Like prayer, it has no effect on me, so I'll simply ignore it.

That's easy.

I will baptize our little dog tonight.

Wait... d-o-g... g-o-d...

That explains why I feel compelled to pick up his poop with little plastic bags.

I, too, take up my dog's blessings in a plastic bag, wherever and whenever he bestows them. I then place it in the holy receptacle alongside my garage, where it will be collected by the holy truck each Monday. It is a ritual I consider to be my responsibility to him, for he is the Dude.

that has given a dog as member of our family, who takes me out for walk and fresh air, when possible I deliver his poop blessings directly back in the woods and holy recycling of organic matter, also to consume less plastic backs made of fossil fuels. There is risk that should a fellow human being walking in the woods step aside from the Path he might step on dog poop, but in the holy calculus of fuzzy whole I consider that risk lesser evil than the benefits.

something like...

Dog thinks:

"He feeds me. He brings me toys. He takes away my poop. He must be God."

Cat thinks:

"He feeds me. He brings me toys. He takes away my poop. I must be God."

I didn't find prayer to be particularly effective, though, so I gave it up for Lent in 1965.

Hate to say it but that annoys the hell out of me!

another odious cliche.

personal struggles. Seriously: I can understand not wanting people to pray on your behalf, but to not even keep you in their thoughts? Welcome to the rest of your self-induced lonely, isolated life.

And I have no beliefs in one whatsoever so I guess I have a more direct line to my 'god'.

As a gay man in my 40s I refuse to believe that all the violence and discrimination directed towards societies minorities in the name of "God" in anyway resembles conscience.

However, I do recognize that 'God' is often used as a cudgel by the militant right. When it is not -such as at the Inauguration- I say, 'Eh. That's nice. What else you got?' Rather than be outraged. The outrage is more productively applied to people's actions rather than their beliefs, I think. In fact, many times what they truly want is to be attacked for their beliefs.

How do you keep up with it all?

I really think he is the weak link in the catholic meme.

After all, Jesus said (after he died and then undied) that he was going to send the Holy Ghost to help guide us... not a frickin' book. What happened?

When he was accused of atheism (and corruption of youth) by Athenians, he responded that because he listens to his "daimon", as he called voice of conscience, he is not atheist but more godly than most Athenians.

So it can be said that that view has long history and central place in Western thought and experience.

As well as the fact that Socrates was found guilty and sentenced to death, mostly for the perceived appearance of "hollier than thou" attitude from Socrates.

Oh if only it was, what a world it would be

God is a concept, in the mind. Different minds have different concepts. Ergo why there are so many religions. Our brains can experience higher levels of meta concepts and deep emotional experiences of intense emotions. Some people liken these experiences and meta-meta-concepts as "god." But really, they are concepts in the mind. There is no creator god outside of us, unless there is some meta-meta-level of conscious gthat exists outside the know universe--way beyond the light barrier--and we have no evidence for that. So if you want "god" to exist in the known universe, on this planet, then that concept must be manifested by each of us as we are best able to do. God lives within each of us, as us, but not as some outside personality that can suspend the laws of physics. So praying to a diety is, at best, comforting, but not particulary effective at creating change and outcomes. Meditating on what is, what can be, and what I can do to effect a different outcome seems a more promising focus of mind.

They are usually the same ones who think affiliation with organized religion entitles them to a moral high horse. Unfortunately the reliance on bronze age to near bronze age religious tomes for one's ethical compass inevitably leads to fuckups especially when it comes to civil rights. The results of the application of religious based ethics speak for themselves.

I've seen them asking for their deity to provide a blessing. The likelihood of that seems minuscule. But, I haven't seen anyone ceding anything like responsibility. Perhaps you have an example.

Blessings? What the hell is that? Is that what football players do before games? Tebow, perhaps?

At least that's how it's supposed to go. I hadn't noticed any shortage of either, despite my lack of belief. Whatever floats a guy's boat, I guess.

It's his right.

who has some religious beliefs. He's welcome to them, as far as I'm concerned. I can't see how it does any harm, really.

Your welcome for my concern.

She was never whack, but I know she felt comforted when she said the rosary.

