Secularism is not the solution

The truth: We already have separation of church and state.
Holy Shit! FINALLY! Yes! Yes, indeed we do have separation of church and state. Congradulations!

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.
Don't leave out those Christian TV evandelists...and each and every one who supports their patently theocratic aggendas.

However, rabid secularists today are attempting to go well beyond the limits and eliminate our freedom of religious expression within any government setting.
The government has no right to religious expression what-so-ever. None. Period. Removing such government expressions of religion might be pedantic, but it's not "rabid", and it's not wrong.

Rabid secularists, like Communists, hate freedom of expression - especially religious expression.
Fundementalist Christians (rabid or otherwise) hate the expression of other religions--the one of Ten Commandments practically demands it. ;)

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?
You have brought my "fear" up a number of times now. I have no "fear" of of the free exercise of religious expression. I'm the one, between us, endorsing free exercise of religious expression, and endorsing the protection of free exercise of religious expression.

Does the U.S. motto "In God We Trust" on coins give you scary nightmares?
I am not afraid of "In God We Trust" on coins--it is objectively, and imperically equivalent to putting "We throw salt over our shoulders for good luck!" on coins. "In God We Trust" possesses the virtue of brevity, getting rid of it, all the more so.

Yet, where theocrats have ZERO argument that "In God We Trust" belongs on coins, secularists have a valid argument that it doesn't.

Perhaps you could clarify that statement a bit?
Just because a broken clocks are the only clocks exactly right twice a day, it doesn't follow that every, or any, broken clock is right all the time. I won't accept that since many religious moral beliefs are also objectively moral beliefs, that all religious beliefs are not just superstitions.

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/
These "rabid secularists" of yours were NOT stopped from removing every scintilla of religious expression off government property since that is not what was being attempted.

There was a sweet rebuttal to the theocratic argument:
Justice David Souter said:
“The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

“When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates the central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality,”

Justice Antonin Scalia said:
“What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle.”
I agree. The principle in question is "Congress shall make no law respecting an effort to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement; to make firm or stable ; to introduce and cause to grow and multiply; to bring into existence; to put on a firm basis; to put into a favorable position; or, to gain full recognition or acceptance of religion,..."

I'm glad you realize that extremes on both ends of the spectrum can exist.
Yes, but our notions of the extremeists are different. Your description of the extremes requires one to define secularists as athiests, and ignore that fundementalists are 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.
This just makes no sense at all.

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.
I'm just fine with the display of the 10 Commandments; Rabid (or otherwise) secularists just fine with the display of the 10 Commandments; Thomas Jefferson was just fine with the display of the 10 Commandments...in your church, in your house, in your business, in your car, on your car, in your private school, in your back yard, NOT as an appurtenance to government.

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.
Those laws are constitutional on their rational grounds if they are passed on those grounds; and unconstitutional on their religious grounds if they are passed on those grounds. The majority is Christian, ScreamingEagle, but that does not confer upon them the right to impose their religion of the majority, through law, on others.

It's not coincidental at all. Obviously religious beliefs contain rational beliefs. That's something you don’t want to admit since it flies in the face of your calling religious beliefs "superstitious".
First, I admitted some religious beliefs are rational beliefs, so end your bullshit right there.

Second, I will say again that even in light of the fact that some religious beliefs are rational, not ALL religious beliefs are NOT superstitions.

It is coincidence that murder (for instance) is wrong for religious, and purely rational reasons. The assertion that selling beer before noon on Sunday is wrong (as another example), is nothing but a Christian inspired superstion, and it is NOT a coincidence that laws enforcing that particular Christian superstition are championed primarily by theocrats.

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.
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--including those in this newly introduced "rabid secularist" catetegory of yours.

You'll note that despite this victory you claim over "rabid secularists", there is not one Commandment inscribed in, or on, the U.S. Supreme Courthouse.

You indeed, repeatedly demand that secularists are atheists (you just don't call them atheists) attempting to erase any whiff of religious influence in our laws, when they are not (which thatey are, indeed not and not doing). You are just wrong on that account. Get over it.

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've indicated one already; here are some highlights of his theocratic ideas:<blockquote>Pat Robertson:[/url]
"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening."

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."</blockquote>

Another theocrat:<blockquote>Randall Terry: "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."</blockquote>And here, have some organizations:
American Vision
The Chalcedon Foundation
The Christian Coalistion
Focus on the Family

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.
Being forced to participate in a religion is NOT the test of establishment. When the government institutes (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement; makes firm or stable ; introduces and causes to grow and multiply; brings into existence; puts on a firm basis; puts into a favorable position; or, causes to gain full recognition or acceptance of religion, the government violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.

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?
That portion of "we" who assert (on faith, mind you) that there is no god, are not behind the notion we trust in God.

