Thursday, September 15, 2011

David Barton Files Lawsuit

Against critics of his. Read about it here.

Barton, it seems is fighting his enemies on both the Left and Right. He was just dropped by his Christian radio network because of his ties to Glenn Beck, specifically his defense of Beck's Mormon Christianity. Warren Throckmorton gives the details.

Finally, for Barton's side on his defense of Glenn Beck's Mormon Christianity, see his Facebook note.

15 comments:

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Jon,
Perfectly understandable, but in the larger scheme of thngs, will such actions be viewed by the State as 'disruptive" to its peace? Will such actions tend to logger-jam the courts with personal and private beliefs? And will such "wars" be what makes for the State's resistance to religious liberty? Isn't this similar to the questions about "shai'ra" beng a useful "standard" in our courts??? Don't know if you have more info concerning such "discussions, but surly they must be occurring.

Phil Johnson said...

.
The action regarding Barton's association with Beck points up the more serious problem of public religiosity--especially when it comes to the media and politics. Taking a hard look at how (capital F) Fundamentalism influences the thinking of believers in any religion--not just Christianity--we see a continuum of more and more purification of the faith until the point of radicalization is reached--just like a Black Hole that sucks everything that gets near it, into oblivion. That is more apparent to us in the World of Islam; but, Christianity isn't too far behind. Wasn't that the story of Puritanism as it developed in the early days of America's creation? And, isn't that currently playing itself out in America's brand of conservative politics?
.
.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Phil,
The question is not JUST concerning our courts, as if that wasn't enough, but how are we to view and see life!!???? These are places of ethical questions where dilemmas play out in real world politics. And both sides are guilty of using thier values to undermine the other side's point!

A pertinant and recent example is the statement by Pat Robertson that a person whose spouse is suffering Alzheimer's should be able to divorce. A Catholic priest responded to such a "progressive idea" that marriage was a sacred bond and trust, that should not be dissolved based on circumstances!

One affirms the relativity of the people involved, (the consent of the contract, so to speak), while the other holds to an "absolute Standard", such as Islam! And yet, most would agree that divorce is taken too lightly in our society.

We pay for it in many instances with kids and single parental poverty, and kids that don't have the needed emotional support at home to adjust to the demands of school, which impacts society at large, within the school classroom, as well as the implicatons to these kids of the values of stability, civility and societal health...while each of these individual kids don't value themselves or their ability to succeed because there was never anyone there that thought they could!

Science is also making inroads into the questions of what makes for the definiton of "life" with robots that can "think and feel".

Liberty grants us the right to discover and explore and even dissolve relationship to things and people. Which "rules' are going to define tomorrow's America and her values? These are the questons for science and religion, as neither has an "ideal solution"!

Angie Van De Merwe said...

As to definitons of Christianity, that is futile to pursue, as the Founders knew!

But, they did think that there was some type of "form" which would hold government accountable, which were the brances of government. And the people accountable to the "rule of law"! No one was to be considered beyond the rules that granted another the right to life and liberty! Then, the questons becomes where does liberty end and another's right begin? These are values of liberty that allow for differences where religious convicton and personal opinion aren't demands under law!!!

Angie Van De Merwe said...

How is civility taught, when one's religious conviction or personal opinion is strongly held or believed? These are questions about self-control, political persuasion, and public manners!

Phil Johnson said...

.
Mostly what I get out of the article regarding Barton has to do with the ever purification of religious beliefs and the resistance to any changes toward any liberalization. So, that would kinda fall into the Thomist ideas we hear about from time to time--building on traditionalism. My opinion is that it is only a matter of time before these movements all fall into their own black hole. But, it might take several hundred years. Hopefully, civilization will survive their ideocy.
.
It ain't funny.
.
You seem to see it as something that is clogging the courts?
.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

And, manners are what is considered appropriate behavior in cultural settings.

Psychological science helps us understand what is healthy human behavior, which has little to do with religion. In fact, I think while religion might help coping skills, religions is useful for the political class to manipulate power bases. Such political power is not about religion per se, it is really about economics. And economic policy is understood in different ways. The politically correct view today is economic justice. But, whether one entitles another to equal pay under the law, or allows free market competiton is a question also of values and ethics and "moral dilemmas"!

I had a person close to me say that his grandson was barely making ends meetat $50,000. Granted that he has school loans to pay back as he went to medical school, but his wife is making $100,000! I asked him if he knew the stats on the average salary in America, as I could not understand how he could make that judgment. His argument was the the cost of living was higher where his grandson lived. But, I also know that acquired tastes also has something to do with how one chooses to live.

One's views about lifestyles, as to needs, are relative to context, and understanding of the right to private property and choices about values.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Yes, Phil, I see that individual liberty as to conscience has to do with one's definition about lifestyle, personal opinion about choices of values, etc. These have to do with the intersection of which is of greater value, life or liberty?

And how does one define life? Is one's life one's own, or to be surrendered to another entity, whether a "god" or society and its leaders? Either surrender gives up rights to ownershp of one's life as to choosing one's values. Is life valued IF it is under some political domination of some kind, whether religious or political? I don't think so.

But, others might argue that one's life is only a part of a greater whole and we cannot and do not live in isolaton. This is true, and these are the questions that plague our courts about interpreting laws, about personal/privacy issues and property rights, contracts, etc.

Whenever one justifies any action on "God", then one has claims that go beyond the law, as to what is "good for a free society"! And this is where moral philosophy in the Divine Command Theory and religious claims about "god's right" leave no room for liberty!!!

Phil Johnson said...

.
When it comes to life, liberty, and property, how does one apply his or her principles?


.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

How does one apply one's principles? Resistance to those that would undermine one's principles, through appeals to the court, protests to the government or elected officials, or peaceful political movements. And isn't this what David Barton is/was doing when he intiated a lawsuit? The problem is, when the American public doesn't understand what religious liberty entails, as to another'r right of conscience, then we have people making judgments using their definitions of "TRUTH" about Christianity!

These are places where diverse interests must be allowed in our society, otherwise the State bears down on private or personal rights to "free speech" and "freedom of assembly". But, such bearing down is not just the State, but could be religious communities IF given authority over another's conscience and right to differ!

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I find it interesting that just recently the Netherlands has decided to ban the burque. Other European countries have done so to prevent radicalism/fundamentalism from gaining ground in thier society! I think this is a good move, as cultural values such as dress must defined, even by law to be a tolerant one. Those that adhere to a strict standard need to live elsewhere other than free societies!

Phil Johnson said...

.
How principled were the Founding Fathers?
.
And, how did they apply their principles when it came to making choices for the new government they brought to state?
.
How would they have dealt with the insult on which Barton is basing his claims in this suite he is taking to court?
.

Phil Johnson said...

.
Burque?
.
Burka?
.

Tom Van Dyke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Johnson said...

.
Burr and Hamilton?
.