you're reading...
Christianity, Politics

The Synergy of “Meaningless” Christian Legislation

Are you unconvinced that there’s a concerted effort by Christians to legislate Christianity?  Don’t think it’s being done on a national scale in individual states?  I’m going to try to challenge that notion today.

First, let’s think about this in principle.  If you were going to do something underhanded and blatantly unconstitutional — like legislate a religion — would you try to do it all at once in one state?  Of course you wouldn’t!  You would pass innocuous little bills in many different states, setting apparently trivial legal precedents that don’t raise anyone’s ire.

While you were doing that, you would start programs to train specifically Christian lawyers in the fine art of legal loopholes.

When you were ready to put things together, you’d cite your “innocuous” precedents together, forming a new precedent that was much more than the sum of its parts.


    1. Innocuous legislation.  Missouri is well on its way to passing a bill that would “prohibit government or school officials from adopting policies to prevent prayer in public places, as long as the prayer does not result in disturbance of the peace or disruption of a public meeting or assembly.”  Critics of the bill say it is already protected speech, and there’s no need for the legislation.  However, when we put this little tidbit — precedent for preventing anyone from adopting policies to prevent prayer — with this little tidbit:
    2. Innocuous legislation.  — In North Carolina, legislators are arguing that prayer in public government meetings is legal, and not only that — it’s protected first amendment speech, since it’s being held on private time.  Very much like the prayers being protected in Missouri schools, don’t you think?
    3. Law School.  Pressler College of Law is an openly Baptist law school training lawyers in the fine art of finding legal loopholes.  Like the one created in steps 1 and 2 above.

So where does this put us?  Maybe nowhere just yet, but maybe somewhere very dangerous.  North Carolina is setting a precedent.  If passed, it will put the burden of proof on the Non-Theists that there is a reason for us to “infringe” on their first amendment right to have public prayer in government meetings.  The Missouri bill will be a precedent for claiming that we have no right to pass any measures preventing such prayers.

The reverse logic will work for schools.  As long as students are leading the prayers in “private time” — which could certainly be during class — nobody could bring any legislation against it without first challenging and overturning the previous precedent.

This isn’t about minor little religious tokens here and there.  It’s a dangerous and powerful attempt to subvert the Constitution and turn America into a Christian nation.



13 thoughts on “The Synergy of “Meaningless” Christian Legislation

  1. I don’t think Jesus enjoined his followers to be devious did he? On the other hand being devious in the service of Islam is well documented in their holy books.

    These people know they cannot win an honest debate so the only thing left to them is dishonest covert schemes. Be stealthy is their watchword. Machiavelli is their guide.

    The problem is stealth tactics work against people who are not on guard.

    Posted by Richard Collins | May 14, 2011, 4:11 pm
  2. Can the problem simply be that Atheists are an insignificant voting group that are incapable of even fielding a local softball league let alone vote legislatures out of office.

    Posted by PG | May 15, 2011, 11:08 am
  3. PG, you’re very wrong. Both believers and non-believers who understand the importance of separation of church and state are in much stronger numbers than you realize, and we will defeat theocratic morons like you who wish to turn this country into a Christian nation, with one particular religious viewpoint elevated above all others, something our founding fathers understand should never, ever happen.

    Posted by Jeremy Barger | June 6, 2011, 11:57 am
  4. *understood

    Posted by Jeremy Barger | June 6, 2011, 11:58 am
  5. Jeremy,
    Apparently your a retarded dipshit lacking in reading comprehension skills. Where did I ever state that I dont believe in the seperation of church and state. I am one of those Believers who strongly support the seperation of church and state. My stated observsation is that Atheists as a voting group lack the voting numbers necessary to challenge and change legislation.

    Now piss off!

    Posted by PG | June 6, 2011, 2:11 pm
  6. your != you’re. Who should be pissing where now?

    Posted by Alex Hardman | June 6, 2011, 4:36 pm
  7. Alex,
    It seems that I have smacked you down so hard that you’re reduced down to being my little helper and correcting my posts for me.

    Since you didnt offer any significant rebuttal to defend your beliefs in random mutation, we can all assume that you’re only response was to piss down your leg like a scared little puppy!

    I do however look forward to your continued service to me. Now run along my little helper…

    Posted by PG | June 6, 2011, 6:08 pm
  8. Oh please take the bait and correct me on your’re again so we can see what a twit you really are…

    Posted by PG | June 6, 2011, 6:18 pm
  9. I would, but unlike you I actually get tired of repeating myself. I’m content to correct you once or twice per thread, but after that your mistakes just serve as evidence that you are so full of shit, you can’t even correct minor mistakes you make.

    If you can’t get such minor things as the correct usage of your vs. you’re down, even after polite correction, what reason would anyone have to believe you’re intelligent enough to understand a correction of such complex issues as the topics regularly discussed here? Oh wait, you’re just a troll, and we just occasionally humour your idiocy.

    We only correct the extreme idiocy as an exercise of our explanatory powers. I used to think they were lacking, but you’ve proven that the truth is much simpler, you’re just an idiot of such extreme magnitude that it truly boggles the mind. Good luck with the bullshit, as until the next time I’m in the mood to feed the trolls, you’re officially on ignore.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | June 6, 2011, 6:43 pm
  10. Actually Alex,
    You are right. When I post to trolls like you, I dont respect you enough to even bother with correcting my grammatical errors.

    The fact that your only responses to my citations of peer reviewed papers is to deflect the threads away from the subject matter and point out grammatical errors, speaks volumes of your inability to engage in any intillectual discussions or to formulate any coherent rebuttals.

    Ive cited over 30 Peer reviewed papers to support my positions in my various discussions on this board, to your
    …..wait for it…… zero citations of peer reviewed papers.
    Zero citations?! That too speaks volumes Alex on your inability to contribute anything substantial to scientific discussions. So yeah, in the future, I beg you to please ignore me.

    Now piss ofe!

    Posted by PG | June 6, 2011, 8:13 pm
  11. You have nothing to add to the discussion, so why bother spending actual brain power on it?

    Mockery is so much more entertaining.

    p.s. Are you really so poorly educated you can’t spell/write or is this all a poe?

    Posted by Alex Hardman | June 6, 2011, 9:04 pm
  12. Hey Alex,
    The fact that you dont rebuttal my peer reviewed paper on random mutation says it all. Your just full of shit.

    The fact that you keep posting to me after declaring that I was officially on your ignore list indicates that your word means shit too.

    In the future, if you see any grammatical errors in any of my posts that are directed only to you, it means that I think your a dipshit unworthy of any respect. So read my posts very carefully Alex.

    Now piss ofe!

    Posted by PG | June 6, 2011, 11:16 pm
  13. Now Alex has brought up a good point. Our current understanding of life is that language error detection and correction requires some level of intelligence. DNA is a language that has error detection and correction mechanisms that are far more exacting and rigorous then our own human capabilities.

    Today, scientists are faced with not only the challenges of providing empirical evidence for the origin of the information contained in DNA, but also must account for how this DNA could have survived without an already evolved error detection and correction mechanism, and then eventually evolve this highly complex mechanism, all without intent!

    But the problem for scientists goes much deeper than this, as I will soon explain in another thread.


    Posted by PG | June 7, 2011, 1:14 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: