Secularism is not the solution

[ScreamingEagle]

Ridiculous? ScreamingEagle, I wouldn't have you think that I would take your commentary out of context, or dodge a point I must agree with by directing my attention to only those posts I disagree with. You should be flattered I considered every thing you posted worth a thoughtful response.

Why thank you.

Not so. Some few minor details aside, we very much have one right here in the good ol' U.S. of A.

If you think we already have a secular government, then why is it the secular Left is currently attacking our already secular government?

Nope.

You don't think secularists think that public policy should be separate from religious influence? Then why is it today that secularists on the Left think the 10 Commandments should not be displayed in a Courthouse or that "In God We Trust" should not be written on our coins?

Yep.

Glad you agree that it's impossible to separate government policy from religious influence.

It sure can.

Now you're saying politics can be separated from religion. You get confusing. OK, you're probably splitting hairs here. Let's agree that formal religious doctrine should not be instituted in the government but that religious influences can be.

Different issue. Secular government does not demand government by atheists. As a point of fact, one of the very rationales stated my the Foundng Fathers <b>for</b> the wall of separation of church and state, was to prevent religion, or religious affiliation, from being a consideration regarding public service or citzenship in the USA.

Secular government per se does not demand government by atheists. However, that is becoming almost questionable today. It is the secular Left that is now attempting to institute their beliefs into our government and wipe out all other belief influences. Witness their removal of a statue of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse. It's almost getting to the point where people are now worried that if they are Christian they cannot hold office or judgeship.

PS: There is no "wall" in our Constitution. That is a figment of someone's imagination in a legal paper.

Yet their religions need not be the government. Their religious doctrine and dogma need not be supported by or supportive of the government, nor does the government need be supported by or supportive of their religious doctrine or its dogma.

I agree that their religions need not be the government. Doctrine and dogma of a religion should not be instituted in our government per se. However, as long as those religiously-influenced laws do not establish a religion per se, our laws (voted in by majority vote) should still be able to reflect religious beliefs. For instance, it is a religious belief and one of the 10 Commandments to not steal. Our laws against stealing reflect those religious beliefs without establishing, for example, the Methodist religion.

True, but those laws, described and enforced by a secular government, must be described and enforced separately from religious doctrine and dogma.

"What would Jesus do?" is a valid, and allowable, consderation which a government official might have when creating or enforcing law and policy. What is absolutely invalid is that same government official demanding, or even implying, that disobeying that law, or not following that policy, is being disobedient of Jesus--that disobeying the government is disobeying God.

Agreed that laws must be described and enforced separately from religious doctrine - however, not religious influence. But this is what today's secular movement is challenging. They are questioning anything that has the whiff of Christianity attached to it, thereby negating any law they do not endorse.

I believe it--that is my argument. The trick is to convince you of it.

Your argument is that Christians believe in a secular government as procribed by our Founders?
Well, if that's all, you have won the argument. However, I think the secular liberal Left (which many Christians stupidly support) does not believe we have a secular government. Why else would they be challenging our laws and accusing them of being non-secular?

Did our Founders have any problem with saying prayers at government functions? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with children saying prayers in school? No.
Did our Founders prevent a school teacher from carrying his personal Bible to public school? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with the 10 Commandments displayed in Courthouses? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with laws prohibiting pornography? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with prohibiting homosexuality? No.

Why were such things as these OK in our prior secular government but not today per the secular Left who scream about the "wall of separation"?

But they did not let their religion become the basis of the law in this land. They pointedly rejected all notions of placing Jesus vicariously into office.

Religion never became the "basis" (a tricky word) of law, but it certainly did influence the laws of our land. Frankly, it is because Christianity influenced the laws of our country that our country is so great. The same country would never have been created if formed under Islamic influence, for example.

Ommission of the prospect of eternal damnation at the hands of some Supersonic Santa Claus, is no argument that one's morality is "relativistic", "degenerate", "slack", or "leftist" in any manner what-so-ever--all you can validly assert, on that account, is that their morality is not superstitious. No religion can objectively claim to hold a monopoly on moral behavior. "Jesus is Lord", "There is only one God and Muhammed is His prophet", "if you see the Bhudda in the road, you must kill him", and "the Earth Goddess cries every time you flush the toilet", are all examples of the kind of "religious" morality that secularists, indeed, demand be relegated to to an impotent backburner, and allow our laws to reflect a rational approach to society, which allows for objectivity in the law that validates the moral fabric of our society and our country.

