ScreamingEagle said:
Slip, schmip. I'm surprised you didn't accuse the dictionary of being theocratic.
What kind of diversionary bullshit is this?
ScreamingEagle said:
And even your definitions plainly state that there are variations of the meaning of secular which is basically all I said.
No so much so that secular mean atheist as you so vehemently continue to assert.
Your point was not the varying usage of secular--your point was secularism is a denial of the existence of God, which is in fact atheism. You went as far to avoid what your own
resource had to say which was:<blockquote>
"Holyoake held that secularism should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from militant freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious propaganda and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was."</blockquote>My guess is that the reason you are so desperate to make an equivalent association between secularism and atheism is that atheism, like Christianity is faith based, rather than reason based, and on those grounds your faith based rationalizations are just as effective as any other faith based rationalizations they are put up against.
But rational people ask questions, difficult questions, painful questions--and they are not neccessarily satisfied by what one person's Invisible White Father Who Lives In Sky says, much less His absolutely obedient, but none-the-less charming, volitionary says.
You are arguing much like this Cal Thomas whose article was the start of this thread.
As I suggested earlier, his problem is having his beliefs, that are unsupported by fact or reason, questioned. It undermines his preferred authority system. What he ultimately enjoins you to do is, "Do as you're told by those who are in charge of the sacred book--and don't listen to those with "other" ideas." He enjoins you to not be critical of the foundation that his favored brand of authoritarianism is based upon.
Your Faith-Based Authoritarianism has no teeth without the coercive power of the government, your wish that it should gain that coercive power will never be granted as long as secularists keep your religion out of the government. As a result, all faiths--including atheists, including Christians--will be free to practice their faith, and better off for it.
ScreamingEagle said:
No and yes? Waffling much? Let me repeat my question: "do you really think it was the intent of our Founding Fathers to create a "secular society" and stamp out any reference to God or Christian beliefs in our government?" The answer is plainly NO.
Waffle? Fuck you Charlie. You asked two questions that required two answers, and also required correction of your bullshit presumptions.
Question 1:
"do you really think it was the intent of our Founding Fathers to create a "secular society"?" Your bullshit presumption is that the Founding Fathers were attempting to create a society when in fact the society already existed--they were trying to create a government that would protect that society.
Question 2:
"do you really think it was the intent of our Founding Fathers to stamp out any reference to God or Christian beliefs in our government?" Your bullshit presumption is that the Founding Fathers were eradicating something that was not even there.
Since you repeated your question, so that everyone can be sure what you're on about, let me repeat my answer which "waffles" none:<blockquote>
"No and yes. In order to protect a society comprised of folks practicing varied religions, the Founding Fathers established an expressly secular government that would protect all faiths without the power to promote any faith over another."</blockquote>"No," they were not creating a secular society, society was already there, but the government had yet to be created; and "Yes," their intent was government unprescribed by belief in God or Christianity.
ScreamingEagle said:
I am not some sort of right wing Christian wacko that you probably think I am. I do NOT believe that our government has the right to ESTABLISH RELIGION.
But you're willing to ignore the definition of establish so that government can establish your religion over others.
ScreamingEagle said:
I do, however, believe that people have the right to FREE SPEECH which also includes expression of their religious beliefs, whether they're in the government or not.
And apparently whether such expression is
AS government or not; whether such expression is asserted, or promoted, or endorsed; explicitly, or implicitly; by or with the coercive force of government, is not particularly relevant to you, is it? As long as it's Christain, it's AOK!
ScreamingEagle said:
Also, if tax money is to be distributed to groups in this country, I do not see why a non-religious groups should be favored over religious-based groups.
For the same reason tax money is not collected
from religious groups. Religious groups get their funding tax free without going on the dole, and without any sensible rationalization for such exemption except
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion..."
ScreamingEagle said:
Both groups can have agendas relating to religion, pro or con.
Presumtive, but understandably so, coming from a religio whose religious tradition is a rich history of anti-other-religion.
ScreamingEagle said:
Who gets our money should be a decision made by our representatives. If the majority wants to favor Satanic groups, so be it, as long as that federally-funded Satanic group does not force its religion on the people it helps.
Wrong. Federal spending is determined by law.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion..." including laws that allow for spending for religions.
ScreamingEagle said:
And I'll just bet you agree with the ACLU that if an elected government representative even utters the word "God" he is "establishing religion".
The ACLU says that? Show me. With the context. But no, it think it's ok for an elected government representative to utter the word "God." But I think "uttering," and "placing prominently in legislation or government policy" are different things.
ScreamingEagle said:
Nothing wrong with that. However, appropriating tax money to religious-based groups as well as non-religious groups is not the same as "making a law".
Federal spending is determined by law. Congress has to make a law for spending. Government spending is done by making law. It's not the same as making law--it
is making law. The first amendment makes it unconstitutional to make such laws.
ScreamingEagle said:
LOki said:
I think the difference between us is that I am rather aware of what the 1st amendment says, and what establish means (among other words), and that government spending is determined via the function of making law, and you are not.
The difference is both you and the ACLU seem to have your own ideas about what the 1st amendment says regarding making laws to establish religion. Exactly what law is Bush making by appropriating federal funds to a faith-based group?
The law that says you can't make a law, including spending laws, or appropriation laws, respecting an establishment of religion. It would be that law precisely. You should look it up, and then look up the definitions of the words--but try a dictionary rather than the bible.
ScreamingEagle said:
I'm not confused mr. smarty-pants. You can practice whatever damn religion you want. Just let us practice our Christian religion as well. Don't stuff us into a "secular" vacuum.
You are obviously still confused.
rtwngAvngr said:
Much of what i consider our state morality IS in the constitution and, thank god, is not susceptible through change through the democratic process.
As I asserted before, and this does not contradict that the consitution's morality, but our morality is reflected in the constitution--NOT defined by it. The rights described are inherent to us, and the powers of government described are granted by us--the constitution does not define our morality, our morality defines it.
rtwngAvngr said:
So religion can be wrong, science can be wrong, both can lead to good or evil, so why do secularists feel so superior?
Presumptive. And wrongly so. Why do the religious feel so superior in their faith, that it is is so different than the faith of others, that it is a fair refutation of confirmed observations and measurments of reality, so much so that adherents to their faith are justified in their burning, hanging, stoning, quartering, eviscerating, impaling, pressing, racking and just plain murdering of those who do not believe as they do?
rtwngAvngr said:
At least religion is time tested, the mess man is making with HIMSELF as god will ultimately be cleaned up by the faithful.
Religion is a time tested rationale for genocide. If there is a God, my guess is religion and blind faith are His way of identifying the retards and having them kill each other.
rtwngAvngr said:
There's no logical reason to NOT be barbaric, unless you have a zealots preference for peace.
You're wrong, absolutely wrong. But since you cannot parse a rational, logically consistent reason to behave in a civil manner to your fellow human beings, I am glad you are afraid of being punished by your Invisible White Father Who Lives In The Sky for misbehaving.
shalom, jilly baby.
