Trying to respond to all three of you in one post caused some confusion on my part.

The portion following {This feeds into Roger’s argument} was meant as a response to Roger alone.

You’ll notice that I suggested that the “preferentialist position” (supposedly held by the founders) is “revisionism at its finest.”

Doug Phillips doesn’t have a place in this conversation. Based on what I’ve read, I wouldn’t dare make such a comparison. And again from what I’ve read, clearly Roger’s views fall somewhere between those of Richard John Neuhaus and David Barton – and both reader from a “new revised standard version of the Constitution” to quote my favorite Baptist separationist. Barton’s arguments are far less convincing than Neuhaus since he’s been caught playing loose with the facts on many occasions.

“It won’t be a pretty picture. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and a pluralistic nation with no clear set of values nor underlying moral code is a nation at war with itself.”

With that statement Roger sounds more like Neuhaus who proposes that government and those in the public must be guided by a “transcendent point of reference.” As someone who along with SCOTUS endorses “strict neutrality,” I disagree with Neuhaus and Roger. I’m not an originalist either. It is often impossible to determine the original intent of the Founders on many issues.

I think Roger’s question concerning explosive pluralism and the future of our country is very important. My solution is that Christians need to become more committed to evangelism and social justice (both since they are but different sides of the same missional coin). Keep government out of religion but elect men and women to serve who will enact compassionate policies. I’d like to see some real compassionate conservatism for once….

To invoke Christian revisionist history in this thread is a stretch. What has been suggested is nothing akin to David Barton or Doug Phillips and is in my opinion a boogeyman. No one here is suggesting that God is seen in every jot and tittle of the founding documents.

We do recognize God was certainly involved in the founding of our country, as so many of the Fathers were believers in God (deists) but not necessarily Christians. That will and indeed should influence legislation and I think that is no more than what Bernard and others are suggesting.

“I hear your preferentialist position. But, even with a few more strict constructionist judges, the Court is not going to roll back 50 years of precedent and adopt what you say the founders advocated (which I believe is revisionist history at its finest). Even if you are correct concerning original intent, do you honestly believe that the founders could have foreseen the explosive pluralism that America is experiencing? I don’t.”

If so, please re-read my post. I did not mention “intent of the founders”, but if this is revisionist history, you and I have very little in common.

You’re also dodging the point on my Muslim analogy. I’m not referring to the personhood question – I’m talking about the taking of life. My position is that a fetus is a living human being, and this is based on science, not on emotion. It is clarified by my understanding of the Bible. As a result of believing the fetus is a living human being, I believe that it is clearly the job of the government – regardless of the religious belief of the mother – to protect that fetus. The mother’s freedom of religion, as guaranteed by the constitution, does not extend to the right to terminate the life of another living human being. The comparison, to be very clear is this – the Muslim extremist, regardless of his religious beliefs, does not have the right to terminate the life of another living human being. Whether or not the Muslim believes that person is a person or not is similarly irrelevant.

Whether or not the mother BELIEVES the fetus is alive is not the question. If the fetus is alive, it doesn’t matter what the mother believes or what her religious preferences are. Since no one has convinced me that the fetus is not alive, I maintain that no mother has the right to take her child’s life.

I am in no way revisionist in my history. Please don’t accuse me of that. That’s a straw man argument at its best.

If abortion becomes illegal throughout this country, and those laws are based upon my definition of personhood, that will not make those laws religious laws.

Law determines personhood and rights. Law is influenced by the convictions of those who make it. Currently, our courts have determined that the rights of the mother exceed the rights of the pre-born child. That is no different than the belief of Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. Hutus believed they were superior to the Tutsis. As a result of their tribal religious beliefs, they slaughtered tens of thousands of Tutsis. Sounds like a woman’s right to choose.

If our courts determine that a pre-born child is a person, and that abortion robs the pre-born of rights guaranteed by our constitution, that may be from a religious or non-religious viewpoint. However, making abortion illegal by defining the pre-born as individuals is not the establishment of religion. The current law making abortion legal is supported by religious belief, but that does not make it a religious law.

Much of what is taught in public primary, secondary, and higher education is against my religious belief system. The curriculum used discourages the discussion of intelligent design, and bans the dicussion of the validity of creationism. It is a direct affront to my religious freedom, and if children from our church disagree with evolution they suffer reduced grades in school. No provision is made for their religious beliefs whent it comes to their public education. So, even though I am taxed, my children are homeschooled.

If abortion become illegal, those seeking abortion will, as they have in the past, seek abortions in different countries. That is their choice, but it does nothing to dictate their religious beliefs. It will simply be the law of the land, regardless of its possible support in various theological systems.

Oh that all babies within the supposed shelter of a mother’s womb could shout these words in the halls of Congress. selahV

Cyle…you are always my hero in topics of this nature.

