I totally agree with you Mr. Griffing!
To paraphrase Joseph A. Zuchowski ("Politics and the Bible shouldn't mix," March 6), I hold that the election of a candidate to the most important elected position in this land should depend on his adherence to constitutional dictates.
Mr. Zuchowski asserts that "the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts and the deportations of religious minorities were all biblically based" without backing his claim or investigating history. The Crusades were more political than religious, though sponsored by "the church," and the Inquisition was almost thoroughly political. They were not based on obedience to the Bible. The Pilgrims, Puritans, Quakers and others who sought America for religious freedom did so of their own free will to make a more biblical society. It was building on their heritage when the founders crafted the Constitution, basing our freedom of religion in the Protestant doctrine of individual responsibility before God for one's soul.
Mr. Zuchowski essentially declares that those who strictly interpret the Bible are one and all anti-constitutionalists seeking to overthrow the government and impose a Judeo-Christian Sharia state. In fact, most of the staunchest religious-right social conservatives who take the Bible literally are also strict constructionists who take the actual text of the Constitution literally, and many of the staunchest defenders of the Constitution as written consider themselves Christians.
Mr. Zuchowski misquotes the First Amendment to suit his own humanist faith when he claims that it "states clearly, 'Congress shall make no law respecting religion and the free exercise thereof.' " The First Amendment actually says (emphasis mine) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I believe the Bible and our Constitution are in no way incompatible, and though not every candidate believes in or lives by the Bible, I refuse to support any candidate or party who will not uphold the integrity of the Constitution.
Josh Griffing, Augusta
Comments
I totally agree with you Mr. Griffing!
Mr Griffing, you'd make a terrible Democrat in today's social climate.
Excellent commentary, Mr. Griffing.
That's funny,I'm a Democrat and I couldn't agree more!
That's funny,I'm a Democrat and I couldn't agree more!
so you dont vote do you josh?
excellent letter; the writer is blessed with wisdom and will be blessed for having that position. Many will disagree and that is fine but those who start name calling will show their lack of assurance of their position.
I found it curious that Mr. Griffing takes the letter writer to task for not supporting his assertions and then does the same thing himself. Government should stay out of the religion business. It's better that way for the country and for religion.
Mr Griffing, thanks for saying for me what I am not gifted with the words to say.
Excellent letter Mr Griffing. Grouse, again, I agree. so I believe "government" (public universities) should not be providing "prayer rooms" (separate for men and women at that) and foot washing facilities using public money to do so on their campuses. Don't you agree? BTW, please show me in our Constitution where it states anything about "separation of church and state" or the "guarantee of privacy", or the "right of a woman to choose".
Mr. Griffing, you may "believe" the Bible and the Constitution are "in no way incompatible," but your belief is patently false. Just to take one example from many, blue laws. These laws prohibiting work on "the Sabbath," or commerce, including the sale of alcohol, originally were efforts by Christian lawmakers to impose their reading of the Bible on everyone else. Our country, fortunately, is slowly emerging from the narrow-mindedness of such zealots, and most Christian-inspired blue laws have been overturned as unconstitutional. Millions and millions of self-proclaiming Christians work regularly on "the Sabbath," a clear violation of the 10 Commandments, but perfectly ok under the U.S. Constitution. I have "faith" as more and more inconsistencies become apparent, the Constitution will "win" every time, and thank goodness for it!
crackertroy: Unfortunately, you "cleared up" what was never unclear.
I understood perfectly what Griffing meant: he argued the Bible and the Constitution were "not incompatible," which you and I agree means ARE compatible. I argued he was wrong: the Bible and the Constitution ARE NOT compatible, and I used the blue laws as an example. If that was too much for you to understand, as it apparently was, you have no business writing responses to my posts. One more time: the Bible bans working on the Sabbath, no matter what day that turns out to be. The Constitution allows working on ANY day, period. Those positions are not compatible! Whether you know many people who work on Sunday is totally irrelevant. Many do, and if they are Christians, they are violating the commandment of their (and your) "God," but not the Constitution. You need to improve your reading skills before you try to take me on again. No need embarrassing yourself for nothing....
Effete, you could also mention how in Richmond County the bible thumpers scared the politicians so much so that they blatantly broke their own laws to force X-Mart to close.
"Political freedom cannot exist in any land where religion controls the state, and religious freedom cannot exist in any land where the state controls religion." Samuel James Ervin Jr. lawyer, judge, and senator (1896-1985)
The phrase "are not incompatible" JUST MIGHT also mean that while one may easily enough obey only one of them but not the other, one can indeed obey BOTH at the same time. If none of the commands of one explicitly forbid obedience to any of the commands of the other, then the two "are not incompatible". Not all of their rules have to be identical, but to be compatible, neither may forbid the mandates of the other.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
