Reinforcements Ordered in the War on Brains

tags: , ,, , , , , , , , , ,

Rachel Maddow talks about her former show, The War on Brains -- she mentions that even though the program no longer exists, America's war on brains continues. Perhaps the most ridiculous example that she cites is the woman who claims on television that "the separation of church and state" is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution -- a fact that can be easily confirmed by anyone who can read by checking the original document.

11 responses so far

  • D.J. Moberley says:

    Separating the church and the state is impossible. Technically, the Christian "church" consists of any person who follows Jesus. People are the church. The only way to separate the two is to take Christians out of congress.

    • Mr. Smartypants says:

      Thank you for your input.
      It is clueless and on a uneducated 9-year-old's level of reasoning, but we do need such comments as well as they represent a wonderful contrast to insightful and informed comments someone else might make.

      BTW... There is no such thing as a "Christian church" - just ask Catholics about Protestants and vice versa.
      Also, none of those churches are made "of people" by their very own definition - those are all temples and institutions of GOD.

      And it seems that you also believe that "people" are also automatically a part of the government - which is also not true.
      Germans are people. Are they a part of the US government? No, naturally.

      Government is a social contract of a specific group of people living in a specific region (under specific circumstances etc. etc.) WITH the abstraction of the sum of that group created in order to protect and improve the entire group.
      And that includes EVERYONE!
      Religious freaks of every kind and color AND atheists and those who just don't give a damn too.

      • D.J. Moberley says:

        There is such thing as the “Christian Church.” That is where you are very, very wrong. By the way, I am a devout protestant who happens to be very close to many Catholics. Regardless, our main dispute lies in the definition of “Christian Church.” Do you think you have the authority to define it? Does Webster have the authority to define it? Actually, Jesus Christ defined and established the “Christian Church,” so let’s see what He has to say. Matthew 16:18 – “And I tell you Peter, on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” In Romans 12:5 & Colossians 1:24 you can further research and discover that the “Christian Church” is made up of every follower of Jesus. The “Christian Church” isn’t a building, a set of rules, or legal organization. You will never be able to pin it down in any of those ways because it is - people. It is people who are dedicated followers of Christ Jesus, nothing more, and nothing less.
        You stated, “And it seems that you also believe that “people” are also automatically a part of the government – which is also not true.” Can you name one government that doesn’t have people in it?” I didn’t say that people from every nation are part of the US government, but the fact is, you can’t have a government without people to run it.
        We agree that the government’s primary role should be to protect and improve the entire group that it is tasked with governing. However, everyone will have a different opinion about what it means to protect and improve the group, and everyone’s opinion will be completely rooted in their beliefs. Everyone has beliefs that they can’t prove and biases that they can’t escape from. The way each person will govern will always protrude from that inner place.
        That being said, please let me reiterate, true Christian people are the “Christian Church,” as defined and established by Christ Jesus himself. Unless you remove every Christian person from a public office, you will never be able to remove Church from the State. It’s simply impossible.

  • me says:

    This is what you are talking about. Notice it does not say 'the separation of church and state'. That is an invention of the judicial part of our government.

    This states that 'congress shall make no law...' Or in other words they can not make a law saying one way or another. Some have taken this to mean (and is currently upheld by our laws) that you can not have any sort of religious things in government.

    I personally think that is merely taking the meaning of that first statement and twisting it to suit an anti christian agenda.

    Yet I also see many using this amendment to espouse their anti christian agenda and then turning around and saying the second one is not valid anymore. So which is it?

    • Mr. Smartypants says:

      Government rules through laws and regulations.
      Government shall not make a law that regulates anything of religious nature.

      Ergo, religion CAN NOT have influence over the government - just as government can not have influence over the religion.

      And if you don't like that, try the following experiment.

      First, do some blasphemy in public. It's OK. God will forgive you. He knows you are joking.
      Then, convert to Islam. Don't worry, you can switch back later your god is a forgiving one an he sure as hell knows that you were just pretending.
      Then, move to Iran or Saudi Arabia.
      Both are wonderful countries ruled by the laws of god instead of men.
      Once you settle down, go out in the street and do some blasphemy in public.
      Come back and let us know how it went for you.

  • Katharine says:

    Regarding the War on Brains and its idiocy, I have been sort of thinking lately that anyone with an IQ under 100 should be given a significant tax cut if they simply do not reproduce.

    • Lab Rat says:

      @katherine: yes why not. eugenics solves everything.

      *Clearly* that is what is wrong with the world. We should start giving more unfair orders to people we don't like. If only more people we look down on would limit their lifestyles because of a dodgy understanding of genetics.


      Genetics does not work like that. People do not work like that. Start appreciating more people in the world rather than using IQ to determine how much you agree with someone's right to exist.

  • Ken says:

    Separation of Church and State goes back to our founding fathers and is not a modern invention of the judiciary. The courts have simply upheld what was set out by the amendment.

    Let's check with one of the founding fathers:

    "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. "

    If people can't keep their religion from interfering with governance, they refrain from holding a public office. Personal beliefs should never be allowed to interfere with the rights laid out in the US Constitution. Anyone taking an oath of office pledges to uphold the Constitution.

  • Ken says:

    "they refrain" should read "they should refrain"

  • Andrew says:

    The constitution one was pretty funny, but my vote goes to the conservapedia's attack on general relativity for making people too open to relativism...