I'm tired of hearing ANYTHING about religion in politics.

What happened to good ol' "Separation of Church and State?"

I am sick to DEATH of hearing all about GOD in the halls of JUSTICE, in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, in the U.S. SENATE...

I am sick to DEATH of hearing "UNDERGODUNDERGODUNDERGODUNDERGODUNDERGODUNDERGOD" left and right...

I am sick to DEATH of hearing "GOD BLESS AMERICA" ALL THE "GOD DAMNED" TIME...

Where the FUCK are MY RIGHTS? This is a SECULAR NATION, and I am sick to DEATH of hearing about someone's concept of eternity based on their "FAITH" every time I want to participate in some government function.

People, it is 2007. Time to let the shit GO. You want GOD? There's a church on every corner. GO THERE, or I swear, I am going to take up some esoteric ancient religion involving "reading the entrails" or some other nauseating practice, and every single FUCKING time I hear "GOD BLESS AMERICA" I will insist on sacrificing a goat to get Zeus' spin on whether or not we are doing the right thing.

I am NOT an Atheist, but as an Agnostic, I DON'T KNOW what is out there, IF ANYTHING, and I don't need my doubts and fears about death and eternity rubbed in my face if I decide to attend a lousy City Council Meeting.

When we someone other than an idiot in the White House who will appoint REAL JURISTS to the SCOTUS, I want ACTIVE, PURPOSEFUL CHALLENGE TO HEARING THE WORD "GOD" IN ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING A GOVERNMENT OR PUBLICLY FUNDED EDIFICE.

BTW, I couldnt agree with you more.

:)

Here's another:

"The Last Time We mixed Religion With Politics, We Were Burning People At The Stake"

-P

TWICE!!

I live near West Point, The headline in today's local paper read:

FINDING A HIGHER POWER AT WEST POINT

Then they have a picture of "the Christen's Fellowship" praise band on stage with these words shown
behind them.

All to Jesus I surrender Lord, I give myself to thee. Fill me with Thy love and power, Let Thy blessing fall on me.

...When I saw the words, "I give myself to thy", it made me so mad. Our government has these kids so twisted, they're making this war about faith and not oil.

did not allow it - as no majority - regardless of it's belief system. or supposed lack of a belief system - should have that power of others belief systems.

I assume you will sign our petitions to be considered for tax-free status?

DO I agree with YOU! Man, I CAN NOT believe they're turning our military into a damned crusader force!

When I heard awhile back, what goes on in the Air Force academy nowdays, I was SICK to think what they've done to the branch of the service which I was SO PROUD to be a part of in the 60s!

I can hear it how: "Is burning at the stake cruel and unusual punishment? Here's some pundits to tell us why it's ok."

is selling girl scout cookies door to door!!1!!! </sarcasm>

Not agnostic per se, but a definite "back off, holy rollers!" design:

http://www.cafepress.com/tulsatees/1756693

Of course, I'm half pantheist and half agnostic and half "don't EVEN give a shit anymore."

heh.

Displayed on my bumper, among the others:

Church + State = Taliban

Nice rant and one that I have made on more than one occasion. :toast:

I feel the same way.

Sid

politics is naive.

Religious beliefs - like atheist beliefs - inform and motivate who we vote for and what we expect. And that will never end without the total suppression of either atheist beliefs, or religious beliefs.

Which brings us back to why there must be separation of "church" (including atheist dogma) and state.

but you already knew that.

Sid

Theism: belief in a god or gods.

A-theism: lack of belief in a god or gods.

And I have no agenda other than that where Evangelists and other less pushy Religion supporters keep their religion and its strictures to themselves, offering no imposition on me or mine.

It just struck me as funny.

that didn't quite come out the way that I meant it :)

Sid

Values, yes. Opinions, yes. Beliefs? No.

If there is no evidence, there is no reason for belief. If there IS evidence, it's called "knowledge".

Belief, like faith, has no emprical value.

n/t

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll look at it. If that evidence is convincing, I will change my opinion.

But it depends on evidence, not belief.

I think UFOs might be visitors from distant worlds. I don't believe it, because I've never met them. I certainly don't 'believe in' UFOs, any more than I believe in fairies, Nostradamus, or god. There is no empirical evidence available to me to convince me.

You believe there is no evidence, fine, go ahead and believe that.
Your opinion that "there is no god" is just a belief.

A-theism: lack of belief in a god or gods.

What's the right response? It has a sort of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" flavor to it.

I know what SidDithers was trying to say, but that question struck me as funny.

You have the same sort of warped sense of humor that I do!
It's kinda fun in here, isn't it?
Reminds me a little of Sponge Bob and Patrick in their TV shipping box.

