Chris Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History (2006) (available free on line http://www.liarsforjesus.com/); http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Should-Christians-Trust-David-Barton-John-Fea-05-11-2011.html; http://www.amazon.com/review/R8DF0VPVN26J1/ref=cm_cr_dp_title/189-4321714-1721340?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1887456007&nodeID=283155&store=books. The irony is that, by knowingly, repeatedly resorting to lies, these would-be champions of a religious right version of history reveals his fears that the real facts fall short of making his case. Indeed, their own lying is perhaps the best evidence that their overall thesis is wrong.
I am aware that there are critics of both those works, but I cannot claim to have known how "notoriously flawed" critics and scholars view those works to be. I do find that interesting, and I did a quick search to find some of those criticisms. However, I was not able to find any. That doesn't mean they aren't there, it just means I need to take more time to locate them.
ReplyDeleteI would like to point out that I was interested in findng a few books that oppose my view, but there wasn't even one book at the bookstore I usually go to. So thank you for the recommendation of LIARS FOR JESUS. I will look that up.
Additionally, I would like to point out that my opinion was formed long before I read either of the books (or even heard about them or their authors), which is why I was interested in reading them when I heard about them. But there is a danger in reading a book and assuming it is true. To say my blog series is founded upon the two books is inaccurate. Was I inspired? Yes. Were they my starting point? Yes. And I feel people ought to know that. I did not stop with those two books, though. One thing that's great about Barton's ORIGINAL INTENT is the number of sources cited which, if a person is willing to take the time, can search for, review, and form his/her own conclusion.
That's the whole point of my series. I do not expect or even want people to accept what I say as truth. I want them to consider what I have to say, do their own research, and form their own conclusions. If at the end of their research their conclusion is different from mine, great. At least then they'll have taken the time to form their own ideas rather than listen to everyone else's.