Thomas Jefferson | The Benevolent Thou

Alabama Chief Justice Judge Roy Moore Inducted Into the National Hall of Injustice

12 Apr 2015 6 Comments

by Max T. Furr in Acts of the Ignoble, America's shame, Antipathy, Dishoner Tags: Judge Roy Moore, Religious freedom bill, Thomas Jefferson

Rational Press (RP) – Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is today’s winner of the Legion of Dishonor Award for his open defiance of Constitutional law; specifically for his history of disregard for, or his ignorance of the intent of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. He is hereby inducted into the National Hall of Injustice.

Recently, Moore insisted that biblical law supersedes the Constitution, and to that end he issued an illegal order—demanding that local magistrates not issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples—in an effort to countermand the Supreme Court of the United States. For a judge to declare that his ancient, religious views override the Constitution and to act on that belief is, in the opinion of this Board of Inductions, judicial treason, punishable by firing and disbarment. He is a disgrace to the bench.

The federal courts have virtually always come down on the side religious freedom for everyone, but that freedom gives no one a right to compromise the freedom of others, e.g., freedom of conscience and the right to pursue happiness according to the dictates of conscience. All citizens must be equal before the law, and any law, based on religious conviction, inherently relegates some citizens to second-class status. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom for adherents of one religion to rule over adherents to other religions, or to rule over those who adhere to none at all.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom–the document from which the Establishment Clause was crafted and to which virtually all courts refer in church v. state cases:

[The] impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,4 is sinful and tyrannical . . .

Still, Moore isn’t entirely to blame. His religious tyranny is reflective of the will of ignorant voters who tend to elect such pompous, self-righteous, and/or ignorant men to high places.

Should there be Empathy for Terrorism?

08 Jan 2015 2 Comments

by Max T. Furr in A path to a better world, Acts of the Ignoble, compassion, empathy, Empathy and Religious Belief, Inclusiveness of Life, Malala Yousafzai, Religious intolerance, The Meaning of Empathy Tags: benevolence, better world, cartoons of Mohammad, Charlie Hebdo attack, Church and State, Establishment Clause, insults, Islam, John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, philosophy, religious freedom, The Empathy Imperative, The First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson, tolerance

Being an advocate of universal empathy and benevolent reciprocity, acts of sheer terror such as the Charlie Hebdo attack place me squarely on the horns of a dilemma, especially since I am opposed to the death penalty as well. So, since I do not shy away from cognitive dissonance, as I write this piece, I will attempt reconcile my seemingly opposing concepts. I turn to philosophy.

On one horn, I am a devotee of the John Stuart Mill School of Free Speech—a school of empathic thought that says, in Mill’s words:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. –John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter 2 – Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.

Side note: It is clear to me that this mode of thought, in no small measure, influenced Jefferson and Madison when they crafted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the intent of which is laid out in Jefferson’s Virginia Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. And that intent is the very heart of a constitutionally limited, representative democracy (a republic). I no longer see our nation as such, however, but that is an argument for another time.

Indeed, as Mill wrote concerning the “tyranny of the majority”:

John Stuart Mill

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing (sic) are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices (sic) a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism. —John Stuart Mill, On liberty, chapter 1

Thus I have to say that Charlie Hebdo has, in my opinion, every right to lampoon fundamentalist Islam, bearing in mind that their parodies of Mohammad is not the root cause of the terrorist attack, but was a contributing factor.

On the other horn of my dilemma is the root cause of the Charlie Hebdo attack—that of the right of fundamentalist religions to preach and believe as they do—a religious teaching that encourages murder as revenge for perceived insults to Islam. Too, it is for the most part a mindset with which one cannot reason. This last point, of course, is the same for peaceful but still dangerous fundamentalist, religious beliefs of Western nations. If one is convinced that he will burn in an everlasting Hell if he does not abide by the doctrines he was taught to believe, how can anyone change his mind? Cannonballs of logic and reason will not dent his walls of dogma. But, has he the right to teach and build those walls for others?

This brings me back to Mill, who wrote:

First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions, that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience. —John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Chapter 2 – Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.

Therefore, fundamentalist Islam does, indeed, have a right to teach its opinions, although Mill would not condone—nor would any person possessing even a molecule of humanity and reason—allowing it to act out its nefarious teachings.

The solution? By allowing radical and harmful ideas to be spoken, society, perceiving the danger, knows who to watch and to whom contrary opinions, especially those of empathy, must be conveyed. Still, there must be constraints, especially in fundamentalist Islam, to prevent harmful acts. If the individuals of the group are beyond reason, then society must protect itself, by any means necessary—although capture should be our primary concern.

However, terrorists who are captured should not be put to death, but imprisoned and detoxed, if possible, of their harmful concepts. If they cannot be detoxed, then they must remain in prison and be treated humanly.

This episode highlights why I promote the view that every individual should rid himself of all religious dogma, saving only the single concept of benevolent reciprocity: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This goes for Western nations as well. Our primary goal, above all, should be the elimination of poverty and corporate/government greed–the ultimate medium for radicalism to grow.

I welcome your arguments and corrections if you find any.