You remind me of the tale of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned.

Our very successful nation thrived for two centuries under the auspices of Christianity and if we don't bring it back under the influence of basic Christian principles (which are rational in nature) instead of godless secularism we are doomed as a nation to slide down the slippery slope of relativism to our demise.

 

[mattskramer]

Now
PS: There is no "wall" in our Constitution. That is a figment of someone's imagination in a legal paper.


I agree that their religions need not be the government. Doctrine and dogma of a religion should not be instituted in our government per se. However, as long as those religiously-influenced laws do not establish a religion per se, our laws (voted in by majority vote) should still be able to reflect religious beliefs. For instance, it is a religious belief and one of the 10 Commandments to not steal. Our laws against stealing reflect those religious beliefs without establishing, for example, the Methodist religion.

Should we apply all Biblical advice as the law of the land? If so, I can come up with some pretty interesting and bizarre laws.

Did our Founders have any problem with saying prayers at government functions? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with children saying prayers in school? No.
Did our Founders prevent a school teacher from carrying his personal Bible to public school? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with the 10 Commandments displayed in Courthouses? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with laws prohibiting pornography? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with prohibiting homosexuality? No.

Oh well. No one is perfect.

Our very successful nation thrived for two centuries under the auspices of Christianity and if we don't bring it back under the influence of basic Christian principles (which are rational in nature) instead of godless secularism we are doomed as a nation to slide down the slippery slope of relativism to our demise.

Oh please. One can&#8217;t logically conclude that America has thrived because our forefathers supposedly were Christian. We might have correlation but we certainly have not established causation. Many variables have probably helped America thrive. To begin with, European settlers practically took fertile land from the &#8220;Native Americans&#8221;. (This was not a very Christian thing to do.) Then slaves were imported to make the land more productive. (The Bible does not prohibit slavery but slave owning does not seem to be a very Christian activity.) Hard work from European &#8220;Christians&#8221; perhaps played a role but let us not over-play that card and create the weak, if not erroneous, conclusion that Christianity alone cause America to prosper.

 

[LOki]

What about paying for weapons. If my understanding of my religion prohibits me from subsidizing the creation, should I be obligated to pay taxes, a portion of which goes to pay for weapons?

Not if you can make the case that paying your taxes prevents you from the free exercise of your religion.

Also, should people be allowed to use peyote in their religious practices?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Church

Yes, if you can make the case that preventing them from doing so prohibits the free excerise of their religion.

 

[mattskramer]

Not if you can make the case that paying your taxes prevents you from the free exercise of your religion.

I just did. My Bible says that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. It also says to turn the other cheek. My denomination / interpretation of the Bible makes me a pacifist. If the government requires me to pay taxes, a portion of which goes to the military, prevents me from fully exercising my religion.


Again, suppose that my religion calls for the sacrifice of kittens? The ASPCA would prevent me from exercising my religion.

 

[LOki]

I just did. My Bible says that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. It also says to turn the other cheek. My denomination / interpretation of the Bible makes me a pacifist. If the government requires me to pay taxes, a portion of which goes to the military, prevents me from fully exercising my religion.

I'll bet the government's argument would be that your religion prohibits you from using weapons, not paying for them--open your checkbook citizen!

Again, suppose that my religion calls for the sacrifice of kittens? The ASPCA would prevent me from exercising my religion.

The ASPCA is not the government, and is not making a law regarding the free exercise of your religion.

Kittens taste like chicken.

 

[LOki]

If you think we already have a secular government, then why is it the secular Left is currently attacking our already secular government?

I have no idea what you're talking about, aside from the minor religious appurtenances I admitted exist.

You don't think secularists think that public policy should be separate from religious influence? Then why is it today that secularists on the Left think the 10 Commandments should not be displayed in a Courthouse or that "In God We Trust" should not be written on our coins?

