Separation of church & state
Many people listed below write:
As advocates of individual rights and free markets, we are deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights.
However, we also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.
In coming election cycles, we will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state. We ask that candidates declare whether they:
1. Endorse the separation of church and state.
2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.
3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.
4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.
5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.
Signed, Ari Armstrong, Westminster,
Tom Hall, Louisville
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
Paul Hsieh, Sedalia
Mike Williams, Denver
Leonard Peikoff, Colorado Springs
Richard Watts, Hayden
Cara Thompson, Denver
Hannah Krening, Larkspur
Erika Hanson Brown, Denver
Bill Faulkner, Broomfield
Cameron Craig, Denver
Bryan Armentrout, Erie
This letter has not been edited.
no where in the US Constitution is the term "seperation of church and state" used. this statement was taken out of context in the 60s by our liberal congress. if you were to read Jefferson's reference on this statement it was to keep government out of the affairs of the church. of course you liberals can not due any research only blather on what you read on move on org.
Posted by on October 25, 2007 02:12 PMYou're speaking of individual freedoms here, and I'm all for it.
Two large issues, abortion and embryonic stem cell research, reach beyond ideologies of faith groups; they are moral concerns for the human race as a whole.
The destruction of one human life for research, or because it inconveniences another life isn't something that should be decided upon as an individual's "right."
Posted by Gail K on October 25, 2007 02:24 PMGreat letter. You are correct of course, as this is essential common sense.
Posted by rufus on October 25, 2007 02:33 PMThe destruction of one human life for research, or because it inconveniences another life isn't something that should be decided upon as an individual's "right."
Posted by Gail K on October 25, 2007 02:24 PM
Might want to check your logic. If born individuals have no "rights", those in the fetal stage have no claim to same.
Right on Ari et al!
Posted by on October 25, 2007 02:37 PMGail is to be ignored at all times as the idiot she is.
Posted by on October 25, 2007 02:44 PMDear shy one who posted anonymously at 02:37,
Born individuals have rights and choices, as well as predictable consequences of those choices.
Unborn individuals have no rights or choices, and rely upon intelligent parents to care for them. Too bad there are few intelligent parents to make a humane choice in favor of the unborn.
2:12: "of course you liberals can not due any research"
You should "due" some research on the English language.
Posted by Just Due It! on October 25, 2007 02:57 PM02:44,
But I have a right to state my opinion. Sounds like you want me censored!
Posted by Gail K on October 25, 2007 02:57 PMLet's add to the statement. "Thou shall not advance the religion of manmade global warming"
Posted by on October 25, 2007 04:14 PM2:12,
The phrase "separation of chuch and state" does not appear in the Constitution but the principle behind it should be obvious to anyone who has read it. It basically says "Thou shall not push thy religion on others". It's your right to state your opinion on a subject but that doesn't mean your church is holier than others. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, stated, "The separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries".
Posted by Stan B on October 25, 2007 04:15 PMGail,
You certainly do have a right to state your opinion. Somebody seems to think that it's in everybody's best interests if you'r ignored. This is not the same as wanting you to be censored. It would be nice if you would just shut up, but, let's be honest here, that's probably not going to happen, is it?
For the record, I'm with 2:44.
Have a nice day!
Posted by I'm Gail K and I'm an Idiot on October 25, 2007 04:18 PM04:18,
People are free to read or ignore whomever they choose. Likewise they can be selective about hearing what's actualy true or what's simply convenient.
Posted by Gail K on October 25, 2007 06:34 PMUnborn individuals have no rights
Posted by Gail K on October 25, 2007 02:54 PM
Then you are to the left of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court
Posted by on October 25, 2007 07:05 PMWhat a treat to hear from the 13 remaining conservatives in America.
One question folks, where have you been for the past 7 years? Do you have any idea what has happened to America?
Posted by on October 25, 2007 07:33 PMTelling you you're an ignorant troglodytic pig-faced cell-lover who loves a gutless chimp coward and supports the murder of Iraqi children is not censorship, ignorant queen of flatulence.
Posted by Gail K's fat butt on October 25, 2007 09:04 PMWhy so many cowards?
07:05, you took me out of context, as liberals often do.
09:04, you are so shallow.
Why is it that most of the liberals in these postings are so insulting? You have your opinion, but no one else can have their own, or they aree an idiot? Grow up people.
Posted by Does freedom of speach still exist? on October 25, 2007 10:58 PMLets learn a little about the origionator of Separation of Church and state.
Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.
Thomas Jefferson
"The darling of the liberal left"
He was a deist, a skeptic, an atheist, an infidel, hostile to religion. A man who rarely attended church. Removed all miracles and teachings of Christ from the bible to make the "Jefferson bible."
He originated the "separation of church/state" doctrine to remove all religion from government, schools, and all public American life.
Wow, what a guy. What can me and the religious right say about him? We have no valid argument when it comes to T.J. Or do we? How about the truth. Please read on.
Born in Virginia into an Anglican family. Attended church all his life, active member of Anglican church. Also attended Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist church and was happy when all four held services in the courthouse. Went to Christian school as a grown man served in the vestry of the Anglican church.
His own financial records show he supported this church. The records show while he was the pres, he supported 10 different churches.
Then goes to France, in 1782 wife died, 2 years later baby boy died. In secularist France nobody to turn to and his faith takes a tremendous blow. From that point on, he started to doubt his faith. Though it wasn't until 1813 that he came out and stated his disbelief in the trinity, rejecting the deity of Christ.
This is where you perk up in your chair thinking you got me now right? Maybe so. Read on and see.
Fact is he was a bible scholar. He read the bible in English, Greek, Latin and French.
The Jefferson Bible.
The Jefferson Bible You lefties sometimes quote is another myth. Years before he announced his disbelief in the trinity, he cut the miracle accounts out of the gospels to produce a book on the ethics and morals of Jesus Christ. His purpose was to educate and evangelize the American Indians, for whom he had a great concern for. While he was President he approved money to build them a church. He approved money out of the Federal treasury for the support of a missionary to the Indians. He believed this simplified statement of the ethics of Jesus Christ would help to civilize and educate these people. He never called this book a Bible; he called it a system of ethics. He felt it was the most marvelous system of ethics the world has ever known. He said in one of his statements:
“The religion of Jesus Christ is the best religion the world has ever been given and the ethics and teachings of Christ are incomparable.” Separation of what?
Danbury Baptists.
Thomas Jefferson purpose in writing back to the Danbury Baptist was in response to the letter they had written to him concerning their fear of this new government interfering with them as a religion. They were rather small in size compared to other denominations in the area and were afraid the government would establish a national religion like in England.
Thomas Jefferson was out of the country when the constitution and bill of rights were written, but assured them that the first amendment erected a wall to protect them. He got the “wall” language from Roger Williams, who was the founder of the Baptist church in America, who wrote about a wall being erected around the garden of the church in order to protect it. Jefferson used the same phrase and said that this wall protected the church from the federal govt.