Max T. Furr is author of The Empathy Imperative, a philosophical novel that takes a critical look at justice, love, and mercy, and written in the spirit of the BBC/WGBH Boston film production, God On Trial.

Based on

ANSWERS IN GENESIS: A Profile in Parasitism (AN UPDATE)

22 Dec 2014 Leave a comment

by Max T. Furr in Acts of the Ignoble, empathy, Empathy and Religious Belief, Inclusiveness of Life, Religious intolerance, The Meaning of Empathy Tags: AiG, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Ark Encounters, Ark Park, benevolence, best of all possible worlds, better world, Bible, Brotherhood, Christianity, Church and State, creationism, do unto others, Establishment Clause, evangelical, First Amendment, Freedom of Religion Clause, Kentucky, Noah's Ark, Sectarian Religion, Thomas Jefferson, Virginia act for Establishing Religious Freedom

—-Updated from my original post, Answers in Genesis: A Profile in Parasitism.—-

The State of Kentucky has decided to extend no further tax incentives to Ark Encounters, a Christian fundamentalist theme park.

The Mask of Deception

Now, I understand that some folks might think the following is a continuing attack against Christianity in general and Answers in Genesis (AiG) in particular. On the contrary. I am only suggesting how I believe empathy could be applied to this situation such that the solution is in the best interest of everyone. That is, by the way, the purpose of the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

Fairness requires empathy, and empathy can only be derived from within.

First, with regard to AiG, note that no one is making any attempt to shut down its right to purchase property and have a theme park. First Amendment watchdog groups demand only that governments–federal, state and local–represent all of its citizens, without regard to their religious beliefs, their political opinions, or their financial standing. All working citizens pay taxes, thus, all citizens must have free access to commerce and must not be forced to subsidise sectarian religion.

Secondly, in the United States–as most of you know–all religions are to be treated equally under constitutional law. The only way this can be accomplished is for the government to remain neutral in matters of religion, (i.e., it cannot make laws respecting anyone’s religion).

When the courts attend matters of church and state separation, they reference the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment, which may be found in Jefferson’s Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. Here is the excerpt pertinent to the AiG case.

Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical . . . [note that Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian]

How could this be more empathetic and fair to all citizens?

Now, with regard to AIG’s ongoing efforts to have the taxpayers of Kentucky pony up 10s of million$ more in tax breaks for its restrictive, fundamentalist Ark Encounters theme park, after Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) reminded Kentucky lawmakers, many times, that they were elected to serve all the people and not just fundamentalist Christians, the State backed out of further tax incentives for the park. AiG is now resorting to revenge attacks for being forced to abide by the Constitution.

From AU:

Answers in Genesis (AiG), a creationist Christian ministry, had applied for a 25 percent sales tax rebate through the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet for Ark Encounter, a theme park that will feature a 510-foot replica of Noah’s Ark. The application received preliminary approval, and since the project is expected to cost $73 million, final approval would have cost the state up to $18 million in sales tax revenue.

But the Ark Park sailed into stormy seas in August when Americans United informed the tourism cabinet that AiG had posted online an opening for a computer-assisted design technician to work at Ark Encounter. That job post has since been removed, but in the August description, AiG said applicants must submit a “[c]reation belief statement,” as well as “[c]onfirmation of [their] agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith.”

That “statement of faith” required potential AiG employees to affirm their belief that homosexuality is a sin on par with bestiality and incest, that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that the Bible is literally true. Anyone who doesn’t agree with those statements won’t be considered for the job. (Read more here.)

According to AiG’s own website, “The purpose of the Ark Encounter park is to point people to the only means of salvation from sin, the Lord Jesus Christ, who also is the only God-appointed way to escape eternal destruction.”

But after receiving word of the tax-break cutoff, according to AU, “AiG . . . said earlier this week that it would run 16 billboards throughout the state promoting Ark Encounter and attacking ‘intolerant’ groups like AU. AiG also said it bought a 15-second digital video display that will run in New York City’s Times Square.”

AiG feels that it has been attacked unfairly and is being denied its “right” to tax dollars from non-fundamentalist Christian people–the same folks they would bar from employment at the park, no matter what their qualifications.

I have to wonder, What would the politicians of Kentucky, who want to continue the tax breaks, do if a group of Muslim citizens wanted the State to give them tax incentives to establish a park dedicated to Islam? Would you think that the folks at AiG would object?

How do you feel about this? Does AiG have a right to tax dollars? Should all religions have that same right?

Why We Have a Wall of Separation between Church and State

21 Jun 2014 3 Comments

by Max T. Furr in A path to a better world, Acts of the Ignoble, Empathy and the Constitution of the U.S., Religious intolerance Tags: Abrahamic religions, Antonin Scalia, child abuse, child rape, Christian fundamentalist, Christianity, Execution, fundamentalism, Iran, Islam, James Madison, Judaism, Muslim fundamentalist, Razieh Ebrahimi, religious freedom, religious intolerance, Separation Clause, Supreme Court, Thomas Jefferson, United States, Wall of Separation

IRAN: “Razieh Ebrahimi was forced to marry at the age of 14, became a mother at 15, and killed her husband at 17. Now at 21, she is on Iran’s death row.”

