Patrick Henry College + the Bush admin = Scary!

Only a modicum, MA, if at all--and, typically, Finn attempts to refute what others have written by turning it on its head. For example, he says: "Suggesting that 'biblical values' are antithetical to 'American values,' is absurd." however, that is not what i wrote. PHC claims that they are " . . . prepar[ing] Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding."

To that quote of their own published mission statement, i responded: "Although the rightwingnuts like to deny it, 'timeless biblical values' do not constitute fidelity to the spirit of 'the American founding.' " Finn's disingenuous tactic is to equate the denial that "timeless biblical values" are faithful to the spirit of the American founding with a claim that "timeless biblical values" are antithetical to "American values." So, in fact, Finn's drivel is what is absurd here. I made my claim about "timeless biblical values" based upon what i characterized as follows: "Timeless biblical values include support for slavery, execution of homosexuals, execution of unruly children, execution of adulterous women (apparently, adulterous men just need to find a new squeeze), bashing in the skulls of the babies of one's enemies--yeah, right, those are good old American virtues."

Finn has not seen fit to address the issue of slavery, and the execution of homosexuals, unruly children and adulteresses, and the slaughter of the infants of one's enemies as "timeless biblical values." Instead, he offered a twisted and false characterization--in short, a lie--of the criticism offered, and then called it absurd. Yes, it is absurd to lie about what someone else has written rather than to address the substance of it.

He has completely failed to address the issue that rightwing christians wish to impose their religious doctrine on a secular nation which promotes toleration and pluralism. He completely ignores that injecting "timeless biblical values" into government (and the nature of those "values" defined by a particularist Protestant fundamentalist political agenda) constitutes an imposition of doctrine on all those of religious conviction who do not subscrbe to "timeless biblical values." Instead, he revs up partisan hatred, characterizes anyone who would oppose the mission statement of PHC as a dangerous, leftwing secularists (inferentially suggesting that no one who holds "leftwing" political views could ever be someone of religious conviction), and tries to suggest that those who are not leftwing secularists would applaud and desire the imposition of such a particularist Protestant fundamentalist agenda. Finn's thesis does not recognize that there are Protestants who are not fundamentalists, and who do not necessarily subscribe to PHC's version of a "biblical world view." Finn's thesis does not acknowledge that there are large Christian communities in the United States who are not Protestants. Finn's thesis does not recognize that there are large communities in the United States with religious conviction who are not Christians.

But it is a timeless rhetorical trick of the right, and of fundamentalist christian fanatics, to offer a dichotomous, black/white, good/bad, right/left view of the world, which conveniently ignores all of the annoying petty details which one must address in a tolerant, pluralistic nation with a secular government.

I admit this very grudgingly, but there is a modicum of reasonablness in what Finn d'Abuzz has said.

With not the slightest degree of grudgininitude, I have to say I agree with most of Set's take on Finn's take. The few good points Finn made, were like always/often, attempts to paint the ugly with a veneer of platitudes.

Operative word in my post -- modicum.

What I mostly agree with is that there is nothing unusual -- or particularly alarming -- in the fact that a staunchly right-wing theorcratically-oriented administration would choose interns and other aides from an institution of higher learning which turns out similarly minded graduates. As it should not alarm anyone that a more liberally-minded administration would choose such aides from a left-leaning institution.

uncle

Let's see, you trot out slavery, and the execution of various groups of people as examples of "timeless biblical values." You contend that "timeless biblical values" are not faithful to the spirit of the American founding. You mock "timeless biblical values" as not being anything like good old American virtues.

But you did not suggest biblical values are antithetical to American values?

Of course you did, and all of your vitriolic blather does nothing to prove otherwise.

I did not address your highly selective choices of biblical values, because there is nothing to address. Nothwitstanding your neverending assertions to the contrary, I am not a fundamentals Christian, and, in fact, no sort of Christian. That an ancient holy book that is as much a history as it is a religious tract promotes practices which 21st Century readers might find objectionable or even abhorrent, is neither surprising nor troublesome to me.

Of course what you are attempting to suggest is that fundamentalist Christians (Read PHU attendees and graduates) are somehow compelled by their faith to endorse the sort of practices that can be found in the bible because they believe it is the literal word of God.

Perhaps there are a handful of true nuts who would have the world recreated in the image of ancient Israel, but they are hardly common to the interns that PHU sends to Washington, and only an idiot would cite them as justification for fearing PHU.