On Friday January 1st 1802, Jefferson’s letter was sent to the Danbury Baptists. Two days later, Jefferson went to church. Where did he go? He went to the largest church in America, what and where was that? It was held at first in the chambers of the house of representatives in Washington. Later when the building was completed, it was held in the capitol rotunda. There every week for the rest of the 7 years of his presidency, Jefferson was there in the front row. He wasn’t pleased with the music, so he ordered the Marine Corps band to come to church and support the singing of the hymns in the church. ( By the way they were paid out of the federal treasury) I guess Thomas Jefferson didn’t know what he had written about separation of church and state. What about the supreme court? Would they allow this? Then chief Justice, John Marshall ordered the facilities of the Supreme court be turned over every Sabbath day to the church for Christian worship that included prayers, songs and the preaching of the Word of God.
Jefferson’s official actions included supporting government involvement in:
-Legislative and military chaplaincies
-Establishing a national seal using a religious symbol.
-Including the word God in our national motto.
-Official days of fasting and prayer at the state level.
-Punishing Sabbath breakers.
-Punishing marriages contrary to Biblical law.
-Punishing irreverent soldiers.
-Protecting the property of churches.
-Requiring oaths saying “So help me God” taken on the Bible.
-Granting land to Christian churches to reach the Indians
-Granting land to Christian schools.
- Allowing government properties and facilities to be used for worship.
-Using the Bible and non-denominational religious instruction in the public schools. (He was involved in 3 different school dist. And the plan for each one of these required that the Bible to be taught in public schools.)
-Allowing clergymen to hold public office
-Purchasing religious books to stock public libraries.
-Funding clergy salaries in Indian mission schools.
-Funding construction of church buildings for Indians.
-Exempting churches from taxation.
-Establishing schools of theology.
-Treaties requiring other nations to guarantee religious freedom.
-Including religious speeches and prayers in official ceremonies.
Was Jefferson a Christian??
I do not believe I could say he was a genuine Christian because there is no proof that he accepted Jesus as his savior. But the record is clear. The real Thomas Jefferson is the ACLU’s worst nightmare.
This is just some of the stuff I have on Thomas Jefferson But it should show the real Thomas Jefferson was nothing like what is taught today.
The problem with the pro-abortion crowd is that they like to talk about choice, but they completely ignore the fact that at some point a fetus is a human being, and in this country is entitled to certain inalienable rights. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that objectively defines this point, science hasn't given us one, and the 6 months boundary seems pretty arbitrary. Isn't a large part of our justice system the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", which is based upon the idea that it is a greater injustice to penalize an innocent man than to allow a guilty man to walk free? Seems like having your life taken from you for what is typically a thoughtless whim on another's part is about as great a penalty as could be incurred, yet this may be occurring thousands of times every day on the basis of subjective, arbitrary guidelines. Very Founding Fatherish.
Posted by Republican Guard on October 25, 2007 11:04 PMPushing your religion means telling people what you believe and why you believe it.
They're not saying it's not OK to tell people what you believe - that's part of the First Ammendment and all. Although parts of the First Ammendment are becoming increaslingly archaic in the modern world. Downright cumbersome in a lot of ways.
But for now freedom of speech is a constitutional right and silence is only required in those rare cases where values are informed by a religious belief.
In that case the speech has no good purpose and clearly becomes a threat to our economic liberty and property rights. That's obvious.
Religious people are perfectly free to worship as they like and speak privately, among themselves, about their values. And of course there's no need to start rounding up the religious or start destroying churches - at least not for now.
Not as long as the religious behave themselves and don't go around talking about their faith in public trying to poison innocent minds with their vile myths. As long as they are silent, the religous will be left alone just as though they were equal to any right-thinking citizen.
The Bolsheviks and Maoists put this same policy into practice and look how well things have turned out for them.
Posted by James Jones on October 25, 2007 11:12 PMAs people get educated and their standard of living increases, as they question and learn in a free society that does not punish them for asking, religion slowly weakens its grip on people.
In a closed society, such as Islam, it is impossible to question, and children can be taught, through religion, to strap bombs on themselves and kill others.
Here is a partial list of all the places where religious people can express themselves in America.
Churches or places of worship
Home
Church property
Privately owned property
Businesses
Automobiles
Jewelry
Clothing
Tattoos
Advertisement in media
and probably others that I can`t remember.
That leaves two places reserved as religion or God/Goddess free zones.
Public property
Public schools
See a pattern?
It is only a matter of time before we remove all religions from any place preceded by the word Public.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 26, 2007 01:48 AMWhen America rejects G-d, G-d will reject America.
Posted by on October 26, 2007 07:49 AMWhere is the moderator on this site? Gail K makes a few points, and some child starts calling her names!
Posted by on October 26, 2007 08:06 AMStan B. said:
"It basically says "Thou shall not push thy religion on others". It's your right to state your opinion on a subject but that doesn't mean your church is holier than others."
Stan, the Constitution said or insinuates no such thing.
What is "pushing thy religion on others"? What does that mean?
And, anyone is free to believe that their church is "holier than others". This has nothing to do with the Constitution.
The Constitution clearly states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
That's pretty clear. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This has nothing to do with the religiosity of those in government nor does it prohibit the government from interacting with faith-based groups to provide welfare services.
Most of the complaints about the supposed violation of the Constitution's supposed "separation of church and state" clause are widely exaggerated. There's no real problem here. The complaints mostly stem from angry atheists who despise religion in general and want it banished from society completely.
If you're truly concerned about constitutional abuses, check our federal budget and try to find the constitutional authority for most of the federal programs. The Dept. of Education? Social Security? MedicAid? Where is your outrage? I guess if the programs conform to your religion of liberalism, the violation is venial.
Posted by John II on October 26, 2007 08:07 AMJohn II,
You can have your own opinions and I can have mine. The Constitution states "The Congress shall make no law..." So any law that allows for distribution of money to a church is an invalid one. You are free to worship if you please but no one should be forced to pay for someone else's religion through taxes.
That's where I stand and all of your objections will not change the conclusions I have reached.
Posted by Stan B on October 26, 2007 09:20 AMStan B.,
That is one of the funniest and most honest comments I've ever seen on this forum.
You conveniently left out the rest of the statement. Why is that? "Congress shall make no law..." and you stop there. That is too funny. Congress shall make no law concerning what, Stan? The establishment of religion.
You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own version of the Constitution. Words have meaning. You cannot just ignore the last half of a sentence and derive your own "opinion".
"You are free to worship if you please but no one should be forced to pay for someone else's religion through taxes."
I agree. I also think no one else should be forced to pay for someone else's liberal education or for someone else's retirement or for someone else's doctor bill.
You seemed to be confused regarding the nature of faith-based funding. There are many religious charities out there that help people in need regardless of their religion. Funding these charities does not "pay for someone else's religion"; it pays for someone else's well-being.
"That's where I stand and all of your objections will not change the conclusions I have reached."
Well, at least you're honest. But, that's also the most close-minded statement I've read on this forum.
Posted by John II on October 26, 2007 09:49 AMStan B,
Following WWII the GI Bill offered to fund veteran's college education.
You position means that for a veteran to use those funds to go to, say Notre Dame, would effectively institute a religion and would be unconstitutional.
That stretches the prohibition against establishment to the point of absurdity.
You argument was not made because the left in American then still had some vestiges of liberalism which included the principle of tolerance.
The left in America today has become reactionary and tolerance is not on the agenda.
