Atheist Activist Moves to Lutheran Mecca: Is Made To Feel Unwelcome June 22, 2008
Posted by nicedeb in Religion.trackback
Of course that was only after he tried to have every cross from the town removed:
If this popular tourist mecca 80 miles north of Detroit wears Germany on one of its sleeves, the other contains Martin Luther.
Founded by Lutheran missionaries who vowed to retain their old ways, the community of 4,800 has one of the highest concentrations of Lutherans in the Midwest. The city seal contains a Luther rose, the symbol for Lutheranism.
So when local atheist Lloyd Clarke wanted to remove a cross from the seal, along with ones in a city park and on a state bridge, residents rose nearly as one against him.
Continue reading how he gets his widdle feewings hurt when he finds out stomping on people’s faith and traditions makes him the town’s most unpopular resident. Even little kids hurl insults at him in the streets. Practically everyone in town puts a cross in their yard.
It’s too bad that more of these types of stories don’t end this way.
Hat tip Weasel Zippers
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
Innocent Bystanders 
Next he’ll move near the airport and complain about the noise.
I’ve been to Frankenmuth. It is the most Lutheran place in America. Back in the day, it was mostly famous in Michigan for the fried chicken dinners at Zehnders, which were really good.
The real bigots in that town are those that moved there and complained about Christians publicly professing their faith, you know that whole troublesome freedom of religion thingy, and that the population of the town was too white. The rights of Native Frankenmuthers are about to be crushed under the heavy boots of the Politically Correct Diversity Army™.
So when local atheist Lloyd Clarke…
He’s not an atheist; he’s an anti-theist.
good point, harrison. Mr. Clarke appears cast from the same mold as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.
It’s just like a Lutheran to keep a godless man down.
it’s a shame san diego’s been dealing with their resident atheist for a number of years. wants every cross removed from everywhere
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
A little dumbing down for Lloyd:
No State Religion and no laws saying folks can’t practice any way they please.
I like “anti-theist”. Good term.
Or, hat tip to me in the comments here yesterday.
I didn’t see your comment, Mesa. Or I would have hat tipped you.
What a jackass.
And did you notice that the only racist statement was made by the black guy: “You’d like to see more people who look like you,” said Walt Hunter, 54, a black contractor who moved into town two years ago because he found it a good place to raise a family.
Thanks for specifying ‘Atheist Activist,’ Nice Deb.
I guess Walt is not prepared to judge people by the content of their character.
Lauraw, I’m always careful to say “militant atheist”, or “evangelical atheist” (like Ace does), or in this case, “activist atheist” (because that’s how he was described in the article, and it seemed pretty apt).
I’m sure it goes without saying that most of us have no problem at all with atheists or agnostics. (Even ones with humps).
But these militant/evangelical/activists have declared war on Christians, and are dedicated to undermining Christianity wherever they can, (while at the same time being oddly unconcerned with radical Islamism).
These people make me crazy.
It’s people like him that make us appreciate the decent and right-thinking atheists and agnostics. Lots of them out there, and I’m happy to interact with a number of them online.
Same here.
I want to say, “Hey, he has a point…” but I don’t know if that would get heard. By letting us all know he lacks diplomacy in getting his views heard, we’re given the hint that it’s OK to castigate and persecute the man.
Don’t forget the reality: he’s a minority opinion-holder in a town which is accustomed to having the majority opinion go unchallenged.
Here in Mankato, MN, a town that doesn’t lack Lutherans, you couldn’t have a city park and city seal that prominently feature a cross. How would you react if the city wanted to build a statue of Siddartha Gautama or a Star of David on city park land?
Standing up for the principles of preserving and respecting minority opinions in the United States is as old as James Madison and the Federalist Paper. It is not some brand-new notion that one should attempt to dismiss as being wrong-headed and anti-traditionalist. It IS an American tradition.
nicedeb said “Of course that was only after he tried to have every cross from the town removed”. This sounds like over embellishment for effect. No, I believe he was only trying to have the government sponsored crosses removed. This is about separation of church and state, not persecution of christianity. It sounds like the only one being persecuted was Lloyd Clarke when he exercised his right of freedom of speech.