Of course, I'm not a moderator, so I can focus on having fun. You, on the other hand, have to be on the lookout for posters like, um, me.

:evilgrin:

Oh, and you should probably keep an eye on racaulk. He's a naughty one! Spends most of his time in the Lounge, but sometimes manages to get the handcuffs off...

Atheists have plenty of beliefs although they don't all have the same beliefs.
Actually the same goes for theists. The different conceptions about God, etc.
vary widely.

Example of some beliefs that *certain* atheists have:

There is no God.

This physical universe we live in created itself.

It was created by an unstable nothingness.

It came from a multiverse.

Something can come from nothing.

Life is meaningless.

Qualia don't exist.

The mutation(s) that led to the formation of photochemicals
that function as part of the process of color vision were
'random', they were just 'by chance'. There were preexisting
molecules having other functions that when rearranged just
so happened to form photochemicals.
It was just 'by chance' that these photochemicals turned out
to be sensitive to an extremely narrow bandwidth of light at
the Sun's peak output of light.
It was just 'by chance' that these photochemicals turned out
to reset themselves after a very brief period of time.
It was just 'by chance' that the photochemicals formed in the eye,
right where they could send an electrical impulse to nerves,
as opposed to, say, in the ear.
The color processing portion of the optic lobe, the nerves that
transmit these signals, the structures holding the photochemicals,
etc., and the photochemicals somehow didn't all form at the same
time, they have some other functions before, and somehow this
happened sequentially, 'by chance' of course.
There are were series of Xs (per Dawkins) that explains all this
away, for certain they happened, we don't need to know about any
particulars. They must have happened, because there is no God.

On the other hand, some atheists don't believe any of that.

OK I'll go with that

Though you leave out two key features of it, which is that all these things that happened by chance were either selected for or against by the environment: sight, as it turns out, is pretty darn useful. The other feature involved is the amount of time this process has taken. The evolution of the eye has been taking place for the past 540 million years. With that amount of time, the evolution of complex biological organisms seems not only possible, but probable.

wikipedia has a page explaining the process using an explanation that should be understandable to 9th graders writing reports on the subject of evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Don't believe in evolution? Good for you. If you don't believe in gravity, will you fall nonetheless? The same people who don't want you to believe in evolution also believe in many incredible things, such as virgin birth, giants, magic, and talking animals. If they had had their way, we would still be burning heretics at the stake, and this computer would not exist.

I'm taking my toddler in for a flu shot tomorrow. He has to get a new one because the strain of the virus has changed from last year. I'm sure the changes in the virus probably seem like magic to some people, but given 7 billion people on the planet, we should not be surprised that diseases are evolving constantly, unless we are silly enough to imagine that there is a God at work who cares deeply about developing a more dangerous flu virus every year while still ensuring that only godly teams win the Super Bowl.

I believe that the eye evolved in some way, but it was not Darwinian evolution.
Darwinism has essentially been shown to be false.
Preexisting molecules being rearranged to form a photochemical is not Darwinian
evolution. Darwinism relies on *statistical* chance. In this case there is no
*statistical* chance involved. These photochemicals were not selected in a
Darwinian fashion, they were not built up from scratch. Instead there was a
preadaption. There are many cases where it looks like preadaptions happened.
So evolution, yes, Darwinism, no.

Darwinism is dead.

It's a Darwinian concept.

Since it doesn't involve statistical chance and basically says that certain functions didn't evolve under natural selection, the idea of preadaption seems at odds with the idea of natural selection acting on random mutations, which does involve statistical chance and the gradual development of functions by natural selection. Darwinism as a whole looks a bit inconsistent.

A caveat about preadaptions:
"... we have so little firm, direct evidence for such functional shifts."
- Stephen Jay Gould
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_functionalshift.html

Stop making stuff up.

Agnostics could be described as normal, well adjusted, people who have a mild curiosity about spirituality, but who aren't arrogant enough to assume that they know all the answers.

OK.

"Life is meaningless" is not something I've heard a lot of people say regardless of their religious beliefs.

What evidence do you have that what I described about color vision happened essentially by chance? When there are preadaptions involved, *statistical* chance and therefore natural selection goes out the door. It was not probable that the preexisting molecules, when rearranged, would function as a photochemical. You want to claim it was? Then provide evidence that it was probable, and provide evidence that it was probable that the light waves involved be at the Sun's peak output of light. The wave lengths of visible light only differ by a factor of 2, that is an *extremely* narrow band.

but you were the lucky one, and millions of others lost.

Same with evolution. Millions and millions of different things happen over millions of years, and only the right ones work out. The rest die off.