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.
ScreamingEagle, this is not the first time you've implied that efforts to separate government from religion, and keep government separate from religion, is an effort to prevent private citizens from expressing religion--please make this the last time you do so, because IT's JUST NOT THE CASE. You have ZERO evidence for this. NONE. The ONLY way you can manage to assert this case is to demand (again, and again) that secularists are atheists, and are particularly those atheists who insist on making their own religious notions government laws. It's bullshit tactics my friend; bullshit when you started using them; bullshit every time I refuted them; and still bullshit now. Stop with the bullshit, please.

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.
Nope. Not even close.

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.
Maybe you just make this bullshit up...no, I kknow better--your Sunday School Teacher makes this bullshit up, and you buy into it fully.

Guess they were a little more serious and formal back then.
They just had a great deal more of that inconvenient intellectual integrity than you hope for. Sorry about your luck.

Avoiding the question?
Nope. Your question, as i understand it in the context of this discussion, is irrelevent.

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. :D
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Governmentwaste.htm
Nice link. Irrelevent to demonstrating that American teachers in the 18th century were government employees.

As far as I can tell, nobody is doing that - other than the rabid secularists.
Hopefully this is the last time I have to explain that your insistent equivilation of secularism and atheism is bullshit. Secularists (even these "rabid" one you're all on about now) demand that government be separated from religion, as asserted by the 1st Amendment's establisment clause, so that government just can't impose any religion on others with its powers of coercive force.

Your theocrats are attempting to inveigle religion into government through incremental violations of the establisment clause. Face it ScreamingEagle, your theocrats have ZERO room in the government for Satanists--that's unconstitutional even if you can argue it's right.

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."
Finally! A Founding Father quote to support your argument. Congradulations on leveling up to legitimate tactics!

In commemoration of this event, allow me to present a quote from another Founding Father, responding to Patrick Henry and his theocratic notions; the author of the 1st Amendment,<blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
"What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."</blockquote>

That's quite a mouthful. Where does it say that in the U.S. Constitution?
1st Amendment.
 
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
Huh. Not a single Commandment pictured, but plenty of historical figures.

Regarding [lolcheck]the "heresy"[/lolcheck], first we have your favorite Texas State Capitol Version of the 10 Commandments:<blockquote>1. I AM the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images.
3. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.</blockquote>then there's the version in Exodus 34,</blockquote>Exodus 34
1. Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.
4. All the first-born are mine.
5. Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.
9. The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.</blockquote>then there's the version in Exodus 20,<blockquote>1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not kill.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.</blockquote>then theres the Protestant Version,<blockquote>
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.</blockquote>Then there's the Hebrew Version,<blockquote>
1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.</blockquote>Then there's the Catholic version,<blockquote>1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.</blockquote>On what constutional grounds does the government have the power to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement; make firm or stable ; introduce and cause to grow and multiply; bring into existence; put on a firm basis; put into a favorable position; or, cause to gain full recognition or acceptance of one religious notion of the 10 Commandmnet over the religious notions of the 10 Commandments that others hold?

I say none. I say that doing so is a direct violation of the establisment clause of the 1st Amendment.

[lols]Those of us who fundamentally believe that the Texas Capitol version of the 10 Commandments are not the "real" 10 Commandments have every right, on the premises of your own theocratic arguments, to demand that the Texas Capitol heresy be removed.[/lols]
 
I am not too keen on the 1st 4 commandments. I don’t mind if the bottom 6 Commandments are mead into law but the 1st 4 commandments seem to indicate that Americans must be Christian or Jewish.
 
before you open your mouth :badgrin: (you know who you are)

Muslims have been cutting each others throats for over a thousand years, and Have been a religion of war not peace since the 7th century.
 
Not cool.
__________________
A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

I know I'm a big globalist evil bastard, but I don't feel like talking about that right now

but calling someone a racist because they dont agree with you, is mccatyism.

I dont hate democrats, I hate liberals.

Same as I would hate Someone to right wing.

common sense trumphs party lines...
 
Holy Shit! FINALLY! Yes! Yes, indeed we do have separation of church and state. Congradulations!
Don't get too excited. I was only using that in the narrow sense that we should not and do not have an ecclesiocracy.

Don't leave out those Christian TV evandelists...and each and every one who supports their patently theocratic aggendas.
Or how about the rabid secularists?

The government has no right to religious expression what-so-ever. None. Period. Removing such government expressions of religion might be pedantic, but it's not "rabid", and it's not wrong.
That's crap. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to express religion. Besides we are the government. Are you telling me a government rep can't express his own belief in God? Establishing religion is another matter.

Fundementalist Christians (rabid or otherwise) hate the expression of other religions--the one of Ten Commandments practically demands it. ;)
Nothing wrong with that, they are entitled to their own beliefs, just as rabid secularists are entiltled to their beliefs.

