From today’s TFN News Clips:
“What [the Texas State Board of Education] accomplished isn’t conservative. It’s not pro-family, pro-life, pro-freedom or patriotic. It’s idiotic. ‘If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,’ Jefferson wrote, ‘it expects what never was and never will be’ — a lesson the board of education’s simple-minded majority could stand to learn.”
— Jonathan Gurwitz, a conservative columnist for the San Antonio Express-News, on the State Board of Education’s removal of Thomas Jefferson and the Enlightenment from a portion of Texas social studies standards.
Stay informed with TFN News Clips, a daily digest of news about politics and the religious right. Subscribe here.
Now is suppose that the TSBE will accuse Jonathan Gurwitz of being a liberal, commie, pinko expert.
There are rational conservatives out there! All conservative Republicans have not been afflicted with the Biblical Literalist mind maggots that have infected some of the SBOE. Mr. Ratliff fulfilled my hopes in unseating Little Lord McLeroy. Too bad that Mr. Tuggey didn’t do the same with Mercer, but there is still a chance in November to be rid of him.
It’s good to know that some conservatives are not lame brains. May their ranks increase.
This reminds me of when Charles Krauthammer blasted intelligent design and John Derbyshire mercilessly panned Expelled.
“Believing that the Earth is 5,000 years old and was created in six days…that’s not really a moral or a value, it’s just stupid.” – Bill Maher
Stopped clocks…
Here is another “talking point”: Quit using the words “church and state” as if they are in the Constitution. They are not. The constitutional issue is about “religion,” First Amendment, that is, the whole subject of “separation between Religion and Government,” James Madison, W&MQ 3:555. Please, read my book The Religion Commandments in the Constitution: A Primer. TFN and journalists need to frame the constitutional argument in the terms of the Constitution. Jefferson was not at the constitutional convention and had no input into the words of the Constitution. Madison did. The Board of Education has not been taught the religion commandments in the Constitution and it has no constitutional right to establish “religion” in public schools. It is specifically “religious” tests, Art. 6.,which are prohibited and “religion,” First Amendment, which is prohibited from being established by law or government at any level, including public schools. Frame the constitutional argument accurately for better success.
Dr. Garman, what are you talking about? I checked and double-checked, and I do not find the phrase “church and state” in either the above article nor the comments posted below it.
I have also noted you have never commented here about our government’s establishment of religion via the faith-based initiative which funnels millions of taxpayer dollars into proselytizing organizations. Such an activity is unconstitutional. I hear you conservatives screaming unceasingly about no public funds for abortions but you’re perfectly fine with government subsidies of religious organizations.
It’s really difficult for me to believe there’s any more material in your text book for us to read that you haven’t already posted here – repeatedly.
First, I am not a Dr. I have a Master of Divinity, M.Div.m from a theological seminary.
Second, I made no assertion the words “church and state” are in any of the comments on this particular blog. This is a blog about “Talking Points,” and I simply added another to the discussion about good talking points.
Third, you obviously have not read all of my writings. I have a website on the subject of religion and government: americasrealreligion.org, if you are interested in knowing all of what I have said about separation and the obviously unconstitutional Office of Faith-based Partnerships.
Fourth, just in case you are interested, I spent a year at law school learning how to do legal research and used to be on the staff of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Finally, my newest book, The Religion Commandments in the Constitution: A Primer, the best book ever written on the subject of separation between religion and government, is available if you really want a thorough discussion of the entire issue. Just click on the following link:
http://www.buynewbooks.net/the-religion-commandments-the-religion-commandments-in-the-constitution-a-primer.html
You might also find my YouTube video of interest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb7SbUWw9dM .
Since neither this blog nor I have said anything about abortion, I have no idea as to from where you created the erroneous assertion you just made.
Anyway, thanks for asking, and I hope I have appropriately responded to your concerns. My apologies to others on this blog for taking up your time addressing Cycocop.
I know who Jonathan Gurwitz is. He is a member of my synagogue although I’m better acquainted with his wife. Mr. Gurwitz’s editorials are definitely written from a conservative point of view. However, sometimes he surprises me as he does this time.
And, where health care reform is concerned, even David Frum has backed off from Republican group-think.
