Monday, August 11, 2003


In addition, the defense that both Jefferson and Madison gave of the right to religious liberty depends crucially on a specifically Jewish and Christian concept of God. Theirs is not a Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim concept, let alone the concept of God in Aristotle or Plato, Kant or Leibniz. It is the concept of a God who reads our intentions, hearts, and consciences, not just our outward behavior. This God demands to be worshiped in spirit and in truth. This God singles us out one by one, and renders the arena in which He meets the individual conscience sacred.
That's Robert Novak in National Review concerning the Pryor-controversy. So what the Founding Fathers meant to say was:
Congress shall make laws establishing the morality of Christianity and Judaism, prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] by Muslims, Hindus and Buddhist.
That's scary. I wonder what Novak thinks the 2nd amendment says. What Novak is saying is that Judaism and Christianity are morally superior than any other religion. At least, that's what our Founding Fathers meant, right?

Thomas Jefferson wrote in his autobiography
"The bill for establishing religious freedom... I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read 'a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.' The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."
Don't tell Osama. I think it might piss him of even more.

(Thanks to good ol' Matthew.)


Post a Comment

<< Home