Because they don't belong there--add removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance to the list.

Glad you agree that it's impossible to separate government policy from religious influence.

I'm not so stiff necked to not realize that there is no prohibition on people belonging to a religion in a secular government--that's one of the things secular government protects. As such, goverment, with people of religion participating in it, will be influenced by the religions of those participants--yet I maintain their religious belief need not be injected into government policies.

Now you're saying politics can be separated from religion. You get confusing. OK, you're probably splitting hairs here. Let's agree that formal religious doctrine should not be instituted in the government but that religious influences can be.

I'm saying politics can be separate from religion in people, but politics and religion cannot be separated from people.

Secular government per se does not demand government by atheists. However, that is becoming almost questionable today.

Yes. Theocrats question it all the time. Good for them.

It is the secular Left that is now attempting to institute their beliefs into our government and wipe out all other belief influences. Witness their removal of a statue of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse.

The Ten Commandments do not belong in a US Courthouse.

It's almost getting to the point where people are now worried that if they are Christian they cannot hold office or judgeship.

It's perfectly valid that Chrstian theocrats have that worry--I was afraid they might not.

PS: There is no "wall" in our Constitution. That is a figment of someone's imagination in a legal paper.

It's straight from the Founding Father's imagination--are you asserting that their interpretation is not valid?

I agree that their religions need not be the government. Doctrine and dogma of a religion should not be instituted in our government per se. However, as long as those religiously-influenced laws do not establish a religion per se, our laws (voted in by majority vote) should still be able to reflect religious beliefs.

Fine, just as long as voting their religious beliefs into law doesn't put Leviticus into the constiution.

For instance, it is a religious belief and one of the 10 Commandments to not steal. Our laws against stealing reflect those religious beliefs without establishing, for example, the Methodist religion.

The law agianst stealing is coincidental with the Ten Commandments, not contingent upon them, or derived of them. That's why the Methodists don't hold the monopoly on the moral determination on stealing. In fact, it is inappropriate to assert that stealing is morally wrong because Methodists say so. Constiutionally it is inappropriate to assert stealing is wrong because the Methodists say so. If the government asserted that stealing is wrong because the Methodists said so, then the government would be establishing the Methodist church in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

Agreed that laws must be described and enforced separately from religious doctrine - however, not religious influence. But this is what today's secular movement is challenging. They are questioning anything that has the whiff of Christianity attached to it, thereby negating any law they do not endorse.

Again, your theocratic insistence upon confusing secular with Atheist.

However, I think the secular liberal Left (which many Christians stupidly support) does not believe we have a secular government. Why else would they be challenging our laws and accusing them of being non-secular?

For precisely the reasons cited above, theocrats have inveigled religion into law, it is appropriate to have those laws challenged on the basis that they are nothing but religious doctrine and dogma--if those laws cannot be defended on their objective, rational merits, then they have to go.

Did our Founders have any problem with saying prayers at government functions? No.

I believe the issue came up during the constitutional convention and was voted down.

Did our Founders have any problem with children saying prayers in school? No.

I believe I'm correct in that school were not federally funded at that time, and there are no objections to prayer in private schools from those who advocate for secular government.

Did our Founders prevent a school teacher from carrying his personal Bible to public school? No.

Teachers weren't government employees.

Did our Founders have any problem with the 10 Commandments displayed in Courthouses? No.

The Ten Commandment weren't dispalyed in Courthouses that I am aware of, so I'm not too surprised. I'm certainly not aware that the founding Fathers endorsed the practice.

Did our Founders have any problem with laws prohibiting pornography? No.
Did our Founders have any problem with prohibiting homosexuality? No.

I'm not aware of which laws you're talking about, but I'm sure that none of them ended with "So sayeth the Lord" or had any indication that pornography and homosexuality was defined by a church or religious doctrine, or that they were prohibited due to the decree of a god. What I am aware of is that these kinds of laws are being defended by fundementalists primarily upon the significance these acts have as crime in the superstitious eyes of religion rather than objective sense.

Why were such things as these OK in our prior secular government but not today per the secular Left who scream about the "wall of separation"?

Maybe it had something to do with the TV shows they were watching.

