- Liberals moaning about illegals
- Correct phrase is illegal immigrants
- More info. about greenhouse effect
- Global warming
- War needed to be clarified
- Endorsement for Bob Murphy
- Colo. Rockies encourage scalping
- McCarthy moment needed
- Is it too late to avoid bombing Iran?
- We should hear from the victim too
Separation of church & state
The disingenuous secular movement that continues to run rampant across this country is determined to establish their system of belief as the official religion of the United States Government.
Quoting from Webster’s Dictionary, “Religion: a cause, principle, or systems of beliefs held to with extreme vigor and faith.” The faith the secular movement has in their humanist belief system is no different then the faith many others have in their own particular religious beliefs. The difference is while most people of faith are quite happy to share town-square with other beliefs secularists continue to demand that their humanist faith be the only accepted form of religion found in government institutions.
The secular movement has hi-jacked “seperation of church and state” and has made it their own personal mantra. Using extreme vigor they insist on shoving their humanist faith down America’s throat and are bent on systematically removing all other forms of belief but their own. Separation of church and state is for all systems of belief not just those that have some type of belief in god or gods. At best case this present day secularist movement portrays the very thing our forefathers warned us against and at worst case it represents the potential downfall and demise of our nation.
This letter has not been edited.
So secular humanism is a religion? When was the last time a couple of secular humanists showed up at your door to harangue you and offer you literature? When did they last demand that quotations from Thomas Paine or Richard Dawkins be posted in courtrooms or schoolrooms? And when did they last demand tax exemptions in the name of their "religion"?
Secular humanists are hardly "disingenuous." They don't care what you believe as long as you don't try to foist it on everyone else.
Posted by Romulus on October 31, 2007 02:17 PMNot believing is the same as believing?
Posted by Some kind of logic on October 31, 2007 02:25 PMRomulus makes a good point. The thesis of this original letter seems to be that "secular humanism" is just as much a religion as, well, actual religions. And therefore the teachings of secular humanism are also a violation of church and state separations.
So, what's an example of a "secular humanist"? Where do they worship? What would be their text? Is there a hotel in America where I would find said text in the nightstand?
Jerry Seinfeld voice: I'd really like to know.
Posted by Jeff on October 31, 2007 02:37 PM"The disingenuous secular movement that continues to run rampant across this country is determined to establish their system of belief as the official religion of the United States Government."
Can I ask what "official" religion you'd like? Should we enforce the laws of that official religion?
The religious in this country ALREADY have loads of publicly funded space to proclaim their faith. It's called your house of worship, and wherever that may be, each and every taxpayer in the United States supports you at that house of worship.
After all, Christians need to use their money for important things, like protesting at the home of a construction boss.
Posted by Joanna on October 31, 2007 03:19 PMOK. How is that different than the Christians in this country?
Using extreme vigor they insist on shoving their Christian faith down America’s throat and are bent on systematically removing all other forms of belief but their own.
Fixed that for you.
(GOD, GOD, GOD, GOD, GOD, GOD, GOD, GOD, GOD, GOD, GOD). In God We Trust, God Bless America, God here, God there, God, God everywhere. And still, it's not enough.
A "secular humanist" would be those who try to stamp God out of our history and daily lives.
They worship in our courts, suing anyone who dare speak His name.
The literature they use is anything anti-God, even cherry picking quotes from our founding fathers.
Their influence is on every mainstream television station in every motel room and home name 3 mainsteam religious shows.)
Christians can turn Harry Potter off, why can't H.S.'s just not open that pesky Gideon Bible in the back of those drawers?
Romulus fails to understand that the same document, The Bill of Rights, that prevents GOVERNMENT from establishing religion, also provides for the freedom of those that have religion to practice it.
When a government agency prohibits the practice of religion, they are in violation of our First Amendment rights. The "encouragement to attend a religious establishment of YOUR OWN PERSONAL choice" does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
From my reading, it would appear that Mr. Gleason has a pretty good grasp of the First Amendment. In understanding that secular humanism promoted by the Government or agents of the Government, indeed violates not the establishment clause, but instead the prohibition of free exercise clause. What is not in the Constitution is the right to be free of offensive material, but instead a Libertarian view of the right to speak freely and to practice freely one's own religious beliefs.
The Government can't compel you to attend a religious service, but nothing prohibits the Government from recommending or even encouraging attendance of one's OWN CHOOSING. That is the difference, compulsion of a specific vs encouragement of any...
Posted by Dan2 on October 31, 2007 03:47 PMAs I experienced it, religious zealots are directed to convert the"lost" into their beliefs. Therefore, many religions pose a danger to those who disagree with their positions. The separation of church and state is a protective right and should be honored, less we become subjects of religious fervor.
"Wondering" makes a valid point when he/she mentions the constant, unceasing attacks, over the years, by the religious majority who are hell bent on destroying the wall and pushing their agenda on the non-believers. "In God We Trust" was never on our currency until after the religious groundswell following the Civil War and when I was born there was no "under God" in the pedge of allegiance. Incidently pledging "allegiance to the Flag" is in strict violation of many peoples' religious beliefs.
Posted by Stan B on October 31, 2007 04:22 PMDictionary.com: Mf (profanity) and wretch (wretch is what Christians call themselves) and both mean evil and despicable.
Christians kneel to an evil and despicable "jew" who is so sadistic and wicked he has created a lake of fire for those who won't accept him as their savior. Jesus the Christ is the fictional conception of rape upon a 13-year-old virgin by David or a spook sent to earth by Jehovah with a vial of his sperm to be implanted. (Christ et al claim he came from the loins of David, not the house, but David a man.)
Christians are free to believe as they will as Mormons are free to believe in their god from Kolob and Muslims are free to believe that Allah has created virgins without menses, stools, or urine for his male slaves; however, these credulous believers are not free to send their literature via the children in public schools to the home of their parents.
These wretches (Amazing Grace…that saved a wretch like me) must keep their bizarre beliefs within their home or in their church but keep such garbage out of the public arena where its flatulence is certain to offend my nose since all gods are spokes in the wheel of excrement.
Deicide Corner: As a member of the Deicide it is my job to slay all gods. History proves that Time, indeed, slays all gods.
Gee....I can't imagine why'd we'd want to keep these folks' ideals out of our public school systems
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/funeral.protests.ap/index.html
Posted by jay on October 31, 2007 04:30 PMIf you are so offended by having God on your money, I can take it off your hands. And when the pledge is against someone's religion, they are not forced to say it, whether you use the ..under God part or not. How is expressing an opinion or sharing your beliefs with someone "dangerous"? Those who like to say God doesn't exist are never taken to court, only the ones who say they do believe in God are sued.
Posted by aliciala on October 31, 2007 04:33 PMDon't worry Stan B. you are beyond saving.
By the way "Religious Zealots were in this country first and after all this is a Christian Nation. The lastest NBC poll showed that at least 85-90% profess to be Christians so go to Cuba or Red China and stop your constant whinning you Godless cry baby or some day we might just send you there ourselves.
Maybe Castro can change your diaper.
Posted by Goats Cheese For that Whine on October 31, 2007 04:42 PMAliciala: I have some money that says in god we trust which might be better said in god some of us trust; however, please take it off my hands and replace it with money that has the old motto: From Many One. When I don't participate in the Pledge I am ostracized; I'd like to go back to the original pledge:
I pledge allegiance to my flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
The Christian pledge changes my flag to the flag and adds under God, which turns America into a theocracy such as Iran, Iraq and all those Islamic countries. America is a nation under a godless constitution and is "indivisible" under the original pledge and divisible under the Christian pledge.
Take this stink'in money off my hands, aliciala since the words "under God" create the stink. Why do the wretch and Mf have to impose their "jew" god on me, once a Catholic who would impose the ascension of the Virgin Mary on you along with hell since only us Catholics are going to heaven.
Posted by RG, deicide r22037@yahoo.com on October 31, 2007 04:50 PMAliciala,
It is not dangerous for someone to expess their beliefs, religious or otherwise, with anyone. But we are endangered when "someone recommends" we spend time at a worship service in a document provided to students in a public school. This is a form of proselytization which many of us object to. Therefore, the lawsuit.
And I'll keep my money and block out the phrase "In God We Trust", since it is a sacriledge to my parents and millions of others.
For all of you that are confusing a "preference issue" with a "constitutional issue," just remember, if some religious nut job comes to your house, or attempts to "convert you" you have the right and the ability to:
1. tell them off
2. close the door in their face
3. listen to what they have to say, and question why they have those beliefs
4. get the opportunity to understand another point of view
5. start a conversation about your beliefs and why you believe something
6. walk away
7. IGNORE THEM
Private citizens have the ABSOLUTE right to practice their religion, and have the RIGHT to try to gain members of that faith, as long as it does not trample the personal liberties of those they are attempting to "convert."
Private citizens who do NOT share a religious belief, have the ABSOLUTE right to that belief, and as such may not be compelled by AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT to "convert." That does not mean that their disdain for religion or religious people (or even zealots), should trample the RIGHTS of those that are practicing their own faith as a private citizen.