It does look plausible that they were formed from preexisting molecules. It seems reasonable to say that there would need to be many different possible photochemicals that could be formed from those molecules (or others) to make it statistically probable that a photochemical with the appropriate properties would emerge. Is there any evidence of such possible photochemicals?
Other unrelated mutations that happen over millions of years have nothing to do with this. Vague statements don't cut it.

you don't seem to understand evolution. "Chance" has very little to do with it.

First of all you don't understand that the evidence of preadaptions refutes Darwinism.
Chance does have a lot to do with Darwinism, which claims that natural selection acting
on a wide variation of *random* mutations explains away apparent design in biological
organisms; that there were so many different mutations that some of them were bound to
be beneficial, by chance. It claims gradualism in building up of structures.
Preadaptions wreck havoc on these claims.

an infinite number of typewriters, and just let them "bang away," eventually by accident they will type ALL of the works of William Shakespeare.

The equation is: Possibility + Sufficient Time = Certainty.

By "CHANCE" things happened start the chain reaction that produced life as we know it? Of course. But the EYE example is stupid. Eyes have been evolving since they were simple light and dark sensitive spots on flatworms.

I hope your "Faith" is not so fragile that it requires Literal Genesis to survive: that would be a shame.

Nowhere did I imply that I believe in Literal Genesis, and you know it.
I don't, just to make it clear. So cut the crap.

"an infinite number of typewriters"
"By "CHANCE" things happened start the chain reaction that produced life as we know it? Of course."

Where's your evidence? Why don't we just take that all the way and claim that the laws of nature don't exist? Sure, there's an infinite number of universes and some just by chance seem to have laws of nature. We just happen to live in universe that seems to have laws of nature.

"Eyes have been evolving"

I didn't say nor did I imply that they didn't evolve. Try some critical thinking for a change.

When you start making leading statements as to what "Atheist" believe, you're the one going out on a limb.

What are you talking about? You made the statements that the Genesis Crowd makes when they want to "debunk" anyone who choses not to believe in their mythos. I was waiting to hear the "Explosion in the Watch factory that accidentally makes the watch" meme.

It is exactly according to physical laws plus properties of matter and energy that make life possible.

And "critical thinking" is a scientific viewpoint. You looked like you were trying to make the Creationist point by demonstrating the "absurdity" of what you hold to be the "beliefs" of a group that by definition tries to avoid non-science based explanations.

If you wanted to make a creationist point through the back door, well just that's what it looked like you were doing.

not all of them do, so I'm going out on any limb.

"It is exactly according to physical laws plus properties of matter and energy that make life possible."

If you are implying that there is nothing more to it than that, then I ask you to show that this belief of yours is correct.

'"critical thinking" is a scientific viewpoint' 'non-science based explanations'

You are confusing science with your atheistic belief system, they are not the same.

I seem to remember...

You believe in logic and arguing based on pointing out logical fallacies. I learned alot about fallacies from hanging out at alt.atheism on Usenet. I was their token theist.

and I always think that nobody remembers that. Don't need god to do the right thing.

Ever get this question: "So, you're an atheist, would you just kill somebody?"

Cracks me up everytime. To scare the really dumb ones, I put on a mean grin and growl: "You wanna find out, choir-girl? Har har..."

The old mountaineer Moses was around waaaay before Christianity, back in the day people believed you had to kill for your gods. But still he allegedly came up with those alleged tablets, containing strong language which could not be shown to children and/or unmarried women. Can you belieeeeeve that?

I myself believe in science, and therefore in the return of the timemachine. Which will bring us back Jesus Christ, Julius Caesar and Johan Cruijff all at the same time!

And where is the evidence that it has even a small fraction of the power and influence of the big organized religions?

That's a nice little straw man you inserted in there. So now, people who don't want to be pestered with other people's religions are somehow a religion too, so "balance" requires that their right to be free of religion must be compromised.
x(

I'm still waiting for our "church" to get the same tax breaks and perks the other churches get. If we demand that, the religionists will suddenly stop claiming atheism is a religion, and that we have a church.

But we have a Goddess too and she is called Eris. :spank:

A "Church" refers to what? - many believers hold to no structure as to how they believe or where they go.

But if it floats your boat - feel free to believe you have no beliefs, no faith in anything not provable, etc.

that should be kept out of politics.

We DO demand that you not demand we RESPECT your
vocalizing said beliefs when doing political speech.

Should we "respect" those?

Atheism isn't a religion any more than invisible is a color.

It is not a building or even a "club" requiring membership.

That's really stretching it. And the phrase "atheist dogma" really shows an ignorance about the definition of the word "dogma."

Let me guess: Would you consider the theory of evolution to be atheist dogma? How about the second law of thermodynamics?