Religion never became the "basis" (a tricky word) of law, but it certainly did influence the laws of our land.

It influenced the people who made laws. yes.

Frankly, it is because Christianity influenced the laws of our country that our country is so great.

It is the application of our rational capacity, and our willingness to set apart our superstitions from the coercive force of government that makes this country great.

The same country would never have been created if formed under Islamic influence, for example.

An Islamic USA would not be much less free than a Christian USA.

You remind me of the tale of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned.

You remind me of a fundamentalist sunday school teacher praising Jesus while books are being burned.

Our very successful nation thrived for two centuries under the auspices of Christianity...

Not Christianity, rather rational princples held by rational people--many of whom were Christians.

...and if we don't bring it back under the influence of basic Christian principles (which are rational in nature) instead of godless secularism we are doomed as a nation to slide down the slippery slope of relativism to our demise.

If we return to the superstitious principles (which fundementalist Christian principles are) of our ancestors, rather than embrace rational moral principles, we are doomed as a nation to slide down the slippery slope of relativism to our demise.

 

[mattskramer]

I'll bet the government's argument would be that your religion prohibits you from using weapons, not paying for them--open your checkbook citizen!

How does the government know what my particular interpretation of the particular religion that I identify with tell me what to do?

The ASPCA is not the government, and is not making a law regarding the free exercise of your religion.

Kittens taste like chicken.

The ASPCA's Humane Law Enforcement agents inspect, rescue, and, when warranted, make arrests to protect animals.

 

[LOki]

How does the government know what my particular interpretation of the particular religion that I identify with tell me what to do?

The goernment will bring you into a court room so they, and you, can find out what you really believe.

The ASPCA's Humane Law Enforcement agents inspect, rescue, and, when warranted, make arrests to protect animals.

The ASPCA is not the government, or an appurtenance of the government, and is not making a law regarding the free exercise of your religion.

I like kitten pot pie.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I have no idea what you're talking about, aside from the minor religious appurtenances I admitted exist.

Of course you don't. You refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Because they don't belong there--add removing "under God" from the pledge of allegiance to the list.

They've been there pretty much since the Coinage Act of April 22, 1864&#8230;.but suddenly now they're a big problem?

I'm not so stiff necked to not realize that there is no prohibition on people belonging to a religion in a secular government--that's one of the things secular government protects. As such, goverment, with people of religion participating in it, will be influenced by the religions of those participants--yet I maintain their religious belief need not be injected into government policies.

Many religious beliefs are also objectively moral in nature so I can see many religious beliefs being injected into government policies.

I'm saying politics can be separate from religion in people, but politics and religion cannot be separated from people.

Okaaay&#8230;

Yes. Theocrats question it all the time. Good for them.

Yes.

The Ten Commandments do not belong in a US Courthouse.

There is nothing wrong with historical materials decorating the halls of government.

It's perfectly valid that Chrstian theocrats have that worry--I was afraid they might not.

If secularists (the not-so-fair ones) have their way, eventually a judge who is a Christian will not qualify to be a judge because he is not "secular" enough. What would you think then?

It's straight from the Founding Father's imagination--are you asserting that their interpretation is not valid?

Jefferson's interpretation has been questioned.

Fine, just as long as voting their religious beliefs into law doesn't put Leviticus into the constiution.

Fine, but still the majority can still vote in laws that prohibit homosexual activity in public and gay marriage.

The law agianst stealing is coincidental with the Ten Commandments, not contingent upon them, or derived of them. That's why the Methodists don't hold the monopoly on the moral determination on stealing. In fact, it is inappropriate to assert that stealing is morally wrong because Methodists say so. Constiutionally it is inappropriate to assert stealing is wrong because the Methodists say so. If the government asserted that stealing is wrong because the Methodists said so, then the government would be establishing the Methodist church in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

"Coincidental"? Not really. Of course it is appropriate to say that stealing is wrong because you, being a Methodist, believe it to be wrong. Your religion taught you from your youth that stealing is wrong. This is how religious beliefs can influence politics. Or do you secularists have another, separate, set of beliefs that you would prefer people lived by?

Again, your theocratic insistence upon confusing secular with Atheist.

