I remember hearing of this story on Greg Koukl’s Stand to Reason radio show when he interviewed apologist Mary Jo Sharp who was involved in the video above. It’s interesting to see the video – I hadn’t until now. The video very clearly demonstrates that muslims don’t like their ideology being questioned and use heavy handed tactics to intellectual objections.

Edit: I found the podcast of Koukl’s interview with Mary Jo Sharp. The discussion on this incident begins approximately at the 48 and 1/2 minute mark.

During the interview, Koukl makes an astute observation: Islam, since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, has become the most privileged religion in the Western world and the Christians have been made out to be the bad guys. “What explains this?” Koukl asks. “Nothing except for spiritual warfare, from my perspective … and also the stupidity of the American people. It’s the Age of Stupidity, as Dennis Prager has put it.”

Look no further than to what’s happening in Great Britain: once the stalwart bastion of democratic freedom and tolerance it is now placing itself at the mercy of an intolerant Islamic ideology while persecuting those who hold to the Christian values that made that country great.

What has peaked my curiosity here is the question that got the reaction. Do anyone know what that question was?

David, I'm glad you love to throw out definitions of fallacies, but I'm quite aware of the Tu Quoque. Note that I didn't contest the point, and even added "They (security) made mistakes and the tape showed that."

This isn't a debate, it was a comment in which I thought it was comical that this article is pretty much the definition of irony – a group of people that normally use heavy handed tactics to establish an agenda got the short end of the stick, and are crying about it, quite loudly in fact.

I find that funny. I'm not obfuscating any points you might have made, nor do I wish to debate the topic – I'm just clarifying that some comments aren't meant to follow with an in depth discussion and a trip to google to look for references, some are off the cuff remarks pertaining to the subject material and nothing more.

"What has this got to do with the treatment received by the Acts 17 Apologetics group? How is the treatment they received an example of reaping what they sow? I mean, if my father or brother is a murderer, I suppose I am getting what I deserve when someone murders me, right? "

If your father is a murderer, that by itself isn't justifiable. However, if you belong to a group that murders and preach it pretty regularly, you have no basis to say that murdering is wrong for others.

"What are some examples that you think support your claim that Christians "wrote the book on heavy-handed tactics within U.S. society and politics"? It's certainly not in their idealogy as expressed in their constitution, so I would be interested to know what you mean."

Are you kidding? Let's make a list, shall we?

Here's a list of some, but not all things Christians promote in society currently, imposing their beliefs on others, regardless of whether it's legal or not.

National Day of Prayer
Ban of Abortion
Ban of Gay Marriage
Teaching of Creationism/ID in public schools
Prayer in school
10 commandments displayed in Public officials' offices
Abstinence-only sex education

Every one of these is led by the Christian right wing, and they use their status as the majority religion to push their particular ideology. This site shows it, as does every other Christian apologetics blog in one form or another. These things are actively HURTING people daily, and in some cases, are illegal (Separation of Church and State), but some Christians have no qualms with putting in legislation that conforms to their religion, even if it defecates on the current laws we have.

This is what I mean by "Pot calling the kettle black". I belong to a group that goes around burning houses, and then when someone lights my house aflame, I cry out that it's unfair treatment.

Notice the Christian support for these characters who were arrested, failing to realize that they were disruptive last year and were disruptive again this year, and were forcibly asked to leave. They intentionally caused a scene and instigated the conflict.

Personally, in this issue, I think security was in the wrong, but the Acts 17 team had far from clean hands in the matter.

Where is the part that you defend your claim about Christians writing the book “on heavy-handed tactics within U.S. society and politics"? Providing examples that fall within freedom of speech and the use of the legal system to enforce a particular moral point of view is a right secured by the American constitution. Everyone and anyone can do this Freddy. That is what the system is for. All laws and all challenges to the law are an attempt by someone trying to force their ideology on others. Had you not realized this? Or perhaps you think Christians should be treated as second class citizens with less rights than everyone else?

Separation of church and state! Do you even know what that means? You seem to think it means religious people cannot influence government on the basis of their personal beliefs. You have it exactly backwards!

Then you make silly statements like “some Christians have no qualms with putting in legislation that conforms to their religion, even if it defecates on the current laws we have”, yet fail to realize that all bills that come before parliament are challenges to the current law. Where do you get off deciding what kinds of bills are even permitted a priori. Even I, as a follower of Christ, think that the rights of those I disagree with (e.g. homosexual lobbyists, pro-abortion advocates), ought to be protected so that they can bring before government any Bill they think is appropriate. So who is forcing their ideology on who here?