:eyes:

Dogma requires an authority to establish a codified set of beliefs. For example, my aesthetic principles aren't dogma; they would only become dogma were I to establish the Church of Ignis and mandate that all who join the church must believe in my aesthetic principles.

So rather than obfuscating with thinly veiled insults, kindly answer the questions I posed above and clearly detail the following:
1. What are "atheistic beliefs?"
2. What is "atheist dogma?"
3. Who established this "atheist dogma?" When? Was there a schism? Is there heresy? Who maintains and updates the official catechism? How often are bulls and decrees issued?

If you believe the earth is flat, fine. But that doesn't give you the right to claim that anyone who believes in a spherical* earth is also merely holding a belief. And my understanding that the earth is spherical is not dogma, either.

Similarly, I presume that you are an atheist when it comes to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, and the Pink Sky Unicorn. That doesn't mean that your refusal to accept without proof the reality of these entities is a belief, nor does it mean that you hold atheist dogma in this regard. How is this so difficult to grasp?

If you tell me that you are able to fly, leap tall buildings in a single bound, or teleport, my refusal to believe these ridiculous claims is NOT dogma.

I'm flabbergasted that anyone can have progressed passed secondary school without a basic understanding of the scientific method.

:banghead:

(* - Yes, yes, I know it's not perfectly spherical. I also sometimes only list the first three digits of Pi when not using it in an equation. Sue me.)

when in fact it is slightly squashed, I will refuse to believe whatever else you may have said in your post.

:rofl:

requires no authority to "enforce" it beyond peer pressure in/from the group the person associates themselves with.

Something that is given to be accepted without proof is a belief. A belief is not the same thing as dogma. Dogma is an organized set of beliefs that have been established and/or codified by some (traditionally religious) authority. A single person believing a single thing does not a dogma make.

But you don't have to take my word for it:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma

I can't believe you had the gall to snarkily suggest I crack open a dictionary when you don't even understand the words you're using in your argument. Classy.

---

And you still haven't provided a single example of "atheist beliefs" or "atheist dogma." I've asked three times for an example of either of the above, but you continue avoiding the subject--choosing instead to debate semantics, and failing miserably in the process.

So: I challenge you to present some examples of "atheist dogma," or admit that they're as imaginary as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Two points on your stubborn refusal to correct your ignorance:

1. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are peer-based corrective measures to edit Wikipedia, but anyone can add or edit entries, and the peer-based corrections are not performed in real time. It is not an authoritative source, as it is vulnerable to majority rule rather than verifiable, testable, and independently observable data. How can you not understand this?

2. Here's the very first sentence from the Wiki entry you present as evidence:
"Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas, Greek δόγμα, plural δόγματα ) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted."

I'd suggest actually reading a supporting example before you post it. :rofl: But thanks for proving my point.

---

And you still haven't presented a single example of an "atheist belief" or "atheist dogma." At this point, I can only assume that you're just trolling.

...to the unproveable belief there IS a god?

Is the greatest of the dogmas.
And there is no comparison between it and thermodynamics or gravity. Both are simple compared to evolution and explaining all the extremely complex systems that must arise spontaneously for it to be true.
No comparison at all.

I have created an alternate theory to the Theory of Evolution. I call it the "Pink Sky Unicorn Creation Theory," and it proposes that the Pink Sky Unicorn magically created every object in the universe last Tuesday out of Pixxy Particles.

Scientists are welcome to use my theory, if they find it to be a more complete working model of observable data than Darwin's attempt.

Any takers?

Then you are no physicist.

Evolution is not a "THEORY," but is still called that as a technical term. Evolution has been observed in action from the simplest cells upward. If I were religious, I would call Evolution the greatest of miracles, and would be thankful to God that it happened as it did, here, and likely other places with the right conditions throughout the unimaginable vastness of this universe.

Evolution can have or not have God. Intelligent Design or Genesis ALWAYS has God. That's why they are RELIGION, not SCIENCE.

They deal with a single force.
Evolution attempts to explain millions of mysteries all with the same answer, evolution through natural selection.
The truth of the creation of this universe is likely far more vast and complicated than that.

first of all, Evolutionary Theory has evolved (through repeated testing and evidence and new corollary theories and genetic research) a LOT since Darwin, yet his theory has yet to be disproved in 150 years despite being vigorously attacked for that time span by those refusing to consider it. That's a pretty strong theory, imo.

The "extremely complex systems that must arise spontaneously" is a fallacy put forth by the Discovery Institute as a wedge to put religion in science. It has been debunked over and over. Those complex systems did not arise spontaneously at all, and no one who seriously studies evolution or genetics has ever said it was random or that they arose spontaneously and complex.

I suggest you try to catch a rerun of PBS' Nova show "Intelligent Design" on trial - it explains a lot of these concepts quite well for laymen.