The teaching about God in public schools should not on it's face be dismissed under the unconstitutional phrase and guise of "separation of church and state" per se, unless it is an establishment of teaching one religious belief at the dismissal of all others. Instead, the teaching of world religious philosophy, the historical and political consequences that religions have had in the world, and significance religion has played in world events should be ENCOURAGED. How do you discuss the Holocaust without acknowledging the Jewish and Christian aspect? How do you discuss the Salem Witch Trials, without the Quaker factor entering in? How could we POSSIBLY discuss current events without Islam being discussed, the 100 year war, the revolt over religious oppression of the Colonists from England, the establishment of the Church of England, the history of Lutheranism as a revolt of Catholicism in Germany, Leninism/Marxism in Russia that led to the formation of the Soviet Union? Wouldn't it be better to have children informed of the role religions have played in the world? WHY the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge, why "In God We Trust" is on our money, why the President takes his oath of office on a Bible, and why politicians end speeches with God bless America?
Religion has had a significant impact in the history of the world. To ignore it because it is uncomfortable, is just ignorant. To not mention God, because the distinct minority may be offended, is not only silly, but lacks simple common sense. There should be a way to teach about the Judaeo - Christian God, Allah, the different sects of Christianity, wickens/witches/warlocks, satanism, Mormonism, or any other sect of religion in the public schools, because those faiths and beliefs are part of our common community. To teach without preference or exclusion is not a violation of the establishment cause, it is just good solid education. Where is the harm in this?
Posted by Dan2 on October 31, 2007 05:07 PMDan raises a good point. I see no harm in acknowledging the fact that many groups of people throughout the ages have congregated under a banner of the belief in the supernatural.
That's where religion's influence in our school system should stop, however.
Posted by jay on October 31, 2007 05:13 PMSeparation of church and state?? Tell it to the Muslims!!!!! Tell those idiotic Muslim women to take those horrid looking shame scarves they wear, off their daughters when they send them to school every day.
Islam is an INTRUSIVE ideology/religion!
When will the prayer rugs,foot baths,ect start showing up in our schools?
Posted by on October 31, 2007 05:32 PMaliciala, that`s Goddess honey, Goddess as in She and Her Worship. Please get the gender right.
No one has the right to come on my property to sell anything including religion.
Here is a partial list of all the places religious people can put there symbols and talk about their faith.
Churches, mosques or temples, to what ever God/Goddess or Gods plural.
Homes
Businesses
Automobiles
Clothing
Church or religious owned property
Jewelry
Clothing
Eye glasses
Body tattoos
advertisements in the phone book.
ETC. Can anyone think of more places for them.
Here are the two where you and your proselytizing are not welcome, as well as your plaques and pictures and sayings.
Public schools
Public property
See the pattern? Follow it please and we will leave you alone with most of the rest of the country to paint up and sloganize to your hearts content.
Still not satisfied? Too bad!
Posted by Sharon B. on October 31, 2007 05:44 PM"When was the last time a couple of secular humanists showed up at your door to harangue you and offer you literature?"
They don't have to knock on my door and "harangue" me, I read their bull every dang day in the paper..............
Posted by Heather on October 31, 2007 05:57 PMDan2 does make many valid points. I believe that the belief systems of others should be understood and tolerated. Pushing those in the minority is part of this process. However, using a position of power to impose your beliefs on the minority is hardly a moral or just situation. When it comes to religious in government though, you should acknowledge that others have the right to disagree and not have their will imposed upon you. When a group of governors, elected by the governed gather, they need to keep their religion in context. That is what the founders grappled with hundreds of years ago. And it's why the separation of church and state should continue to be included in the concept of a moral and just system of government, i.e., keep government out of religion and religion out of government.
... religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. - James Madison
Posted by Stan B on October 31, 2007 06:03 PMI agree with Dan2's statement:
"There should be a way to teach about the Judaeo - Christian God, Allah, the different sects of Christianity, wickens/witches/warlocks, satanism, Mormonism, or any other sect of religion in the public schools, because those faiths and beliefs are part of our common community. To teach without preference or exclusion is not a violation of the establishment cause, it is just good solid education."
Of course, there will always be tension and dispute about the point at which teaching the history and sociological implications of religion becomes indoctrination. That is the nature of the beast, and of the human condition. So often, "objective" is, like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder. But life is made up of many such close questions, of many such amorphous lines. And trying to resolve the conflicts is nearly always messy. But here as in the case of so many such questions, we lose too much if we attempt to avoid the conflict rather than engage in the messy job of dealing with it.
Posted by Truth on October 31, 2007 07:26 PMI just happened to read Speakout in today's newspaper about teachers being crushed by rules, regulations. I then noticed and read a letter from a Mike Smith. This will be the first time I comment about an educational issue presented in our newspaper. As a social studies teacher, Mike needs to educate himself with the intent of our founding fathers. If anything is more evident, they included God. Get your history facts correct, or simply read what is on a dolar bill.
Posted by Diana Levett on October 31, 2007 07:28 PMI just happened to read Speakout in today's newspaper about teachers being crushed by rules, regulations. I then noticed and read a letter from a Mike Smith. This will be the first time I comment about an educational issue presented in our newspaper. As a social studies teacher, Mike needs to educate himself with the intent of our founding fathers. If anything is more evident, they included God. Get your history facts correct, or simply read what is on a dolar bill.
Posted by Diana Levett on October 31, 2007 07:28 PMI just happened to read Speakout in today's newspaper about teachers being crushed by rules, regulations. I then noticed and read a letter from a Mike Smith. This will be the first time I comment about an educational issue presented in our newspaper. As a social studies teacher, Mike needs to educate himself with the intent of our founding fathers. If anything is more evident, they included God. Get your history facts correct, or simply read what is on a dolar bill.
Posted by Diana Levett on October 31, 2007 07:28 PMI just happened to read Speakout in today's newspaper about teachers being crushed by rules, regulations. I then noticed and read a letter from a Mike Smith. This will be the first time I comment about an educational issue presented in our newspaper. As a social studies teacher, Mike needs to educate himself with the intent of our founding fathers. If anything is more evident, they included God. Get your history facts correct, or simply read what is on a dolar bill.
Posted by Diana Levett on October 31, 2007 07:28 PMI just happened to read Speakout in today's newspaper about teachers being crushed by rules, regulations. I then noticed and read a letter from a Mike Smith. This will be the first time I comment about an educational issue presented in our newspaper. As a social studies teacher, Mike needs to educate himself with the intent of our founding fathers. If anything is more evident, they included God. Get your history facts correct, or simply read what is on a dolar bill.
Posted by Diana Levett on October 31, 2007 07:29 PMI just happened to read Speakout in today's newspaper about teachers being crushed by rules, regulations. I then noticed and read a letter from a Mike Smith. This will be the first time I comment about an educational issue presented in our newspaper. As a social studies teacher, Mike needs to educate himself with the intent of our founding fathers. If anything is more evident, they included God. Get your history facts correct, or simply read what is on a dolar bill.
Posted by Diana Levett on October 31, 2007 07:29 PMSharon B,
You're taking this environmentalism stuff way too far. Reycllcing posts now? You know you use up just as many electrons.
You haven't answered my question from last time. How come religious tattoos are allowed and religious speech is forbidden?
What's with the taboo on speech?
Posted by James Jones on October 31, 2007 07:30 PMI just happened to read Speakout in today's newspaper about teachers being crushed by rules, regulations. I then noticed and read a letter from a Mike Smith. This will be the first time I comment about an educational issue presented in our newspaper. As a social studies teacher, Mike needs to educate himself with the intent of our founding fathers. If anything is more evident, they included God. Get your history facts correct, or simply read what is on a dolar bill.
Posted by Diana Levett on October 31, 2007 07:31 PMI just happened to read Speakout in today's newspaper about teachers being crushed by rules, regulations. I then noticed and read a letter from a Mike Smith. This will be the first time I comment about an educational issue presented in our newspaper. As a social studies teacher, Mike needs to educate himself with the intent of our founding fathers. If anything is more evident, they included God. Get your history facts correct, or simply read what is on a dolar bill.
Posted by Diana Levett on October 31, 2007 07:36 PMSorry, numbnuts Gleason, but I haven't seen any secular humanists make claims of rising from the dead or working to bring on the end of the world. You're a superstitous bufoon; deal with it.
Posted by on October 31, 2007 07:38 PMThis is a silly non-issue, conjured by a confused letter writer.
The logic that defines 'secular humanism' as some type of religion, and then claims that -it- is oppressing others' expression of religion leads to all kinds of other magical thinking.
The same tortured reasoning requires defining 'patriotism' as a religion...making anyone who passes by those offensive American flags going to school or the post-office victims of another one of those oppressive 'religions.'
Get a grip folks.
Posted by on October 31, 2007 08:36 PMJames Jones, religious speach is only forbidden when a person in authority representing the school makes the kids listen to it. remember my school where kids can talk about anything during non-class or school led time periods.? There all hall way preachers are welcome.
I recycle because I use the same electrons over and over. However, I love a man who uses science speak. Electrons, next you will be into quarks and gluon's. Be still my heart.
To Diana Levitt, please girl don`t double click when you post, and remember the "in God we trust" is new. Bet the founding fathers never saw it did they?
Posted by Sharon B. on October 31, 2007 10:45 PMRomulus asked:
"So secular humanism is a religion?"
Yes.
"When was the last time a couple of secular humanists showed up at your door to harangue you and offer you literature?"
They come to my house in the form of television, movies, newspapers, magazines and the internet. They ask to me read bogus "studies" like the WHO report on health care. They ask me to watch dishonest "documentaries". They preach on awards shows. They preach at concerts. They indoctrinate our kids at public schools. They even preach from the floors of Congress.