I think it's like in AA, giving it over to a higher power. I learned (since I don't believe in God) that it just essentially meant getting out of your own way.

If only more people would follow the actual teachings and guidance of those wise men and women along the way, instead of being cowed or empowered by the man-made rules.

I'm not a believer either. But I'm also not out to evangelize and insist my atheism on others. Freedom is more important than the prevalence of atheism. With that in mind, I believe in giving our elected leaders and all Americans the freedom to believe (or not believe) however they want and the freedom to publically express that. As long as its not used as a basis for legislation, then it doesn't hurt me, nor does it hurt you. Stop pretending that it does. We all know better.

You said it yourself, this is a religious country, not a secular one. Our laws are reflected in that.

If a President or whoever is participating in prayer, they aren't writing legislation at that moment, they are praying.

Religion is a basis for legislation whenever someone proposes a law that is bluntly based on some religion's scriptural direction. For example, banning gay marriage because its "an abomination to God" or some BS like that.

Of course there are moral ideas that overlap secular moralism and religious moralism, like murder and theft for example. But we don't outlaw murder and theft simple because the Bible says its wrong. There are many, secular, nonreligious premises for the conclusion that murder and theft are bad for society.

So I don't care if my President or any citizen of this country publically celebrates their religion as long as they aren't trying to implement laws that are specifically born from that religion's teachings with no obvious secular overlap.

Under the "faith-based initiatives program," billions of federal tax dollars are being given to religious organizations with the understanding that they will deliver social services. However, under this program, there is no way to ensure that these religions organizations will not discriminate in their hiring of people who deliver these social services.

And by the way, imagine if someone were to say, "Too bad. This is a white country. Get over it." How would that make you feel? It would make me feel sick.

No religion that I know of has a commandment that says "thou shalt create a faith based initiatives program and give billions to religious organizations in exchange for social services". Sorry, your attempt at making a point falls flat because it has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm talking about enforcing religious doctrine via the law, such as anti-gay rights laws based on Biblical teachings against homosexuality.

And yea, if someone were to say that, it would be horrible and racist. However, what I said is not racist or discriminatory in any fashion whatsoever. Actually its the opposite of that because, though I am not a believer, I firmly believe in the RIGHT for people, elected officials or average citizens, to be able to peacefully express their religion however they see fit. If they want to express it during an inauguration ceremony, that fits my criteria. Its peaceful, it hurts NO ONE and its done simply as an expression of faith, not as an attempt to force others to follow that faith. And your attempt to equate advocacy of religious freedom with racism is disgusting and most certainly worth getting sick over.

It allocates tax dollars to religious organizations BECAUSE they are religious organizations, and it excludes non-religious organizations BECAUSE they are non-religious organizations. In other words, it is discriminatory by nature. Does it enforce religious doctrine? Of course not. But it is unjust, and that is MY point. Maybe you don't have a problem with unjust legislation. So be it.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I was equating "advocacy of religious freedom" with "racism." The point of my analogy, if you weren't able to see it, is that there is something very wrong about calling the United States a "religious country" merely because a "majority" believe in God.

For one, I'm not even a big advocate of faith based initiatives programs. I'm not particularly offended by them either. I'm rather indifferent. Having said that, non-religious organizations get plenty of tax dollars from the government for similar reasons. You can't exactly call it a discriminatory practice when there are programs in place to give government funding to organizations of all stripes, religious or not.

Regardless, it still has nothing to do with what I was talking about at all. I was specifically talking about the practice of passing legislation based on a religious doctrine. There is no religious doctrine that orders us to setup a faith based initiative program, so that's irrelevant to the point I was speaking to. I'm talking about establishing laws and rights strictly based on religious teachings.

I came to that conclusion because of your poorly thought out comparison. It was worded in such a way that insinuated that saying "this is a religious country" is the same thing as saying "this is white country". That's ludicrous. And when I say we are a "religious country", I'm talking about our culture. This country has a deeply religious culture. That's all there is to it. Theres nothing wrong with pointing that out. Its true.

Oh wait...we didn't just get over it and we're better off for having made a bit of a fuss in the 1860s.