Tony…thanks so much for opening this vein of discussion. Your post and your responses are worth reading to me.

BDW…you are such a tiger. But I kinda like the great white hunters in our safari on this one. selahV

One Nation Under God is a motto, but hardly “merely” a motto. It is on all of our currency and even atheists have it in their wallets! The fact is that the Declaration of Independence recognized the existence of a Creator and so have many, many documents and actions of our government since. In fact, the first act of Congress was to purchase bibles for schools! An irreligious person still has the same rights as a religious person, but in my opinion, does not have the right to commandeer the process and remove religious books from prisons, prayers from football games, or chaplains from the military. We are pluralistic, but we are religious, and the great majority of those who are religious are Christian. Of course this affects our thinking, our legislation and our governance.

In answer to your question, “do you honestly believe that the founders could have foreseen the explosive pluralism that America is experiencing?”, no, I don’t. But so what? I don’t think they would have written up the Constitution any differently if they had.

But the real question for me is “will our current leaders foresee where that explosive pluralism will take us?” It won’t be a pretty picture. A house divided against itself cannot stand, and a pluralistic nation with no clear set of values nor underlying moral code is a nation at war with itself.

If your religion says that government should not interfere with religion. Does that mean its appropriate for government to enact into law a policy that adopts one sect’s definition of personhood?

You just can’t argue that “regardless of your definition of personhood…it is a person.” Obviously, using your definition, an embryo is a person. But, that’s using only your definition.

I don’t necessarily support Roe as it is. I regard abortion as only possibly permissible in very limited circumstances. And I’m not sure that I buy the religious liberty argument found in Roe – I just wanted to hear a response. But even if Roe was overturned tomorrow, abortion would still be legal in a majority of the states. That’s another reason why I propose reducing the number of abortions through the legislative branch.

Bernard,

I don’t agree with your premise. Obviously, Judeo-Christian thought has influenced American society since our founding. But only three of the Commandments (killing, stealing, false witness – 3 out of 10 is most?) correspond to elements of American law. And the substance of those Commandments were already enacted into English common law many many years before England was Christianized. As a Christian, I recognize the religious significance of the Decalogue. But I do not recognize their legal or secular significance.

I don’t quite get your Muslim analogy. Muslim terrorists do indeed desire to kill infidels. But those same terrorists recognize the personhood of the infidels. They just don’t respect non-Muslims as fellow human beings also made in the image of God.

Your acknowledgment that there are governmental limits on the free exercise of religion definitely makes for a strong argument. We could cite the outlawing of polygamy in Reynolds to bolster that argument against Roe.

This feeds into Roger’s argument. Based on current church-state jurisprudence, the Constitution must remain neutral on the subject of religion. Government can not prefer one religion or over another. If a compelling state interest does exist, government can limit the free exercise rights of individuals. We don’t allow folks to smoke pot as a religious ceremony due to drug laws, etc. “One nation under God” is merely a motto. The Court has ruled that the Free Exercise Clause means both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. In cases such as Welsh and Seeger, SCOTUS has recognized that an irreligious person holds the same rights under the First Amendment as one who is religious. While we may be a nation of monotheistic people, our government has and must remain neutral on religion in general. We have a Buddhist in Congress currently. I voted for him in his victory over Cynthia McKinney. He retains the same rights under the Constitution as I do.

I hear your preferentialist position. But, even with a few more strict constructionist judges, the Court is not going to roll back 50 years of precedent and adopt what you say the founders advocated (which I believe is revisionist history at its finest). Even if you are correct concerning original intent, do you honestly believe that the founders could have foreseen the explosive pluralism that America is experiencing? I don’t.

I just spent an hour with an oilman. He’s helping a landowner sell an oil and gas lease to a large company. There’s some glitch in the title and so the company is stalling. It’s really interesting that they won’t buy it without clear title, but there is currently no oil and gas production on the property. Their just buying the rights becuase they think there is oil and gas. They’re spending good money on the potential of the property, not on the property itself. They may or may not hit oil or gas when they drill.

I’d say the potential for a zygote to become a human being is pretty good. Once we are talking about abortion, the zygote is at least six weeks old. There is certainly no possibility that it will become a monkey, a dog, or a fish. It’s potential is fully human. It may not thrive, but the potential is there.

Regardless of your definition of personhood, it is a person. It is simply a person that has not yet breathed air. Even when a person is medically dead and has been declared legally dead, their rights are still respected. They have a will and that will is protected by the laws of our land. We do that because their will has been expressed. We cannot know the will of the zygote, embryo or fetus. If that person were already born, and that person was two years old without parents or guardians, our legal system would appoint legal representation to preserve the well-being of that person (child). When it comes to the pre-born person, we have decided that a mother has the right to rob the pre-born of all legal rights and even to the right to life.