"When did they last demand that quotations from Thomas Paine or Richard Dawkins be posted in courtrooms or schoolrooms? "
They don't need such trivialities when they already own the courts. They are sitting on the bench, enacting their religious beliefs.
"And when did they last demand tax exemptions in the name of their "religion"?"
If only they did, they wouldn't be so bad. They do the opposite. Instead of exemptions, they demand donations to their causes.
"They don't care what you believe as long as you don't try to foist it on everyone else."
Nonsense! Again, if only that were true, they wouldn't be so bad. But, they do "foist" their beliefs on everyone else. Because they have infiltrated government, thereby mixing their religion with government, they are able to coerce everyone else to contribute to their causes. Where Christians create private charities to raise funds, the secular humanists need no such private fund raising mechanism; they have the IRS.
Posted by John II on October 31, 2007 11:02 PMSharon the Goddess,
Your list would also include anyone practicing ANY religion, or denouncing any, this IS America.
I agree with you, my religion, and yours, should not be promoted or forced on any one in any public school or public property. And absolutely no-one should be aloud on your private property that you do not give permission to be there.
The part where we disagree is where you push your garbage-homosexuality, teen sex, abortion, anyting goes, the part where we should "accept". That is what is being forced upon everyone in adds, tv, magazines and newspapers now-adays. That is where we have problems, your "religion" verses the Bible. Like what has been said before, you don't have to accept or invite them in, but you do have to let them have their opinion. Other wise move to Iran where the government will tell you what kind of religion to have-or else!!
We should teach snake handling and speaking in tongues at school.
Posted by Cletus on November 1, 2007 07:24 AMI have a great idea. If you want the government to support your religion, your religion should pay taxes like any other corporation.
Posted by Bear on November 1, 2007 07:32 AMSharon B,
"...religious speach is only forbidden when a person in authority representing the school makes the kids listen to it. "
Or if the valedictorian refers to her faith in a graduation speech.
She didn't just refer to her religion, she used her speech to evangelize.
Now, if someone would have thrown a tomato at her, then people would have screamed "religious persecution"...
Religion is a supposed to be a personal thing. If you don't push your beliefs on me, I won't tell you that you are wrong.
Posted by Bear on November 1, 2007 07:53 AMBear,
You are obvioulsy a man of tolerance. As long as you don't have to hear anything you disagree with.
Posted by James Jones on November 1, 2007 08:09 AMI don't mind hearing anything I disagree with, as long as you don't mind hearing the truth.
Posted by Bear on November 1, 2007 08:12 AMhttp://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/funeral.protests.ap/index.html
Posted by on November 1, 2007 08:55 AMAmendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Kinda sounds to me that schools and courts are NOT congress. But while the courts can and do define laws and at times make new ones through "precedents set" the courts should not be allowed to make decisions on anything religious in our schools or any other public facility.
If schools want to hold judeo-christian prayer and bible studies then they should be allowed to, as long as kids are NOT FORCED to participate. Likewise, if the schools want to hold satanic rituals then they should be allowed to do that as well. Again, as long as kids are NOT FORCED to participate. As long as it does not violate any laws then any religion should be able to be practiced in our schools as long as kids are NOT FORCED. If you do not like it then contact the PTA/PTO and school board. If you don't like the decision, move your kids.
If a court or any other public facility wants to display the Ten Commandments or any other tenant of faith be it Islamic, Buddhist, Wiccan, Satanic, or otherwise under the constitution they have every right. If they allow one and not another, they have every right. What they don't have a right to do is enforce their leanings onto me. And before somebody questions: Any worldview that a judge holds onto will come out during his/her decisions/findings in court. If a worldview does NOT affect any decision one makes, no matter what decision it is, then it is not a worldview worth holding. In that case that one's worldview then needs to be changed.
For the record, there is plenty of historical materials available that tells us our "founding fathers" were NOT Christians but Deists. There is a difference.
And the definition of religion does not necessarily include a formal place of worship or discipling.
Posted by Harry on November 1, 2007 09:00 AMjay, why do you keep posting that CNN link. What is the point of it?
Posted by on November 1, 2007 09:10 AMBear,
Let's be sure I understand your proposition.
You agree to listen to things you disagree with if I agree to listen to the truth- right?
But the thing is, as a tolerant man you already listen to things you disagree with. So other than listening to the truth, what's in this for me?
See the problem? So - No, sorry but no deal.
Posted by James Jones on November 1, 2007 09:25 AMThe arguments presented here have been going on for centuries. Creeping Christian-Judeo (the Judeo part is very recent) religious incursions into the fabric of every day life in America will continue and those of us who protest this infringment will keep on fighting to uphold the basic principles of justice and equality and against imposed superiority.
Posted by Stan B on November 1, 2007 10:17 AMHarry, I would love the idea of different religion belief's being taught in public schools. The problem is the fundalmentalist. About the time little christian johnny comes home and tells born again christian mom and dad that he wants to become a buddhist then that's when you have a religious war.
I don't want the government in my religion, period. Why you all do is beyond me.
Posted by leftside on November 1, 2007 10:29 AMBy way of variety, let's argue the "separation of church and state" issue.
The crux of the matter is: who exactly is stopping you from practicing your faith? (And from these posts, some of you need as much practice as you can get.) Seems to me those church doors are wide open, the buildings themselves in no danger of being replaced with condos or strip clubs-- I mean malls.
If "secular humanism" comes into John II's house via the media he describes, it's because he lets it in.
As for the "In God We Trust" business, it's the religious folk who really should object to that being on money, reducing the Almighty as it does to the level of crass commerce.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 1, 2007 10:47 AMNo matter how many times Diana Levett posts "If anything is more evident, they included God.", the founders deliberatly left "God" out of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers do a fair job of explaning why. Just because you believe something is a "fact" does not mean it's true.
Posted by Stan B on November 1, 2007 10:53 AMHas anybody figured it out that this whole discussion would be mute if we had all private schools and no public schools or taxes going to public schools and parents could select and pay for the school of their choice?
Individual choice for education! What a concept!
Posted by Individual Liberty on November 1, 2007 11:01 AMLeftside:
I'm a fundamentalist. If my son or daughter were to be in a school that had Islam or any other religion being taught I would either have my kids NOT attend those clubs/groups/classes, petition the local school board/PTA/PTO, or have them change to a different school that either did not teach religion or taught religion from my faith. I would NOT take them to court as I have said earlier the courts are not to be making any decision on the practicing of any one religion in or out of a school environment.
Either way the problem is resolved. I have a diverse background in various religions. Enough so that I can teach and do teach my kids about the different types of religions out there. If they have a question that I can't answer we find out together by meeting somebody of authority in that particular religion. This has made for some interesting topics and meetings.
Christian first by faith then by reason.
Posted by Harry on November 1, 2007 11:08 AMAhhhh.. wouldn't want you to be "ostracized", that would be unconstitutional! Wait...the constitution says nothing about having the right NOT to be offended. If so, then you would be violating my rights because I am very offended by your trying to remove God from where He(yes Sharon-He, if you don't believe in God, you have no right to make me call Him something different) already is.
I am "ostracized" if I dare say homosexuality is not normal, it is a sin, teens shouldn't be having sex, abortion is killing babies, real live babies, not "fetuses". All this H.S. religion is forced upon us in school, but don't you dare pray to God.
Come on let's here the liberal love and acceptance for my opinion.
First of all, it is amazing to me that in the 21st century, belief in invisible friends by supposedly lucidly-thinking adults continues to cause domestic strife and international war. Yet, I don't care what you believe, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
As for Secular Humanism being a religion, that is categorically false. Religion involves belief in a deity of some sort. As someone once said, "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color."
Some of you believers truly act foolish when you can't distinguish between government neutrality toward religion and government opposition to religion. And of course, it has to be YOUR religion being pushed. You don't want Wiccan prayer in public schools, you don't want verses from the Quran posted in the courthouse. It's your own particular deity you want supported by public funds and official standing.
Sad...truly sad.
Posted by Randy on November 1, 2007 11:22 AM"Or if the valedictorian refers to her faith in a graduation speech"
Yes james...it's all about the captive audience...I'm kind of surprise you don't understand that concept.
9:10, I've posted that link on a couple of topics here, but not that one. Looks like it's making the rounds.
Harry, I don't see a problem with acknowledging in school that various groups of people throughout the world's history have assembled under the blanket of a belief in the supernatural...but that's where religion's influence on our schools should end.
I just don't understand why religious folks insist on pushing their beliefs upon our public school system.
Any thoughts on that from those of you here that are in favor of such practices?
Posted by jay on November 1, 2007 11:22 AMIf you don't pray in my school
I won't think in your church.
First of all, it is amazing to me that in the 21st century, belief in invisible friends by supposedly lucidly-thinking adults continues to cause domestic strife and international war. Yet, I don't care what you believe, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
As for Secular Humanism being a religion, that is categorically false. Religion involves belief in a deity of some sort. As someone once said, "If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color."
Some of you believers truly act foolish when you can't distinguish between government neutrality toward religion and government opposition to religion. And of course, it has to be YOUR religion being pushed. You don't want Wiccan prayer in public schools, you don't want verses from the Quran posted in the courthouse. It's your own particular deity you want supported by public funds and official standing.
Sad...truly sad.
Posted by Randy on November 1, 2007 11:24 AMSorry, forgot to put my name on the above comment.