Again, you fall back on that lame excuse about "Atheists" and refuse to acknowledge the truth that the secular movement is attempting to erase any whiff of religious influence in our laws.

For precisely the reasons cited above, theocrats have inveigled religion into law, it is appropriate to have those laws challenged on the basis that they are nothing but religious doctrine and dogma--if those laws cannot be defended on their objective, rational merits, then they have to go.

So now American Christians are now "theocrats"? Don't make me laugh. If we leave "under God" in the pledge or "In God We Trust" on our coins, this country is going to "establish religion" and force you to believe in God, right? That's plain nuts. I'll bet you even believe that nothing that even has a whiff of religion should be aired on TV or the radio either. No Christmas shows or songs&#8230;because the secular government owns the airwaves. In other words, I believe you'd prefer to shut down religious expression.

I believe the issue came up during the constitutional convention and was voted down.

I believe it was voted down because they couldn't afford to pay a chaplain at that time. There were of many different beliefs but they largely believed in God and also that days of prayer were good for the country.

I believe I'm correct in that school were not federally funded at that time, and there are no objections to prayer in private schools from those who advocate for secular government.

So you make a differentiation between state and federal governments when it comes to expressing religion?

Teachers weren't government employees.

If they were paid by their communities or through state taxes I'd say they were government employees.

The Ten Commandment weren't dispalyed in Courthouses that I am aware of, so I'm not too surprised. I'm certainly not aware that the founding Fathers endorsed the practice.

I doubt they would have protested it. The Ten Commandments have been hung in courthouses for years. Moses and the 10 Commandments even decorate the Supreme Court building.

I'm not aware of which laws you're talking about, but I'm sure that none of them ended with "So sayeth the Lord" or had any indication that pornography and homosexuality was defined by a church or religious doctrine, or that they were prohibited due to the decree of a god. What I am aware of is that these kinds of laws are being defended by fundementalists primarily upon the significance these acts have as crime in the superstitious eyes of religion rather than objective sense.

We don't end any of our laws today with "So sayeth the Lord" either. People can defend and argue for such laws with reason as well as defend them with the "superstitious eyes of religion" if they want to. Or are you saying people cannot have free speech when it comes to religion?

Maybe it had something to do with the TV shows they were watching.

Funny.

It influenced the people who made laws. yes.

Righto.

It is the application of our rational capacity, and our willingness to set apart our superstitions from the coercive force of government that makes this country great.

That too.

An Islamic USA would not be much less free than a Christian USA.

Think so? Like comparing the U.S. with Iran?

You remind me of a fundamentalist sunday school teacher praising Jesus while books are being burned.

Har-d-har

Not Christianity, rather rational princples held by rational people--many of whom were Christians.

That too.

If we return to the superstitious principles (which fundementalist Christian principles are) of our ancestors, rather than embrace rational moral principles, we are doomed as a nation to slide down the slippery slope of relativism to our demise.

Seems to me that the principles of our ancestors were rational moral principles learned through both their religions and life and were then were reflected in our laws.

 

[gabosaurus]

Always nice to read what the whackos at TownHall and Little Green Footballs are saying. Most of them are out of their minds.

I find it interesting that these alleged "Christians" do not hold true to the actual word of God. Such as...
God said "I am the God of all people."
God did not say "I am the God of all white male Americans who vote Republican."

My God is the God of all people. This includes whites, blacks, Anglos, Mexicans, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs and anyone else I might have missed.

The Bushies also missed the part about not coveting thy neighbor's property.

 

[LOki]

Of course you don't. You refuse to acknowledge the truth.

What truth? Your fatuous notion of "the truth" that demands separating government from religion is an attack on Chritianity? If so, you bet I refuse.

They've been there pretty much since the Coinage Act of April 22, 1864….but suddenly now they're a big problem?

In other words:<blockquote>"This bullshit practice has been bullshit since its inception; but now, because the bullshit practice has been in institutionalized so long it can be placed in the hallowed category of "National Tradition," it is no longer bullsht, beyond being questioned, and should be left alone."</blockquote>What is wrong with you?

Many religious beliefs are also objectively moral in nature so I can see many religious beliefs being injected into government policies.