How would you react if the city wanted to build a statue of Siddartha Gautama or a Star of David on city park land?
Nobody is talking about building new crosses. It’s the grandfathered crosses that are at issue. The fact is that Christian heritage is a significant part of American history, and we have many signs of that because many years ago people weren’t as concerned with these trivial complaints about the separation of Church and State. Now we have militant atheists insisting that every trace of that history be removed. It’s petty and mean-spirited.
No, I believe he was only trying to have the government sponsored crosses removed
That’s obviously what she meant, she just left it to the excerpt for clarification. Nice quibble.
It sounds like the only one being persecuted was Lloyd Clarke when he exercised his right of freedom of speech.
His “persecution” sounds like the population exercising their right of freedom of speech. They told him they disagreed – he was taken aback.
I typed a long comment but thought better of it.
Thank you, Geoff, for your comment. You being a non-God-botherer, I believe it is quite pertinent.
I’m also grateful LauraW commented, though I’d love to read more about what she thinks about this issue.
>>By letting us all know he lacks diplomacy in getting his views heard, we’re given the hint that it’s OK to castigate and persecute the man.
Strawman. As has been pointed out, we’re talking about existing edifices and imagery. That he’s a jackass might be noteworthy, but irrelevant. If a Star of David was already on the city seal, I’d say leave it. Ripping the crosses out is no different than the Taliban blowing up monuments to Buddha.
“How would you react if the city wanted to build a statue of Siddartha Gautama or a Star of David on city park land?”
I would say fine, whatever, no problem. I have no problem with Buddhists or Jews who want to publicly celebrate their beliefs. I have a huge problems with those who want to deny others the right to celebrate theirs.
As an atheist, I would suggest that this guy might or might not believe in a god, but he surely has a religion.
An antagonistic, rude and intolerant religion where other’s religions are to be attacked.
geoff,
You call my dissection of nicedeb’s false statement a quibble, like it is some kind of meaningless point made. On the contrary, it is consistent with so many other rhetorical fallacies I’ve heard come out of this front. The statement was nothing but an over generalization meant to draw greater resentment from a christian population that knows no better, to create an overwhelming army of support that can drown out any objection, regardless of the grounds of that objection.
You say that “many years ago people weren’t as concerned with these trivial complaints about the separation of Church and State”. Really? From what I can tell the separation was created for the protection of religion, so that one religion would not be advanced over others through the actions of a state. It seems to me it was an issue of concern in the past.
Let’s see….Al Gore supposedly gets more votes overall than George Bush, while losing according the rules that have been in place for over 200 years, and we are supposed to simply award him the Presidency because “the majority has spoken!”
Yet, when the majority speaks to protecting the things that they believe in against one whiny little “perpetual adolescent” who doesn’t understand that his freedoms do not carry any more weight that everyone else’s, suddenly it’s of the utmost importance that everyone submit to the will of the minority?
Big World, please point to a single instance where someone was
forced to attend the Lutheran Church in this town. When that happens, you may have a leg to stand on, but until then, not so much.
You call my dissection of nicedeb’s false statement a quibble,
I surely do. The crosses in question were explicitly defined in the excerpt. Nice Deb’s one-liner was just an introduction. I don’t believe that there was any confusion. I certainly wasn’t confused by it.
From what I can tell the separation was created for the protection of religion, so that one religion would not be advanced over others through the actions of a state.
By “trivial,” I mean that they weren’t concerned with harmless religious symbols that had been sitting around for decades. And by “many years,” I mean as few as 50.
>>From what I can tell the separation was created for the protection of religion, so that one religion would not be advanced over others through the actions of a state. It seems to me it was an issue of concern in the past.
It’s possible you are uninformed, or haven’t studied the history. At a minimum it demonstrates a woeful lack of knowledge of the Danbury letter and its context.
Hint: who authored the First Amendment, and what was his vocation?
Second hint: the Northwest Ordinance, the law by which western lands were opened for expansion, territorial organization and eventual statehood said what about religion and public education? See article 3.
“when he exercised his right of freedom of speech.”
Freedom of speech means freedom of political speech and protection from the government for speaking out.