You, like another poster, just attempted to compare the right to freely and peacefully express one's religion to the plight of slaves. You are no better than wing nuts likr Ted Nugent who try to compare gun humpers to Rosa Parks.

Maybe you should spend some time trying to think of a valid rebuttal to my argument (not that there really is one) instead of this flippant, complete failure of an attempt of making a point that doesn't even begin to make sense.

Your claim is if the majority likes it, it's ok.

The majority has liked a lot of awful things over the years.

You want to lump religion in with those? Perhaps you should try another line of argument instead.

...with any measure of honesty.

However, its clear that you don't even understand my argument. Theres actually 2 parts to it. I'm not arguing in favor of majority rule. I'm simply pointing out that most of the people in this country are religious, so first and foremost, people shouldn't feel all whiny and ass-sore whenever there is a public expression of it, especially when its done with absolutely no malicious intent whatsoever, as was the case with the inauguration ceremony. Religion is part of our culture. I am an atheist but I accept this fact. I pick battles that MATTER. And a few harmless prayers and shout outs to the invisible sky fairy do not hurt me or anyone else, so theres nothing worth having a battle over in that regard.

Secondly, its a RIGHT for people to be able to peacefully and publically express their religion. And that's why you need to get over it. Its a freedom that we all have and one we should continue to have. People here who are trying to shut down notions of religious freedom are anti-progressive.

"Just like most people in this country were against interracial marriage"

And theres where you totally lose the argument, first sentence. You are again comparing peacefully expressing religion to racism. Your entire argument falls completely flat on its face and dies a quick death right from jump with that idiotic, wrong headed comparison. You then spend your next few sentences reiterating the same foamy mouthed nonsense in different ways. I won't even bother to argue with that non-point any further. Its a waste of brain cells.

No one is breaking the separation of church and state by expressing their religion in an inauguration or any other public setting. You don't understand what separation of church and state means. You are obviously ignorant of where the phrase even came from (Jefferson) and what the person that said it meant by it.

Jefferson defined the concept as restricting that government 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. Having religious expressions at an inauguration event is not "making a law respecting an establishment of a religion". Unless you can illustrate that a law was passed respecting the establishment of a religion simply by the religious aspects of this or any other inaugurations ceremonies, then you have absolutely no legs to stand on whatsoever. Game over. You lose.

Also, you have it completely wrong as far as what the SCOTUS decided on Bible readings in schools. The court never said that it was unconstitutional to read the Bible in schools. The court ruled that FORCING students to participate in religious ceremonies was unconstitutional. Simply having religious ceremony, with voluntary participation is still completely legal. This is why schools all across the countries can still have prayer clubs and such.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142

"Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington's policy, requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises, violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
...
The Court found such a violation. The required activities encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so." Furthermore, argued Justice Clark, the ability of a parent to excuse a child from these ceremonies by a written note was irrelevant since it did not prevent the school's actions from violating the Establishment Clause."

But getting back to separation of church and state, what is really funny is that your attitude is what is in complete violation of the concept. That part at the end about "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is exactly what you want to do. You want to prohibit the right of elected officials to freely exercise their religion in a public forum. If a President wants to have a few prayers at his inauguration, he or she is WELL within their rights to do so. That's free exercise of their religion and it in no way, shape or form violates any laws nor does it do anyone any kind of harm whatsoever. Period.

And cheers!

Whatever anyone believes is what they believe and can't be helped. I've never found prayer to be harmful, even to me.

most national public ceremonies and local ones, in one way or another. Invocations, benedictions, singing of songs, and the like. I can't see that it either accomplishes anything or causes any identifiable harm, really.

I missed the prayers yesterday. I was working. I showed up to watch the oath-taking (complete with mention of a deity) and the speech. The speech was excellent.

Most Southereners were OK with slavery. Didn't make it right.
Most people in the past thought gays were sick and shouldn't be able to have the same rights as straights. Doesn't make it right.

He didn't think slavery was right, either, nor intolerance. Religious people are people, regardless of their beliefs, and they have all the faults associated with being human. Intolerance is just intolerance. Religion has little to do with it.

I am not saying religion is wrong. I am saying the use of it in public ceremony is wrong.

