...I don't really see how this has much bearing on freedom of religion. But perhaps I'm not following your definition of freedom here.Freedom of religion means that people--government or private or "sacred" entities--cannot force you to profess any particular beliefs. There is no talk of forcing people to do anything. Rather, this appears--from the bit that's quoted--that these people are affirming what they believe to be the most effective means of sharing their understanding of the world with others. They also, wisely, state that they believe their view is accurate and should be meaningful to everyone.Granted, if this were a public school, people should get upset. But it's a group of people sending a letter an internal document. Who cares? Only those who fundamentally disagree with them. But in that case, it's not a matter of freedom. It's a matter of disagreement about who is right.If I may try to make this a little more clear...---We believe America can be turned around and function as a fact-based nation. We believe that wherever the educators of any city in the world join together in unity to make scientific fact known in every sphere of life, and, with careful presentation, mobilize their students into a unified scientific fact presenting militia; that city can and will become a place where truth reigns. The signing of this manifesto and the rejection of religious superstitions called for herein is, we believe, step number one in bringing a revival to scientific understanding and reformation to our deluded culture. So foundational and critical are the twenty points outlined in this Manifesto and the call to acceptance of scientific study called for in it, that we believe any scientific education which ignores these important points or this kind of public acceptance will be superficial and short lived.EVERYONE SHOULD ACCEPT SCIENCE NOW10. We affirm (a) that now, even before the eradication of world religions, everyone in every nation on earth should accept the major tenets of evolution as foundational to our understanding of biology, and (b) that only those who, accepting the theories as they currently stand, seek to understand the world from a naturalistic perspective should be accepted as true scientists.We deny that anyone, Young Earther or Theistic Evolutionist, Christian or Atheist, private person or public official, is exempt from the logical and factual obligation to submit to the profound truths science has revealed--and will continue to reveal--about speciation, common descent, decent with modification and biological heredity passed down through genes.---Perhaps not so neatly summarized, but I frequently see this kind of thing on university science professors blogs. Doesn't bother me at all. Why? Because it doesn't limit freedom. It merely affirms what they accept and believe and believe other people should accept and believe. In fact, since they are certain they are right about this, people would be fools to disagree. Sadly, fools there are in this world. So, if these professors were so inclined, they could fill in the 20 points--mentioned above--about the best ways to overcome the foolishness of the masses. And still we don't have a freedom problem.Sure, some YEC groups may go crazy, decrying the deluded lies these scientists are promoting. But--seriously--that's just them reacting to something they don't like.Freedom means that people--government or private or educational entities--cannot force you to profess any particular ideas. There is no talk of forcing people to do anything. Rather, these people are merely affirming what they believe would be the most effective means of sharing their understanding of the world with others. They also, wisely, state that they believe their view is accurate and should be meaningful to everyone....or am I missing something here?This whole exercise may prove to be completely trivial because I overlooked an foundational assumption. ~Luke
The person who sought more details was me. Arby. You can find me at www.boardinginbedlam.blogspot.com I wasn’t asking for proof as much as I was seeking a clarification of your position. I’m still a rather new reader to your blog. Well, was. I get the strong feeling that my participation on your blog is not welcomed. Unexplained, your phrase “Farris opposed to a free society” was a little over the top. It was obvious to me that you were basing your statement on something. I was unaware of what that something was. I was also unaware of the fact that I committed the unforgiveable sin of asking a question to better understand where your post was coming from. I was unaware that questions were not appreciated on your blog. I assumed that since you allowed comments, you invited participation. Maybe a dialogue. That was a poor assumption on my part, a mistake that I will never make again. Please accept my apologies.If you will pardon my abject ignorance just a bit longer, I’ve always known Michael Farris to be a man who fights for freedom. Specifically, he fights for the freedom of American citizens to practice homeschooling. He fights for YOUR freedom to homeschool, even if you do not agree with his stance on religion. If there was something that I was missing in my knowledge base concerning Mr. Farris, I wanted to know what it was. I’m always willing to revisit pre-existing ideas based on new information.So, I asked a question. Well, three questions. Reading the manifesto does lead me to believe that it is more a statement of personal faith and personal behavior than it is for a call to take up arms and establish a Christian theocracy in America. I would be against a theocracy in America. It isn’t strange that a Christian would believe that his or her faith is the one true faith. Muslims believe that about their religion. Jews believe that about their religion. Ditto Hindus and Buddhists, et al. Thankfully, Christians appear to have learned their lessons from the Inquisition, unlike our radical Muslim brethren, and prefer mostly non-violent means of attracting new followers. We should probably keep our eye on them anyway. You know the old adage about what happens when we forget out history. I’ll leave you at alone now. Peace.
Arby, I don't mind people asking questions or needing clarification and I hope you will continue to comment. I am sorry you felt your comments were not welcome.Luke & Arby, From the manifesto it sounds as if they do want to set up a theocracy when they sayWe deny that anyone, Jew or Gentile, believer or unbeliever, private person or public official, is exempt from the moral and juridical obligation before God to submit to Christ’s lordship over every aspect of his life in thought, word, and deed.This sounds as if they expect everyone in America to submit to their idea of what God wants. Which sounds like a theocracy to me.Also their statement about wanting America to be a Christian nation leads one to assume that non-Christians would not be welcome.
I think the word choices make people a little uneasy and feel like someone has ideas of trying to force people to act/be a certain way:*"mobilize"*"militia"*"reigns"*no one is "exempt" from their "obligation to submit"Wouldn't want a bunch of crazies getting grandiose ideas of taking over the world! Scientists or Christians!
I went to the link on your site and read, with great interest, big Kahuna's post. When I used his link to get to the Manifesto I did not (by using the search function Ctrl+F) find the same references as he had in green on his blog. Specifically this rather inflamatory paragraph:"EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW TO CHRIST NOW10. We affirm (a) that now, even before Christ’s second coming, every knee in every nation on earth should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord of this universe and rightful Ruler of all lives, and (b) that only those who, trusting in His grace alone for forgiveness of sins, repent of their sinful rebellion and submit to Christ as Lord are justified and stand accepted at the bar of God’s judgment. We deny that anyone, Jew or Gentile, believer or unbeliever, private person or public official, is exempt from the moral and juridical obligation before God to submit to Christ’s lordship over every aspect of his life in thought, word, and deed."This paragraph does not appear in the manifesto to which he linked twice in the same blog. One would assume that these green backgrounded words were meant to be 'excerpts' from that manifesto.Please understand. I am not trying to flame fires here or pick a fight. However, inconsistencies such as these are worrisome. Do you have any idea where I can find the link to these alleged postings?
I finally found it on a different part of their websitehttp://www.angelfire.com/ca4/cor/25articles.html
I should have linked directly to the 25 Articles on the Kingdom of God, thanks for providing the link for others http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/cor/25articles.htmlTo be honest due to the inflammatory language and the poor word choices the whole manifesto especially the articles creeped me out.
I went fixed the original post so The Every Knee Should Bow is linked directly to the articles.
Spam is not tolerated. I welcome on topic comments from you.