I agree, private schools are the ideal solution. I send mine to Catholic school, we are not catholic, that means I have to explain where and why I don't believe the same things as they do. Imagine that-me as a parent having to discuss an issue with my kid. Some of you seem to think that is the teachers job, not yours. But you want the teacher to mimic all of your same beliefs or lack there of, and morals or lack there of, then teach them to your kids and mine. That is where we have problems.
joanna you dont know how to think so not to worry.
jay the moron, why do all of you idiots want to push all of your progressive liberal socialist beliefs on kids in school?
whats wrong with teaching the 3r's again? how about just facts and not the teachers feelings on what is best for the kiddies to learn? socialist like you just cant do that as it would create free thinking and learning and not indoctrination into your beliefs.
"why do all of you idiots want to push all of your progressive liberal socialist beliefs on kids in school?"
How is this being done, cruton?
Posted by jay on November 1, 2007 11:35 AM"How is this being done, cruton?"
Over and over again-We are forced to accept homosexuality as normal, abortion is a form of birth control for all the 12 and 13 yr olds, you know, "their just gonna do it anyways, kids are curious", how about it takes a village to raise a child? Keep your stinkin village away from my child.
Now tell me how Christians are trying to shove God into school? Because they say His name in the pledge? Most schools have given up and don't even recite it any more. Are Christians sneeking around the hallways handing out communion? Nope, the socialists are sneeking around handing out condoms.
Posted by aliciala on November 1, 2007 11:55 AM"Over and over again-We are forced to accept homosexuality as normal, abortion is a form of birth control for all the 12 and 13 yr olds, you know, "their just gonna do it anyways, kids are curious", how about it takes a village to raise a child? Keep your stinkin village away from my child. "
lol...I still ask...how is this being done, cruton? (not allowing bigotry against homosexuals in public school doesn't count)
"Now tell me how Christians are trying to shove God into school? "
The promotion of any religion in school (such as CC did with the "suggestion" that having religion will give one a better life).
Point made!
If I say homosexuality is wrong-I'm a bigot. My beliefs are not accepted by you-but I have to "accept" your homos.
What about incest? What if there were siblings in your school "doing it'? Their choice, they are willing. If I said that was wrong would I be "prejudice"?
The promotion of any religion in school (such as CC did with the "suggestion" that having religion will give one a better life).
He made a suggestion, accept or disregard as you will. What if he said-"You should stop smoking, it would be better for your health." He is not forcing you to go to church or stop smoking by threat of life, limb, or grade.
Your statement of "the promotion of any religion in school" is way too generic-what religion is being promoted in what school? You libs all like to claim to be "vicitimized" by religious speech or sight of a cross, anything sets you off, how hard it must be to be so soft.
Aliciala,
Who are you to say homosexuality is wrong?
Isn't that left for God to decide?
Posted by leftside on November 1, 2007 02:09 PMaliciala
Have you ever noticed that these Godless atheists flock like buzzards to these Letters to the Editor everytime this issue or any pertaining to religion and if that happens to be Christianity.
It is always the same ignorant bald face liars as one of them put it trying to "Force their Beliefs" of hopelessness and hate that froths from there mouths like rabid dogs. Some are very calm and calculating in their elaborate and cunning lies. Have you noticed they are very excepting of the most immoral and vile lifestyles. Child killing is another dispicable thing they support with a fervor of a serial killer.
I see the same names over and over day after day trying to convince the world of their lies and immoral stances. I guess they don't work because they are on here all day and night long. I log in a few times a week on by lunch hour and it never fails, they they are. Seems to me they are mostly trying to convice themselves because they know better and are in serious denial.
Deep down they are terrified of what waits for them at the end of their lives Death has terrified men from mans beginning and they are no different unless they are insane. Some will drive themselves to insanity and will commit suicide.
It must be a sad and pathetic life to sit in front of a PC spewing hate and deceit all day long.
I have shake my head and say a pray for these lost souls after I visit these blogs.
Anon 2:16
1. Please don't include me in your prayers.
2. Worry about how you handle your time, I'll worry about how I handle mine.
Posted by leftside on November 1, 2007 02:25 PMIf we are talking (again) about what we "prefer" being taught in public schools, then everyone should be part of that dialog. There are those that prefer that no mention of any religion, as part of the curriculum, is taught, and the exact opposite would be that every world religion is taught, as part of the curriculum.
Being ignorant to philosophy doesn't make one smarter, they just continue to be ignorant.
Jay,
You asked why any one's religion should be pushed on our kids in public schools. You do realize that "common law" (what the US Judicial system and our laws are based on), is also based on Judeao - Christian law, specifically the 10 Commandments. Wouldn't you want your children to understand what each religious philosophy is, why when they encounter people of different faiths, they are not ignorant to those beliefs? Why Jews celebrate a different new year than the rest of the west, why our calendar uses A.D and B.C (for all of you that may not be aware, AD stands for Anno Domini which is Latin for "The Year of Our Lord"), why Muslims face Mecca at sundown, or even why Harry Potter can work magic? Or would you prefer your children didn't understand the differences between people, and instead used stereotypes?
Jay,
Captive audience or not, the school has no right or ability to "prohibit the free exercise" of religion, or limit her speech during graduation. Was her comment inappropriate for her audience? Without question. Did she promote her religion without balance to others? Absolutely! Did she violate the establishment clause of the Constitution? Absolutely NOT! While her comments may have been inappropriate and very biased, she was neither representing the beliefs of the Government, nor was she acting as an agent of the Government. She is a private CITIZEN, who has EVERY RIGHT to do and say what she did, WITHOUT punishment from the GOVERNMENT (being forced to apologize to receive her diploma). The audience and the general population may revolt against her, but the school system, as an agent of the government is absolutely forbidden to punish her for her religious comments or beliefs. That is a GUARANTEE of RIGHTS in the Constitution.
Finally, I would like to know exactly what the issue with Christmas is? Why can't public schools have a Christmas party, Christmas program, etc etc? Christmas is a FEDERAL Holiday!!! Santa Claus, Rudolph, Frosty, et all, have NOTHING to do with the nativity scene. Songs like Frosty the Snowman, Jolly Old St. Nick, Oh Christmas Tree, Have a Holy Jolly Christmas, are VASTLY different than Silent Night, Oh Holy Night, Our Saviors Birth, etc. Huge difference between the secular federal holiday Christmas, and the religious Christmas celebrating the birth of Christ, right?
Posted by Dan2 on November 1, 2007 02:27 PM"My beliefs are not accepted by you-but I have to 'accept' your homos."
"Homos" aren't beliefs, aliciala. They're humans. And if it's any comfort to you, nobody's forcing you to "accept homosexuality as normal." In fact, you'd be surprised how few homosexuals need or require your approval.
You say "your homos" in your 1:00 post, presumably addressed to cruton. Is your problem solely with cruton's homos? (How many you got there, cruton?) Also, referring to your earlier post, can you specify a source that actually recommends abortion as "a form of birth control for all the 12 and 13 yr olds" [including boys? yikes!]?
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 1, 2007 02:40 PMleftside-
God has decided-The Word of God says homosex is wrong. I beleive Him. What do you have that shows me it is "right"? What about the question of incest? Who are you to decide?
And here is more proof that H.S. religion is accepted, and the Bible is "ostracized"-the Christmas point just brought up. "Christ's Mass" is out-happy holiday is in-your pagen halloween is heavily accepted and promoted, even encouraged and rewarded in school. Why is that OK? You should be screaming for halloween parties to come to an immediate halt. This proves to me that it is not "religion" you all are against, it is God.
Posted by aliciala on November 1, 2007 02:47 PMLeftside
Too late already did.
Did I embarassed you by shining the light on your sad life by the PC? I wasn't worried. It justs strikes me as curious that you and your fellow Godless buddies are always on here. Must be on welfare or still living at home with mom.
The truth also embarrasses your kind that's why you spend so much time trying to quash it.
I'm glad to see I touched a nerve in that Godless body of yours. Maybe there is hope for you after all.
aliicial whatever...listen...discrimination against homosexuals is discrimination. refusing to give them equal rights is discrimination. bigotry is bigotry...if you don't like being called a bigot...don't act like one.
"There are those that prefer that no mention of any religion, as part of the curriculum, is taught, and the exact opposite would be that every world religion is taught, as part of the curriculum."
Again...I'm all for allowing some historical instruction in school regarding the supernatural beliefs certain groups have had throughout history and how those groups have shaped our shared past, good and bad...but that's as far as the inclusion of religion should go in our public school system. I guess I just don't see the problem with allowing parents the choice of teaching their kids their own religious beliefs at home or church, on their own time, with their own money.
And yes Dan...proselytizing to a captive audience in a public school is absolutely violating the establishment clause...no matter who the vessel happens to be.
Those who won't accept the illigitimate "jew" (parents weren't married) as their savior who came to earth to be assisted in his suicide (voluntary death) will be sorry when it comes time to separate the goats from the sheep Jn. 10.
Deicide Corner: “Man is kind enough when he is not excited by religion.” -- Mark Twain
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo Free cassatte of blasphemous songs with me on piano on November 1, 2007 02:57 PMThere is no "cruton"(read back farther)-they are Jay's homos and he's pretty viscous-I don't think he'll share.
And yes I cut down the homos-not very Christian of me-to be specific it is their sin that is to be hated-not them as people.
"If I say homosexuality is wrong-I'm a bigot. My beliefs are not accepted by you-but I have to "accept" your homos. "Posted by Charles B. on November 1, 2007 03:31 PMThe difference being that there is a vast amount of evidence that homosexuals exist, whereas there is no evidence at all that your "God" exists.