The only time prayer is wrong is when it is done in a place people are required to be, as in public schools, courtrooms, and places like that. If you are not compelled to be present, such prayers are legal and constitutional, as is singing hymns, and other religious expressions. That is settled law, with a long history of test cases.

The Inauguration of a President is a public event, but not one where anyone is compelled to be present, other than the person being inaugurated and whoever is giving the oath. It is merely a ceremonial event, and ceremony may include religious expression.

The thing is that the United States of America is not a non-religious country. It simply does not have an official religion. Its laws are not based on religion. It is a nation of people, many of whom have religious beliefs. They may express those beliefs as they see fit, and public ceremonies may include such expressions.

There are situations, like those I described above, where such expressions are not allowed. That is when they have the appearance of government sponsorship in some way. The actual Inauguration of the President this year took place in the White House on Sunday, Jamuary 20, as required by the Constitution. Monday's celebration was completely separate, and the entire thing was paid for without expending public money.

Intolerance of people's religious beliefs is the same as any other intolerance. It is not an American practice, or shouldn't be. If I cannot stand hearing religious expression, I have only to not be present. However, such expression does not bother me in any way, so I'm happy to be present at events where some sort of religious content occurs. It's of no importance to me, but I recognize that it has meaning to many others. Why would I care?

We are not a nation without religion. We are simply a nation with no official religion. There is a marked difference between those two things.

If you are offended by religious expression, then I suggest you avoid public celebrations.

I feel the same way. I too am an atheist. But it others want to pray, or light a candle, or light incense, or simply think good thoughts it doesn't bother me in the least. Don't force me to do anything and I won't force you to do or not do something.

For those that are offended by public displays of religiosity I say too bad. There is no 'right' to not be offended in this country.

And genug!

As placing a Christian prayer in the inauguration is government sponsorship. That violates the establishment clause.

It also wasn't entirely paid from private money. Obama, Biden, all those congresspeople and justicies were still on the government payroll to be there. They didn't take time off for the ceremony.

Have a prayer before the ceremony? That's just fine and personal. Shove it into the ceremony? That's saying the government is for Christians.

If people can be upset about Rick Warren in 2009 when he never mentioned gays at the inauguration, then any non-Christian should be free to be upset now. Yet DU didn't have post after post after post of "shut up gays!" then.

class citizens .

That's kinda the point of separating church and state - official support of one religion is, by necessity, making anyone not of that religion second-class.

It's the same as "look at all the wonderful married people! Suck it, gays!"

jewish and it was christian prayers ?

once those brown bastages take over and we have Sharia law It's coming soon!

...any other citizen? How does it hurt you exactly?

I trust him to do what is right in the Oval Office.

What you are seeing on these threads about religion in the inauguration is the online forum equivalent of that eyeroll.

I don't pray either and I don't care about those who do but I have read and understand the meaning of Matthew 6:6, seeing public prayer by Christians just makes me want to roll my eyes.

since 1965. It's a wonder I can still see, really.

I attended a funeral last week. There, I got to hear some pastor who had never met the deceased pray about the "sure and certain hope" of life after death. Again, I was puzzled how a "hope" could be sure or certain. That never did make much sense to me. So it is with all prayers. They make no sense, but they don't do anything else, either.

Rolling eyes are one mark of a non-believer.

I feel that way online a lot.

part of US law.

Because I distinctly saw her roll her eyes in that video.

or what.

I envy those who find so much comfort in their particular faith, but it just doesn't work for me. There's something programmed in us. A need just as real as hunger, thirst, or sleep.

like some comfort in believing there is something beyond them, at the end of the road, so to say. I think there is a need. That said, I'm not a prayer type person. Often I do think we are an extraterrestrial experiment, I guess there's some comfort in that, I guess, I guess ... I had a friend almost die recently, I asked the whoever, whatever to save him. He's still alive.

Coincidence, probably, but often I think there is an energy that transcends mankind. That said, I am not a religious person at all, not in the least. I look at most of this from a theoretical point of view. However, I do understand those that need something, as long as they do not force their beliefs on me.

there's some 6th grade alien out there who started us as a science experiment, he got a good grade and then forgot us in the back of the refrigerator.