You also have a strange notion of the concept of disruption. As the tape shows (and by their own testimony), they were not disruptive, they did not disturb the peace and in fact had quiet polite conversations with several people.

Apologies for taking so long to respond Freddy.

If you don't mind, it appears that the foundation of your entire argument is that these kinds of actions are unconstitutional because of the alleged Separation of Church and State based on the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. That being the case, the most productive way forward in this discussion, I think, is to focus our attention there.

So, if it is unconstitutional to have things like the Ten Commandments displayed in a public office, have prayers in public schools, etc., why do you think it is then that no-one thought this was a problem when the Establishment Clause was originally written, or for at least 150 years afterwards? I mean, did the words of the Constitution change sometime during the 20th century, pointing a new way forward in the good governance of America?

I am not trying to argue much of anything at the moment. I am just trying to figure out whether your claims concerning the Establishment Clause hold up under scrutiny.

I'll put it another way: If it is actually the case that the First Amendment was instituted to restrict the kinds of things you've mentioned, why wasn't such a storm raised against these religious symbols and practices for the first 150 years following its implementation? How do you account for that?

Well Freddy, I asked you for examples of challenges to the First Amendment within the first 150 years of its inception to support your understanding of the Establishment Clause, and you (eventually) offer up several cases outside that time frame and one within that period in which the defendant made an appeal to the Establishment Clause in a way completely unsupported by the stand you have made. In fact, part of Reynolds’ defence was an appeal to the free exercise of religion permitted by the First Amendment, rather than a challenge against the government’s endorsement of a particular religious act.

Then you cite Tripoli. The relevant section of the English translation of the Treaty of Tripoli reads: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
It does not state that “…America isn’t a nation of Christian principles,” and frankly I am surprised that you can’t tell the difference.

By the way, thanks for all the links to Supreme Court cases between 1948 and 1993. I’m glad I went to so much trouble to stipulate a 150-year statute so that you could completely ignore it. Interesting also that you admit “As society's influences and priorities became more secular, more cases that dealt with separation of church and state emerged” because that tends to work against your whole argument concerning the purpose of the First Amendment. The words of the Constitution didn’t change in 150 years, yet it took all that time for society to realize that they’d been flagrantly abusing the Constitutional rights of American citizens by displaying the Ten Commandments, teaching creationism and having government sponsored prayer in schools, or by prohibiting abortion or same-sex marriage, etc… hmmm?

You asked, “… are you trying to argue that because people didn’t raise a stink a century and a half ago, debating this topic is somehow discounted?” No I am not, and actually, it was your job to provide the argument. This is not an opportunity for you to attack my view, but defend your own. My opinion (even the truthfulness of it) is irrelevant to whether or not you are able to defend your own claims.

But for the record, I am saying that the reason people didn’t “raise a stink” in the years following the inception of the First Amendment is because they understood and supported what the Establishment Clause actually meant, as intended by its original author [see note 1] rather than some 20th century redaction. In other words, secular society has, watch this, forced their ideology onto the American people through the re-interpretation of the Constitution – something you believe ought not be allowed, well, at least not by Christians, right. And thanks for helping me to demonstrate that with several concessions regarding the changing society and its attitude to the principles upon which America was built.

Greg Koukl says, “Separationists have managed to get personal Bibles off of teachers’ desks, the Ten Commandments out of school rooms, and references to God eliminated from students’ graduation speeches.” But how did they get there in the first place? Greg continues, “They were allowed by citizens, legislatures, and courts who saw no harm in them, no intolerance, no danger, and no breech of any Constitutional principle for almost 175 years.“

Despite being given several opportunities you have yet to successfully defend your claims and seem more interested in trying to draw me out, as though this removes any burden from you.

In any case, I suggest you take the time to think about your argument and try again when Adam publishes a new post specifically addressing the Establishment Clause later this month, as this conversation has regrettably moved beyond the original scope of the article [my bad] and I will not be approving further comments.

Footnote:
1. The First Amendment was rewritten twelve times to make its intent clear. Likewise, James Madison was clear that “establish” means Congress cannot enforce the legal observation of religion by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. The concept is one of non-establishment, not isolation. He also understood “religion” to mean “the duty to which we owe our Creator and the Manner of discharging it.” Rachael Denhollander (an attorney with the California Bar Association) also points out, “Both history and early case law support an interpretation of the Establishment Clause that defines “establish” as actual, legal compulsion to engage in an act of worship."