Do you dispute that homosexuals exist?
Can you prove that your "God" exists?
As far as the question of incest, remember the story of Lot and his daughters?
Frankly Alicia, your "points" are laugh-out-loud funny (like a clown).
From experience, I can assure you that many religions are in a frenzy to "take this country back in the name of God". The resistance is not trying to prohibit the free exercise of religion but to keep the loonies from exterminating anyone that doesn't agree with them. Remember Hitler? I have have met fanatics who want to "exercise" you right of existence and their "belief" not only says it's OK, it's required.
Posted by Stan B on November 1, 2007 03:31 PMAliciala, I don't know what incest has to do with this conversation. Usually, it involves an adult molesting a minor which in it self is against the law. Homosexuality, unless your a catholic priest, involves consenting adults who will set before god and not you. I chose to live the, "do onto others" part of the bible. You choose to do god's work which is territory that even Jesus didn't even wonder into.
With regards to Christmas. Store owners, public offices, etc. have decided it is just plain rude to wish people of other faiths Merry Christmas. I think Jesus would agree with them on that.
Posted by leftside on November 1, 2007 03:32 PMI heard a bad joke but here it goes.
Do you know what jewish businessmen do on Christmas?
They hold hands around a cash register and sing "What a Friend We have in Jesus".
Posted by Stan B on November 1, 2007 03:42 PMJay,
I agree fully with your point about historical significance, and teaching religion as a philosophy. I was hoping for clarity on your view point and you provided it very well. I personally do not believe in judging what other's do with their lives (i.e. the whole homosexuality thing). When put into a historical perspective at the time the bible was written, vs. discontinued from oral history, it is in direct reference to the practice of the Greeks and Romans as it relates to the sexual preference men had with younger boys, because women were used to "breed" and therefore lost the sexual appeal during times "with child."
I will disagree with you however on your opinion that prostylization by a private citizen, regardless of the forum, violates the establishment clause, and I have the Supreme Court on my side in this matter. You may wish to reference Rosenberger et al v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virgina, and you may find this one surprising, Morse v. Frederick (the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, in which both the majority opinion, and the dissent stated if this were a matter of religious speech the school district and principal would have erred).
Posted by Dan2 on November 1, 2007 03:45 PMStan B., best post in here.
Posted by leftside on November 1, 2007 04:00 PMHey Randi,
A religious belief does not need to involve ANY type of deity or higher/supreme entity. This is an error in thinking that has only recently been added to the definition.
Posted by Harry on November 1, 2007 04:04 PM"I will disagree with you however on your opinion that prostylization by a private citizen, regardless of the forum, violates the establishment clause, and I have the Supreme Court on my side in this matter."
Actually you don't. If it's a street corner...thump all you want. Public school, public building...not so much.
Aliicia...no...pointing out your bigotry doesn't make the rest of us bigots. Pointing out that the KKK is a racist org doesn't make me a racist does it?
Of course not.
Again...if you don't want to be known as a bigot...STOP DISCRIMINATING.
Posted by jay on November 1, 2007 04:11 PMInteresting thoughts on Christmas and seperation of hurch and state.
However, Christmas is actually just another pagan holiday made into a Christian Holiday by Constantine to attract the pagans to the Christian faith.
leftside
I don't want the government in my religion, period. Why you all do is beyond me.
That's just it. I don't want the government in my religion or anybody else's religion. By the simple fact that the government or certain people want the government to step in and prevent religion in schools says that people want the government to step in and dictate how, where, and when we will practice religion.
Even to the point of excluding religious tenants from the walls of public buildings.
Posted by Harry on November 1, 2007 05:10 PMThis is a silly non-issue, conjured by a confused letter writer.
The logic that defines 'secular humanism' as some type of religion, and then claims that -it- is oppressing others' expression of religion leads to all kinds of other magical thinking.
The same tortured reasoning requires defining 'patriotism' as a religion...making anyone who passes by those offensive American flags going to school or the post-office victims of another one of those oppressive 'religions.'
Get a grip folks.
Posted by on October 31, 2007 08:36 PM
Magical thinking. I love that phrase. I've seen it used several times when used in arguments against creation. Have you ever looked at evolution without the system of ID envlolved. It is just as magical and fantistic.
But that's enough here since this takes us off topic.
Posted by Harry on November 1, 2007 05:22 PMHarry:
Nothing should be taught in school that is based on faith rather than facts.
Alicia has faith in her belief that homosexuality is wrong, but the facts suggest that homosexuality is merely a minority expression of the sexual urges we all feel.
Alicia's belief that homosexuality is "wrong" stems from a belief in the Bible as the word of "God". Since there is no proof that God exists or that he/she/it wrote a "Bible", then it certainly doesn't qualify as a subject worth teaching except- as has been mentioned- from an historical perspective.
Further, I think Alicia might want to consult a psychologist about her obvious enmity toward homosexuals. As we have seen manifested in a very public way lately, often times those yelling the loudest condemnations of a certain behavior are the same people who are closeted practitioners of that very same behavior.
Posted by Charles B. on November 1, 2007 05:27 PMJay posted:
"And yes Dan...proselytizing to a captive audience in a public school is absolutely violating the establishment clause."
Dan2 responded:
"I will disagree with you however on your opinion that prostylization by a private citizen, regardless of the forum, violates the establishment clause."
Jay was not talking about any forum, as Dan2 wrongly claims. He was specifically talking about a captive audience forum. Neither of the two cases cited by Dan2 involved a captive audience, and thus neither is authority that Jay's statement was in error, as Dan2 seems to claim.
Dan2 avoids saying what he thinks the two cases he cited in fact hold. But suffice it to say that neither one supports Dan2's apparent claim that Jay was in error in stating that "proselytizing to a captive audience in a public school is absolutely violating the establishment clause." The Rosenberger involved a student newspaper rather than a captive audience and the Morse case involved promotion of drugs, not religion.
Dan2 is wrong in this statement: "Morse v. Frederick (the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, in which both the majority opinion, and the dissent stated if this were a matter of religious speech the school district and principal would have erred)." Neither opinion says what Dan2 claims they do.
Leftside,
You do understand the difference between secular Christmas, the federal holiday with Santa, the elves, the North Pole and such, and the Nativity of the birth of Christ right? As Christmas is a FEDERAL Holiday, how would it be any more rude to wish someone a Merry Christmas, as opposed to Happy Thanksgiving, Happy Independence Day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, Presidents Day, Veterans Day, Martin Luther King Jr Day, Columbus Day, or HAPPY NEW YEAR? A federal holiday is a federal holiday is a federal holiday, is it not?
Seems the only one's that would invoke Jesus in Christmas as a FEDERAL HOLIDAY, are the secularists that wish to shut him out? Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic faith, yet the State sanctions marriage. Where is the outrage of the state becoming involved in a religious sacrament? Seems much ado about nothing...
Jay,
The Government is forbidden from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. PROHIBITED. There are no if's and's or but's in that. However, there may indeed be (as I further researched this topic) issues in which the Supreme Court will need to finally clarify. You refer to proselytizing, maybe you are referring to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and their ruling that for school prayers to be Constitutional it must be non-proselytizing? That is very interesting. I may indeed be wrong on this. We'll have to see what happens...
Posted by Dan2 on November 1, 2007 05:31 PMNo, no, no Harry. That's just reversing the argument. You know exactly what would happen if they allowed religion in public places. The born agains would be selling their faith and waving crucifixes in everybody face. The radical muselium would be praying in the middle of the floor. Total chaos. Then the government would have to come in and controll the situation. Again I ask, why would you want the government controlling your religion?
Posted by leftside on November 1, 2007 05:48 PMIf there is anything that is well established about the Constitution, it is that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not absolute but must be interpreted so as not to infringe on the rights of others. As the ninth amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Yet, it seems that Dan2 wants to question that well established principle and claim that the rights listed are absolute.
Dan2 is not being naive because he knows better, but he is being highly disingenuous and misleading if he means to claim that the courts can impose no restrictions on the rights protected by the first amendment. One need only mention the classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater" to establish the principle. which has been followed from the beginning. It doesn't take much of an imagination to recognize the chaos that would ensue if a person had the right to hold a religious revival on the tennis court during a tournament or demand the floor in the house of Congress, or carry a shotgun into the Supreme Court building.
As one Supreme Court justice put it, the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.
No reasonable, or should I say REASONABLE, person denies that the courts may abridge those rights for the purpose of protecting the rights of others. The only question is, under what circumstances.
And this is the case whether you yell PROHIBITED or just politely say prohibited.
Posted by Truth on November 1, 2007 06:00 PMI have learned some amazing things today, the imaginary friend in the sky is "Male". Can`t prove it exists, but can make the claim that it is a man.
dan2 said something like "our legal system is bases upon the 10 commandments. No, Dan2, only on some of them.
There are no laws punishing us for not honoring our parents. None.
There are no laws punishing us for not keeping the Sabbath holy, for using the Gods name in blasphemy, I can have all the Gods before Jehovah that I want and this is not a legal matter.
Do not kill, steal, bare false witness against a neighbor, that isn`t a commandment against lies in general, just bearing false witness, probably before a judge or court of some kind.
Adultery is not any longer illegal, and I can covet till my brain freezes and not get arrested.
So, three pitiful little commandments are all that could be considered part of our legal system, which contains thousands of laws, not in any way related to the commandments.
