I swear [to God]

“Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.” Because of the nature of this oath, atheist testimony [in the United States] has, traditionally, been inadmissible in court. In some ways this notion exists today.[1] A number of states even barred atheists from holding public office.[2]

Definitionally, this makes sense:

Oath (n): “A solemn or formal declaration invoking God (or a god, or other object of reverence) as witness to the truth of a statement, or to the binding nature of a promise or undertaking; an act of making such a declaration. Also: the statement or promise made in such a declaration, or the words of such a statement.”[3]

Swear (v): “To make a solemn declaration or statement with an appeal to God or a superhuman being, or to some sacred object, in confirmation of what is said; to take an oath.”[4]

An atheist's oath is therefore meaningless, as the atheist does not believe that man is accountable. Without reference to God, atheists have no reason to swear an oath, or to make a vow. Such gestures have no influence. Essentially, the atheist has no reason to tell the truth.

It is a surprise then, to hear that Alabama Governor Robert Bentley’s comment “Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister…” has produced a torrent of panic within the ADL (Anti-Defamation League). The assumption was, given his comments, we must question whether non-Christians will receive equal treatment under the law during his term as Governor.[5]

Christians have always identified other Christians as their brothers and sisters. This language has been used extensively since the dawn of the Christian Church. The Governor was simply stating that he wishes to share the bond of Christian fellowship with his listeners. There is no reason to treat him as if he said non-Christians were lesser beings. There is no warrant to the suggestion that because he knows who his spiritual family is, that he will neglect the needs of his atheist neighbors. As a Christian, he has a responsibility to do the opposite.

Perhaps the reason that Gov. Bentley is criticised unjustly has to do with the world-view of his attackers. Atheists have no reason to assume that such slander will one day be punished, and that they will be held accountable for their crimes.
_____________________________________________________________

[1] Constitution of the State of Arkansas, Article 19: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

[2] Maryland (Article 37); Mississippi (Article 14); North Carolina (Article 6); South Carolina (Article 6); Tennessee (Article 9); Texas (Article 1). These prohibitions were ruled unenforceable by Torcaso v. Watkins (1961).

[3] Oxford English Dictionary.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Web Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_alabama_governor_christians

Finding the Founding Fathers

The Founding Fathers of the United States. Properly defined, these are the men who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, or those who established the United States Government via the Constitution in 1787. The Founding Fathers can be identified as either “Signers of the Declaration of Independence” or “Framers of the Constitution.”[1]

Recently, along with many of the United States thorough religious identifications the religious affiliations of the Founding Fathers has become the subject of criticism. It was once understood that the Founding Fathers were a predictable assortment of 18th century [Christian] denominations. This attitude has been replaced by an anti-theistic conjecture: That the Founding Fathers were comprised of deists, agnostics, and atheists.

There is little that needs to be said about the religious affiliation of the Founding Fathers. The religious identifications of these men is a matter easily settled, as this information is a matter of civic record:

A total of 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence. Of these 56 men there were 32 Anglicans, 13 Congregationalists, 12 Presbyterians, 2 Quakers, 2 Unitarians, and 1 Catholic.

A total of 39 men signed the Constitution, though 55 participated in the Constitutional Convention. Of these 55 men there were 31 Anglicans, 16 Presbyterians, 8 Congregationalists, 3 Quakers, 2 Catholics, 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, and 2 Dutch Reformed.[2]

Even if it were granted that the often cited Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were deists, that George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison were non-Christian, the Fathers as a group would suffer little.

The Founding Fathers were visibly Christians. Most of which were confirmed, baptised, trinitarian Christians. The attitude prevalent in modern America cannot dissolve the documentation. The animosity toward Christianity cannot repudiate the Fathers.
_____________________________________________________________

[1] Some historians/politicians adopt a more flexible definition including the signers of the Articles of Confederation. Some even include all those who participated in the American Revolution.

[2] Web Sources: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qtable.htm;
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html.

“Fear Nothing But a Closed Mind”

Closed-mindedness; to some, this is an irreconcilable flaw. Sometimes it’s an unwillingness to consider the other side. It could be an inability to empathize. Whatever the situation, there are few ideas as abused as “closed-mindedness.”

Although the need for a receptive audience is obvious, there is also a need for respect for authority, adherence to tradition, and trust in truth. Open-mindedness, taken to the extreme, is dangerous. One should never accept the challenge to consider an idea that is logically incoherent. One should remain closed-minded when asked about the existence of a married bachelor. Some ideas really are wrong. One does not reach a greater level of understanding by accepting the premise that inquiry need not be conducted in a logically coherent way.

Granting a false premise as a consession, in order to be open-minded, will not lead to a true conclusion. The existence of truth necessitates falsehood. An obviously false claim can, and should, be rejected. If that’s closed-minded, everyone ought to be.

How many heroes are open-minded? Were abolishionists willing to consider the possibility of slavery as acceptable? Were the Allies willing to analyse the holocaust “in light of the German cultural heritage?” Clearly, they were not.

We venerate those who fought against an evil without deliberation. The truth is, everyone is closed-minded. A truly open-minded person could not function in our society. One’s firmest convictions would change every time they browsed the web.

Anyone who would claim to be open-minded, should recognize that there are times closed-mindedness must be embraced. If you disagree, you are closed-minded. If you agree, you already understand.

“My Opponent is a Nazi”

The most common form of argument, often encountered in any discipline, all types of discussion, across almost every medium, is the argument ad hominem (Latin meaning, “to the man”). This method of argument attempts to link the validity of Person A’s argument to the conduct or belief system of that person. It is most often employed incorrectly, and becomes a logical fallacy as a result.

Whether it’s the Glenn Beck Program, the 2008 presidential race, or the tea party movement, ad hom is everywhere. It is as if one says “My opponent is a nazi,” and the argument is over. All one needs to do in order to demonize and disarm an oponnent is to accuse them of being a racist, fascist, socialist, or bigot. One might even identify their oppenent as “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” (That’s Richard Dawkins discussiong God...) Rhetoric has a place, but it is not the foundation of an argument.

Barack Obama is not a nazi and George Bush is not a nazi. Republicans are not nazis and democrats are not nazis. Theists are not nazis and athiests are not nazis. It is embrassingly jouvenile to throw ad hom attacks at opponents as is often done in popular books, media, and conversation.

Intelligent people can disagree with good inent and good reason. Show the opposing view some respect, treat it with some contemplation, you might learn something... even if it is why you unreservedly reject it.