Kentucky Inquisition

I would have gotten a black magic marker and written " this is an improper question and its none of your f*******g business" across his survey.

Bert., Thanks for this posting, I like to see what goes on under the current of National News Broadcasting. What arrogance and aloofness! Intimidation and bully tactics! Just what the Brown Shirts did in the run up to abolishing the German legislature...1933. Fortunately most Americans are Progressive and Moderate and no where near the Brown Shirts, right? Where is the real Christ when you need him? Woe be us!

Bert,I gave your article a "9" rating as I appreciate you bringing these issues to the forefront on gather.com. But I am distressed you apparently believe someone should be fired because of their "values" rather than their actions. I agree that the Sheriff should be fired but not because of his beliefs but because of his actions. It was inappropriate for him to use his public office to send this "little survey" to all of the legislators. Even if he did not use county stationary, it had nothing to do with who he wanted to vote for as a single individual. if that were the case, he would only have sentthe his survey to his own representatives and anyone running for office in his district.Termination of employment should not be done on the basis of status of being a fundamentalist Christian lest we also wish to sanction termination because one is Jewish, African-American, etc. Indeed, were the county to fire him because of his fundamentalist Christian beliefs, it would be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination due to a person's religious beliefs.

I'm not surprised at this from Kentucky. When my two girls went to school at Harlan City School, in KY in 1983-86, the principal of the school each year had an assembly that could only be described as an altar call. The students were asked to give themselves to Jesus and become saved Christians. My daughters were raised Quakers and after the meeting, a friend asked one of them if she was "saved". She replied that Quakers didn't believe in being "saved" at which point the girl was indignant and from that point on, my daughter was looked at askance by many of her friends. Amazing. We reinforced her determination and independence at home, so she wasn't feeling bad, but resolved to stand up for her beliefs.

Christopher,
My final comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. My point is that attributing lofty "values" to people who believe in Jesus is not necessarily valid, nor is it valid to assume that non-Christians lack those "values,." and to use religious belief as a "litmus test" for public office, if not illegal, certainly perverts the intent of the Constitution.
I assume that Mr. Sharp was referring to honesty and integrity in the performance of the duties of office when he spoke of "values." If instead he meant that he wanted people in office who would carry out his Christian agenda, even if they were corrupt, then I deplore his actions.

I would have gotten a black magic marker and written " this is an improper question and its none of your f*******g business" across his survey.

WM H,
I agree, but what I didn't mention in the article is that all the candidates returned the survey, and they all affirmed their Christian beliefs. I wonder how many of them were telling the truth. Our political system breeds hypocrisy on this issue. I listened to Kerry talk about his "faith" during the 2004 campaign. He said what he had to say to be a candidate. If he had denied Christian beliefs, he would have lost by a lot more! Such is the political atmosphere in this country, and it has always been that way. A lot of politicians, going all the way back to George Washington, have pussyfooted around the religious issue. I have read that Washington never did actually admit to being a Christian, and most people don't think he was. He was very cagey about it. Of course Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, James Madison and many other founders were openly non-Christian, even anti-Christian. See my article on Religious Quotes if you don't believe that.

Bert,

I agree. But I would go so far as to state it more boldly -- there is No Postive Correlation between proclaimed christian fundamentalist "values," and morality. I find it especially annoying when people co-opt words, change their meaning, and then use them incorrectly. Values!

The media, and political pundits regalarly use the eupehmism "values-voters" -- are they referring to Orthodox Jews or Wahabi-minded Islamic Clerics and followers? No. They should refer to fundamentalist as such, and don't speak about "values," or "family-values," but 'evangelical christian values', and 'evangelical family-values'.

I would also love someone to actually sit down and ennumerate exactly what those values are. I know what they are not.
Fundamentalists (and Red states), have higher divorce rates than Liberal Blue states; they give both in absolute and relative terms, less money to charity, than liberal (blue) states, They perform worse on standardize tests, have lower literacy rates, and are far less likely to attend a highly selective college.
So they don't seem to "value," marriage, relatively,
They don't seem to 'value,' charity.
They don't seem to 'value,' education.
----
But who does seem to value those things (monogamy, morality, charity, education?). 2 words:

Secular Humanists.

Will,
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.

" I wonder how many of them were telling the truth."

The principal goal of those in power is to remain in power and to this end will say whatever it takes.


"Of course Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, James Madison and many other founders were openly non-Christian, even anti-Christian."

This is topic I know well.

Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, January 19, 1810
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State."

Thanks WM...that's a Jefferson quote I don't have. I'll add it to my collection.

Jefferson again:

Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

WM.
Yes, I have that one...and a lot more. Tom Paine is my favorite for quotes on religion, though.

Bert--Thanks for your clarification. Yes, the Constitution expressly prohibits use of a religious test for public office. Yet, as you and others point out, There is one de facto rather de jure. I also agree that sincere religious faith does not necessarily equate with values of tolerance, integrity, truth, fairness...etc.