Also, try to understand this, as it relates to my first sentence: not only has evolutionary theory been thoroughly tested from a multitude of angles and disciplines, but the way science works is too always seek to understand what is not yet discovered and replace the old theories as better understanding and evidence are found.

But did not explain the one thing presented as evidence by the other side.
The evolution of the motor of the phlegm.(I am not sure if that is the right word) It rebutted it with something that looked similar to it but had a different purpose and did not explain how the other parts of that motor evolved.
Now if that were the only thing I would say OK you have the proof, but there are thousands of other things just like it and all unexplained by natural selection.
My logic tells me based on those facts that there may well be other factors involved in the shaping of life here on earth and in the universe but too few are willing to fisk the ridicule to bring them up.

yes, the spike structure - which not only looked similar, but was composed of the same proteins - did not rotate, BUT it had most of the components found in the flagellum, which debunks the flagellum's irreducible complexity.

You don't think that scientists - people who have spent their entire lives trying to understand the unknown - have never considered this? There are tons of peer-reviewed studies which show that in each of the examples, something which appears too complex to reduce, is not necessarily so, and that parts which serve one purpose can often be used later for another.

There is nothing wrong with challenging scientific theories, but those challenges must meet the same criteria of that which they seek to overturn. To say that too few are willing to take the risk is not very accurate as people have been aggressively attacking evolution since Darwin's theory was published. I hardly agree that no one has challenged the theory, but state the opposite: that Darwin's and other evolutionary theories have been made stronger by being able to withstand those attacks.

here is just one page full of arguments against IC, and if you google there are thousands of more examples.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/irreducible_complexity/

more:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#argument

Or you will never graduate with grades enough to work in your field, or you will be forced to get your education from a Christian university where you will learn little of value.
But you said'
"it had most of the components found in the flagellum, which debunks the flagellum's irreducible complexity."
As I remember it it had one of the components and there were 5 or 6. And that is not what debunking is. Debunking is presenting facts that disprove and no facts that disproved were presented.
As in your cut amd paste it is speculation of how Iit could be...maybe it started out with more parts and lost some....or whatever...but that is speculation not factual evidence.
I have my own speculation that I think is as good as what I have heard here, and that is life is seeded in the seas of the earth from material from space and that new life forms are constantly created in the plankton of the sea for the most part. And if they should happen to have the right characteristics they evolve into larger animals or plants that live in the sea or on land.
Now billions of years are not necessary for evolution to take place but thousands or millions or even hundreds.
I have no proof but neither do you that the little motor in the Flagellum was created by natural selection.

Irreducible complexity means just that - an organ or structure is too complex to be reduced, to lose any parts and still be useful. The point the ID people tried to make with the flagellum is that if you take away any parts, it no longer functions as a flagellum and is thus impossible to have evolved.

What they fail to understand is that most of those same parts (not just one of them) are found in a structure with a different function, and that is one avenue by which these structures/organs can evolve. In other words, the flagellum is not truly irreducibly complex, thus their example (and other examples all over the place, such as the eye, the immune system, etc.) is not truly an irreducibly complex thing. Therefore the theory of IC has been debunked using facts and to say otherwise is being disingenuous.

If the ID people can come back with an example of an organ or organelle which meets IC (Irreducible complexity) and which can not be refuted, then that theory can be said to have not been debunked, but they did not and from everything I have read and heard (I have a handful of good friends who are biologists), they cannot.

To assume that any scientific theory is dogma is to not understand how science works at all. Scientists get their notoriety from finding ways to overturn older, more accepted theories all the time. Einstein is famous for several reasons, but mainly because he was able to show a new theory which fixed the problems with Newton's theories. Yes, people do often resist the idea of change in accepted theories and new ideas - I do agree with that, and being skeptical is common among researchers. The way those new theories become accepted is to be able to prove them using repeatable experiments and research, which evolution has done despite what the ID crowd claims.

An exmple is the cold fusion claim from the late 80's. The researchers were unable to repeat the experiment, which means it has not been accepted yet, but they are still working to prove themselves. ID has done very little real work to prove itself from what I have seen and read.

People who question evolution are blacklisted because their scientific methods are flawed, not out of some conspiracy. In fact, I will counter that the ID side did not and have yet to ever produce one bit of evidence or fact which shows they are right, and the evolution side has over a century of experiments which support their side.

Seeding from space is a theory which has a decent amount of support, but one which still requires evolution to be able to occur, whether on Earth or somewhere else. Seeding does not necessarily require a creator, and neither does evolution.

Of all the people who think that domination of another country's resources by military force is fundamentally evil, some are atheists and some are religious. Of all the people who want to kick their ass and take thair gas, some are atheists and some are religious. And so on for every values statement anybody could ever think of making.