I don't think I dispute this. But I won't go on to accept that since many religious beliefs are also objectively moral in nature, no religious beliefs are just superstitions.

There is nothing wrong with historical materials decorating the halls of government.

Who said there was?

If secularists (the not-so-fair ones) have their way, eventually a judge who is a Christian will not qualify to be a judge because he is not "secular" enough. What would you think then?

Gosh, Screaming Eagle, that would suck. If theocrats have their way, eventually a judge who is a Bible literalist Christian will be the the only person qualified to be a judge because no-one else is fundementalist enough. What would you think then?

Jefferson's interpretation has been questioned.

By anyone one but theocrats?

Fine, but still the majority can still vote in laws that prohibit homosexual activity in public and gay marriage.

On what grounds?

"Coincidental"? Not really. Of course it is appropriate to say that stealing is wrong because you, being a Methodist, believe it to be wrong. Your religion taught you from your youth that stealing is wrong. This is how religious beliefs can influence politics. Or do you secularists have another, separate, set of beliefs that you would prefer people lived by?

Coincidental is all it is. Stealing is wrong independently of religious belief, on rational grounds--rational beliefs don't have to be separate from religious beliefs to be separate from the superstitious religious beliefs that provide each religion with its respective identity.

Again, you fall back on that lame excuse about "Atheists" and refuse to acknowledge the truth that the secular movement is attempting to erase any whiff of religious influence in our laws.

The secular movement is not attempting to erase any whiff of religious influence in our laws--they are separating religion from our laws, and our laws from religion. And it's no excuse--you repeatedly demand that secularists are atheists attempting to erase any whiff of religious influence in our laws, when they are not. You are just wrong on that account. Get over it.

So now American Christians are now "theocrats"?

I didn't say they were.

Don't make me laugh.

I can't get you understand that "establishing" government religion covers more than merely naming a government religion, so why not make you laugh?

If we leave "under God" in the pledge or "In God We Trust" on our coins, this country is going to "establish religion" and force you to believe in God, right? That's plain nuts.

No it's not. Establisment of religion doesn't require you to believe in God, it's not forcing you to believe in God in any manner--establishment of religion requires you to SUBMIT to a religion (not neccessarily God even, but the religion), by government force if neccessary.

I'll bet you even believe that nothing that even has a whiff of religion should be aired on TV or the radio either. No Christmas shows or songs…because the secular government owns the airwaves.

True enough if the government owns the airwaves, and absolutely true the programming is owned by the government.

In other words, I believe you'd prefer to shut down religious expression.

To prove this, you'd have to prove I agree that the governemnt should own the airwaves. Go ahead and try.

I believe it was voted down because they couldn't afford to pay a chaplain at that time. There were of many different beliefs but they largely believed in God and also that days of prayer were good for the country.

They couldn't afford to pray? Whatever you say...

So you make a differentiation between state and federal governments when it comes to expressing religion?

What's it to you if I do or not?

If they were paid by their communities or through state taxes I'd say they were government employees.

I doubt teachers in question were paid with taxes. Wal-Mart executives are paid by their communities and they're not government employees. By your definition, we're ALL government employees.

I doubt they would have protested it. The Ten Commandments have been hung in courthouses for years. Moses and the 10 Commandments even decorate the Supreme Court building.

On what grounds do you doubt they would not have protested? [SARC-DIG SRC=MORALSUPERIORITY{CLASID=RELIGIOUS}]Where you've seen the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse are particulay wrong as they are not the real and true Commandments, but rather those placed by heretics to establish THEIR brand of "Christianity" on this nation.[/SARC] I've seen Moses at the Supreme Court Building, but not the Ten Commandments.

We don't end any of our laws today with "So sayeth the Lord" either. People can defend and argue for such laws with reason as well as defend them with the "superstitious eyes of religion" if they want to. Or are you saying people cannot have free speech when it comes to religion?

They can have free speech, they just can't impose their religion on others with the coercive force of government.

Think so? Like comparing the U.S. with Iran?

A Christian U.S., created by Christians, for Christians only, founded wholly in the Christian religion; Yes.