The Constitution says what the final arbiter says it says: Accept it. June 21, 2007 the final arbiter 5 Catholic Supremes) say it is constitutional for Bush to give $billions to his deity. True! Sep. of Ch. and State is not explict in the Constitution but so are many other expressions; however, America must embrace the separation of these Siamese twins because: Fully patriarchal religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, were promulgated not by kindness but by conquest.” Such conquerors cannot be permitted to control government.
Deicide Corner: “This loathsome combination of Church and State.” - Thomas Jefferson ~~ Yo dude: Sep of Ch & State is implicit. It is implied. Even if not implied, it is essential as a means of deterring recycle of the Dark Ages: Enacted to prevent holy horrors. What part of horror don't you understand? RG.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo on October 26, 2007 10:28 AMGrimes,
Does the government giving a military veteran money so she can attend Boston College constitute a loathsome combination of Church and State?
Posted by James Jones on October 26, 2007 11:16 AMYo JJ: The GI bill made it possible for Metro State and DU Law School claiming that it was money I earned as a result of serving in the military; therefore, it was my money so controlling what institution of higher learning I attended was not within its domain. However, when mf Bush gives $billions of dollars to mf Christ, it is money mf Christ did not earn.
Note: Christians call themselves "wretch" and in dictionary.com wretch and mf mean evil and despicable. A book, Holy Horrors, by James Haught chronicles these mf as with "stabbing host" when mf Christians spread the rumor (legs accrued) that Jews were stealing the host (flesh of Jesus Christ) and stabbing it so as to kill mf Christ again and again. Mobs of Christians commenced descending on Jews and butchering them. mf Christians are America's Taliban. Next question! http.www./geocities/think.html
Deicide Corner: George Smith writes: “Hell stands as a constant reminder of the essence of Christianity: god is to be obeyed because he is bigger and stronger than we are; and, in addition, he is incomparably more vicious” It has been said that a heavenly father who creates a hell for his children should be the first to be burned in it.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo Free cassette of blasphemous songs with me on piano on October 26, 2007 12:30 PMYo JJ: Thomas Jefferson's response to your query would certainly trounce mine: Ask him; however, In the spirit of kinship, here's my answer: (Sorry to post twice if it happens)
Yo JJ: The GI bill made it possible for Metro State and DU Law School claiming that it was money I earned as a result of serving in the military; therefore, it was my money so controlling what institution of higher learning I attended was not within its domain. However, when mf Bush gives $billions of dollars to mf Christ, it is money mf Christ did not earn.
Note: Christians call themselves "wretch" and in dictionary.com wretch and mf mean evil and despicable. A book, Holy Horrors, by James Haught chronicles these mf as with "stabbing host" when mf Christians spread the rumor (legs accrued) that Jews were stealing the host (flesh of Jesus Christ) and stabbing it so as to kill mf Christ again and again. Mobs of Christians commenced descending on Jews and butchering them. mf Christians are America's Taliban. Next question! http.www./geocities/think.html
Deicide Corner: George Smith writes: “Hell stands as a constant reminder of the essence of Christianity: god is to be obeyed because he is bigger and stronger than we are; and, in addition, he is incomparably more vicious” It has been said that a heavenly father who creates a hell for his children should be the first to be burned in it.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo Free cassette of blasphemous songs with me on piano on October 26, 2007 12:37 PMYou have to hand it to the fundies.
They get their intellectual asses handed to them every time they attempt to defend the far right position that no separation of church and state exists and yet they always come back for more.
At least you guys are consistent.
Posted by jay on October 26, 2007 12:48 PMSeperation of Church and State is a ACLU atheist and communist myth and lie that never existed until 1947. The founding fathers wrote into the Bill of Rights Freedom of Religion and not Freedom from Religion.
Thomas Jefferson the man atheists like to use to make their point never intended for a personal letter written with these words to be a misrepresentation which the ACLU uses and has latched on to, as does every atheist and communist in this country and knows "Is" a lie. But that does not stop them from perpetuating it.
Does Freedom of Speech Really Exist already put that lie about Thomas Jefferson to rest in with the true facts in his comments earlier 10/25 11:03 PM.
Who cares what these lying atheist write and make up as they go along?
The truth is in our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the National Archives in Washington DC for anyone seeking the truth.
Posted by on October 26, 2007 12:49 PMGrimes,
The funds received are out of the federal treasury and it makes no difference if you think you earned them or not.
You ducked my question and then answered a question I didn't ask.
Posted by James Jones on October 26, 2007 12:56 PMMr. Grimes,
If you feel the money given to you by the government so you could purchase a college education was your money and therefore you have the right to choose to spend it on a religious college, then would you support school vouchers under the same terms?
If a local government gives a parent a voucher to be spent on the school of his/her choice, would you oppose the use of that voucher on a Buddhist high school?
Posted by John II on October 26, 2007 01:15 PMStan B. said:
"That's where I stand and all of your objections will not change the conclusions I have reached."
It's too bad Stan and many others have this attitude. A discussion or debate does not have to be about changing someone else's conclusions. Each side presents his/her case in a logical and reasoned fashion, and each side addresses each other's points. This back and forth continues until some kind of agreement to disagree is reached.
But, to ignore questions and points because one has already determined that his mind will not change so therefore no further conversation is necessary is a shame.
Why not use this forum to test your own theories and thoughts against others? If, after the discussion, your conclusions have not changed, good for you. If your conclusions have changed, that's even better for you. But, this common practice of ignoring questions and points only serves to diminish what could be a great forum.
Posted by John II on October 26, 2007 02:26 PMAnswering a question with a question is the most blatant form of avoidance.
Posted by Stan B on October 26, 2007 03:34 PM"Answering a question with a question is the most blatant form of avoidance."
How asinine. Does that apply to rhetorical questions? Do you know what those are Chas?
Posted by drew on October 26, 2007 03:39 PMStan, you are one of the worst offenders of avoiding questions. You don't even bother to answer a question with a question; you just don't answer it all.
Posted by John II on October 26, 2007 03:39 PMStan B,
That's quite true. The problem is that you haven't asked a question.
I've asked you one but I'm certainly willing to go first if that's the problem.
Posted by James Jones on October 26, 2007 03:42 PMI am so distraught that any American can feel that America would be better served by trashing separation of church and state.
Pious idealists often claim that universal peace will come to humanity only when their own beliefs have gained universal credibility. But it seems more likely that humanity will never achieve universal peace until it has outgrown all its dualistic faiths. As long as anybody is saying “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Light,” as long as there is any guru, prophet, savior or cult leader touted as the Teacher of Righteousness, the One who must be followed, there will be we/they dichotomies that condemn alternative thinking as evil.
I give the ignorant a free pass by virtue of their ignorance; however, for the intelligent to say: "Keep the Siamese twins joined at the head," I lament. Since the Founders thrust Separation implicitly into our nation's organic law, it has been upheld at every level except for the bushwhacking of America by an imperial presidency, mf W. Bush, a mf Christian.
And vultures are a bad idea because they admit the chosen few: sort of like Christianity: "The gate is strait and narrow."
Posted by RG on October 26, 2007 03:50 PMRG,
Are you not a Buddhist?
I asked you a question on 1:15.
Posted by John II on October 26, 2007 03:56 PMNow let us argue what the word "establish" can mean.
How would Congress establish a religion.? Any ideas? How would the government as a whole do this?