Notwithstanding your desire to cast them as the modern world's bogeymen, the great majority of Christian fundamentalists do not advocate slavery or the stoning of unfaithful wives. That they do not, may call into question the purity of their fundamentalism but, surely, that's A-OK with you.

Pore over the Bible with the most critical of eyes and you will find "anomalies and contradictions" which are far more representative of a period of history than any flaw in either Judaism or Christianity.

Put aside your manic hatred of religion and you will find that "timeless biblical values," and "American values," are fairly similar. No wonder, of course, since America was founded and populated in the overwhelming majority, by Christians.

And the advancement of this notion does not require, in any way, a value judgment concerning biblical or American values. As a would-be historian, you should appreciate this, but clearly you do not.

As for ignoring "that injecting "timeless biblical values" into government (and the nature of those "values" defined by a particularist Protestant fundamentalist political agenda) constitutes an imposition of doctrine on all those of religious conviction who do not subscribe to "timeless biblical values, " I have done so only because it is of little issue as respects this particular topic.

We have gone round on this in the past.

We all come to the world with values fashioned by our upbringing, our education; our experiences. That any defined religion has played a part in that process should not only not be a matter of concern, it should be welcomed.

To the extent that anyone attempts to impose their religious beliefs on others, I am every bit as much in opposition as are you.

Should PHU graduates, at some point, attempt to require Americans to believe in Christ as their Savior or even in the existence of a God, I will be among the voices of resistance.

That PHU graduates may attempt to govern our society along the lines of their religion taught moral beliefs troubles me no more than the thought that Berkeley graduates may attempt to govern our society along the lines of their moral beliefs.

In closing, this is utter tripe:

"Instead, he revs up partisan hatred, characterizes anyone who would oppose the mission statement of PHC as a dangerous, leftwing secularists (inferentially suggesting that no one who holds "leftwing" political views could ever be someone of religious conviction), and tries to suggest that those who are not leftwing secularists would applaud and desire the imposition of such a particularist Protestant fundamentalist agenda."

Of course I did not characterize anyone who would oppose the mission statement of PHC as "dangerous." This is an absolutely false and base accusation, and typical of your impassioned rants that within their allegations display the very behavior of which you complain.

In particular, i draw the reader's attention to the fourth item. PHC asserts that every word of the bible is literally true, and that the document is inerrant.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

Many people refer to the men who wrote the Constitution as deists--which is to say believers in a deity without religious affiliation. This subject has been a source of much wrangling at this web site, as well. Prior to the Revolution, there had been an event in the early 18th century known as "the Great Awakening." Due to an overemphasis on New England in the popular teaching of American history, this event has been accorded an importance which it does not merit. However, it was important in terms of the attitudes of Americans toward religious establishment. The Puritans had effected an establishment of religion in Massachusetts and in Connecticutt, an establishment which was known by then as the Congregational church. The evangelism of the "Great Awakening" appealed to a great many members of established churches--enough that the authorities in Massachusetts and Connecticutt used the power of the government to suppress the movement and to drive out the itinerant "camp meeting" preachers. This left a great deal of bitterness, and helped to define some of the political divides which formed in the decade before the Revolution. In other colonies, there were profound division in the Baptist and Presbyterian confessions, but without an establishment of religion, they were only able to coerce local authority to enforce doctrinal adherence, if at all.

This left a mistrust of religious establishment in the minds of many, and it was, in fact, on the insistence of people who were not otherwise inclined to the ratification of the Constitution that a promise was made that the first business of Congress would be the passage of a bill of rights. There were twelve amendments proposed. The first has never been ratified, and likely never will be. The second proposed amendment was ratified in May, 1992. The last ten of those twelve amendments were quickly ratified, and became the first ten amendments to the constitution, and are known as the Bill of Rights. The first amendment to be ratified reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Many people of deep religious conviction considered it of paramount importance that church and state be kept separate, in order to preserve their religious liberties. Late in 1801, a Baptist congregation in Danbury, Connecticutt wrote to the President, Thomas Jefferson, to complain of their treatment in one of the two states which had had a Congregationalist establishment while still a colony.

USConstitution-dot-net wrote:

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The source for the foregoing is to be found here.

Ironically, it was at the insistence of the religiously convinced that steps were taken to assure that the government is secular, and that there is no establishment of religion. The irony arises because modern-day fundamentalists attempt to claim that religious values were at the heart of the foundation of the nation, when that is not at all evident in the historical record, which shows devout Christians seeking assurance that the government would be secular.