Aye, but the rub is the Christian fundys VOTED. George dosn't have the morals of an alley cat but knew enough to promise the fundys anything for election. McCain is doing the same thing. If and when the rest of America gets off the couch and votes in November the politicans will know who to court.

More of the religious "us vs. them" mentality.

It should be noted that Jack Abramoff is a devout, practicing Orthodox Jew.

I know some Jews who would be really upset to find that out.

This kind of thing just boggles my mind, for two reasons: The first being that the intermingling of religion and government is so directly opposed to the principles upon which the nation was founded. Why would you want to screw up a system taht's worked for more than two centuries?... Secondly, legislating religion is ultimately self-defeating. If one religion (or any other 'special interest group', for that matter) succeeds in setting that precedent, inevitably, another will come along and seize power, and succeed in suppressing the first. History always cycles...

To anyone who strongly ascribes to a religious doctrine, I say this: The only way to absolutely guarantee YOUR right to practice YOUR religion, is to fight tooth and nail to protect the rights of EVERYONE to practice whatever religion they want. Anything else is incredibly narrow-minded, short-term thinking, and probably not worthy of your religious doctrine...

I was too ashamed to respond yesterday. I live in the one Democratic city in Kentucky. Mitch McConnell, Jim Bunning, Anne Northup, Ernie Fletcher, and jokers like this guy embarrass some of us on a regular basis. Now that they think we have the Supreme Court stacked in their favor, they're putting the ten commandments back up at the capitol (we lost that one, but who cares?? Republicans don't have to follow rules - not even Supreme Court rulings).

Donald,
I agree with your assertion that religious freedom must be universal, not limited to any particular religion or group of religions.
However, most religions have scant tolerance for competing beliefs, so you will find that, while they demand tolerance for their own practices, they have little sympathy for other faiths. It seems to be the nature of religions to believe that only theirs is "right."
As you say, this is narrow minded, intolerant, and, I would add, hypocritical.
But nobody ever guaranteed that religions would be tolerant or logical.
My observation would be quite the opposite. Religions are, by definition, faith-based and intolerant

"Why would you want to screw up a system taht's worked for more than two centuries?... "

For much of that two centuries, much of America was a very homogeneous society. Many people lived their entire lives not knowingly encountering anyone who didn't think just like they did.

Look at an issue like school prayer. Just because school prayer was common for 175 years doesn't mean it was right. It just means that no one complained about it.

WM H,
Absolutely right. Lots of other shit went on that wasn't right too...like making blacks sit in the back of the bus, and go to "colored" schools, restaurants and restrooms. Straightening that out meant confronting a lot of people who had primitive, intolerant ideas.
It wasn't easy, and they didn't go down without a fight.

Great article and greater comments. Sam & Shawn perfect.
I know I am a broken record but...almost all strife, war and suffering over the last few thousand years can be directly linked to organized religion.

Oh and Donald I wanted to repeat this, it is the only way to solve the worlds current problems: it is perfect.

"To anyone who strongly ascribes to a religious doctrine, I say this: The only way to absolutely guarantee YOUR right to practice YOUR religion, is to fight tooth and nail to protect the rights of EVERYONE to practice whatever religion they want. Anything else is incredibly narrow-minded, short-term thinking, and probably not worthy of your religious doctrine..."

I agree that there has been much that has gone on in the last 200 or so years that has been based on prejudice and intolerance. The point I was trying to make is that 'the system' has, fairly consistently I think, been moving AWAY from that, toward openness and tolerance.

I fear that we are potentially at a turning point right now, where prejudice and intolerance are becoming 'mainstream' and working their way into our very government. It's scary stuff: I was driving in to work this morning, listening to a story about some legislator who wants to make it legal for schools to COMPEL their students to say the Pledge of Alliegiance - and it's basically considered that it will be an easy WIN if it makes it into the system (ballot & legislature)!

Yes, when I was a kid, we said the Pledge, and nobody ever thought to question it. In a way, we were compelled. But then somebody DID question it, and the courts have consistently ruled that an individual can't be FORCED to say anything. But now we have people who have BEEN ELECTED, who believe that people CAN and SHOULD be FORCED to say this Pledge...

In my opinion, it's absolutely INSANE! But... it'll be an easy win!

It smacks of mainstream repression of individual rights; pack mentality; forced patriotism; prejudice; coercion. I grew up during the latter part of the cold war, and that's all the crap we used to hear about Russia/USSR! That's all the stuff that this country used to stand AGAINST! Now, 25 years later we're looking at the VERY SAME practices embedding themselves in our culture and government! Like I said, scary stuff!

...and thatnks, Bruce.