Maybe by letting one religion, say offhand, the Judeo Christianity one be quoted in public forums, maybe by putting up ideas from that religion in public where children will see it and make the connection that it must be the right one, because it is backed in some way by the government.
Maybe the government and Congress can establish a religion in the country by simple not allowing any other in public places, public prayers etc.
I think that would be a good start, and only end when the anti-religion folks get enough clout to end it. And of cource, the right Supreme Court to back them up.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 26, 2007 04:06 PM"I am so distraught that any American can feel that America would be better served by trashing separation of church and state."
Would you be willing to point out one post on this thread doing that? I don't see why you would bring that up, do you have paranoid tendencies about this?
"Pious idealists often claim that universal peace will come to humanity only when their own beliefs have gained universal credibility."
I guess you probably don't see the parallels between this statement and much of what you post on here, but you don't much seem like the type to analyze their own words. The real problem comes from folks who like to believe that they should be able to force their worldview on others, and then attempt to, and that attitude can easily be held by non-religious folks(see Mao Tse-Tung, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler). But go ahead and continue to be butt-hurt about religion, I happen to think religion is pretty foolish also, but I'm not going to cast undue blame at it for simplicity's sake.
Posted by drew on October 26, 2007 04:11 PMRG
It worked just fine until you Johnnie come latelys and the ACLU came along in 1947. With your some what colorful but meaningless words you try in vain to discredit what is the truth when the founding father proclaimed this to be a Christian Nation and the documents to prove it are still there to be read as they originally wrote them. You show yourself to be a willfully ignorant fool. You recite your twisted poetry and percieve yourself to be clever when in truth it shows the wise what a fool you really are. What a waste of the mind God gave you.
"The Path to Hell is wide and many are those who are on it".
Posted by on October 26, 2007 04:21 PMJesus Christ, JJ: I sign in as a Deicide in every post; I am committed to equality. I disrespect all religions equally and like it or not Buddhism is a religion. I'm a deicide, slayer of gods: I don't even have the courage to be an atheist but I'm trying. I commend you on your civility, mf Christian, which simply means evil and dispicable in dictionary.com and is not directed at you personally, if you can fathom that, pardon the prep.
Deicide Corner: Few modern religious authorities try to perpetuate the idea that death is not a natural process but a consequence of human sin. However, they have problems dealing with a God purported to be the creator of everything, including everything harmful. Natural disasters, perceived by humans as evil, such as destructive storms, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and so on, are described as “acts of God.” God himself says in Isaiah 45:7 that he is the creator of evil. Theologians have wrestled unsuccessfully with the admission that god, not human sin, is ultimately responsible for diseases, droughts, floods, famine, and the vast world of pests.
Posted by RG Deicide on October 26, 2007 04:28 PMThe US operates as a secular, democratic republic. No one in this thread, or anywhere else is interested in institutionalizing religion.
The principal of separation is a Christian lesson taught by a Jew. It was on the basis of that teaching that the Founders constituted a government distinctly separate in its operation from any religion. No one is interested in changing that form of governance.
In this free society every one has the right to hold and advocate opinions based on their own values. Everyone has the right to support and vote for policies based on their own values.
The fact that those values may be informed by religion does not mean that the government has become a theocracy. It remains a democratic republic that allows everyone a voice in their governance.
The problem here is leftists who are intolerant of opposing points of view and are trying to have the labeled as unconstitutional.
This attempt to silence an opinion if it based on religious values is the great danger to our liberty.
For an example of what I was saying about non-religious folks having the "holier than thou" attitude, check out Chas B's post at 4:06.
"Maybe by letting one religion, say offhand, the Judeo Christianity one be quoted in public forums"
Sometimes it's helpful to flip ideas around. Are you saying that you would support the suppression of free speech on the grounds that said speech pertains to a religion. Sounds great.
"putting up ideas from that religion in public where children will see it and make the connection that it must be the right one"
This, in the US? I mean, there haven't been any instances of people fighting(and winning) against our government and its policies at any point in history. The government is the one "true" voice now? I thought we were about critical thinking in our culture, but maybe not at Chas' household.
"Maybe the government and Congress can establish a religion in the country by simple not allowing any other in public places, public prayers etc."
Would you care to provide an example of this, or should readers just take your word that it's happening? Personally, I think that sounds like the basis for a landmark court case, but I guess the rightist media is probably just covering it up, eh?
"I think that would be a good start, and only end when the anti-religion folks get enough clout to end it. And of cource, the right Supreme Court to back them up."
I love it when secularists try and posture as though they don't also belong to a religion, as per the definition in the dictionary.
Maybe we'll find that universal peace when there cease to be people of the mindset "Believe as I do, or be suppressed" continue to hold power, but it seems a little overly idealistic to expect those folks to ever disappear as it would require adopting that same worldview to eliminate them. Quite a paradox
Posted by drew on October 26, 2007 04:32 PMWell said, drew. I'm curious: what does "Chas" mean?
Posted by John II on October 26, 2007 04:39 PMGrimes,
I think you meant to address that to John II. That response is nowhere near my question.
We're not hard to tell apart - I'm the hilariously amusing one.
Posted by James Jones on October 26, 2007 04:44 PMMr. Jones,
I'm not sure who Mr. Grimes was responding to. I asked him if he was a Buddhist (he is) and he says "like it or not Buddhism is a religion". Ah, I see.
Posted by John II on October 26, 2007 04:49 PMWe're not hard to tell apart - I'm the hilariously amusing one. Posted by James Jones on October 26, 2007 04:44 PM
I appreciate your humor as I did Truth's and got zapped for it. You are correct; I answered John II thinking it was you: Drat! my life's first mistake. I'm not a Buddhist. I'll spare you the Deicide Corner.
Posted by RG Deicide, r22037@yahoo.com on October 26, 2007 04:53 PMJohn, At least he gives you the option.
Posted by James Jones on October 26, 2007 04:54 PMGrimes,
Unlike Truth, I intend to be humorous.
Posted by James Jones on October 26, 2007 04:59 PMIt would be a "hoot" (Sharon's word) if we could meet at a convention; I'll wager Keith would come in diapers. Public library closes and I'm its victim. I'm headed for 24 ounces; join me.
Deicide Corner: Good night.
Posted by RG Deicide, r22037@yahoo.com on October 26, 2007 05:03 PMJust to correct one of Jones' many misstatements.
He wrongly states: "It was on the basis of that teaching that the Founders constituted a government distinctly separate in its operation from any religion."
No, Jones, that was based on the fact that the founders had experience first hand what it was like to have government and religion mixed together.
You need to try a little harder not to mislead people.
Posted by Truth on October 26, 2007 05:05 PMSharon B,
I see you think that religious expression is always allowed with tattoos but is forbidden in the public schools.
So what about religious tattoos in public schools? Should they always be covered or is it OK if they are visible?
Posted by James Jones on October 26, 2007 05:06 PMJones: "This attempt to silence an opinion if it based on religious values is the great danger to our liberty."
The reason Jones doesn't provide any examples for that statement is because he can't think of any. Jones seems to take pride in trying to mislead people about the facts.
Jones: "The problem here is leftists who are intolerant of opposing points of view and are trying to have the labeled as unconstitutional."
I disagree. I don't think there is any evidence that the leftists are trying to have the labeled as unconstitutional.
