The Gospel of Unbelief

[dilloduck]

Actually, the founding fathers did their darndest to make sure there wouldn't be any state-sanctioned religion.

that doesnt mean they were hoping it would be wiped off the face of the map

 

[jillian]

that doesnt mean they were hoping it would be wiped off the face of the map

No one wants it wiped off the map...at least not anyone normal. What most don't want is the dogma of one particular group enacted into law or adjudicated into law through the back door of the Court. Not an unreasonable expectation.

 

[dilloduck]

No one wants it wiped off the map...at least not anyone normal. What most don't want is the dogma of one particular group enacted into law or adjudicated into law through the back door of the Court. Not an unreasonable expectation.

What rights existed in 1800 that any religion has succeeded in abolishing?

 

[jillian]

What rights existed in 1800 that any religion has succeeded in abolishing?

Why would 1800 be the measure? How about now since that's the issue.

 

[Dr Grump]

What rights existed in 1800 that any religion has succeeded in abolishing?

It's not about abolishing, it is about putting a particular religion on a pedestal within govt....

 

[dilloduck]

It's not about abolishing, it is about putting a particular religion on a pedestal within govt....

I think religious people can tell the difference between worshipping a deity and respecting the laws of a government. Can secular people respect the rights of religious people to worship publically or do they have to hide at home and do it----maybe secularists could just close thier eyes like they ask religious people to do with porn on TV .

 

[Dr Grump]

Can secular people respect the rights of religious people to worship publically or do they have to hide at home and do it----maybe secularists could just close thier eyes like they ask religious people to do with porn on TV .

I do not think there is anything wrong with worshipping publically (such as going to church etc)..however, using state or govt monies to promote such is a no-no, unless of course they are willing to spend such monies evenly on al religions...

 

[dilloduck]

I do not think there is anything wrong with worshipping publically (such as going to church etc)..however, using state or govt monies to promote such is a no-no, unless of course they are willing to spend such monies evenly on al religions...

Do you have any idea how much you taxes would go up if religious people stopped donating to the poor??? You don't have any problem with religion paying to do government work do you?
The government could never afford to return the amount of money that churches have given freely to the sick and needy.

 

[LOki]

Yes, a majority can be oppressed by the minority. But that only occurs when the minority has political/military power to enforce its will on the majority.

Or courts and a pernicious bevvy of lawyers willing to misread the constitution to enact defacto discrimination against specified religious groups

Of course, those "pernicious bevvy of lawyers willing to misread the constitution to enact defacto discrimination against specified religious groups" actually represent the theocratic Christian religious right, who are indeed a minority, but are not being oppressed in any manner at all; and Christians in general (a vast majority) are certainly not being oppressed--at least not by the government, and not by those who wish to protect the constitutional wall separating church and state.

Christians as individuals have the right to shape society through the democratic and constitutional processes available to them, just like individuals of other faiths.

Except that they have no right to infringe upon the rights of those who subscribe to other religions (or none) by endorsing, or promoting, or placing on firm basis with a favorable position to gain full recognition, or acceptance, of any religion--including (and most importantly) Christianity, that very religion held by the majority of the electorate.

Nobody's trying to theocratize the country.

Really? Tell that to Presidential candidate Pat Robertson, tell it to Pat Buchannon, tell it to the Reverend Jesse Jackson, tell it to Al Sharpton, tell it to Mr. Federal funding (rather than the collection plate like it's supposed to be) for faith-based initiatives, tell it to the all the Christian fundamentalists who are trying to inject their bullshit superstitions into the science classrooms of our country's 12 year olds, under the guise of "intelligent design."

This is paranoia.

Maybe, but so is "Separation of church and state is going to take away Christmans."

Why does the aclu was time suing about decorations at christmas time?

Why does the theocratic Christian right think that placing a statue of Jesus on the front lawn of a governemnt building cannot be construed by anyone in any manner as governmental endorsement of Christianity?

Something tells me that if it actually were individuals of other faiths, you wouldn't be quite so comfortable with that statement.

Christians as individuals have the right to shape society through the democratic and constitutional processes available to them, just like individuals of other faiths.

TESTIFY!

I had a government prof tell me that the key to controlling a democracy was having each individual person be a member of multiple minorities. This way any time members of a single minority would try to organize thier power would collapse due to infighting amongst other minority affiliations. I don't know if this plays out as true or not but I thought it was an interesting commentary.

Thomas Jefferson (I think) made this point in the federalist papers, but not as the key to controlling a democracy, but rather as the means by which a secular state, which requires no religious qualification for citizenship or public office, prevents a majority religion from establishing a theocracy because regardless of being the most popular religion, it's mambers cannot constitute a majority compared to the members of all other religions.

In other words, this majority religion really winds up being the largest minority, and remains so much so, that even by forming coalitions it cannot become defacto, the state religion, (and oppressively so) except by law, judicial interpretation or executive order--which we are consitutionally protected against.

We're just saying. There is a heavy anti-christian bias in large segments of society.

I'm saying that the segment of Christian society that maintains there is nothing wrong with a little Christianity in the governemt; segment of Christian society that asserts that this country was founded on Christian principles, by Christians, for Christians; has earned that anti-Christian bias (and earned it well) from those who prefer liberty.