Governing based on church doctrine, granting rights based on religious beliefs, elected officials swearing fealty to religious figures... THESE types of issues are valid church/state issues.

An elected saying God, an elected discussing faith.. that is just humans being humans. As long as church doctrine/dogma does not form state/federal laws/regulation I'd say the separation is there.

I am sick of it in daily life as well. As you said, there is a church on every corner. If I wanted to hear about religion I would be there.

Great rant! :rant:

:kick: & Recommended

Why are there prayers involved with just about every event that takes place in this country? You can't get away from it unless you're willing to become a hermit and live in some remote part of the world.

And we're living facing some damn scary and uncertain times ahead...

:hi:

Just not for believers. Religion creates fear and uncertainty for all the non-believers who are subjected to to the influence of religion.

promote fear and uncertainty in order to recruit and retain members. Keep them scared and they'll keep coming to church. Keep them scared of those who aren't scared and you'll make them go to the voting booths.

Religion always has been and still is a powerful means of controlling the masses. The first segment of Zeitgeist - The Movie lays it out pretty well.

the importance of being in good standing with God when you die. They're lucky I have respect for the deceased, or they'd get an earful.

It's just the opposite, it's the ones that are true believers that have their pants in a wad. Us non believers are just waiting for their dates for the rapture to pass so we can laugh at them as they make silly excuses.

The constant drumbeat of fear drives people to jingoism and religiosity and bellicosity.

In many countries the number of religious people is falling off. I'd be willing to bet that it's only when the rulers use fear to manipulate the populace, or they genuinely have something to be fearful of (as opposed to the ubiquitous manufactured threats), that the number of religious people is increasing.

If we can get the leadership to stop using manufactured threats in this country, the religiosity will decline.

Here's to hoping... :toast:

k&r

and a favorite saying of mine . . . "Your right to practice your religion ends where my right to not practice it begins."

No-one's religion (including my own) has any place in government.

you're talking about war on God.

"When we someone other than an idiot in the White House who will appoint REAL JURISTS to the SCOTUS, I want ACTIVE, PURPOSEFUL CHALLENGE TO HEARING THE WORD "GOD" IN ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING A GOVERNMENT OR PUBLICLY FUNDED EDIFICE."


That would be, uh, unconstitutional.

"Traditional" invocations to the "Deity" are there already, like some carving on a building, but having a PRAYER at the beginning of a session of the GOVERNMENT?

Sorry.

If that's "kosher" (so to speak) then I want a 2 minute dissertation on ANY subject legal to talk about in public put into the rotation.

SURELY that's fair.

And "War on GOD"?? PLEASE get real.

But there is one thing you better realize: if every single atheist, agnostic, or strict constitutional constructionist was presented with the choice I presented, AND THEY VOTED for the candidate supporting that choice, we would never have this argument again.

There is NOTHING in the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES that mandates GOD in GOVERNMENT, the use of RELIGION in any GOVERNMENT FUNCTION; PERIOD.

If you want to be really picky about it, to do otherwise is "...uh, unconstitutional."

:rofl:

If you don't like the mention of God in our government, blame the founding fathers. The invocation of God has been there from the very beginning.

I'm curious to know... I know they mentioned "our creator"...

But... "The invocation of God"? Please explain.

I meant the reference to God, while still maintaining the notion that religion should not play a role in the actual governance of the nation. Things such as appointing a christian chaplain, passing a national day of prayer. Things like that.

I would also say that the term "creator" is a refernece to God. If not, what does creator mean?

if they don't believe in one.

The first national day of prayer that you mentioned wasn't official and was objected to by Jefferson (at least).

The chaplain thing you mention was done before the Bill of Rights was ratified.

So your "things like that" are pretty much without merit.

If you look at everything said by the founding fathers on the subject of God and religion, it's really sad how the overtly-religious among us have run amok in our gov't with their beliefs.

And anyway, for the record, James Madison - nickname "Father of the Constitution" was very much opposed to even appointing chaplains.

"Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them."
-- Franklin

Other than obliquely under "Separation of Church and State. "

The "Tradition" of the "invocation" is what you're talking about.

Tell you what: I'll become a Druid, and we can bring back the "Tradition" of sacrifices to the rain and sun.

Or, if you like it better, I'll become a Satanist, and we can "Invoke" demons to start the sessions of congress.

In the words of "Tin Pan Alley": "All...or nothing at all."

Where did I say that the term "God" appears in the Constitution? So how can you defy me to prove something I never even said?

I just meant that having God referenced in our government is a long-standing tradition. Why are you getting your panties in a bunch over that?

the constitution states that not only are we a nation built on religious freedom, we are also a nation built on freedom from religion. The constitution states that no state religion can be imposed on anyone in the United States. Religion was brought in by politicians who use it as a way of gaining political power. It does not belong in government.