" The point I was trying to make is that 'the system' has, fairly consistently I think, been moving AWAY from that, toward openness and tolerance."

We have made great strides legalistically over the lst 50 years beginning with Brown vs Board of Education. But I think few fully understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the various decisions leading down the path to embracing diversity.

While we have progresed legally, we still have a lot of catching up to do rationally and spiritually.

Donald,
I did a little Google search and I can't find anything recent on mandatory Pledge laws. There was a law passed in Pennsylvania in 2004, but it was shot down in the courts. Colorado was considering a law in January of this year, but it had a provision allowing a student to opt out for any reason, which means it wasn't mandatory at all! AS the article said, why bother? I'm not so sure such a law would be adopted so easily. I certainly hope not.
Here is a link to the Colorado story.

WM H,
Tolerance can't be legislated. The same problem exists with teaching creation in school. A majority of the people in the country still favor it, even though it has been rejected repeatedly in the courts. I am a member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as well as the ACLU, and I keep telling them that winning in the courts is not enough. We have to figure out how to win in the "court" of public opinion.

almost all strife, war and suffering over the last few thousand years can be directly linked to organized religion.

Absolutely right, Bruce. It's my broken record too. I like that quote about religious tolerance...do you know who said it?

Bert, I was quoting Donald from an earlier comment of his that was great.

Ah, thank you. It sounded like something somebody famous had said, because it was so well conceived and constructed..
And who knows, Donald may well be famous someday.

Mr. Bert Bigelow left some important facts out of his story. Jeff Sharp and his seventh and eight grade Wednesday Night youth class at Gethsemane Baptist Church sent this survey out as a class project. It had nothing to do with the Barren County Attorney's Office. Jeff Sharp is the Barren County Attorney but the survey was sent out with his classes help on his own time at his own expense. Even The Kentucky Civil Liberties Union who rarely ever sides with Christians said their was nothing improper or Unconstitional in the sending of this survey. The Gethsemane Baptist Youth group had a duel purpose in sending the survey. The primary purpose was a spiritual one, the secondary purpose was political. Because AP radio and news picked up this story it went not only Nationwide but Worldwide. Every newstory that carried the story set forth the Question ask in the survey " Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?" Because of the widespread publicity Millions read or heard this story. I am sure each person that read this question had to ask themselves the same question. Who knows how many of those people may have from that thought either gave their life to Jesus then or started a path down that road. I am sure regardless of the miniscule political consequences because of the sperading of the Question Gethsemane Baptist Youth beleives they more than exceeded their goals. People will complain and protest, but the Gethsemane Youth expected this, Satan always fights back when you kick him in the teeth.

Welcome, Jeff, and thanks for your comments. I knew that the survey was sent out in conjunction with a school class. Frankly, I did not think that was relevant. You are a public official, and by participating in this "survey" you give the impression that it is an official government act.
While the "Kentucky Civil Libeties Union" whatever that organization is, may not have objected, Americans United for Separation of Church and State did. That is where I picked up this article. Since you obviously planned to publish the results, you clearly intended to intimidate all the legislators and candidates. The article said that all candidates responded in the affirmative. They really didn't have any choice, did they? Your survey did its job, and served as a very clear "test." And that is prohibited by the Constitution.

The survey to the legistlative candidates only stated it was from the 7 & 8th grade Wednesday night youth class at Gethsemane Baptist Church. Nowhere did it state my position or that I was a public official of any kind. It was not our classes intention that this survey get media attention. The same survey was mailed out two years ago during the last legistlative election cycle and received no publicity. The only reason it received publicity this time was because of the stink Kathy Stein raised about the survey. As I said before we welcomed the publicity when it came but we did not generate the publicity. It was the newspapers that first brought up the fact that I was the Barren County Attorney, I never gave the impression that it was a official government act. Surely you are not suggesting that Public Office holders do not have the right to witness for Christ on their own time at their own expense.
The Kentucky Civil Liberties Union is the Kentucky Branch of the ACLU.
The Constitution religious test provision prohibits disallowing people to run for office because of their religion or lack of religion. The Constitution does not prohibit supplying information to voters. If you intend to prohibit voters from voting based on a candidates religion, how are you going to enforce that. Will you force voters to take lie detector test and disqualify their vote if they in any way considered a persons religion when casting their vote?

Surely you are not suggesting that Public Office holders do not have the right to witness for Christ on their own time at their own expense

This has nothing to do with your personal religious rights. You know that.
As I said in my article, the Constitution says the following: ""No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
I think it could be argued that your "survey" is attempt to impose a religious "test" on candidates. While the "survey" may not have given your official position, it still seems inappropriate for you to have been involved in such a thing. Would it have been appropriate for President Bush to put his name on it?
Well, maybe I shouldn't ask you that. I'll ask the other readers.

I am very torn on this one.

I truly believe that anyone anywhere has the right to ask anyone anything if they want our vote.