Posted by Truth on October 26, 2007 05:13 PMDrew, oh my Goddess, that was my post, not Charles. Big major boo boo on your part.
Not interested in all your silly questions, but do our schools and courthouses and public buildings have say, Hindu sayings on the walls? I honestly don`t know if they do.
Your question about free speech is so convoluted I don`t know where to begin, so, No reference to any god by a representative of the government in a public places supported by taxpayer money. No plaques, no prayers to any God/Goddess.
Real simple, taxpayer money, no religious reference by anyone in authority. The people or the crowd can do as they please. Religious people can be as religious as they need on their own dime, not on mine.
Or do you want a Hindu teacher giving our kids their myths also? Isn`t that free speech too? There are some awful religions out there, want the teachers in school or the government offices to have their information paid for by your dime?
Bet $100.00 to a breast cancer fund you will not answer these questions, but will respond with more insults. I am insult proof, sugar.
http://www.the3day.org/sandiego07/nickdaniel
Posted by Sharon B. on October 26, 2007 05:14 PMJames Jones, all tattoos, and religious headgear and clothing should be visible in public schools as well as crosses, pentacles, and other religious symbols.
the rule about tattoos in schools is wrong. And petty. Kids should be able to carry a rosary, prayer beads etc. But no burning sage or incense indoors. Okay?
Posted by Sharon B. on October 27, 2007 02:21 AMSharon B,
So the students should be able to express themselves religiously with tattoos and so on but, they should not be able to speak, or verbalize, about their faith.
Why is that? Why is the speech itself taboo?
As a parent, I understand why playing with matches is nto a great idea.
Posted by James Jones on October 27, 2007 06:31 AM"There are some awful religions out there," says Sharon whereas there is only one and it is when holy horror began, to wit:
The first prehistoric knave given the tools of sentient and prescient by evolution created a god and held a club over the prehistoric dude and uttered the godfather contract: "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse." That first god has been recycled millions of times with each god mimicing the godfather.
Deicide Corner: Everybody knows that Jesus was begotten god and born of a virgin, attended by angels, shepherds, and gift-giving wise men. His infancy was threatened by an evil king who had all babies’ two-years and younger slaughtered “coast to coast” in a futile effort to kill him. When grown, gathered 12 disciples and went about teaching that his adherent would gain eternal life. He walked on water, healed the sick, exorcised devils that caused epilepsy and sickness, made the blind see and the lame walk, just as his numerous predecessors, supra.
He was anointed with chrism and thus made into a Christ (which means “anointed one”) by a mysterious woman who may or may not have been his lover, depending on which gospel you read, and who was the sole official annunciator (enunciator) of his later resurrection.
Grimes,
Does the government giving a military veteran money so she can attend Boston College constitute a loathsome combination of Church and State?
Posted by James Jones on October 27, 2007 10:54 AM"I love it when secularists try and posture as though they don't also belong to a religion."
I love it when non-secularists refer to secularism as a religion disparagingly. Apparently freedom of religion only applies to their religion.
"Drew, oh my Goddess, that was my post, not Charles. Big major boo boo on your part."
Feel free to change your pseudonym as much as you like Stan, it doesn't change the writer, or their writing.
"Not interested in all your silly questions"
This sounds like a lot of your posts. "I want you to scratch my back and answer my silly questions, and I'll whine about how 'nobody answers my questions' if they don't, but don't expect the same courtesy from me."
"do our schools and courthouses and public buildings have say, Hindu sayings on the walls?"
I don't know either, but as long as it doesn't impact the government administrators in their handling of the governmental parts of their lives, such as judging cases by the laws as they are written, I could care less if there are Christian/athiest/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist writings on these places. It would only become an issue to me if the officials in those buildings started to be do their work in a manner biased by those writings.
"No reference to any god by a representative of the government in a public places supported by taxpayer money. No plaques, no prayers to any God/Goddess."
This is about what I expected. Do you even think about what you're writing? To reinterpret, you think that if one of our religious politicians were to take his family to the city park for a picnic and utter a prayer prior to eating, they should be legally restrained penalized for this action? How Stalinesque.
"no religious reference by anyone in authority. "
Isn't this kind of religious oppression why many of the original colonists fled Europe?
"Religious people can be as religious as they need on their own dime, not on mine."
I completely agree, but that applies to the religion of atheism also.
"Or do you want a Hindu teacher giving our kids their myths also?"
It would depend on the context. If you are talking about a Jay Bennish style rant in a public school, I would be opposed simply because of my being forced to pay for it through my taxes, and it is of limited use to my kids. If you mean the topic of Hindu ideas coming up in a unit about India, I would think it remiss of a teacher to NOT at least mention Hinduism, given the large role the religion played in the history of India. I realize there are a lot of people that think that children should be sheltered from views contrary to those held by the parents, but I want my kids to grow up appreciating the amazing diversity of this planet, and filter the good and bad through a critical mind, not just indoctrinate them into my own viewpoint.
"Isn`t that free speech too?"
Yes it is. A lot of people seem to have this interpretation of the right to freedom of speech that it means freedom of speech and freedom from responsibility for that speech, but it really just pertains to being free to perform the action of speaking your mind. To me, the former argument is akin to shooting someone and then saying "I didn't shoot them, the bullet did." I think that the Hindu teacher should not face government-based oppression of his words, but I also think that they would need to own up to the consequences of those words, which could include losing the teaching job or worse. My kids aren't thoughtess, imbecile, sponges that absorb every word they hear, they have their own minds which need to develop. My job as a parent is to provide them with as safe an environment as possible until they gain self-sufficiency of body/mind, not indoctrinate them.
"There are some awful religions out there, want the teachers in school or the government offices to have their information paid for by your dime?"
Again, my role as a parent is as a guide, not a "my perspective" forcefeed. Pretending that there aren't a lot of bad things in the world doesn't make them go away, it just buries your head in idealistic sand. I am a lot more bothered by the stunning quantity of horrible teachers in our public schools who only maintain their jobs as the result of a government/union monopoly. A couple years ago my daughter brought home a test in tears having failed it. When I examined it, I found that more than half of the questions which she had gotten "wrong" actually contained the correct answer, she was being marked off for not doing the problem the way the teacher had taught it, and instead had figured out her own way to solve the problem, which to me is far more indicative of understanding the material than rote memorization of formulae. When my wife and I brought this up at the next PT meeting, we were met with hostility. Upon asking around the community, we found that this teacher had been receiving similar complaints against her for more than 15 years, but the school would not fire her for fear of lawsuit. That situation bugs me a hell of a lot more than my kids having to hear the word "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, as I've already explained to them that they are free to ignore the pledge and think about something else during those couple of minutes.
"Bet $100.00 to a breast cancer fund you will not answer these questions, but will respond with more insults. I am insult proof, sugar."
Do you think that makes you sound noble? Is there a reason you would donate money to research a cancer with one of the best chances of recovery, as opposed to one that still leave most patients with a poor prognosis, like lung cancer.
I don't know what you are referring to with that insult bit, maybe your skin isn't as tough as you think it is.
"I love it when non-secularists refer to secularism as a religion disparagingly. Apparently freedom of religion only applies to their religion."