It does not apply to individual speech to the effect that one cannot be challenged by one’s peers or that local ordinances cannot be enacted (laws against vulgarity in public places for example). Certain things cannot be said in airports and that is not in dispute.
Claims have been made to the effect that the Dixie Chicks were targeted and that it was a violation of their free speech rights. Not so. The fans that did not agree with them exercised their rights in not buying their CD’s. Free speech was preserved throughout.
Separation of church and state means that the state cannot sanction one religion, and the context in which that was written was when England had a state endorsed church. That clause most certainly did not mean that there should be zero overlap, merely that the state could not say “Lutheran churches are the only ones allowed”. It is quite obvious that religion was allowed to co-exist with government as our laws are generally based on the judeo-christian Ten Commandments and references to God are on our very currency and seals everywhere.
If people want to remove references and symbols, fine, but let it be done via a vote, not one person circumventing the general will of the people at-large by running straight to a court.
Good grief. My introductory line was hyperbole and was not meant to be taken literally. That should have been obvious.
geoff, that statement is an over generalized falacy, meant to do nothing more than evoke anger.
dave in texas, As a religious minority, were or were not the Danbury Baptists concerned that a state majority religion would cause harm to minority religions!
Is the Northwest Ordinance your argument for the legitimacy of state sponsored religion? What point are you trying to make? Tell me Dave, how should this issue be handled?
Good grief. My introductory line was hyperbole and was not meant to be taken literally. That should have been obvious.
Of course it was, they are just being whiners. Tell them to blow it out of their asses!
I have had it up to here ¯¯¯¯¯¯ with people being “offended” and then expect everyone else to bow down before them. It’s BULLSHIT and it shouldn’t happen! Since when do we let the minority of 1 force their opinions and views on the majority?
The problem, NiceDeb, is that hyperbole is seldom undersood as such anymore (see: Coulter, Ann). Sure, it’s over the top, but that’s the point.
Musli-crest out.
For all you atheist/agnostics, you have a right not to believe in a Deity, no one is questioning that. But the Constitution does not say you have a right to force others to abandon their right to believe or to give up their religious heritage.
The activist atheist/agnostics have been trying to wipe out the 200 years of Christian heritage in this nation, and with the ACLU they are getting away with it. Now I am glad to see a town telling them to pack sand where the sun don’t shine.
If you don’t like it, don’t look at it, if it “offends” you, then piss off, go somewhere else.
Mr. Minority, thank you for coming out and saying what I was thinking. I’m bothered at the number of people that short circuit the system if they don’t like it.
Lawsuit has become synonymous for “I’m going to get my way in spite of what you all want” and it is the perfect means for minority rule. And people let them get away with bogus legal arguments that aren’t supported by history.
I seem to remember a time when the ACLU served a higher purpose, but that purpose died a long time ago.
bw, they were specifically concerned that the United States would declare Congregationalism to be the state-sanctioned denomination of practicised Christianity. Which the state has no interest in, as evidenced by the First Amendment.
To your second question (and part of your first), the inarticulate or uninformed often use the words “religion” and “church” interchangably. To assume I’m making some argument for “state-sponsored religion” is just making shit up (or projection). Where in article 3 does it say “create a state sponsored religion” (or for that matter, where have I said it”)?
Want to take a stab at my second question? It goes to the heart of intent and context of the First Amendment.
geoff, that statement is an over generalized falacy, meant to do nothing more than evoke anger.
Let’s pretend for a moment that I agree with your quibble. What does it change? Did it change the text of the article? Did it change the point of the post? Would any of the comments have been different?
Well, yours would have.
dit, ok, so we agree it was for their protection.
Making shit up? I was just asking a question. Yes, I know, you can’t make any assumptions until someone specifically states their position. But the tone of your words says you disagree with something, and I am seeking what that thing is. So speak harshly if you will, but stop hiding your reasons and intentions.
Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance said “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
geoff, It may have changed the comments of the readers if it evoked greater resentment among sympathizers.
What was the point of the post? Don’t speak out against religion or we’ll hurt your feelings?
What was the point of the post? Don’t speak out against religion or we’ll hurt your feelings?
Uh, yeah. That was totally the point. You nailed it.
Yeesh. Why did I bother.
