LOki
The Yaweh of Mischief
- Mar 26, 2006
- 4,084
- 359
- 85
Holy Shit! FINALLY! Yes! Yes, indeed we do have separation of church and state. Congradulations!The truth: We already have separation of church and state.
Don't leave out those Christian TV evandelists...and each and every one who supports their patently theocratic aggendas.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.
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.However, rabid secularists today are attempting to go well beyond the limits and eliminate our freedom of religious expression within any government setting.
Fundementalist Christians (rabid or otherwise) hate the expression of other religions--the one of Ten Commandments practically demands it.Rabid secularists, like Communists, hate freedom of expression - especially 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.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?
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.Does the U.S. motto "In God We Trust" on coins give you scary nightmares?
Yet, where theocrats have ZERO argument that "In God We Trust" belongs on coins, secularists have a valid argument that it doesn't.
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.Perhaps you could clarify that statement a bit?
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.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/
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,”
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,..."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.”
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.I'm glad you realize that extremes on both ends of the spectrum can exist.
This just makes no sense at all.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.
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.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.
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.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.
First, I admitted some religious beliefs are rational beliefs, so end your bullshit right there.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".
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.
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.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.
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.
I've indicated one already; here are some highlights of his theocratic ideas:<blockquote>Pat Robertson:[/url]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"?
"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
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.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.
That portion of "we" who assert (on faith, mind you) that there is no god, are not behind the notion we trust in God.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?
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.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.
Nope. Not even close.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.
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.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 just had a great deal more of that inconvenient intellectual integrity than you hope for. Sorry about your luck.Guess they were a little more serious and formal back then.
Nope. Your question, as i understand it in the context of this discussion, is irrelevent.Avoiding the question?
Nice link. Irrelevent to demonstrating that American teachers in the 18th century were government employees.I'm pretty sure one of the earlier things paid for with state taxes is school teachers…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
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.As far as I can tell, nobody is doing that - other than the rabid secularists.
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.
Finally! A Founding Father quote to support your argument. Congradulations on leveling up to legitimate tactics!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."
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>
1st Amendment.That's quite a mouthful. Where does it say that in the U.S. Constitution?