Dennis Prager's Puzzling Ideas About Church and State
See how I'm not saying anything snide about this? See how I'm not getting extremely angry? See how I'm just pointing out that he's wrong? See how I'm saying that I can't believe that his claims represent the considered judgments of most American conservatives?
Good Philosoraptor...good...
See how I'm not saying anything snide about this? See how I'm not getting extremely angry? See how I'm just pointing out that he's wrong? See how I'm saying that I can't believe that his claims represent the considered judgments of most American conservatives?
Good Philosoraptor...good...
posted by Winston Smith at
5:14 PM
5 Comments:
It's great that just yesterday, you posted about confusion as to the definition of the term Christianist, and now, today, you're able to just point and say, "you know . . . like that guy."
If it makes you feel any better, here's an article Eugene Volokh wrote, appearing in the National Review, calling the guy totally full of shit:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWRjNjk2NTdmMThlOWFjYmMzNDMwZmZkYmJmZDg3MDM=
"See how I'm just pointing out that he's wrong?"
That, but not how.
I love Dennis, but I'm not quite on board with him on this one. I think there's something there, but he's not sure what it is.
BTW, Prager is Jewish.
I'm thinking it was lovable liberal who used the term "culturally Judeo-Christian" for America awhile back and I thought it was apt. The use of the bible at swearing-ins is part of that heritage. One need not accept Jesus' divinity to use it.
However, (law) Prof. Volokh's legal analysis is unquestionably correct, and Prager's been caught off base here. I agree with the latter that a nation is more than the sum of its laws and a society cannot survive on law alone; however, this is an unquestionably legal issue.
Right bark, wrong tree.
(And BTW, I have a blogbuddy named Jon Rowe, whose excellent blog is largely devoted to fighting those who might fairly be called "Christianists" and often falsely Christianize the Founding and the Founders. Jon & I disagree on some things, but he's spot-on in correcting their errors of fact and history.)
Indeed, Jim, I carry a copy of the Constitution in my bookbag, which, weenie academic that I am, goes most places with me.
Other things I'll assert without argument:
The sky is often blue.
2+2=4
Ignorance is inequivalent to strength
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation
These words contain the latitude to encompass this situation. The Framers meant Oath to mean swearing on Scripture; they meant Affirmation to mean swearing in another way, even non-religious.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home