What was the point of the post? Don’t speak out against religion or we’ll hurt your feelings?
No, you can speak out against religion all you want.
But you had better not mess with our Lutheran Roses, Crosses or Ten Commandments!
>>but stop hiding your reasons and intentions.
Hiding my intentions? More projection. Now I have scary secret intentions.
Hey, Big World.
BOO!
Big World, I hate to jump into the fray late, but I have to quibble with this quote of yours:
“What was the point of the post? Don’t speak out against religion or we’ll hurt your feelings?”
I don’t think you get it. The problem most people have isn’t the fact that the jerk in question “spoke out against religion”. Speaking out against religion is as American as apple pie and dropping bombs on brown people in the third world. The problem most people here have is that instead of “speaking out against religion”, the jerk in question was running around telling people “TEAR DOWN THOSE CROSSES. THOSE CROSSES OFFEND ME, AND I REFUSE TO ALLOW YOU TO KEEP THEM ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.” If he had just been speaking out against religion, I’m sure the local community would have treated him like a harmless crank. Sometimes you can get away with being an asshat like this guy when you’re a lifelong resident, but a guy who just moved to town? Forget about it.
I don’t think you get it.
Ya think? He’s either really obtuse, or being snarky. For his sake I hope it’s the latter.
Dave, could you be a little more original.
Mr. M, but what you say seems a contradiction. You can speak out against it, but don’t mess with it? What can you speak out against religion that can’t be seen by members of the organization as “messing with it”?
This guy wasn’t telling people they couldn’t worship how they wanted, he wasn’t taking away peoples’ churches. He asked that a separation of church and state be recognized. But as some logic in here goes, the minority should stand mute and say nothing. They should look away while they feel their individual liberty is ignored. Dream on, that is not how this nation was founded, that is not how things change and it is not how things improve.
>>that is not how this nation was founded
Considering your woeful ignorance combined with either a complete inability to do basic research (even when I spotted you points) or just being intellectually incurious, it’s difficult to accept you as any kind of authority on “how the nation was founded”.
You simply do not know, choosing instead to substitute talking points for facts.
This guy wasn’t telling people they couldn’t worship how they wanted, he wasn’t taking away peoples’ churches.
…he was just telling them to change their traditions.
But as some logic in here goes, the minority should stand mute and say nothing. They should look away while they feel their individual liberty is ignored.
Their “individual liberty” is at risk? That’s laughable. His poor eyes were forced to gaze upon a few crosses, which he found so offensive that he decided to change things to suit himself. I’m an atheist, but I’ve never felt compelled to swagger into town and start blasting away at harmless religious symbols that have been there for decades.
That’s where you cross the line from atheist to asshole.
No, they have heartburn with the anti-theist because he specifically moved there because it was a nice town, and promptly began attacking the institutions that made it a nice town. How fucking hard is it to comprehend that the guy is an asshole?
Dave,
I guess you have nothing left to offer except insults. You must be a very very angry person. Oh wait, I’m sorry, I’m projecting. If you have a historical point to make then make it, or just sit there like an angry knob and spout insults.
“Dream on, that is not how this nation was founded…”
I find it curious that in matters of Church and State, liberals cling to original intent like a drowning man to a life jacket. But ask those same liberals about the original intent of, say, the right to keep and bear arms, or whether the Fourteenth Amendment creates a right to abortion, and suddenly original intent doesn’t matter quite so much.
Geoff, you’re an atheist? Damn, to think of all the time I’ve wasted acknowledging your existence. Oh well, lesson learned.
It’s no crime to be ignorant BW, not an insult just an observation. You lack the ability to comprehend, or the willingness.
or just sit there like an angry knob and spout insults.
Well, if we have a choice, that’s sounding better and better.
Damn, to think of all the time I’ve wasted acknowledging your existence.
I’ve been toying with the idea of becoming a deist, which is sort atheism-lite. But yeah, I just can’t bring myself to buy into the whole enchilada.
Zehnder’s always treated everyone in our University’s choir to a free chicken dinner after our Christmas concert for them. Zehnder’s Fried Chicken is Yum-O!.
*Can’t remember if they serve pie… or strudel…*
I likes pie.
I had some key lime pie for lunch.