The Bible is a sickening book, in the Old Testament section, especially in numbers where the children of Israel captured and killed the people of Midian. But they were allowed to keep the little girls who had not been intimate with a man. They could take baby girls home for their own use. And I don`t expect an answer on the Lot reference, that one is either justified away or ignored like the Psalm about how good it feels to bash the little babies heads on rocks. Infidel babies however, babies of no consequence.
Jehovah is a disgusting God, not even worthy of a capital letter. A war god invented by a tribal people who had no land or nation to speak of. Jesus is much better, and shows what a good God we can make up when we have enough time and enough people to add to the myth.
But good or bad, I don`t pay taxes to the school system or the government to have your sorry gods shoved in my face or my kids faces.
It always surprises me to see women talk so badly about homosexuals. I expect such language from some men, but women usually identify with gays, because we have been persecuted and hurt by bigotry too.
I will say Merry Christmas on Christmas day. The rest of the season is "Happy Holidays" because Jesus is the reason for only one day, not the entire season.
aliciala, remember, any one can have a gay child, or grand child, or great grand child. Be careful how much venom you spew around your kids, one of them might be gay. Think of the emotional harm that would do to them. To know your own mother hates so much of what makes you an individual.
Nice to see some new faces here, fighting the good fight to keep religion out of schools and public places.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 1, 2007 06:38 PMAliciala,
I know what Sharon B said about gay people probably will not affect you. That's what Dick Cheney thought, too.
Dan2, I do understand what you are saying and agree that it is much ado about nothing.
I'm simply trying to explain why businesses that deal with hundreds of people a day are using Happy Holiday's instead of Merry Christmas.
Would you walk up to a person you knew was Jewish and wish that person a Merry Christmas? Of course not. Your niether an ignorant or rude person. Stores, Public offices, etc. know that not all of their customers are christian and are now starting taking those people into consideration. Personally, I think it's the polite thing to do.
Posted by leftside on November 1, 2007 07:21 PMLeftside:
No, no, no Harry. That's just reversing the argument. You know exactly what would happen if they allowed religion in public places. The born agains would be selling their faith and waving crucifixes in everybody face. The radical muselium would be praying in the middle of the floor. Total chaos. Then the government would have to come in and control the situation. Again I ask, why would you want the government controlling your religion.
I think your supposition of how schools would look is totally wrong. You honestly think that schools would not be able to keep order? That the order would be that much different than what it is now?
Harry:
If Evangelical Christians were free to prosthelatize in schools as teachers and administrators we would have publicly funded schools in some areas of the country with a strong resemblance to those in Saudi Arabia.
When the shoe is on the other foot you'll find it doesn't fit so well.
You can tell anyone who'll listen your superstitions almost everywhere you go. Why do you insist on planting your flag of idiocy in schools as well? Self doubt?
Posted by Charles B. on November 1, 2007 08:04 PMHomo-Phobe: bad!
Religi-Phobe: good!
Ok, now I get it! Good grief! You hypocrits can twist anything to your advantage, I'm sure it makes perfect sense in your own head.
aliciala, phobe is short for phobia, or fear of.
I do not fear your religion, why do you fear gays, even knowing one of your own family could be gay?
Posted by Sharon B. on November 1, 2007 09:21 PMThank you leftside @ 3:32!
The whole notion that people are "stealing Christmas" is laughable. Nobody is stopping a single shopowner from saying "Merry Christmas", or a single midnight Mass for that matter, but let someone say "Happy Holidays" because s/he recognizes the his/her clientele may be (horrors!) diverse, and some Christians and media types go bonkers. Newsflash! Chanukah, the Winter Solstice, and sometimes Ramadan, all occur in December. The Christians don't have the month to themselves.
Years ago, the U.S. Supreme court, which consists of 9 allegedly rational adults said that if you took the Nativity scene, and surrounded it with enough snow flakes, candy canes, Santa's elves and other secular images, then poof! all religiosity disappears. It's just a homey scene of a homless couple with a newborn baby.
If I were a devout Christian, I'd be offended and shocked at the Court's reasoning. They've turned one of the major events in Christianity into nothingmess. Instead, some Christians use it to foist the Nativity scene on everyone.
oops, I left off my "handle" on the previous message @12:27. I apologize
Posted by peterpi on November 2, 2007 12:50 AMpeterpi Nothingmass is wonderful, very clever. You and Seinfeld.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 2, 2007 01:33 AMSharon B,
"I do not fear your religion..."
Of course you do - that's why you don't want it to be part of the public discourse.
Religion asserts that we are part of something much greater than ourselves. Religion holds that there are timeless, universal truths to which we are accountable and by which we will one day be judged. Religion teaches that we live for a higher purpose than the licentiousness of unrestrained sex, booze and drugs and living a nice life without working.
Religion is the antithesis of the "live for the moment" ethical code and challenges the belief in what you hold dear.
Of course you fear religion - and you should.
Posted by James Jones on November 2, 2007 06:30 AMAmerica is often called the most Christian nation in the world, sometimes the most religious nation. It is overwhelmingly a Christian nation in terms of church affiliation. Yet, some people claim, for example, that the move from Merry Christmas to Happy Holidays is a secular one. Such a widespread move could only happen if the people doing the moving were mostly Christian. It is not unusual for people's economics to trump their religion. I doubt that these people in general are trying to get religion out of the picture. I don't think they are really thinking about the status of religion in America. They are simply engaging in this Christian nation's primary pastime of following the money.
Posted by Truth on November 2, 2007 07:00 AMYou don't fear religion, but you want it gone.
I'll use the same stratagie-I don't fear gays, I just want them gone.
Or if you say-I'm not anti-religion, I just don't want it rubbed in my kids' face at school. Great! I don't want homosexuality rubbed in my kids' face at school.
Look we are saying the exact same thing applied to 2 seperate issues. Mine is "bigotry" yours is love and acceptance and so new-age. Gimmee a break-you are just as hateful as any real bigot or racist, the only difference is that they have the guts to say it-you are to cowardly.
Getting back to the lawsuit, I'm simply not enough of a Bill of Rights student to have an opinion on whether the wording violates the establishment clause. While the wording is clearly not a law of Congress, that being what the first amendment refers to, most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states under the due process clause. Still, the wording is not a state law either, or, indeed, a school law. However, I also recognize that the establishment clause has been used to reject a number of things that do not neatly fall into the category of a law, such as barring certain religious displays on government property. I do think that the fact that the wording is suggestive only may save it from being unconstitutional.
I mainly think that the wording chosen is unfortunate because it does slight those who do not attend church but perhaps find other ways to nurture their spiritual, or nonphysical if you prefer, needs. There was a time in my past when I switched from attending church on Sunday morning to volunteering at a homeless shelter, and I considered that a better way to nurture my spirit. I would think that broader wording could have been chosen which would not target only attending a religious institution.
And I can see that urging people to go to church does advance the cause of religion and can perhaps be considered as helping to establish religion. (The establishment clause does not refer to establishing a particular religion but to the establishment of religion.)
If this were an isolated incident, I would be more inclined to agree with Jones that it is much ado about nothing. But in fact it is part of a national program which apparently is being followed and promoted in a number of public schools.
That statement about spending time at a religious institution is contained in what is called 40 Developmental Assets.
That document apparently comes from an outfit called the Search Institute. Anyone interested can see all of the "assets" in the list at http://www.search-institute.org/assets/ . And you will see if you google "40 developmental assets" that it has received a lot of attention.
Posted by Truth on November 2, 2007 08:38 AM"that's why you don't want it to be part of the public discourse."
This is a myth. No one is saying that you can't practice your religion every where but in public schools or public buildings and/or in front of a captive audience.
AGain...this is about NOT allowing you to preach to our kids in school...NOT about curtailing your legal right to practice your religion as you see fit.
Posted by jay on November 2, 2007 09:40 AMAnd yes alicia...discrimination against a group of people because of how they were born is the textbook definition of bigotry.
On the other hand...not wanting religion pushed on kids at public schools isn't discrimination because you don't have the right to do that in the first place...but that certainly doesn't stop you folks from trying.
I'll ask again in the hopes that someone here will have the intellectual honesty and courage to answer.
Why do the failthful feel the have the right to push their faith on other folks in the public school system?
Posted by jay on November 2, 2007 09:42 AMName your business: What A Friend We Have In Cheeses and you will outsell your competitor in the cheese business.
Deicide Corner: Aside from being a deicide I'm a misanthrope: Man creates god; man creates meth, man creates crack; he takes lives just to make a buck. Gist on the subject matter:
“The only true shield standing between women and the bible, that handbook for the subjugation of women, is a secular government. U.S. citizens must wake up to the threat of an encroaching theocracy, and shore up Thomas Jefferson's 'wall of separation between church and state.' ” -- Annie Laurie
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo Free blasphemous songs on cassette with me on mediocre paino. on November 2, 2007 09:46 AMaliciala:
"I don't want homosexuality rubbed in my kids' face at school. "
What would you do if one of your kids were to tell you they were gay?
Posted by Charles B. on November 2, 2007 10:29 AMCharles B:
If Evangelical Christians were free to prosthelatize in schools as teachers and administrators we would have publicly funded schools in some areas of the country with a strong resemblance to those in Saudi Arabia.
As it should be. If I did not like it, as I said earlier, I would either petition the school board/PTA/PTO to have it removed, start my own "club", or find another school for my kids.
