There’s this ridiculous old coot on Examiner.com who writes the craziest shit which gets under my skin. It’s the usual self righteous, privileged Christian crap swimming in a gravy of ignorance, but sometimes it bothers me more than others. A great example is when the Constitution is misunderstood, and when you mix in incorrect history, especially concerning the Founders, well then I get enraged, like his most recent steamy pile where he accuses atheists of misusing the First Amendment while he not only misunderstands it, but also Newdow’s recent lawsuit concerning the inauguration.

So for what it’s worth, I responded. I’m reprinting here because there are things I address which are commonly misunderstood, and since I have a snazzy search tool for the blog, it might come in handy having it on here…

There are limits to freedom of speech. For instance, you’re not free to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Freedom of speech is further limited as a government agent, for in such a role, your words and deeds are seen as the will of the government; thus, you’re incorrect, the government can and does limit its agents’ ‘free exercise’ of religion. This is why directed prayer in public school was found unconstitutional, for leading a prayer establishes that religion as preferred by the government. It is on this point which Newdow objected to Warren’s prayer, but the court didn’t agree since the prayer was part of a privately sponsored ceremony and not the government. The grey area of dispute is that the ceremony is seen as a government function by most Americans.

The other part of the lawsuit addressed Roberts saying “so help me god”, to which Obama would repeat as part of the oath. By doing so, it appears as if that line is part of the oath, thus establishing a religious requirement for the office of President, which is unconstitutional. There would be no objection if Obama said it on his own however, without being prompted by Roberts, because that would be an example of your ‘free exercise’, Jake.

I’m afraid you’re completely wrong about the Founders sharing the same religious belief, which is largely why they constructed the Constitution to both allow for freedom of religion and to separate church and state. You simply can’t have freedom of religion without separating church from state.

————-

I should also note that I don’t quite get what this Examiner.com thing is, nor do I understand why the staff atheist doesn’t take this jackass to task. Apparently they have regional “Examiners” and the DC one questions his shit sometimes, but with hardly any bite. Do the Examiners have to play nice nice or something? I wonder if they get paid? Hmmm….

Atheist Spot Bookmark and Share

6 Responses to “When Christians Misunderstand History and The Law”

  1. The Evangelical Examiner (Jake Jones) is a pretty typical blowhard. Why doesn’t he want you to publish your web address? Is he afraid people will come here and learn that he’s peddling bullshit?

  2. The little tag about deleting comments is also not from Examiner.com, but rather his own addition. So typical that those who are intellectually bankrupt must silence opposition rather than meet it head on.

  3. I don’t get why Christians never have anything intellectual to say in defence of their faith.

    Anyhow, I just thought of a new objective challenge for those whom believe in the “ask and ye shall recieve” thing. I call it “God v.s. the Calculator”:

    I have complete faith in my calculator that when I take the square root of a number that it will spit out the correct answer to as many decimal places as I wish. If people have faith in their God to give them what they ask for, then they should be able to ask God for the correct answer of that square root calculation to however many decimal places and come up with the correct answer before my calculator does.

  4. Saying a prayer at a public meeting, in school or on the Court House Lawn does not “establish” a religion or promote one religion over the other, it is simply the exercise of “A” religion, free speech, and peaceable assembly; all covered and guaranteed by the First Amendment.

    Uh . . . on which parallel earth is that not establishing religion? And how would he feel if the prayers would Muslim prayers? Or Satanic prayers? Prayers to the FSM?

    And the center of the country is overrun with guys like this. It’s so disheartening.

  5. I hate to be a stereotype-monger (who am I kidding, I love it) but the cowboy hat kind of gave the game away.

    Not sure why he was so opposed to you posting your blog address. Most of the other people leaving comments already seemed to be aware that he’s something of a disingenuous tool.

  6. It’s always educational to see what’s rattling around inside the minds of these people.

    This Jake guy is a clown. He had something he copy/pasted from WND that he went off on involving that whole Comfort offering money to Dawkins to debate and the “facts” were nothing of the sort. The weasel actually edited his post and deleted the comments calling him out on the false info.

    I don’t know wtf this examiner.com site is, but it sure seems cheesy. I first discovered it because several things kept popping up on Google news from there.

Leave a Reply