Is this post serious? Freedom of religion pertains to being able to practice whatever religion one wants without government repression. It does not refer to freedom from having one's religion mocked. The word secular probably isn't optimal for the point I was making, but the word secular has been adopted in common usage by the atheist religion in this country, so that is what I was referring to, if it clarifies. Freedom of religion should apply equally to all religions, and for the most part it does, as long as the religion doesn't require trampling on non-member's rights. It even extends to the point of granting amnesty from certain federal laws, such as in the Rastafarian case, which is exactly how it should be. It should not be a case of freedom of religion suppressing freedom of speech from non-religious individuals like myself, grow some self-esteem of a thicker hide.
Posted by drew on October 27, 2007 11:19 AMYo James Jones: I answered about the Vet's money going for college: The VA approves of schools to which the Vet can give his money for education. I doubt the VA would approve of a school attempting to fraudulently obtain the funds. Mf Christ did not serve in the military and therefore cannot claim tax dollars; however, mf Bush has given him in excess of a $billion and the five mf Catholic Supremes blessed him and if Romney gets in he is free to give his mf from Kolob $billions. The wall that separates church and state has been breached; the Executive branch can give tax dollars to its mf but Congress is still prohibited. See now: the Constitution says what the Supremes says it says.
Deicide Corner: Christians call themselves "wretch" and in dictionary.com wretch and mf (which I thought was profound profanity) means the same: Evil and Despicable. I believe in equality and all religious dogma is evil and despicable. Next query!
JJ: Just for you: Suppose a modern Eve would come
And tempt you with an apple,
Say just about the size of these?
Would you temptation grapple
And manfully declare: 'I won't?'
Or, would you say: 'Well, I
Think since you've picked them
They'd be best in dumplings or in a pie.
And, let us ask the serpent in
To share with us at dinner.
A de'il with taste for fruit like that
Can't be a hopeless sinner.
Sharlot Hall,
Hans,
So secularism should be respected just as all other religions? That's revealing.
Religious people in the US are tolerant and respect the right of everyone's freedom to worship as they choose. Religious people alos understand that while secularism is required in the operation of government, it cannot be a religion.
Leftist on the other hand seek to make a religion of secularism and are intolerant of any dissenting opinion. E.g., The most notable characteristic of the letter at the top of this thread is its expression of intolerance for religion.
Posted by James Jones on October 27, 2007 12:10 PMMan o man: Two errors in my name, corrected; however, I'm accorded the opportunity of another insert:
Deicide Corner: After a triumphal procession accompanied by waving palms and the traditional obsequies of a sacred king, he attended a meal at which he was symbolically cannibalized, the eating of his flesh and blood deemed necessary for his followers’ absolution. Then he was scourged, crucified, died and descended into the underworld. Later he returned to earth, apparently alive again and then ascended bodily into the sky, where he somehow still lives and pays attention to all the doings of humanity. These things are known, and commemorated every year, over and over. Guess who this cookie-cutter god is. Rhetorical, right? It is the "jew" baby transmogrified into an anti-Semitic god.
Posted by RG Deicide r22037@yahoo Free blasphemous songs with me on piano on October 27, 2007 12:17 PMGrimes,
This was the question,
Does the government giving a military veteran money so she can attend Boston College constitute a loathsome combination of Church and State?
Your first answer was that government money isn't government money if you've earned it.
Your second answer (I think) is "no." Although given the torrent of obfuscation the answer might ust as easily be "sort of."
As far as I'm concerned you only get two bites at the apple.
Posted by James Jones on October 27, 2007 12:20 PMAgain we see the strawman argument of "intolerance of religion" from the far religious right.
no one is saying you can't worship and believe as you see fit...on your own time, with your own money and to your own kids.
why isn't that enough for you?
Posted by jay on October 27, 2007 01:37 PMjay,
Because we believe that the goverment derives its just power from the consent of governed.
In a free society we have the right to voice our opinions beyond the hearing of our family and out into the community.
What is the basis for you intolerance in allowing that view to be heard?
Posted by James Jones on October 27, 2007 03:05 PMThanks, JJ, for denying me a third bite at the apple. For denying the accommodation I shall spare you the Deicide Corner. Library closes in five minutes: I'll head for the 24 ounce section but please don't ask me to define. Yo, my boy.
Posted by RG on October 27, 2007 04:57 PMAre you somehow implying that you don't have the right to tell other folks your opinion James?
I don't think you can equate that with pushing your religion on other people's kids in school...or to any captive audience for that matter.
surely that's not what you're trying to say is it?
Posted by jay on October 27, 2007 05:02 PMJones: "Leftist on the other hand seek to make a religion of secularism and are intolerant of any dissenting opinion."
While Jones makes no attempt to define who he means by "leftist", I presume that he means those of us who are liberals.
Jones knows quite well that liberals, or leftists to use his nomenclature, are not a monolithic group, that is, a group in which all members believe alike.
He knows quite well that there are liberals who are secularists and there are liberals who are quite religious, just as is true of conservatives.
He knows quite well that there are liberals who are intolerant of the beliefs of others and there are liberals who are tolerant of the beliefs of others, just as is true of conservatives.
So Jones is being intellectually dishonest when he claims that all liberals are alike. This shows a pronounced lack of integrity on the part of Jones. He is not a person who can be trusted to tell the truth.
Posted by Truth on October 27, 2007 05:13 PMSHARON B: are you the same sharon that posts here from time to time and to whom I have given money for the susanbkomen thing?
If so, YIKES!!! I can't believe you actually wrote: "In a closed society, such as islam"...
Sorry, babe, but exactly how long have you lived and worked among Muslims... in a traditionally muslim country? I have. And you are WAY off the mark in that statement. If you would like and to learn more about this, please email me. YOu have my address. I won't get into a debate with the likes of these other loonies looking and more than likely, posting stupid responses, anonymously.
KISSES!!!
Posted by Sheila on October 27, 2007 05:20 PMSheila, hi, I was thinking of Afganistan and some of the other Muslim societies, where dissent against Islam is a capital offense.
Not Turkey, or Lebinon or some of the others. Thank you for the donation.
Drew. Phttttt.......That was a bronx cheer or rasberry.
Let me make it real clear, no religious statues, plaques, prayers involving children led by an authority figure of the school.
A politician can pray anytime he wants and you well know that was not what I was referring to.
Glad your kids are insulated from propagands, religious or otherwise, from teachers. Religion comming from them,l in the classroom, will be interperated by many children as having to be the truth because the teacher is the one who teaches them the truth.
No my skin is thick enough for your attempts. No religion in public schools or on public property by authority figures representating the state, and having a captive audience of children.
Nices tries but I know when you are muddling what I say to make a point I didn`t make. I know when you are acting dumb. Or do I?
Posted by Sharon B. on October 28, 2007 12:46 AMIgnore the spelling, it`s late.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 28, 2007 12:48 AMjay,
Are you somehow implying that you don't have the right to tell other folks your opinion James?
surely that's not what you're trying to say is it?
Posted by jay on October 27, 2007 05:02 PM
If you go to the top of the thread you will find a letter.
You don't have to read the whole thing - the title is sufficient.
Everyone has the right to voice their opinion in a free society. Religious people tolerate the views of other religions and of people who have no religions at all.
So the question is:
Why don't leftist have the same tolerance of religious vews?
Posted by James Jones on October 28, 2007 09:13 AMJones: "Why don't leftist have the same tolerance of religious vews?"