As for god and religion being a long standing tradition in our government, it is a long standing, anti-constitution tradition forced on me my entire life. I too am sick of it!

If you bring up the FOUNDING FATHERS again, it would be wise to know what the FOUNDING FATHERS actually believed. I for one am sick of every thing being attributed to the FOUNDING FATHERS, and most of what is attributed has nothing to do with their beliefs. Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would never include god in anything having to do with government.

If the worst injustice committed against you has been seeing "In God We Trust" on your money, or in seeing the word God on some government edifice, or in having to listen to a short prayer before the start of court or a local board meeting, then you have lived a pretty charmed life.

And if you feel that strongly, file a lawsuit against the government to remove all vestiges of God from all public documents, buildings, currency, etc. Oh, and to abolish the National Christmas Tree. I can only imagine the angst you must feel over seeing that monstrosity each December.

Good luck! :)

to the many who force their religion on me.

I do believe in the Constitution of the United States, and having the word god on anything remotely tied to government is an abomination. It is silent agreement that we have a state religion, which is unconstitutional. Of course our recent government has basically turned the Constitution of the U.S. into toilet paper. Anyway, while the word god remains on things of government, those of us who follow different beliefs will always know that we have to be careful since we are good scapegoats for politicians.

Actually what is the monstrosity each December (and now everyday after Halloween) is the materialistic frenzy that Christmas has become. Just imagine Jesus walking through a mall in December!!!!!!!!!!!

why should our money say "in god we trust"? i certainly dont believe in any of that BS. i took offense when my teacher talked about the fact that some of the laws of physics were rubber stamped by God on the universe. now he was only joking but still, i should not have to hear one reference to a figure God. what is it with the monotheism anyway? judaism was the evolution forward of a polytheistic religion etc. you can bring up the founding fathers all you want but the only way to assure that anyone is not offended by religion is simply to strip religion.

anyway, you make it sound like this is not an issue worth caring about. how is something unconstitutional not worth caring about? is it because it does not affect my life each and every day? well, first of all it does. and second of all, the point of being a progressive with convictions is that i care about things larger than us. i remember the absolute humiliation i felt upon my refusal to stand for the pledge of allegiance. i pointedly denied my teacher when she asked me to stand and i hold to that position. i think that having Under God in our pledge is a disgrace, and complete and total disgrace. one that was not started by your scapegoat founding fathers either. oh no, that little doozy was inserted by eisenhower against the "terrible, evil, and godless" soviets. same thing with the money.

just because someone cares about an issue that seems trivial to you does not mean you should insult and marginalize said issue.

:evilgrin: :hi:

Early Christians objected to it. The tree won out, and the Christians figured if you can't beat 'em, adopt 'em.

Where the English version of the song goes "O Christmas Tree" the original version (in German) goes "O Tannenbaum
(oh pine tree)."


http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_tree.htm

As for "In God We Trust" on the money, that was not from the Founding Fathers, either.
That one started during the Civil War at the urging of various religious activists, and
it only replaced "E Pluribus Unum" as the national motto during the McCarthy era (1954).

the odious practice, seemingly only due to "tradition" (which is a VERY weak reason).

I'm not attempting to do anything. I just don't get all worked up over minor references to God in the mechanics of government proceedings, e.g., an oath before testifying, or in hearing God Save This Honorable Court. It does zero harm to anyone, and is not the endorsement of a state-run religion.

I just don't see why some people get enraged over something so trivial. it's a passing reference to a deity that has no bearing on the actual governance.

So that is not Invoking the Presence of a "Deity" in a meeting of a public governing body?

And YES, "GOD SAVE..." goes back to "GOD SAVE THE KING." I think Britain still does that.

I am ENRAGED because I am forced to participate in a CHRISTIAN RITUAL. Do you think that if I got on my knees and chanted, "I confess that there is one god whose name is ALLAH and MOHAMMED is his prophet, peace be upon him," that it would have gone over very well?

My right to do so, if it's their right to say "...in the name of JESUS we pray..." don't you think?

This goes WAY beyond tradition, chum. And FAR, FAR BEYOND A "...passing reference..."

since it started.

I guess you don't have a problem with that. I do.

I'd like to see it ALL cut out, ASAP. That way whatever you want to legitimize in your private life... hey, go for it. Be as assholey of a bigot as you please. But we need to stop the spread of that shit into the public sector where it affects public policy.

Yes, I am all in favor of discrimination under the guise of religion. Come on! How in the heck did you get that from my posts?

I just don't mind the mere mention of religion in the public arena. Sorry, I guess we just disagree.