My other theory is that we are God, each of us is one tiny piece of a collective energy.

6th grade alien would get that refrigerator fixed so we can fix this global warming thing! LOL

but the problem is something he can't figure out.. How to get these folks clothing, food, heat, transportation, etc., when every source of energy produces something that is warming the climate.

He hopes to get back into production with us soon. He wants to provide us with nighttime vision, wings to fly, lungs that work with water better, digestion that works only with green stuff that makes wonderful fertilizer, empathy, love for each other and all animals...and best of all, fur or feathers. He keeps coming back to something close to a monkey, except they don't fly or swim. Give him time.

Atheist here, as well. Doesn't bother me a bit that other people pray...nor do I think less of them. It's not like I can prove by beliefs are correct. Despite wingnut claims to the contrary ("He's a Muslim!!&quot , President Obama is a Christian believer. I have no issues with him indicating that in public from time to time. That in no way constitutes an "establishment of religion," nor does it offend me in the least.

Oh! It's better anecdotes.

5...4....3...2...

nt.

Where has he been, and where is he going?

after 4 posts....My question refers to soft eyes' post that was hidden...

The funny thing is that any of the links in my signature line leads to my name being displayed. It's so funny when someone thinks they've discovered something. I have up Internet anonymity as an impossibility long, long ago. Still, it's not nice to do that on DU.

I take little notice of this administration's religiousness. I guess it is because
they take no notice my non-religiousness.


Tikki

Planking was more productive LOL...

Every MLK Day, people who protest some aspect of the Government, drag out MLK's speeches to make their point.

They hold him up as a beacon, and denounce others for not heeding his words.

He was a man of prayer, which some people refer to as "silly" and "useless."

Myrlie Evers-Williams' invocation was attacked by many of those same people.

Tolerance isn't what it used to be.

I mean, there are a lot of things some people do that others can deem useless.

Some think watching TV is useless. Others think worrying about what other people do is useless.

Spirituality is personal, albeit an activity shared by millions. The point is that condemning people for praying is simply intolerance.

It is just something people do...or don't do.


Tikki

Ghandi was a spiritual man. The Dalai Lama is a spiritual man.

I'm saying a being offended by a person's spirituality is pointless, comdemning them for it is intolerance.

More likely something is useless when it doesn't work as advertised.

Most people just don't buy the product again.

What's that.."doing something over
and over expecting a different outcome...."

Some never even started.

Tikki

PRAY!

Shows how much you know.

But how far back in the closet are they, and do they still fit you, and would your wife die laughing if you put them on, oh, and post the video so we can be let in on the fun of MM and Hammertime

if the occasion arose. Now, I'm not sure what that occasion might be, but they're there, just in case.

I did get rid of my blue leisure suit, though, some years ago. The shirts with the big lapels, too.

It seems that styles are cyclic, and what is old becomes new again. That's why I've hung on to my dashiki for all these years.

I did wear that, though, at a party with a 1960's theme. It was a big hit, since nobody had seen one for a long time.

It was a lovely blue and red silk paisley pattern. Marvelous.

But I still find expressions of religion to be deeply satisfying when done well. It all depends on your outlook, I suppose. Instead of a strict adherence to accuracy.

This is my favorite Flash comic.

respect for religious freedom (Agnosticism, Animism, Atheism, Buddhism, Deism, Hinduism, humanism, Islam, Judaism, Pantheism, Sikhism, etc.) is no longer a progressive value.

I remember people condemning a Native American prayer at Gabby Gifford's ceremony.

Whatever happened to tolerance?

As for the Native American prayer at her funeral, I must admit to having some trouble following it. My mind kept wandering, somehow.

I kid...seriously, I have no problem with other peoples belief system - as long as they don't try and force it down my throat. THAT is when we have a problem.

Do people still 'swear to tell the truth...' on the Holy Bible in court?

There's no requirement to do that, though. In my court appearances, I have always simply affirmed my oath. It's easy. You just say to the bailiff, "I will affirm my oath."

In California, no Bible is presented in court when people are sworn any longer.

In some Bible Belt states, you'll get a funny look if you choose to affirm your oath, but it doesn't really matter.