Professor Garman wrote: “Since neither this blog nor I have said anything about abortion, I have no idea as to from where you created the erroneous assertion you just made.”
Prof Garman, you obviously did not read my entire post. I have not “created” any “erroneous assertion.” You’re being clever in twisting my words. I was referring to the faith-based initative, not abortion. In case you didn’t know, the faith-based initiative (begun by Pres. Bush, continued by Pres. Obama) funnels millions of tax dollars into religious organizations, religious organizations that proselytize by the way. If that isn’t an “establishment of religion,” I don’t know what is. To the best of my knowledge, you have never addressed this unconstitutional situation on this blog; therefore, I assume you’re fine with it.
Thank you for providing the link to your book. I hope you’ll forgive me but when an author describes his/her book as “the best book ever written on the subject,” I have to take such a self-appraisal with a grain of salt.
My apologies to others on this blog for taking up your time addressing Professor Garman.
Cytocop:
I’m trying to understand why the good Reverend Garman is so stuck on this one semantic point.
When my mother was in the nursing home back in the 1990s, there was an old guy in a wheel chair, and he had apparently had a stroke. He was no doubt a construction supervisor earlier in his life. Over and over again, for hours on end, he kept repeating a single statement and waving his arms with it. “Yeah!!! Yeah!!! Y’all get some nails up there!!” It was as if nearly everything in his brain had been destroyed to either side of the few synapses that contained the nails statement and the flailing of his arms. I never saw anything like it—until Reverend Garman showed up here. I’m not trying to be mean—just sayin’ that is what it seems like to me.
We all understand his point clearly. There is no mystery about his point here. I just think people like using “church and state.”
Reverend Garman. You have made your point. Everyone has heard it. Everyone understands it. As the old saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” These horses are not going to drink. However, you are a very intelligent guy with a law degree and a Master of Divinity. I would like to see you “open up” and offer your opinions on a wider range of TFN-related issues. You no doubt have a lot that you could contribute on those fronts if you would just try. Open up!!! Thanks!!!
Cycoocop Says:
March 24, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Dr. Garman, what are you talking about? I checked and double-checked, and I do not find the phrase “church and state” in either the above article nor the comments posted below it.
I have also noted you have never commented here about our government’s establishment of religion via the faith-based initiative which funnels millions of taxpayer dollars into proselytizing organizations. Such an activity is unconstitutional. I hear you conservatives screaming unceasingly about no public funds for abortions but you’re perfectly fine with government subsidies of religious organizations.
Cycocop Says:
March 26, 2010 at 6:32 am
Professor Garman wrote: “Since neither this blog nor I have said anything about abortion, I have no idea as to from where you created the erroneous assertion you just made.”
Prof Garman, you obviously did not read my entire post. I have not “created” any “erroneous assertion.” You’re being clever in twisting my words. I was referring to the faith-based initative, not abortion.
Cycocop:
To the contrary, I have twisted nothing. You did refer to “abortion” in your March 24, 2010 at 8:17 pm comment, as copied above, and it is that March 24 comment of yours to which I later directly responded in my March 25, 2010 at 1:04 am comment, and to which, in the same March 25, 2010 comment, I spoke about ” the obviously unconstitutional Office of Faith-based Partnerships.” So, perhaps you are confused and simply need to reread my March 25 comment in order for you to understand why I do not agree with your assertions then or now. The words “church and state” are a distortion of what the Constitution says and the Office of Faith-based Partnerships is unconstitutional. Best of luck.
Professor Garman,
Thank you for finally answering my question but it is a pity you decided to take a circuitous and unnecessarily hostile attitude.* I have not read all of your writings, and I have not gone to your website. (I actually have a life!) All you had to do was merely answer my question directly. You could have written that you agree the Office of Faith-Based Partnerships is unconstitutional. Period.
Would that have been so difficult to do? Apparently, yes. Instead of just directly answering my question, you had to show haughtiness by referring me to your website. Answering my question directly would have taken you as much time as it took you to tell me to go to your website.
*I quote you: “My apologies to others on this blog for taking up your time addressing Cycocop.”
Since you’ve never apologized for addressing anyone, I call that sentence a hostile attitude.