You have brought my "fear" up a number of times now. I have no "fear" of of the free exercise of religious expression. I'm the one, between us, endorsing free exercise of religious expression, and endorsing the protection of free exercise of religious expression.
You are? Then why has the 10 Commandments on government property given you and rabid secularists such a big problem? Why do you and rabid secuarists want to bring down the crosses in miliary graveyards? Why do you and rabid secularists want to change Christmas and Easter to Winter and Spring? Why do you and rabid secularists have a coronary when Bush expresses his belief in God?

I am not afraid of "In God We Trust" on coins--it is objectively, and imperically equivalent to putting "We throw salt over our shoulders for good luck!" on coins. "In God We Trust" possesses the virtue of brevity, getting rid of it, all the more so.


Yet, where theocrats have ZERO argument that "In God We Trust" belongs on coins, secularists have a valid argument that it doesn't.
The argument can be the same as the argument for the 10 Commandments on a Courthouse.

Just because a broken clocks are the only clocks exactly right twice a day, it doesn't follow that every, or any, broken clock is right all the time. I won't accept that since many religious moral beliefs are also objectively moral beliefs, that all religious beliefs are not just superstitions.
What are "objectively moral beliefs"?

These "rabid secularists" of yours were NOT stopped from removing every scintilla of religious expression off government property since that is not what was being attempted.
In your dreams. Rabid secularists do not believe in making room for any other expression than their own.

There was a sweet rebuttal to the theocratic argument:
Souter's rebuttal ignores the fact that the rabid secularists do not want neutrality between religion and nonreligion. Nobody is advancing religion. If anything, nonreligion is being advanced.

I agree too with Scalia with regard to consistently applied principle which is the Constitution itself. You are giving the dictionary meaning of establish, however, you are ignoring the rest of the amendment which says congress shall (also) make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Obviously a realistic balance must be attained.

Yes, but our notions of the extremeists are different. Your description of the extremes requires one to define secularists as athiests, and ignore that fundementalists are theocrats.
Rabid secularists are theocrats too. Rosie O'Donnell is a fundamentalist extremist&#8230;.therefore a theocrat too. This does not require one to be an atheist. One could be other things besides an atheist or Christian.

This just makes no sense at all.
I said 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. That does not make them "theocrats" per se. How does that not make sense?

I'm just fine with the display of the 10 Commandments; Rabid (or otherwise) secularists just fine with the display of the 10 Commandments; Thomas Jefferson was just fine with the display of the 10 Commandments...in your church, in your house, in your business, in your car, on your car, in your private school, in your back yard, NOT as an appurtenance to government.
The fact is that our country is historically based on Christian principles and a belief in God. Rabid secularists are NOT fine with the display of the 10 Commandments on government property because they do not want to acknowledge that; they want to erase that history from the minds of Americans. Hence, the lawsuits. Obviously the display of the 10 Commandments were not "establishing religion" since the Supreme Court ruled they were OK to be displayed on government property.

Those laws are constitutional on their rational grounds if they are passed on those grounds; and unconstitutional on their religious grounds if they are passed on those grounds. The majority is Christian, ScreamingEagle, but that does not confer upon them the right to impose their religion of the majority, through law, on others.
This is where rabid secularists start their shrieking and blame any such decisions on religion - their handy scapegoat. It's not enough that people might just want to keep what has been historically the norm for eons.

First, I admitted some religious beliefs are rational beliefs, so end your bullshit right there.

Second, I will say again that even in light of the fact that some religious beliefs are rational, not ALL religious beliefs are NOT superstitions.

First, glad you admit that. Second, agreed...i think...those double negs are wicked.

It is coincidence that murder (for instance) is wrong for religious, and purely rational reasons. The assertion that selling beer before noon on Sunday is wrong (as another example), is nothing but a Christian inspired superstion, and it is NOT a coincidence that laws enforcing that particular Christian superstition are championed primarily by theocrats.
Again I will say it is not coincidence that religion and rational thinking go hand in hand much of the time. Religion is full of rational learning passed down through the ages. And if a town wants to close down their liquor stores on Sunday or Tuesday they have every right to do so if the decision is not based on religon per se. They can also say no to porn shops and other lewdness. Moral righteousness? Not any more so than the rabid secular agenda which allows all forms of perversion to flourish.

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--including those in this newly introduced "rabid secularist" catetegory of yours.
The "secular movement" is just as rabid in their "nonreligion" as the fanatical "religious fundamentalists" you claim are attempting to take over the government. Actually I'd say the "secular movement" has been winning for the past 50 years.

You'll note that despite this victory you claim over "rabid secularists", there is not one Commandment inscribed in, or on, the U.S. Supreme Courthouse.
There's pictures of the tablets. But since you bring it up, if you can't actually read the Commandments, why were the rabid secularists so upset? Like I said before, they are bent on erasing every scintilla of religious reference.

