Morons in the media

[lenbrazil]

I am often struck by how mindless some TV pundits in the US are. See one of the worst examples I've seen recently below.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, “VANITY FAIR”: ....the country was founded on a document that specifically separates church from state.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST,” SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY’: What document is that, Christopher?

HITCHENS: That's the United States Constitution.

SCARBOROUGH: Separates church and state. Where does it say that in the Constitution?

HITCHENS: Very particularly in its first—very particularly, in its rather brilliantly and beautifully and clearly written First Amendment.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10297701/

Scarborough could have been asking retorical questions but that's not the impression that I got listening to the segment. I think I learned about the first amendment when I was 10 or 12.

[echnaton]

Yes, some of them can be quite obtuse, although this example may not be the best. The US constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” The wall of separation is a later supreme court interpretation of this phrase. Some in the religious fundamentalist movement, believe that government should be more religiously based, while not establishing a promulgated church or doctrine. How this is to be done is left as an exercise to the citizen. Scarborough is adamantly opposed to the secular ideas Hitchens represents and is making a political appeal to a rather large voting block, rather than showing ignorance of the Constitution.

If any of you have not read Hitchens work, he a very good writer who argues for ideas and is not inclined to be politically partisan. He frequently appears in online in Slate.

[lenbrazil]

echnaton said:

The US constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” The wall of separation is a later supreme court interpretation of this phrase. Some in the religious fundamentalist movement, believe that government should be more religiously based, while not establishing a promulgated church or doctrine. How this is to be done is left as an exercise to the citizen. Scarborough is adamantly opposed to the secular ideas Hitchens represents and is making a political appeal to a rather large voting block, rather than showing ignorance of the Constitution.

I'm not sure Scarborough never made a point along those lines during the show. He did quote Franklin and Washington saying they believed in God and thought religion was important though.

[PhantomWolf]

I must admit it's interesting how people redefine things from the past because they disagree with the initial meaning and so twist them to their own ends. (Re: Treaty of Waitangi here.) The first admendment was initially added to keep Government out of religion, a problem that had been quite major in Europe were state run religion was (and still is) prominent. Today it has been twisted 180° to mean that religion has no place in any public forum that has any Govermental backing..

I'd point out that this speration of religin and state is only true for the US. I know a lot of people in NZ like to refer to it, but our law is based n English law and our Head of State, the Queen, is also the Head of the Church of England (Anglican, Espicapalian) and thus NZ nor any Brithish Commonwealth country has a seperation of Church and State unless it has been introduced in legislation at a later date, which in NZ it hasn't.

[Retrograde]

phantomwolf said:

I'd point out that this speration of religin and state is only true for the US.

Well, I agree it is not universal, but it is not unique to the US either; arguably, places like France and Turkey are more militant about church(or mosque)/state separation than the US...

[echnaton]

lenbrazil said:

echnaton said:

The US constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” The wall of separation is a later supreme court interpretation of this phrase. Some in the religious fundamentalist movement, believe that government should be more religiously based, while not establishing a promulgated church or doctrine. How this is to be done is left as an exercise to the citizen. Scarborough is adamantly opposed to the secular ideas Hitchens represents and is making a political appeal to a rather large voting block, rather than showing ignorance of the Constitution.

I'm not sure Scarborough never made a point along those lines during the show. He did quote Franklin and Washington saying they believed in God and thought religion was important though.

He may not have. But that is the backdrop of the debate. He is not ignorant, just political.

Yes many of the Founding Fathers professed a belief in God and many were members of the Church of England. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence professed belief also, but as a Unitarian, was something of an outsider in this regard. Some of these great men behaved in ways that fell short of the standards of behavior promulgated by the institutions in which they were members, living more libertine lives than Bill Clinton or Strom Thurman (Franklin and Jefferson). Others were models of devotion to their religious principals and their families(Washington). Yet together the Founding Fathers they made a tremendous contribution to humankind.

I have a problem with politicians and pundits when they invoke the Founding Fathers professions of faith as a support for their political agenda while ignoring these same men’s sometimes deep personal flaws in following the basic premises of their faith. But these appeals do make a connection with a great many people.

[triangleman]

echnaton said:

If any of you have not read Hitchens work, he a very good writer who argues for ideas and is not inclined to be politically partisan. He frequently appears in online in Slate.

I watched him as he gave a talk last year at The Amazing Meeting 3 and he was definately the most interesting - and controversial - speaker at the convention. I hadn't realized that he wrote a book about Mother Teresa not being the lovely saint many think she is! His talk covered many topics, and I disagreed with about 1/2 of what he said, but I know that I would have to do a hell of a lot of research to determine why I disagree with him. He seemed to know his stuff.

He's speaking again at The Amazing Meeting 4 (www.tam4.com) in January, I'm looking forward to his talk.