Now I'm not saying that the bunch out there that's all twisted up by "In God We Trust" on our money have much of a point, because as far as I'm concerned, that statement is equivalent to "We Throw Salt Over Our Shoulders For Good Luck!" Either way it's superstition to me. What's not superstion to me is the way that a little religion in the governemt in the past has lead to burning heretics, hanging witches, persecutions, genocides, the inquisition--an athiest never rationalized such mayhem, such opression upon such scales, as God's work. Christians have a long history of claiming oppression, yet those cranks so opposed to any mention of religion in our government can yet make the point that our money still has "In God We Trust" on it, which really does not argue that Christians are terribly oppressed the way "We Feed 'Em To The Lions" on our money might.

 

[Dr Grump]

Do you have any idea how much you taxes would go up if religious people stopped donating to the poor??? You don't have any problem with religion paying to do government work do you?
The government could never afford to return the amount of money that churches have given freely to the sick and needy.

Which has what to do with govt spending monies of religious endeavors? Most religions give to charity...

 

[dilloduck]

Which has what to do with govt spending monies of religious endeavors? Most religions give to charity...

Whatever pittance the govt spends on supporting religion is overwhelmingly overshadowed by what religion spends for the government.

 

[Dr Grump]

Whatever pittance the govt spends on supporting religion is overwhelmingly overshadowed by what religion spends for the government.

Which makes it OK for the govt to spend taxpayers money on religious endevour? And are you saying the govt should be spending taxpayers money on charity?

 

[jillian]

Whatever pittance the govt spends on supporting religion is overwhelmingly overshadowed by what religion spends for the government.

If I may, I think you're getting away from his point, which was:

I do not think there is anything wrong with worshipping publically (such as going to church etc)..however, using state or govt monies to promote such is a no-no, unless of course they are willing to spend such monies evenly on al religions...

Government monies should not be used for furtherance of any religion unless government gives funds equally to ALL religions.

But how different would the take on this issue be if it were muslims asking for their dogma to be incorporated into government?

 

[LOki]

What rights existed in 1800 that any religion has succeeded in abolishing?

You seem to wish to assert that the rights in existence in 1800 were not in existence before, and could be abolished, somehow. If so you'd be wrong.

Rights are inherent, as such are recognized and protected, or ignored and violated.

You have a right to your beliefs, your faith, your religion, and the free excersize thereof provided such excersize does not violate the rights of others.

On religious basis, and certainly since 1800, I do not think you have the right to be Christian in Saudi-Arabia.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No one wants it wiped off the map...at least not anyone normal. What most don't want is the dogma of one particular group enacted into law or adjudicated into law through the back door of the Court. Not an unreasonable expectation.

Exactly. Such as the Secularist dogma of the ACLU and other Left wing extremists who are basically coming from a Communist orientation. They are as back-door as you can get.

Speaking of spending public money, why should we allow for government money to go just toward Secular programs? Why should the government take money from Christian people and then only allocate it to non-Christian agendas? Isn't the government supposed to represent ALL the people, especially the majority?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why does the theocratic Christian right think that placing a statue of Jesus on the front lawn of a governemnt building cannot be construed by anyone in any manner as governmental endorsement of Christianity?

It COULD be construed by some ignorant person that way. That person just needs to have it explained to them real good. Must we sanitize society to the extent that idiots never become confused?

 

[jillian]

Exactly. Such as the Secularist dogma of the ACLU and other Left wing extremists who are basically coming from a Communist orientation. They are as back-door as you can get.

Secularism is not a religion. Though I think soome people go OTT in regard to certain issues which are really non-issues and hurt no one.

Speaking of spending public money, why should we allow for government money to go just toward Secular programs? Why should the government take money from Christian people and then only allocate it to non-Christian agendas? Isn't the government supposed to represent ALL the people, especially the majority?

What secular programs? And government IS secular...what should the money go to religious programs endorsed by a particular group?

As for the rest, I'm not going to explain the Constitution. The first amendment is very clear about no law furthering the status of any religious group. And no, goverment does not represent any "religious" group. That's up to the church of your choice or no choice at all. And first, one particular segment of Christians does not equal the majority and even if it were, luckily everyone else is protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Why do some people need to see their religious beliefs codified?

 

[jillian]

It COULD be construed by some ignorant person that way. That person just needs to have it explained to them real good. Must we sanitize society to the extent that idiots never become confused?

Well, how would you feel if muslim or jewish religious symbols adorned government buildings instead of christian ones?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Secularism is not a religion. Though I think soome people go OTT in regard to certain issues which are really non-issues and hurt no one.

Secularism is a set of beliefs much as a Religion is. That is an old argument, don't really want to get into it. You just have to admit that there is a group of secularist people in this country who are pushing for their "set of beliefs" which are contrary to the "set of beliefs" of ordinary God-fearing citizens.

What secular programs? And government IS secular...what should the money go to religious programs endorsed by a particular group?

How about Planned Parenthood for starters? Or the money poured into gay programs? Why should tax-paying Christians pay for these things? Why shouldn't some of *their* tax money go into Christian groups instead? You want to play favorites?

As for the rest, I'm not going to explain the Constitution. The first amendment is very clear about no law furthering the status of any religious group. And no, goverment does not represent any "religious" group. That's up to the church of your choice or no choice at all. And first, one particular segment of Christians does not equal the majority and even if it were, luckily everyone else is protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Why do some people need to see their religious beliefs codified?

"furthing the status of any religious group"? What you really mean is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" don't you? This does not necessarily mean that taxes can't be allocated to help out religious groups who are helping society in general.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well, how would you feel if muslim or jewish religious symbols adorned government buildings instead of christian ones?

I wouldn't care, as long as I was still legally allowed to practice and discuss my religion.