You indeed, repeatedly demand that secularists are atheists (you just don't call them atheists) attempting to erase any whiff of religious influence in our laws, when they are not (which thatey are, indeed not and not doing). You are just wrong on that account. Get over it.
No I don't demand that. Rabid secularists go too far with their "secularism" whether they are atheists or not.

I've indicated one already; here are some highlights of his theocratic ideas:<blockquote>Pat Robertson:[/url]
"The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening."

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."</blockquote>

Another theocrat:<blockquote>Randall Terry: "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."</blockquote>And here, have some organizations:
American Vision
The Chalcedon Foundation
The Christian Coalistion
Focus on the Family
Unless I've missed something, none of them is actually proposing to institute an ecclesiastical government. That is just not part and parcel of Christianity which renders unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. However, that doesn't mean Christians need to be silent and let Caesar destroy their Christian society and institute an alternative lifestyle.

Sure thing, you and the ACLU have lots of fun getting down into your pickiness with dictionary definitions. However, the intent of the founding fathers is another thing altogether. It certainly was not the intent of the founding fathers to prevent a school child from mentioning or "introducing" God in a valedictorian speech she makes at school. However, the ACLU uses its legal pickiness to prevent her from doing so. Read the rest of the First Amendment.

That portion of "we" who assert (on faith, mind you) that there is no god, are not behind the notion we trust in God.
Still, nobody is forcing you to submit to that belief or trust in God. If you'd just use your common sense, the "we" refers to the majority who voted in the motto. There's lots of laws that different people don't necessarily agree with.

ScreamingEagle, this is not the first time you've implied that efforts to separate government from religion, and keep government separate from religion, is an effort to prevent private citizens from expressing religion--please make this the last time you do so, because IT's JUST NOT THE CASE. You have ZERO evidence for this. NONE. The ONLY way you can manage to assert this case is to demand (again, and again) that secularists are atheists, and are particularly those atheists who insist on making their own religious notions government laws. It's bullshit tactics my friend; bullshit when you started using them; bullshit every time I refuted them; and still bullshit now. Stop with the bullshit, please.
It's not bullshit except in your mind. We do not need to equate secularists to atheists necessarily. And as far as "an effort to prevent private citizens from expressing religion" what about this valedictorian case for example? Is free speech is just for the rabid secularist crowd today? Gays are not necessarily atheists but schools allow for the "proselytizing" of gay beliefs and lifestyles in the schools, don't they?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200612/CUL20061218b.html


Nope. Not even close.
What do you mean?

Maybe you just make this bullshit up...no, I kknow better--your Sunday School Teacher makes this bullshit up, and you buy into it fully.
Not at all.

They just had a great deal more of that inconvenient intellectual integrity than you hope for. Sorry about your luck.
Reduced to insults?

Nope. Your question, as i understand it in the context of this discussion, is irrelevent.
My question asking if you are avoiding the question?

Nice link. Irrelevent to demonstrating that American teachers in the 18th century were government employees.
So prove they weren't.

Hopefully this is the last time I have to explain that your insistent equivilation of secularism and atheism is bullshit. Secularists (even these "rabid" one you're all on about now) demand that government be separated from religion, as asserted by the 1st Amendment's establisment clause, so that government just can't impose any religion on others with its powers of coercive force.
You still don't get the fact that rabid secularists have no tolerance for plurality.

Your theocrats are attempting to inveigle religion into government through incremental violations of the establisment clause. Face it ScreamingEagle, your theocrats have ZERO room in the government for Satanists--that's unconstitutional even if you can argue it's right.
Christians have every right to enact laws that reflect their religious principles and beliefs. As long as they are not establishing religion, they can "inveigle" all they want. That's how society is formed. Or should we throw out laws against murder because those laws reflect Christian beliefs?

Finally! A Founding Father quote to support your argument. Congradulations on leveling up to legitimate tactics!
More insults?

In commemoration of this event, allow me to present a quote from another Founding Father, responding to Patrick Henry and his theocratic notions; the author of the 1st Amendment,<blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
"What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."</blockquote>
We do not have an ecclesiastical government in the sense you and Madison think. The new "religion" is nonreligion.

1st Amendment.
You are just providing Webster's definitions of the world establish and you ignore the rest of the 1st Amendment.
 
Specifics please... look at northern Euro nations, with less religious populations, Sweden, Norway I believe - are they secular, hedonistic destructors? Are they wallowing in self-destructive sin?
I object! I pray in a church twice as old than the union! My nations flag is a great golden cross on a blue sky and we have a christian party which i believe even couldn't exist under your constitution!

You only think swedes are hedonistic because of ABBA and bad porn movies from the 70's!
;)
 

Forum List

Back
Top