I can't believe this, Christian idiocy and dishonesty just keeps on rolling! John Freshwater's defense called a witness named Dave Daubenmire to testify; Brother Daubenmire was previously sued for not being able to separate his religious views and his job responsibilities (much like Freshwater), though he was cleared of "most" of the charges.
As if that isn't bad enough, check out what Daubenmire has to say about the case:
“The foundation of our country is Christian,” Daubenmire said. “It is a religion, but atheism is a religion and secular humanism is a religion and they are taught in school.”
Source: http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/09/10/29/daubenmire-testifies-at-freshwater-hearing
What planet does this man live on? I won't waste time debunking his false claim about the foundation of our nation, I will just move onto the parts that makes me want to mail him a dictionary and a new brain -- evidently his don't work.
Atheism is not a religion. At all. Not by any stretch of the imagination. It can't be a religion, it lacks the critical elements: Gods, the supernatural, faith, and beliefs. Atheism is simply a response to someone's claims about Gods, or the supernatural. Atheism is about as much a religion as Daubenmire is honest.
Same goes for Secular Humanism, it's not anything close to a religion (again lacking the criteria). Furthermore, one can simply Google the terms and read for themselves how incredibly wrong Daubenmire is. Once again, the faithful have demonstrated to us all that reality and religion are incompatible. They really make this too easy at times; they build their own cases against themselves.
This caliber of propaganda is truly outstanding, I would rank this kind of lying in the same echelon as Joseph Goebbels' work. It seems that Daubenmire and the former Nazi official have more than politicized lying in common; they share the same religion too.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
More Freshwater...
Posts
2 comments:
Parabola said “What planet does this man live on? I won't waste time debunking his false claim about the foundation of our nation”
Although you don’t agree with Daubenmire’s characterization of the founding of our country, would you agree that religious belief did play a significant role in our history?
The United States Supreme Court said, in Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) : “It is true that religion has been closely identified with our history and government. As we said in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 434 (1962), ‘The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion. […]’ In Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952), we gave specific recognition to the proposition that ‘[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.’ The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself. […] It can be truly said, therefore, that today, as in the beginning, our national life reflects a religious people who, in the words of Madison, are ‘earnestly praying, as . . . in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe . . . guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing . . . .]’”
Parabola said, “Same goes for Secular Humanism, it's not anything close to a religion (again lacking the criteria).”
The United States Supreme Court, also in Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), expressed a different view: “[T]he State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.’ […] [R]efusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at the least, as government support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.”
If your argument is that religion has played a role, I agree. That does not, however, make us a nation based upon the role played by one of our religions. Liberalism played significant role in our history, does that make us a Liberal nation? No, it makes us a nation that adopted some of the ideas of Liberals, as well as other political ideologies. Since white people have also played a significant role, does that make us a white nation? You see where I'm going with this.
As for the Secular Humanism issue, You find yourself off target. From your own post:
‘...preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.’
Seems straight forward enough to me. A clear distinction between the religious, and those without religion. I couldn't agree with the SC more.
Check out the websites, read the wiki, compare dictionary definitions. They will help clarify the issue; SH/H is a philosophy, not a religion.
Post a Comment