And besides, Teachers teach (or should be teaching) things like math, history, English, sciences, art, music, classes in life skills. They would not be teaching ONLY Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, or some other religion.
Would I be opposed to those religions being taught in a public school? Not at all. (And I'm not just talking about their histories either.) I might even send my kids, require my kids, to take at least one other course in a different religion. It challenges the thinking process.
You see, I am not afraid of other religions or other ways of thinking. I haven't shied away from other forms of thought since I was 15. I don't understand why so many people are so afraid of introducing other philosophies or religions to their kids or themselves for that matter. What are so many people afraid of?
Or is it just the thought that others don't want their kids possibly believing in some sort of fantastical or fictional GOD? That being so archaic since we are so much more educated than that now. I'll wager a guess and say my kids have a better understanding of life, philosophies, and why they believe in what they believe in than your kids do. I'll also wager a guess you never want to see what's behind the curtain of OZ.
You call that curtain evolution. I call that curtain man's finite mortality in a seemingly infinite universe. What if there is a GOD? What if all those fictional Bible stories are true? (I'm not saying the Bible is not problematic in areas. Where as you say science does not have ALL the answers to evolution, I say we don't have all the answers to the problem areas of the Bible. We both may never have those answers.) What if Jesus being the savior of all man is true? What then? What are you really afraid of?
Posted by Harry on November 2, 2007 10:41 AMjay,
There is no religious group I know of that has any desire to use the schools to prolytize. Form the religious sense what they are asking for is the freedom to express their religion.
And they wnat to be able to express their opinion beyond the silent expression of wearing a tattoo. They want to be able to thank God, for instance, in the valedictorian speech.
They are not asking you to celebrate their religion. They are asking you to tolerate their celebration.
"I'll ask again in the hopes that someone here will have the intellectual honesty and courage to answer.
Why do the failthful feel the have the right to push their faith on other folks in the public school system?
Posted by jay on November 2, 2007 09:42 AM"
The question is a little like the one about beating your wife in that it assumes that the faithful are pushing their faith on other folks, something I think most of the "faithful", whoever that encompasses, think is not happening.
The debate should be about whether certain religious people (not the faithful as a whole) are pushing their faith on others in the public school system and, if so, how?
I think the question is inappropriate in confusing those fundamentalists who do approve of practices in the public schools which most would probably consider proselytizing with church-going people as a whole. It is unfair to refer to the faithful as though that is a homogeneous group that thinks alike on the issue. I am sure that a large number of church-going people do not think that the public schools should not be used to proselytize.
But then all of that assumes that it is possible to have a civil debate on this forum, which clearly is not what the majority on both sides want.
JJ:
The valedictorian speech urged students to worship Jesus, it wasn't a simple "thank you" to God.
"There is no religious group I know of that has any desire to use the schools to prolytize."
You truly are ignorant aren't you?
Posted by Charles B. on November 2, 2007 11:21 AMI would explain to them what the Bible says about homosexuality, and hope they choose the right course.
What would you do if your kid came home and told you they decided to give their life to God?
Typical liberal "tolerance" of my lifestyle and beliefs.
Hank asked:
"What if Jesus being the savior of all man is true? What then? What are you really afraid of?"
Besides being a pathetic re-iteration of Pascal's Wager, you make the assumption I'm afraid of the idea that Jesus might be the savior of man.
You're wrong about that. Unlike Christians, I don't fear death, therefore I don't need a "savior". The fear of death is what drives people to suspend rational judgment in order to believe an elaborate and transparent fairly tale about what happens "after death".
I'll wager a guess and say my kids have a better understanding of life, philosophies, and why they believe in what they believe in than your kids do.
Heheh, thanks for the laugh. I don't think I've heard a more pathetic thing on this forum than your wager. I even called my kids over to read your diatribe and they found it funny as well.
Posted by Charles B. on November 2, 2007 11:31 AMCharles B
There is no religious group I know of that has any desire to use the schools to prolytize."
You truly are ignorant aren't you?
Posted by Charles B. on November 2, 2007 11:21 AM
OK - how about listing the top three offenders real quick?
Posted by James Jones on November 2, 2007 12:41 PMAliciala:
"I would explain to them what the Bible says about homosexuality, and hope they choose the right course."
What would you do if they don't?
"What would you do if your kid came home and told you they decided to give their life to God?"
I would tell them I love them.
Posted by Charles B. on November 2, 2007 12:56 PMJJ:
Muslims
Christians
Jews
Should I get more specific?
Posted by Charles B. on November 2, 2007 01:08 PMaliciala, is it possible for you to discuss an issue like homosexuality without all of Michael Savages terms? Your posts are full of cliches and pet phrases, do you have one original thought that hasn`t been programed by others?
James Jones, and aliciala, how can you worship the God who told the Israelites to take the little girls home for their own use?
Is it necessary for you to believe in that nasty God to make you feel you will be able to live forever?
Sure James we are part of something bigger. But not that pathetic Jehovah of the Old Testament.
I do not fear religion, but I do fear many different kinds of religious people and their "missions, or causes".
Posted by Sharon B. on November 2, 2007 01:37 PMCharles B,
Yes. Name the top three organizations in any of those religions that plan to use the schools to prosltyze.
Posted by James Jones on November 2, 2007 02:10 PMJames Jones, can I play? I`ll bet Focus on the Family and all those christian organizations in Colorado Springs would leap at the chance to turn our schools in missionary projects.
Man I can see them rubbing their hands in glee.
And since Islam is also a religion that tries to convert people, some of their groups would be here in force the day that proselytizing is allowed.
When religious people get past my dog, my poco, rojo, loco, lobo named Diablo, I always tell them that because of my Karma I can not change my mind: I am a coupe, not a convertible.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 2, 2007 02:24 PMAliciala is surely borderline leaning heavily on the side of dementia. I apologize to dogs for inferring they are god spelled backwards. I despise gods, all of them, especially the Arab, the Jew, and the Christian gods with their concoction of hell in which those that don't lick their genitals and insert their nose in their rear end are headed. Me, deicide, Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo.com
Posted by Dog on November 2, 2007 02:41 PMThat high school valedictorian urged people to come to Jesus. If that's not proselytising, the word has lost all meaning.
Certain Christian groups would stop demanding "voluntary public school prayer" if ever little Yasmin got up in front of her classmates and offered up a prayer to Allah, the Magnificent and Merciful. They want public school prayer only if the prayer is Christian.
It's worth reiterating over and over: This is not a Christian country. It's a secular country with a predominantly Christian population.There's an enormous difference between the two, and for that I'm grateful.
I played the what if your kid...question.
Who quoted earlier:
"remember, any one can have a gay child, or grand child, or great grand child. Be careful how much venom you spew around your kids, one of them might be gay. Think of the emotional harm that would do to them. To know your own mother hates so much of what makes you an individual."
Now Sharon, picture your child comes home and says he has given his life to God. Do you remember what you said? Now change your quote from "gay" to "Christian". How hurt your kid must be, knowing his mother hates so much of what makes you an individual.
Do you see your hypocracy?
Liberal "tolerance" in action: you only tolerate your own views, every one else's is garbage.
Keep it coming...I can just feel the liberal warmth and acceptance.
Charles B:
Hank asked:
"What if Jesus being the savior of all man is true? What then? What are you really afraid of?"
Besides being a pathetic re-iteration of Pascal's Wager, you make the assumption I'm afraid of the idea that Jesus might be the savior of man.
You're wrong about that. Unlike Christians, I don't fear death, therefore I don't need a "savior". The fear of death is what drives people to suspend rational judgment in order to believe an elaborate and transparent fairly tale about what happens "after death".
I'll wager a guess and say my kids have a better understanding of life, philosophies, and why they believe in what they believe in than your kids do.
Heheh, thanks for the laugh. I don't think I've heard a more pathetic thing on this forum than your wager. I even called my kids over to read your diatribe and they found it funny as well.
Posted by Charles B. on November 2, 2007 11:31 AM
That's Harry not Hank.
Now let me explain Pascals wager to you. In fact here is a C&P of a previous argument I had under like circumstances. Some of it applies to this conversation some of it does not but the argument for/from Pascal's Wager still applies. Sorry for the long post.
You see, Pascal's wager isn't really meant to prove or sway one to believe. It is simply there as an observation of the potential end. For if one believes with only the intent as to not go to hell in the case where there might be a hell then there will not be much of a relationship. Now if one believes with the intent that there might be a hell and one chooses to find out more about salvation, thus opening one's heart and mind, then a relationship will be born and hopefully nurtured and salvation occurs.
With that said you've basically spouted off a brief summary of Dawkins' God Delusion. And just as homosexuals claim, "You think I choose to be this way? Why would one want to choose this lifestyle with all the potential for persecution?" I say the same to you. It takes more guts more integrity to proclaim, "I am a believer. I believe in Jesus Christ as not only my Lord and Savior but that He is the ONLY Lord and Savior. And I will believe that in the face of ANY adversity."
You may THINK you have evolution on your side. You may THINK you have science on your side. But I claim YOU are living under the Science Delusion. The atheists speak correctly when they claim, "Not all the facts are in." And they never will be, not according to them. But the one fact that is in is that as distorted as you say we "Christians" are, the atheistic scientists also are distorted and only speak half-truths. Where some Christians can claim ignorance as far as science goes, what is Dawkins' excuse or any other atheistic scientist's. He and others purposely and willfully only present part of the story.