The primitive and inhuman religious intolerance of fundamentalist Islam is not a testament to the superiority of Christianity, but a testament to the brilliance of the Founders of our republic (in particular, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) in placing the Establishment Clause* in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, thereby, as Jefferson said, erecting a “wall of separation” between Church and State.**

Keep in mind that in the West, fundamentalist Muslims are considered to be evil merchants of hatred and death. Indeed, they are.

But keep in mind, too, that Islam is only one of the three Abrahamic religions, the other two being Judaism and Christianity. Of the three, it is the radical faction of Islam that holds most faithfully to the ancient scriptures, albeit adding many more draconian laws (especially for the subjugation or women) since its founding.

If a Jewish or a Christian nation were to strictly abide by the ancient laws, which they claim to be God’s Word, but to which only fundamentalist Islam faithfully subscribes in toto, there would be little difference between the fundamentalist Muslim states and the states of the west.

Fortunately, Judaism has moderated and evolved, with the help of reason, and early Christians saw fit pick and choose from the old laws, leaving out the summery executions of women for perceived insults to the male ego and their obsession for dominance. Fundamentalist Islam, however, with it’s head firmly buried in the 7th century, still perceives itself emasculated by independent women–and in Islam, the old laws govern the state. There is no Wall of Separation. Men still fear female independence.

And yet, even here in the West, modern day Christian fundamentalists–including many politicians and some Supreme Court Justices, who should understand the Constitution better than anyone, still disavow and deny existence of the Wall of Separation, (e.g., Scott “Stoning Gays is Fine” Esk, of Oklahoma, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and many others).

Such inexcusable ignorance! Have these people no knowledge of what happened in the early years of our nation? Have they not heard of the Salem Witchcraft Trials and the execution of women? With enough people like Esk, Scalia, and Moore, et al, in government, is there any doubt that we would not revisit the years when woman were hanged, stoned, crushed, or drowned by mere accusation of witchcraft and men and women executed for homosexuality?

This is the very reason for the Establishment Clause. And for Scalia, et al, not to understand this is beyond belief. For his information (as though he would care), the intent of the Separation Clause is documented in Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. This is the document from which the Separation Clause was fashioned and it spells out Jefferson’s precise intent–which is true freedom of conscience and speech for every person, and under no coercion from clergy or government agency. Scalia, et al, should take the time to read this document.

If a religion cannot stand on its own merits and be strong enough to withstand criticism, even from its women, then it does not deserve to survive. If our “leaders” cannot understand the concept of benevolent reciprocity (do unto others . . .) then they should step down.

* Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

** The “Wall of Separation” comment is found in Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in the state of Connecticut, written in 1802.

— Max T. Furr is author of The Empathy Imperative, a philosophical novel based on the epic struggle between religion and science, and brings the true nature of justice, mercy, and love into sharp focus. What sort of world would a truly benevolent god have created?

The Meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

25 Jun 2013 Leave a comment

by Max T. Furr in Empathy and the Constitution of the U.S. Tags: freedom from religion, letter to the Danbury baptists, religious freedom, The Virginia act for Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson, Virginia act for Establishing Religious Freedom

–Max is author of the novel, The Empathy Imperative—

In 1786, The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson, was shepherded through congress by James Madison, and signed into law. It was the document from which the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was crafted. Jefferson’s and Madison’s intent was to build a wall of separation between church by denying any officer of the state the right to impose, by any means, his beliefs on the electorate.

There have been many who suggested that Jefferson’s intent was not to establish a wall between church and state and that such a wall does not exist. Yet, that was exactly Jefferson’s intent. His intend is clearly and concisely stated in The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, and in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.

The Virginia Act for establishing Religious Freedom

Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right. (bold face by author)

Letter to the Danbury Baptists

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

(bold face by author)

—————————————————————

These documents were masterful and brilliant works of fairness and empathy for every individual’s right to express his own opinions and to conduct his life as he sees fit, not as others believe. This is the only path to peace and understanding.

It is noteworthy that Jefferson did not say, “all men shall be free to profess . . . their religious opinions,” but “all men shall be free to profess . . . their opinions in matters of religion.” One need not be a Christian to enjoy the right to his own opinions and to conduct his life according to the dictates of his conscience.

	Max T. Furr on The Price of Insecurity: Opule…
	Landon Harrison on The Price of Insecurity: Opule…
	Max T. Furr on What Most Americans Need to Kn…
	BroadBlogs on What Most Americans Need to Kn…
	Max T. Furr on Of Democratic Invertebrates an…

The Benevolent Thou

Alabama Chief Justice Judge Roy Moore Inducted Into the National Hall of Injustice

Should there be Empathy for Terrorism?

ANSWERS IN GENESIS: A Profile in Parasitism (AN UPDATE)

Why We Have a Wall of Separation between Church and State

The Meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

Follow Blog via Email

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Archives

Blogs I Follow

Categories

Meta

The Empathy Imperative

The Benevolent Thou

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Follow Blog via Email

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Archives

Blogs I Follow

Categories

Meta