Mmmm…
Big World, the intent of the founding fathers was to prevent the government from creating a church; the reason most of their ancestors had immigrated to the new world. It never was their intent to remove Christianity (or any other religion) from the culture. If you did one hour’s worth of research you would discover the high regard our founding fathers held for the incorporation of Judeo/Christian morals and ethics into all facets of the government. This is why Dave (and I) view your lack of knowledge as a hinderance to further discussion. You’ve accepted a decision made by the SC years ago that was cut from wholecloth as gospel. If you’d like to discuss what actions could be interpreted as the government attempt to create a national church I think even you would acknowledge that Frankenmuth, MI is not that case.
Peeee-can!
Texas pecans, of course!
As a side note, a man from Frankenmuth by the name of Wally Bronner passed away on April 1st of this year. He probably put up a few of those crosses himself. His mission as a Christianist? To make people happy by keeping the spirit of Christmas alive 365 days a year. I can only imagine how much damage this man did to the republic.
RIP, Wally.
To clear up any misunderstanding: I don’t care if a person is an atheist, agnostic, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or whatever, that is their personal right. But I do care if someone tries to subvert the Constitution to wipe out America’s Christian heritage, I am tired of it and I won’t bow down to “diversity”.
With that said, I like you geoff, I don’t care if you are an atheist. You are an intelligent person, a nice person, and make a mean pie chart.
Did I say pie?
Mmmmmmm, chocolate cream…..yummy!
Geoff’s one of my favorite atheists.
What can you speak out against religion that can’t be seen by members of the organization as “messing with it”?
When you try to force them to change harmless things because — returning to the original post — your widdle feewings are hurt.
ebony and ivory, me and geoff
ebony and ivory, me and geoff
I was thinking frick and frack…
🙂
BTW, your ‘I call it “miniblinds can’t stop me now”.’ made me laugh out loud at work. Got some prairie doggin’ started!
I’m a giver.
ebony and ivory, me and geoff
I’m thinking 3 Stooges sans Moe, but that’s just me.
I’m thinking 3 Stooges sans Moe
Hmmm, let’s see:
– Moe starts with an “M”, Michael starts with an “M”
– Michael has an affinity about smacking people on the back of the head
Thus Michael is Moe!
works for me
“I’ve been toying with the idea of becoming a deist, which is sort atheism-lite. But yeah, I just can’t bring myself to buy into the whole enchilada.”
Now that George Carlin is gone, there’s a pew open at the First Church of Frisbeetarianism if you’re interested.
Mr. Minority, there’s only one “Mo” in the IB community, but unfortunately he’s too small to hold up a pipe wrench yet. Give him a few years to get the moves down and he’ll be out there eye-poking, hammer whacking & face slapping with the best of them.
DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT
anon was me again
With that said, I like you geoff, I don’t care if you are an atheist. You are an intelligent person, a nice person, and make a mean pie chart.
I only tolerate Geoff’s atheism because his wife is so charming. And hot.
Plus, Geoff has bought me a few beers, and that counts for something with Lutherans.
I think geoff is kinda cute. Plus, he sent me that box of books, providing me with weeks of entertainment AND introducing me to a few new authors.
I actually used an iron and an ironing board tonight. This whole relocation thing sucks.
I was back in Ohio last weekend, because Son Michael and his GF showed up. Son Michael was the best man at his best friend’s wedding in Akron. It was a good event. Son Michael delivered an excellent toast at the reception, which really honored their commitment to each other, and the presence of God in a marriage. I was proud of him.
Also, my sister and her husband were coincidentally in town, passing through on their vacation, and it was good to see her.
Son Michael’s GF is a really great lady. I think she should dump him. He does not deserve her.
Geoff, given your flirtation with becoming a deist, here’s a little background info.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/23/new-pew-survey-21-of-atheists-believe-in-god/
BTW, I would say that agnostic is the stepping stone between atheism and deism.
BTW, I would say that agnostic is the stepping stone between atheism and deism.
Could be. I just figure that it’s a short step from not believing in God to believing in a God who doesn’t matter.
^but that’s progress.
We’ll have you thumping a Bible in no time, Geoff.
but that’s progress.