Seems to me that the principles of our ancestors were rational moral principles learned through both their religions and life and were then were reflected in our laws.

Not all laws reflect rational moral principles. Those laws that serve to make firm or stable; introduce and cause to grow and multiply; to bring into existence; put on a firm basis; put into a favorable position; or gain full recognition or acceptance of the religious beliefs of one religion--even if it's the religion held by the majority--are unconsitutionally establishing that religion.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What truth? Your fatuous notion of "the truth" that demands separating government from religion is an attack on Chritianity? If so, you bet I refuse.

The truth: We already have separation of church and state. While I appreciate your vigilence, nobody I know is under any particular threat from theocrats in America, except perhaps among some Muslims who wish to import their theocracy. However, rabid secularists today are attempting to go well beyond the limits and eliminate our freedom of religious expression within any government setting. Rabid secularists, like Communists, hate freedom of expression - especially religious expression.

In other words:<blockquote>"This bullshit practice has been bullshit since its inception; but now, because the bullshit practice has been in institutionalized so long it can be placed in the hallowed category of "National Tradition," it is no longer bullsht, beyond being questioned, and should be left alone."</blockquote>What is wrong with you?

Nothing wrong with me. However, I wonder what's wrong with you...why is it you are so fearful of the free exercise of religious expression? Does the U.S. motto "In God We Trust" on coins give you scary nightmares?

I don't think I dispute this. But I won't go on to accept that since many religious beliefs are also objectively moral in nature, no religious beliefs are just superstitions.

Perhaps you could clarify that statement a bit?

Who said there was?

Rabid secularists. However, they were stopped from removing every scintilla of religious expression off government property. The U.S. Supreme Court "upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays that promote religion".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8375948/page/2/

Gosh, Screaming Eagle, that would suck. If theocrats have their way, eventually a judge who is a Bible literalist Christian will be the the only person qualified to be a judge because no-one else is fundementalist enough. What would you think then?

I'm glad you realize that extremes on both ends of the spectrum can exist.

By anyone one but theocrats?

You must think the majority of U.S. citizens are "theocrats" because the majority of U.S. citizens have no problem with free expression of religion as long as it does not go too far and establish religion. Most citizens are just fine with the display of the 10 Commandments. It is the rabid secularists who are bending Jefferson's words to eradicate any reference whatsoever to religion anywhere in the government.

On what grounds?

The majority can still vote in laws that prohibit homosexual activity in public and gay marriage on the rational grounds that it benefits society. On the grounds that it is Constitutional to do so.

Coincidental is all it is. Stealing is wrong independently of religious belief, on rational grounds--rational beliefs don't have to be separate from religious beliefs to be separate from the superstitious religious beliefs that provide each religion with its respective identity.

It's not coincidental at all. Obviously religious beliefs contain rational beliefs. That's something you don&#8217;t want to admit since it flies in the face of your calling religious beliefs "superstitious".

The secular movement is not attempting to erase any whiff of religious influence in our laws--they are separating religion from our laws, and our laws from religion. And it's no excuse--you repeatedly demand that secularists are atheists attempting to erase any whiff of religious influence in our laws, when they are not. You are just wrong on that account. Get over it.

No, you're wrong. Today's rabid secularists HAVE been attempting to eradicate any whiff of religious influence. Take for example their determination to remove the 10 Commandments. However, as linked above, they were stopped because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 10 Commandments were OK on government property in many settings - including the U.S. Supreme Courthouse itself. Also, I am not repeatedly calling all rabid secularists atheists - rabid secularists come in many forms. You get over it.

I didn't say they were.

Well, I'm glad you realize most American Christians are not "theocrats". That would not be "rational" (hehe). However, you must think there is some main political Christian group which is attempting to establish a "theocracy" in America. Could you please point out such a group and links that show they intend to actually establish a "theocracy"?

I can't get you understand that "establishing" government religion covers more than merely naming a government religion, so why not make you laugh?

Establishing religion of course covers more than merely naming a government religion although that's plenty enough - where did you get the idea I said that? When people are forced by the government to participate in religious activities, that is establishing religion. However, you are not being forced to read or believe in the 10 Commandments sitting on government property. You are not being forced to "trust in God" just because you use coins that say that. Children are not forced to attend Christmas parties if their parents don't want them to attend. You are not being forced to believe or even acknowledge God just because someone else gives a speech about their belief in God.