You live under the delusion of science. I live under the truth of GOD. I knowingly admit I don't know all the answers. My GOD is NOT a GOD of gaps but a GOD of the beginning and a GOD of the end. He is the alpha and Omega. He is the "I AM" And HIS existence is not dependant upon your belief in HIM or not. HE is eternally omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Hence, HE is outside of this space and time continuum and cannot be proven or disproved directly through our sciences. The best we can do is find the intricacies of HIS creations and infer HIS existence. Or one can look at all of creation and then infer, "We just don't know."
But this much we do know. In the end only one will be right. I pray for your sake you are the one that is right. And that is the proper use of Pascal's wager.
So aliciala, looks like we are sisters in attitude right? No.
You would try to change your kid, I would not. You would not accept your child's life, I would. I don`t hate religion, I just hate the O.T. God. My kids all know that. However, if they cross over to intimidating people about religion on public property or in schools, proselytizing where it is not their right, then I would tell them that I do not like their behavior.
Now, before you jump on that (ah ha, got her). I think people are born gay, they are not born Christian. Since Christianity as all religion, is a choice, I would not hide my displeasure at their choice, the minute they begin to bother people. Beyond that, I would even buy them a Bible for Christmas.
If I had to pick a parent from you and Charles B, it would be Charles. He sounds like a more loving parent, and less judgemental.
You still haven`t mentioned any of my Biblical quotes.
Why do you have so many a`s and i`s in your name? I never know if I got them all.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 2, 2007 03:59 PMI'm sorry, I've forgotten what the question was.
Posted by Truth on November 2, 2007 05:54 PMHarry, Hank- whatever- you've got to be joking right?
Posted by Charles B. on November 2, 2007 06:42 PMJJ was deperate to know:
"Name the top three organizations in any of those religions that plan to use the schools to prosltyze."
www.nace-cee.org/
www.cc.org/
www.afa.net/
www.cwfa.org/
www.eagleforum.org/
www.frc.org/
www.family.org/
www.wallbuilders.com/
That's the mere tip of the iceberg covering your favored religion JJ. Oops! You're not religious are you? Or are you? Oh it's so confusing!!!
What a coward.
Posted by Charles B. on November 2, 2007 06:51 PMBack to homosexuality for a moment. One fear of the "lets let God back in school" crowd is the fear of gays.
I always wanted to know where this hatred of gays came from and I think I know.
Imagine you are a deeply religious Judaeo/Christian and your son comes home to tell you and your wife or husband, that he is gay.
After all the crying and accusing it is finally clear to you, that this child you love more then life itself, it telling the truth that he was always gay. Even as a little boy.
After you have stopped trying to put blame somewhere, on his school, his friends, or even someone in his family, you must face the fact that the God you believe in made your son be born gay. Or at least let it happen.
If so, then where does all that stuff about killing gays, and destroying Sodom and Gomorrah come from? It can`t come from God, who makes gays, the same as he makes left handed people, so who is the author of this hatred.?
When you realize that man wrote those words of hatred and destruction, when you see a fact of life contradicting your Bible, then you may feel the first stirrings of disbelief.
People lose faith in religion because something that becomes fact to them is opposite the teachings. Not because atheists overwhelm them with arguments.
Faith is not lost from outside attack, it dies, sometimes very quickly, when it is proved to each believer as false in one area. that is all it takes.
Hatred of gays comes from a deep seated fear that God really did allow them to be born gay. That makes the Bible a lie, in at least one area. If one part is wrong, then the whole becomes suspicious.
Better to hate than to lose faith.
I would like to put some medicine for OCD (obsesive compulsive disorder) in that Phelps water. In a year from now, with his neurotic condition changed, he might go out and get a real job. Actually contribute to society.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 2, 2007 08:44 PMHarry, Hank- whatever- you've got to be joking right?
Posted by Charles B. on November 2, 2007 06:42 PM
Rebuttal if any?? Or do I need to summarize for you to follow.
Posted by Harry on November 2, 2007 10:40 PMI'm Jewish. Many Jewish sages state that the sin of Sodom that finally destroyed it was not homosexuality, but the lack of kindness and generosity to strangers. It was the refusal to treat Lot's and Abraham's guests with dignity and civilly. Both the Jewish and Christian scriptures (Old and New Testaments) are filled with injunctions to respect the stranger(I'm not saying they have always been obeyed).
Read the Sodom bible story. In the story, after a mob of men become inordinately interested in two male guests (messengers of God) of Lot, Lot offers them instead his two daughters to do with as they please. Fortunately, no action of any kind happens to the daughters. Lot's life was spared in the destruction of Sodom. If the sin was indeed homosexuality, then using the same logic, one could argue that Lot's action was perfectly OK.
The sin of Sodom was incivility. Later (Christian) generations were the ones who linked Sodom with homosexual acts.
Sharon B.
you must face the fact that the God you believe in made your son be born gay. Or at least let it happen.
No, there is another option. It has to do with original sin and the compounding of imperfect decisions (no matter how perfect they appeared at the time) in a sinful world.
In other words because we are all sinners (in one form or another), we are all imperfect, every non-perfect (every sinful decision) that has been ever made culminated in a that one unforeseen accident, the one child being born handicapped, that one child being born a homosexual. GOD did not cause that accident to happen, GOD did not cause that child to be born handicapped. GOD did not cause that child to be born a homosexual. A culmination of sinful decisions throughout time caused those things to happen. Why did GOD not stop it?
Sometimes HE does, sometimes HE doesn't. He may have caused a miscarriage to stop it. He may have caused an unforeseen miracle to happen in the womb. HE may have decided to do nothing. GOD set certain laws throughout the universe in place for a reason. More often than not HE chooses NOT to interfere with those laws. When HE does, a miracle takes place.
Why HE chooses to intervene in some cases and not others is, I suppose, because HE knows how HE is best going to be glorified. Or when HE is not going to be glorified at all. This does not make HIM an egomaniac. It just makes HIM like any other father who wants to be recognized by his children.
Posted by Harry on November 2, 2007 11:01 PMHarry, oh bullshit. And it is She not he. No original sin. No garden with two people having recreational sex, no ark. Blaaaa. No we are not all sinners. Bunk, trash, myth. Myth X 3. Myth cubed. Accumulated sin. Like layers of sandstone? Building up and up over time.
And God never, ever could regrow a lost limb. God doesn`t break the laws of the Universe. God is the laws of the Universe. At least to me.
But I see you have created a way out of the dilemma of a believer having a gay child, and finding a way to not blame God. Brilliant.
Who said God was an egomaniac? Jehovah was one.
I don`t think the real God, whatever it is, cares a damn about our being worshiped.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 2, 2007 11:51 PMFirst off, God is not male. God is both and neither male/female. Neither, because God is eternal and has no need of reproduction. Both because in the first chapter of Genesis, it says in the same sentence that God created humans in God's own image, male and female God created them. God cannot create that which God doesn't know, therefore God contains within God the spirit/essence/form of femaleness.
Second, with all due respect, disabilities are no sign whatsoever of a parent's or disabled person's sinfulness. Accidents (genetic, gestational, congenital) happen. Cerebral Palsy, blindnes, sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs are no more a sign of sin than dark or light hair is.
My God, I can't believe that in this day and age someone would blame disabilities on sin.
Harry:
What is there to refute in your diatribe? You are swayed by Pascal's wager and I am not.
Try applying Pascal's wager to another religion such as Islam. Uh Oh!
Now you feel compelled to get to know "Allah" right? Because as you see it Pascal's Wager is like a "gateway drug" in the sense that if you buy into it, it compells you to "get to know" (insert "God" here) so that you can "see the light".
All that proves is how weak minded you are. I have read and studied the Bible since I was a small child, so I don't need Pascal's Wager to incentivise my study. I did study and concluded that the Bible is a giant load of bullsh*t.
You can write GOD all you want, but since you have no proof that he/she/it exists, I am left to merely laugh at your naivety.
So go ahead and wast your time and life clinging to your dogmatic views and I'll go on living this life as though it is my last, knowing that the only price I will pay for living it is death. I'm fine with that.
Posted by Charles B. on November 3, 2007 09:26 AM"I don`t think the real God, whatever it is, cares a damn about our being worshiped."
The truth comes out. This is our problem as a society, "it's all about ME, worship ME, everything I do is Great."
If you really don't care, why do you insist that we use "She" and not "He"? Wouldn't that make all your accusations against God even more dreadful, that a female would do or command those things?
Posted by aliciala on November 3, 2007 09:27 AMCharles B.
Pascal's Wager is typically applied to the christian faith NOT to other faiths. But yes you are right you can just as easily apply it to another religion. But, that is not the typical application of Pascal's Wager. Is it Charles?
And no, I am not swayed in the least by Pascal's Wager. Read again, "Pascal's wager isn't really meant to prove or sway one to believe. It is simply there as an observation of the potential end. "
Posted by Harry on November 3, 2007 05:28 PMAliciala, to me God is IT.
The rules and laws of nature are God. No emotion, not love or hate or pissed off enough to destroy a couple of towns. Just the laws of nature and the Universe.
Check out the God of Einstein and that is my God.
The Universe is perfect. Things start and end, just like people. Organic life has to die to make way for the next generation of life. Humans fit right in with that.
All the things we call bad or tragic from illness to a flood are natural, therefore allowed or permitted, by It, to keep things going.
One mans flood is another mans renewed field. No disasters in nature. That is a human word or judgement.
<