While Jones makes no attempt to define who he means by "leftist", I presume that he means those of us who are liberals.
Jones knows quite well that liberals, or leftists to use his nomenclature, are not a monolithic group, that is, a group in which all members believe alike.
He knows quite well that there are liberals who are secularists and there are liberals who are quite religious, just as is true of conservatives.
He knows quite well that there are liberals who are intolerant of the beliefs of others and there are liberals who are tolerant of the beliefs of others, just as is true of conservatives.
So Jones is being intellectually dishonest when he claims that all liberals are alike. This shows a pronounced lack of integrity on the part of Jones. He is not a person who can be trusted to tell the truth.
Posted by Truth on October 28, 2007 10:27 AM"Why don't leftist have the same tolerance of religious vews?"
You didn't answer my question James.
Are you somehow implying that you don't have the right to tell other folks your opinion James?
Posted by jay on October 28, 2007 11:55 AMjay,
No, I'm not.
In fact it's not possible to read this statement
Everyone has the right to voice their opinion in a free society
Posted by James Jones on October 28, 2007 09:13 AM
And still wonder if I think I don't have the right to an opinion.
I am saying that the people who posted the letter at the top of this thread assert that I don't have the right to tell other folks about my opinion.
I am also saying that the people who posted the letter at the top of this thread represent a view widely held by leftists.
Like the leftist who asked me;
no one is saying you can't worship and believe as you see fit...on your own time, with your own money and to your own kids.
why isn't that enough for you?
Posted by jay on October 27, 2007 01:37 PM
and recieved the answer:
Because we believe that the goverment derives its just power from the consent of governed.
In a free society we have the right to voice our opinions beyond the hearing of our family and out into the community.
Posted by James Jones on October 27, 2007 03:05 PM
That should bring you current.
Now, my question is clear - why are those of you of the left intolerant of religion?
If not, why not?
James, I don't make the argument that secularism is or should be a religion. I just keep hearing from non-secularists that it already is. Look at the quote from drew:
"The word secular probably isn't optimal for the point I was making [whatever that was], but the word secular has been adopted in common usage by the atheist religion in this country, so that is what I was referring to, if it clarifies."
No, it doesn't clarify. Again, it's the non-secularists, non-atheists, non-nonbelievers, whatever, who seem so eager to corral all secularists, atheists, nonbelievers, whatever, into a "religion."
Back to you, James: "Religious people [also] understand that while secularism is required in the operation of government, it cannot be a religion." If that were true I wouldn't see "The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion" written in letters to the editor as often as I do.
So the government needs to be religion-neutral. Yes. Agreed. Exactly. That's what "secular humanists" have been saying all along, and keep getting called "intolerant" for it. James in particular--though he's certainly not alone--seems to confuse tolerance with deference. Even drew allows that "[Freedom of religion] does not refer to freedom from having one's religion mocked." Religion (as a political issue, which it shouldn't be) in this country has become a toy for children to squabble over until Mommy has to come and take the toy away (from public property). (If you don't want a nanny state, stop acting like a child regarding what you are or are not entitled to.) Just the same, religion--least of all Christianity--has never lacked a forum: it's called church, and lots of them can be found even in very small towns, sitting tax-free on prime real estate, provided for the singular purpose of exercising one's freedom of worship. You may do so in your own homes as well, despite gloomy rumors that the ACLU will bust your door down and haul you away to a detention camp if you're caught saying grace before meals. So what's the problem again?
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 28, 2007 12:22 PMThere you go James...we are at the heart of your confusion.
You believe that if you don't have the right to push your belief in the supernatural upon a captive audience or if you don't have the right to use public funds to further your religious based positions..you are the victim of "religious intolerance"....when of course...nothing could be further from the truth.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Posted by jay on October 28, 2007 12:35 PMHans,
The problem is that you don't get the point. Secular Humanists are not accused of being intolerant for arguing that "government needs to be religion-neutral." The letter at the top of this thread argues something very different.
Their point is that arguments based in religion are inherently unconstitutional. That's quite a bit different from simply asserting that we are not a theocracy.
Their claim is that an argument based on religion is an attempt to change our form of government from a secular republic to a theocracy which is, obvioulsy we all agree, unconstitutional.
According to their reasoning, we are a secular state and therefore the pubic debate must be a pure secularism that is not tainted by religious thought. This is an attempt to silence arguments based on religion and limit the debate to a secular, or in their view acceptable, basis.
That attempt to limit the debate to acceptable ideas is intolerant which, it seems to me, comes out of their contempt for the religious.
They are perfectly free to hold the religious in contempt. They are perfectly free to ask political candidates to pledge to any postion.
But they have no right to push the religious out of the public square in pre-judging religious opinions as prima facie unconstitutional by invoking the principle of church/state separation.
Posted by James Jones on October 28, 2007 01:01 PMjay,
I should have known I couldn't keep my true agenda hidden from you.
You are much too perceptive.
Posted by James Jones on October 28, 2007 01:08 PMJust trying to help James.
When you consider that the list above simply ensures that no PUBLIC funding is allocated for religious-based initiatives...it's hard to try to cry "intolerance".
Let's look at the list again.
1. Endorse the separation of church and state.
Don't see a problem there.
2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.
Absolutely valid. No public dollars for religious orgs.
3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.
yep....keep supernatural beliefs out of science class...don't see a problem there either.
4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.
This one is open for debate. Folks are welcome to support whomever they believe will further their personal agenda....even if it is a horribly counterproductive one such as "pro-life".
5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.
Again...this is opposition to allowing the belief in the supernatural to affect public policy....keep the supernatural beliefs out of the lab.
I don't see any "intolerance" there. You are more than welcome to your opinion and beliefs...just don't ask for me to give you money to further those positions or opinions....and don't expect that the gov't should further those positions on your behalf. That is not to say that you can't choose to support politicians that will share your belief in the supernatural....and even support initiatives that will further said causes...but don't for one minute imply that you're entitled to such treatment...and that refusal to grant you such preference is "intolerance."
Posted by jay on October 28, 2007 01:58 PMJames Jones, if we put up the ten commandments in public places, and I actually like this idea, print the long, drawn out original ones. Okay?
If I ran a school, all religious dress, including witches gowns and wands and crystal headbands would be allowed, along with crosses, pentangrams and Star of David.
All holy books could be brought to school, and students and teachers could meet in the off class time for prayers, chants, spells etc. only things that burn, for safety sake, would be barred. And no knives no matter how ceremonial, plastic replicas could be okay.
Everyone like this so far? Off class time students and teachers could, as private citizens, try to convert others to Odin, Thor or the Moon Goddess. This would be a fun school, lots of diversity and tolerance and a good time for everyong.
I am serious about this, I really like the idea.
However, the minute class starts, all would be serious, and quiet. No casting spells or using voodoo dolls in class time.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 28, 2007 02:01 PMI'm in consort; in agreement with the 12 disciples with their 5 quasi commandments aforementioned especially separation of church and state that mf Bush trashes; the insane imperialistic president can give $billions to his "jew" god as mentioned with nothing for other mf gods and zilch for secularists and children needing medical attention:
But during the past century or so, scholars have shown that all these known details of Jesus’ life are mythic: that is, they were told for many previous savior-gods and legendary heroes in pre-Christian lore. Not a single detail of Jesus’ life can be considered authentic. Some investigators have tried to peel away the layers of myth in search of a historical core, but the task is like peeling the layers of an onion. It seems that there is no core. The layers of myth go all the way to the center.