No it's not. Establisment of religion doesn't require you to believe in God, it's not forcing you to believe in God in any manner--establishment of religion requires you to SUBMIT to a religion (not neccessarily God even, but the religion), by government force if neccessary.

How are you "submitting" to a religion just because the majority of citizens wish to display in public the 10 Commandments or put "In God We Trust" on some coins? Or because citizens wish to sing Christmas carols in the public square? If that's true (which it isn't) it seems to me the reverse would also be "submitting" - the majority of citizens would be "submitting" to rabid secularists who wish to wipe out all godly references or expressions.

True enough if the government owns the airwaves, and absolutely true the programming is owned by the government.

I thought as much. The rabid secularist agenda would just keep squashing freedom of expression of religion anywhere and everywhere possible. No Christmas songs over government airwaves...meaning all the airwaves.

To prove this, you'd have to prove I agree that the governemnt should own the airwaves. Go ahead and try.

You are a slippery one. Say, it'd be great if everything were perfect, wouldn't it? Maybe I'm just a little more pragmatic.

They couldn't afford to pray? Whatever you say...

Guess they were a little more serious and formal back then.

What's it to you if I do or not?

Avoiding the question?

I doubt teachers in question were paid with taxes. Wal-Mart executives are paid by their communities and they're not government employees. By your definition, we're ALL government employees.

I'm pretty sure one of the earlier things paid for with state taxes is school teachers&#8230;well before tax payer funded studies of the sex lives of South African ground squirrels or studies why people cheat, lie and act rudely on local Virginia tennis courts.
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Governmentwaste.htm

On what grounds do you doubt they would not have protested? [SARC-DIG SRC=MORALSUPERIORITY{CLASID=RELIGIOUS}]Where you've seen the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse are particulay wrong as they are not the real and true Commandments, but rather those placed by heretics to establish THEIR brand of "Christianity" on this nation.[/SARC] I've seen Moses at the Supreme Court Building, but not the Ten Commandments.

What brand of "heresy" are you talking about? For pictures of the 10 commandments check link. There are lots of religious references in our government buildings.
http://www.ten-commandments.us/ten_commandments/publicdisplay.html

They can have free speech, they just can't impose their religion on others with the coercive force of government

As far as I can tell, nobody is doing that - other than the rabid secularists.

A Christian U.S., created by Christians, for Christians only, founded wholly in the Christian religion; Yes.

Hardly. Let me quote Patrick Henry:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

Not all laws reflect rational moral principles. Those laws that serve to make firm or stable; introduce and cause to grow and multiply; to bring into existence; put on a firm basis; put into a favorable position; or gain full recognition or acceptance of the religious beliefs of one religion--even if it's the religion held by the majority--are unconsitutionally establishing that religion.

That's quite a mouthful. Where does it say that in the U.S. Constitution?

 

[Dr Grump]

Re the thread title. Maybe secularism isn't the answer, but I know that Islam, Christianity, Judism and Hindu sure as shit aren't either...

 

[glockmail]

....

The Bushies also missed the part about not coveting thy neighbor's property.

What property are you refering to?

 

[Vintij]

Iraq and there oil. Both ours right now

 

[glockmail]

Iraq and there oil. Both ours right now

We haven't taken any of it. Duh.

 

[trobinett]

We haven't taken any of it. Duh.

Thanks for fighting the fight glock, but its wasted on some.

 

[glockmail]

Thanks for fighting the fight glock, but its wasted on some.

No problem. After I got BANNED FOREVER BY SOME FAT BITCH WHO USED TO HAVE NAZI POWER I just come her to hunt liberals and vent.

How long will it be 'till I get BANNED FOREVER again?

 

[Mr.Conley]

No problem. After I got BANNED FOREVER BY SOME FAT BITCH WHO USED TO HAVE NAZI POWER I just come her to hunt liberals and vent.

How long will it be 'till I get BANNED FOREVER again?

Not cool.

 

[glockmail]

Not cool.