I am a car nut, I would ask and disqualify as my local candidate anyone that was going to legislate control over my hobby, and that's just cars.

Even if I feel that organized religion is actually Satan in disguise (which I do) someone who wants to believe has the right to ask anyone running how they feel about their beliefs.

Bert, I am here to tell you that I agree with you 100% and this religious devil out there scares me BUT...if we wanna be free, everyones gotta be free.

Now that said, if these Bible thumping weasels or these savage Islamic Nazis try and erode my daughters and son's hard won liberties and freedoms in anyway theys gonna deal with the Bruce!

Seriously, I just don't know what the answer is, I'm not sure there is one.

Bruce,
I understand your concern, and I share it. Certainly, as an individual, I can ask any politician anything I want to ask him. I believe Mr. Sharp stepped over the line, though, when he, as a public official, participated in this "survey." Even though he hid behind a school class to mask his involvement. He says he didn't want media attention, but he also says that he "welcomed the publicity." It was a clear attempt to introduce the religion of the candidates as a political issue. He even admitted that, saying that the purposes of the survey were spiritual AND political. I particularly appreciated his comment that, since I was protesting this, I am directed by Satan. That seems to be the standard fundamentalist accusation of anyone who opposes them.

I must add: I am not a Constitutional law authority. I do not know if the courts would rule that Sharp violated the law. But I think his actions, attempting to make the religion of politicians THE deciding issue is inappropriate.
Not all Christians are honest people, nor are all honest people Christians.
That should certainly not be the only criterion in elections, and attempting to make it that distorts the political process. It is yet another example of the increasing aggressiveness of the Religios Right in their attempt to turn the country into a Christian theocracy, and I will speak out against things like this whenever I find them.

I forget what became of Jimmy Swagart and Jimmy Boy Baker?
They were real good Christians as I remember.

And don't forget Rectal Roberts....oh, sorry...Oral Roberts.

quote by Bruce "this religious devil out there scares me". I am not that scary, I am just a harmless little fuzzball.

I think you guys are so far removed from people like me that we are almost like a foriegn culture to you, we are like pigmies from Africa to you, we are like a bug in a jar to be studied. Let me tell you one little aspect about us that you may not understand or may not have ever considered. We Fundamental Christians believe to our core, that upon death there is a Heaven and a Hell in which all souls will spend eternity. We believe these are literal places. Heaven is a wonderful place and Hell is a place you wouldn't want even your worse enemy to have to go to. We believe that the only way to heaven is thru Jesus Christ. So now I am getting to the part I don't think you understand about us. Our desire in witnessing and trying to win people to Christ is a desire born out of our love for others. As I said earlier I wouldn't want my worse enemy to go to Hell. I guess the point I am trying to make is this, we are not people to be feared, we are motivated by love for your soul and a desire to help you. I know you think we are just nuts for beleiving as we do, but we love you so much we don't want your blood to be on our hands. In other words, if I see you and do not witness to you for Christ and you go to Hell its partially my fault. If I tell you about Christ then I have done all I can do, if you make the wrong choice after that, your blood will not be on my hands. I just give you that info so you can better understand our motivation for witnessing.

Jeff,
I want to thank you for coming back and posting your comment above. I have no doubt that you are absolutely sincere in everything you said. I also have no doubt that you think you know what is best for every person on this earth...that they embrace your religious views. That is one of the things about devout fundamentalist believers that bothers me the most, because I think that their attempts to impose their beliefs on me...whether through opposition to abortion, stem cell research, sex education, contraception and family planning or attempts to impose "Biblical Law"...are done with the best of intentions!
I suspect that the Catholic priests who carried out the tortures of the Inquisition were equally certain of the righteousness of their actions.
The certainty that you have in your beliefs has elements of arrogance, even intolerance. I suggest that you do NOT know what is best for me or any other person. And while I respect your sincerity, I deplore the attempts by people like you to impose your beliefs on me, and I will continue to speak out against what I view as the increasingly aggressive actions of the Religious RIght to impose religious tyranny in this country.

Jeff. I gotta stick with Bert on this one, and I will add my two cents worth.

The constitution does allow you as a private citizen to ask a person who is running for office what their views are. But as a test of the person's ability to serve as a legislator it is a test not worth answering. For the simple reason that when they enter office they are forbidden by the constitution from giving preference to any religious group. So basically the only reason you could have had was to somehow politically embarrass those who answered no. The best thing for the polititions to do would have been to answer something like this.

Our constitution forbids me from giving preference to any religious belief. My Views on religion will in no way affect the decisions I will make as a representative. Therefore I respectfully decline to answer your questionnaire.

Unfortunately elected officials think this will somehow tarnish them. In fact it should give the impression that they understand their roll as a legislator.

Thanks, David...and I agree with you 100%.

:-)