I don”t think so. I think deism and agnosticism are just sort of spiritual masturbation.
Progress comes when you get serious about the corrupt situation of yourself, and our entire planet. Progress comes from a repentant heart.
^
I like atheists better than agnostics.
Atheists are not bullshitters.
“God is dead”-Nietsche
“Nietsche is dead”-God
We can’t make him believe, Michael.
But we can give him a hard time.
I had written up a longer comment before, but decided to just leave it alone. But I feel the need to jump in because my first comment sounded so terse.
Thanks again, Deb, for attaching that modifier to “atheist.”
It is unfortunate that the word ‘activist’ has taken on such a negative connotation. Activism is important to a healthy society. I have no problem with people who try to appeal to the public in an honest attempt to improve society or protect a minority from actual oppression. See Abolitionist; Quakers.
But in recent times, the word activist has come to connote precisely the sort of narrow, bullying, control-freak, insensitive asshole that Mr. Clarke so aptly embodies. These people have ruined the spirit of activism and replaced it with the image we have today; the strident malcontent shit-stirrer, never able to coexist in peace with those who are different than him, always seeking to exert control over others. Litigious activism has made it possible for your ordinary neighborhood cranks to have real political power over their inoffensive neighbors. See Winsted, Connecticut; Nader Family.
Activists are being dishonest when they claim that crosses are offensive or coercive or indicative of a takeover of government by religion. This is an open lie that has been entertained too long. It should be laughed off as the poppycock that it is.
The only way a cross can hurt me as an atheist is if you coerce me to worship it against my will or beat me with it. Otherwise I can tolerate religious statuary and symbolism -even on public property- quite effortlessly.
He asks us to take his word for it that the mere symbology of the cross is harmful to the local non-Christian minority.
Frankly, I’d like to see some damn proof of that, besides the tainted testimony of those who believe that there is a total ban on religious symbols on government property.
Which there is NOT, and never has been.
Separation of Church and State does not mean that all religious symbolism is to be razed from public life. If that were so, then with the historical evidence at hand we can only conclude that the Founders did not understand the document they themselves constructed. POPPYCOCK.
No one was rude to this guy until he decided to force everyone to change their completely harmless historical tradition. This would be similar to a teetotaler attempting to force a German Oktoberfest to serve O’Douls. What do you suppose the response of the locals would be to that? They’d call him the asshole he was.
Enough of this. Stop these dishonest games. I’d like to hear Mr. Clarke admit the truth; he finds Christianity itself offensive.
Thank you, lauraw. Thank you so very much.
“I actually used an iron and an ironing board tonight.”
An ironing what? Michael’s just making up words now.
What she said.
The First Amendment to the Constitution (the religion clause) and Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance were drafted by the same man, a Congregationalist minister named Fisher Ames. To imagine that he and other framers intended to separate Christianity from the state is high-order idiocy.
What they intended is what they accomplished, which was to constrain government from imposing religion or endorsing a sect, and to ensure that citizens were free to practice or notpractice religious faith. It’s abundantly clear from both the founding documents and their personal and public writings.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Well said, LauraW.
Activists are being dishonest when they claim that crosses are offensive or coercive or indicative of a takeover of government by religion.
Random thought: Constitutionally, religion can take over gov’t; but, gov’t can’t take over religion.
Discuss.
There are two religion clauses in the First Amendment: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. In some situations they are mutually contradictory.
It is easy enough to summarize the broad intent of the Amendment as Dave just did — “constrain government from imposing religion or endorsing a sect, and to ensure that citizens were free to practice or notpractice religious faith.” But the devil (as it were) is in the details, and individual cases can produce some difficult results.
Personally, I think militant atheists like Clarke and Michael Newdow are full of crap. Putting a cross on a government seal does not constrain anyone to believe anything at all, or deny anyone any benefits enjoyed by at least nominal Christians. Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in school (or making an atheist be present while others say the Pledge) does not constrain anyone to believe something he or she does not want anyone to believe.
Separationists have a better argument with the Pledge than with a county seal, in the sense that a child may feel peer pressure not to be different, not to stand out by refusing to recite the Pledge. But (a) the Constitution was not designed to prevent children from feeling peer pressure, and no number of laws will change the fact that children in public schools will pressure one another, and (b) if parents send their child to public school, I absolutely guarantee that the child will be taught at least one thing with which the parents disagree. If you care about your child, you will know what is being taught and you have more than enough opportunities at home to correct them.