One of the problems faced by Christian scholars is that there is no record of Jesus’ existence in any contemporary source. The earliest literature concerning him was written by Paul, who never knew him or anyone else who might have known him, and who never heard anything about his life story. Paul mentioned none of these now-so-familiar details, which were added much later by unknown writers who pretended to bear the names of various disciples, and who sprinkled their writing with mythic data gathered from sacred-king tradition of contemporary Greek Roman, Egyptian, Persian, and Levantine salvation cults.
Educated theologians know this perfectly well, yet they maintain the pretense of apostolic authorship and keep the truth hidden from lay congregants. Undeniably, Christian leaders have a vested interest in maintaining the myth. http.www.geocities/r22037/think.html
Jones falsely accuses the original letter writers of trying to "silence arguments based on religion and limit the debate to a secular, or in their view acceptable, basis".
In doing so, Jones slanders the original letter writers by accusing them of saying things they neither said nor implied.
The original letter writers are simply stating what their views are and are simply saying they will not vote for candidates who have different views.
That is largely the same thing all voters do.
The original letter writers say nothing whatsoever to justify Jones' false accusation. They neither state nor infer that people with views different from their should not be allowed to state those views and vote on the basis of them.
Indeed, they state their allegiance to individual rights, not to restrictions.
Do they say anything at all suggesting that people who disagree with them should be in some way censored?
No, they do not.
Jones seems unable, or rather unwilling, to appreciate the difference between a person stating his views and a person claiming that someone else has no right to state his views. There is a world of difference. That difference is spelled out in the first amendment. Jones apparently simply does not understand that simple statement of freedom of speech.
Jones has a terrible habit of falsely accusing people of saying things they did not say, of slandering people who disagree with him. That is why I call him dishonest and lacking in integrity. I'm not sure freedom of speech includes the freedom to slander.
Indeed, what Jones seems to be doing is claiming that the original letter writers have no right to state their views or to say they want candidates who support their views.
What Jones seems to be doing is to try to abridge the right of free speech of those those original letter writers.
In case anyone wants to challenge my statement that the original letter in no way attempts to silence anyone, I post it below and I challenge anyone to point to any language in it in which the letter writers attempt to silence anyone, in which they do any more than state what their own views are and that they want candidates who favor those views:
"As advocates of individual rights and free markets, we are deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights.
However, we also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.
In coming election cycles, we will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state. We ask that candidates declare whether they:
1. Endorse the separation of church and state.
2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.
3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.
4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.
5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research."
Sharon B,
I have a motto for you school:
Live for the moment.
I'll bey you have a crummy football tea.
Posted by James Jones on October 28, 2007 05:23 PMSharon
Make that
I'll bet you have a crummy football team.
Posted by James Jones on October 28, 2007 05:25 PMjay,
It must have been right after I posted:
They are perfectly free to ask political candidates to pledge to any postion.
Posted by James Jones on October 28, 2007 01:01 PM
That you figured out that all the foregoing -secularism, freedom of speech, church/statem separation - was just a smoke screen for the real agenda: Attacking The Pledge.
You have a remarkable, almost Truth-like ability, to remain oblivious to the stated point in the post and discover the true and deeper that, for some odd reason, the posters seek to obscure.
I'll bet Truth would be really proud. Except he's probably wondering what you Really Meant?
Grimes,
Whe you become the most lucid poster in the thread we know we have hit the tall grass.
Put this one in your pipe:
Henri de Lubac -
"It is not true, as is sometimes said, that man cannot organize the world without God. What is true is that, without God, he can only organize it against man."
From one mf to another.
Posted by James Jones on October 28, 2007 05:41 PMJames, unless I'm to define people solely by their practices and beliefs (I hear some people actually do that), I understand perfectly. What you don't seem to understand is the concept of religious neutrality. There's a vast difference between not teaching or preaching religion and teaching or preaching atheism--excuse me, secularism.
Nobody is pushing "the religious out of the public square"; they have every right to be there, too. What's questionable is their supposed right to proselytize in the public square, or set up a specific religious display. There's also a vast difference between the notion that there are places where religion, a personal matter, does not belong (like politics, an impersonal matter) and necessarily being "pre-judgmental" or "intolerant" toward religion.
But now that I have everybody's attention, and since Halloween is coming up, let me tell y'all about the Great Pumpkin...
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 28, 2007 05:46 PMHans,
I'm not at all confused about the separation of Church and State.
It is a 2,000 year old Christian lesson taught by a Jew.
I don't think you appreciate the dangers imbedded in the letter at the top of this column. But we can leave that for another time.
I get to go watch the Rockies begin their first -time-in-the-history-of-baseball four game World Series winning streak.
I will eagerly await updates on the Great Pumpkin.
Posted by James Jones on October 28, 2007 06:04 PMJones: "I don't think you appreciate the dangers imbedded in the letter at the top of this column. But we can leave that for another time."
I once again copy that letter and challenge anyone to support Jones' empty and false rhetoric with statements from that letter. The writers simply state what kind of legislation they oppose. To claim that a person who states what kind of legislation he supports or opposes is an attempt to silence anyone requires more than an irrational mind; it requires a dishonest one.
"As advocates of individual rights and free markets, we are deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights.
However, we also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.
In coming election cycles, we will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state. We ask that candidates declare whether they:
1. Endorse the separation of church and state.
2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.
3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.
4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.
5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research."
james are you still trying to rationalize your cries of "intolerance" when folks won't let you spend their tax dollars to further your belief in the supernatural?
Posted by jay on October 28, 2007 06:52 PMJames Jones, if my school permitted only your God, it would be okay, but if it permits all Gods/Goddesses, it is to "live for the moment?"
You make it sound shallow, but it would have more depth and meaning with fewer Gods?
Can your God share space and time in school or not? The others can.
Another thing, why should we have a lessor football team if part of the kids are Muslim, or Hindu, and some Wiccan? Does a certain religion confer muscles on boys?
Sometimes you post the nuttiest stuff.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 28, 2007 07:54 PMJones has terrible habit of accusing people in broad and vague terms. What he is unable to do is to point to any language of the people he is accusing which supports his accusations. So, how does he deal with that? He ignores requests that he support his vague accusations with facts. He knows full well that all the writers of the original letter are doing is stating that they are opposed to the certain kinds of legislation.
They do not in any way say that the people who disagree with them are not entitled to voice their views or to support the kind of legislation which they oppose.
Their letter is a supremely civil, straight-forward letter which does not contain any name-calling, and does not contain any language calling for the restriction of any person's right to free speech. What a great improvement the forum would experience if all of the letters emulated the quality of their letter.
We get an awful lot of crap on the forum in which some posters call people vile names, and in which other posters make false accusations and then refuse to support those allegations with facts. Thank goodness we occasionally get letters such as the one opening this thread. For anyone to say such a letter poses some kind of danger is to practice the most extreme kind of paranoia and tomfoolery.
People such as Jones can preach in sanctimonious or accusatory language till hell freezes over, but ask them to be specific, ask them to support that rhetoric with facts, and they fall silent.
Posted by Truth on October 28, 2007 08:21 PM