While the Pledge may be a close case, county seals are not. How many of you even know what your county seal looks like? How often do you look at it in your daily lives? When you do look at it, how often does someone else try to discuss the meaning of the symbols on it with you?
Where there is no coercion — indeed, not even the vaguest possibility of coercion — the First Amendment cannot be offended.
We clubbed our county seal with a baseball bat.
81: I do all my own ironing. It’s really not difficult if you try.
http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-iron-a-shirt
I’d like to hear Mr. Clarke admit the truth; he finds Christianity itself offensive.
I agree. The only atheists I’ve met who care about the Pledge or “In God We Trust” were absolutely rabidly anti-Christian. For some reason other religions didn’t attract their ire. And it’s weird – they’re angry about Christianity. I mean really, really pissed. Normally they’re reasonable and rational, but if you bring up Christianity, they turn red and start shouting.
I had a friend who was a militant atheist, and he was spoiling for a fight on Christianity. I didn’t have a dog in that fight, but I figured I’d take the contra side, so that he’d have a chance to vent himself. Within a few exchanges (this was via email), he was attacking me personally, even though he knew I was just playing along.
It got so ugly that I walked away and never spoke to him again.
Here’s a puzzler from the first religion cases before the Supreme Court. Suppose the government institutes a draft. Two people, an atheist and a quaker, are called up. The quaker tells the government that he can’t fight, because to do so would be against his religion. Forcing him to fight would violate the Free Exercise clause. The atheist tells the government he won’t fight because he is a pacifist. To give the quaker an exception, but not the atheist, would violate the establishment clause by conferring an advantage on religious folks. If the government creates a general (non-religious-based) pacifism exception, then it basically cannot call up a draft at all.
How would y’all reconcile those interests?
How would y’all reconcile those interests?
With a Kimber?
… and thanks so much Lauraw.
I would tell the atheist and Quaker to fight it out: loser gets drafted. Then draft them both, because they’re obviously not pacifists.
If the religious deferment issue was large enough, we probably couldn’t allow it. We would end up like Tibet – very devout and wholly occupied. I would say that the only way to properly treat it is to say that Quakers are grandfathered, but anybody who’s a pacifist with a pedigree that doesn’t predate 1700 can either join the draft or move to Tibet.
Ouch, Sobek, that hurts.
Off the top of my head wouldn’t the free exercise of religion trump the draft? If a atheist belongs to no religion how can he use the exemption?
Isn’t that like saying I am not a minority, but you must hire me because I want a preference for being a minority?
If you believe in the flying spaghetti monster good for you. What does the he/she/it say about war?
Hehehe, Geoff you are sneaky.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/us-draft4.htm
A man can only be reclassified as a conscientious objector if he demonstrates that his opposition to war is based on moral, ethical or religious beliefs, not on political beliefs. The man must be opposed to all war, not only the specific war at hand.
Also, I think basically you’re making your plea to the draft board, which has the power to reclassify you (assuming they believe you).
Just being a CO doesn’t get you out of the draft. The Quakers wouldn’t go, and were willing to pay the price. Generally, 2 years in jail. I can live with that. That’s standing by principle.
Here’s my favorite conscientious objector.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Doss
There were a lot of Seventh Day Adventists near me in SoCal. They are really wholesome people.
Funny you should say that. A friend of mine, who lived in Alabama for a while, absolutely hates Seventh-Day Adventists…because they would dare leave SDA pamphlets on his car. *rolls eyes*
Sorry to hear about your friend. It astonishes me how people hate on Christianity because of its apparent bigotry and intolerance…all the while displaying such unbelievable bigotry and intolerance.
I’ll give the SDA’s (LDSers) credit where due: they shape their lifestyles to fit their theology, not their theology to fit their lifestyles.
Thank you! We try.
Sorry to hear about your friend.
He was more my wife’s friend than mine, so it wasn’t a huge loss. I suppose everybody has a hot button, but some are much hotter than others. When they’re that hot, it’s not worth hanging out with them, wondering what’s going to set them off.
I’ll give the SDA’s (LDSers) credit where due
Yeah. I lived in Colton, CA, next to Loma Linda (home of the SDA’s largest hospital and medical center). No sugar and no caffeine worked wonders on the coeds at Loma Linda University – they were delightful. But, sadly, inaccessible.
Yeah, I meant reclassified into either a non-combat MOS, or alternative service program.
DinT, still looking for a cite, but Geoffrey Perret’s “There’s a War to be Won” talks briefly about the Quakers. Something like 10k Americans were convicted of refusing the draft, and sent to prison. A good chunk of them were Quakers. I can live with that. It’s folks who suddenly get conscientious when it’s their little pink body on the line that piss me off.
Draft boards, back in the day, tended to be made up of stodgy old men, vets in many cases. You’re gonna have to be reaaaaal persuasive to make your case.
IIRC, the Supreme Court refused to allow a rule that says no atheists can ever avoid a draft, under any circumstances, because to allow such a rule does favor religion (in general, obviously not a specific faith).
Maybe the question has become moot, with an all-volunteer army. Obviously no one will believe you if you decide you’re a pacifist only after a war is declared.
“Something like 10k Americans were convicted of refusing the draft, and sent to prison. A good chunk of them were Quakers. I can live with that.”
I can’t. I think it violates the Free Exercise clause to send a man to jail for refusing to compromise his religious beliefs.
I don’t think I can be an absolutist on that point, however. If the belief in question involves spouse abuse, or animal cruelty, or pedophilia, then the Free Exercise clause does not apply. But those examples all involve harm to others — the religious pacifist is specifically trying to avoid harming others.
lauraw, those were some wonderful thoughts and I thank you for sharing them. FWIW, some Christians have adopted the same tactics you ascribe to our ‘new activists’. I am constantly butting heads with those who want to use the legal system to legislate righteousness. Sometimes Christians can’t see the forest for the trees; they don’t understand that as a ‘system’ Christianity is wonderful but because it is implemented here on earth by fallen, albeit saved, people you would end up with nothing more then the Christian version of the Taliban.
Sobek taught me a long time you: we cannot legislate righteousness.
you = ago
That was weird. My fingers were doing their own thinking.
Sobek, my point was that the Quakers were willing to pay the price of their beliefs. I can admire that, as opposed to people who suddenly develop a conscience or claim a religious exception only when conveinent.
And I don’t think a draft that would force COs to serve is a free exercise violation when the option of serving as a noncombatant was on the table. The Supremes seem to agree with me.
I did not know that the Quakers spent time in jail. Did the Amish?
Even more respect to those who would go to jail for their belief’s. I am all for Kill’em. But IF I believed that way I would take a non combat position rather than go to jail. But if they wanted 47yo dudes I would sign up in a min!
One of the things that has bugged me since I met my wife and her parents was the fact that my now FIL paid off a doctor to certify an “illness” for him that helped him avoid service in the 60s.
“Sobek, my point was that the Quakers were willing to pay the price of their beliefs. I can admire that…”
Then I agree with you completely. I just think it’s a shame that it was necessary (and unconstitutional but, uh, do Quakers file lawsuits?).
I don’t understand why nobody has accused the notorious Lloyd Clarke of religious intolerance. The liberals should be crushed with their own weapons because their cliches are not substantiated by common sense and contradict each other.
Shame to the selfish pigs like Lloyd Clarke!
Long live Christian America!
Long live the timeless heritage of Martin Luther!
eddiebear, your FIL isn’t Howard Dean, is he?
^no. When he received his draft notice, he went to a doctor his family knew for ages and helped him fake and certify an ailment to get him out of service.
Boryagin thief and a liar!
Boryagin (Hizman) thief and a liar!
The man nicknamed Hizman same Ivan Boryagin he rubbed in confidence behind the church “New Generation” offers business, takes the money (taking into debt, too) and changing hiding place of residence.
Because Ivan gave up meeting with us and with a pastor by Alex Ledyaevym and he disappeared, our debt to reveal to all, that other believers did not meet in these networks. From this man his friends suffered even…He travels on other cities and countries as a translator.