It's happened since this country started. It's time it stopped.

Stripping these people of the comfort (and illusion) of these 'mere mentions' will go a ways toward conveying to them that their stewardship of this country's direction is *over*.

Who are "these people"? We've had these mere mentions of religion in the public square with both Dems and Repubs in power.

And yes, they exist on both sides of the aisle, although the VAST majority are pukes.

when black people were fighting for the right to be considered human and citizens, were they bigots for being sick of being oppressed by the majority?

Like I said elsewhere, I'm not readin every post in the thread.

I'm well aware that there are some people here who like to paint religious people as nutjobs... and yeah, that's bigotry.

I've gone rounds with them myself, due to my spiritual beliefs.

Yup, you're talkin to a certified woo-woo here. :P



Oh, but that said, there's far more bigotry on the part of those trying to deny minority groups their civil rights, IMO.

Poor, poor, persecuted Christians. It's so unfair that not every single person shares their particular religious beliefs, and even worse, that some of those heathens (gasp!) don't want Christianity influencing the laws and government.

I'm guessing that's what the "bigot" jab was about.

"my christian faith informs my decisions", and the one who says "it is incumbent upon us as a christian nation..."

But the first is STILL an opening for the second. If someone believes his faith informs his decisions, fine. Just tell us the decisions. If the decision is sound, it doesn't need propping up by a deity, and if it is not he can avoid making his deity look like an ass.

Is there really any difference at all between "informed by my faith" and Nancy Reagan's "informed by my astrologer"?

So it is not YOUR ox that is being gored. It is never an issue if you are not the one being discriminated against, whose value as a person and a citizen is not being questioned.

This 'passing reference to a diety that has no bearing on the actual governance' keeps atheists OUT of that government. We can point to the hundreds of women, minorities, gays in government, but how many declared atheists are there? Even here, on DU, I've seen people claim that atheists cannot have any morals, because they don't have a bible - that all morality is biblically based. A Presidential candidate once declared that atheists should not be considered citizens.

This is "trivial"?

I didn't think this issue would cause such an uproar. Let me be clear:

I do not want a state-ordained religion. I do not want anyone discriminated against on the basis of religion. I do not want religion used as a litmus test for any government job, benefit, entitlement, etc.

BUT: I see no problem with passing references to God on an inscription, on our money, or a short "God Save This Honorable Court" before court starts in the morning. Are these things necessary? Of course not. But they also don't discriminate. And I'm not even a Christian. I'm not even religious. And I certainly don't feel persecuted by these things.

Lastly, I would point out that so many people on here talk about being offended. You know what? There is no Constitutional right to be free from being offended. So the fact that you're offended is absolutely meaningless when you're talking about the constitutionality of something.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3065013&mesg_id=3065013

Oh and by the way...THANKS.

Court rulings against displaying the 10 Commmandments in courtrooms, for instance, have been based on the idea that anyone who is on trial should have the reasonable expectation of a fair trial. If the defendant is an atheist (or any non-Christian, for that matter), and he sees the decalogue on the wall, an opening prayer, "so help me God" on the witness stand, etc., can he have a reasonable expectation that he'll get a fair trial, when Christian doctrine and beliefs are implicitly endorsed by the court?

And again, the "foot in the door" principle. Right-wing fundies actually argue today that this is a "Christian Nation" specifically *because* we have the motto on our money and "under god" in the pledge. Self-fulfilling.

You raise the issue of whether the atheist defendant can reasonably expect a fair trial. That implies that the court (or jury) would hold his atheism against him. But how would anyone know he's an atheist in the first place? How would that even come up?

And I think there's a distinction between an inscription on the wall, and the mindset of the actual jurors deciding a case. Just because there may be a passing reference to God in the hallway, that doesn't mean every juror (or judge for that matter) is a christian, let alone a die-hard christian.

I think the fair trial argument is misguided.

s/he would not be able to take an oath "so help me god." The jury and judge would then know.

You are saying that an atheist would have LIE in order to get a fair trial. Or at least adopt the military policy of "Don't ask, don't tell." Well fuck that and fuck the Christian privilege in this country.

Or maybe you just know more than the courts that have ruled on this issue.

I see your point on the oath. I agree no one should have to swear on the bible if they don't believe in it. But I believe a lot of courts have abandoned the "so help you god" thing in the oath. It's more common to just say: Do you swear to tell the truth? At least where I practice. If that's the case, do you still maintain that an atheist can't get a fair trial?

You seem very angry against Christians. Why is that?

What privileges do Christians get that others don't?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/top_stories__1/election_2008_43_would_never_vote_for_mormon_candidate

Regardless of the candidate's positions - the fact that they are an atheist would be enough to not vote for them.

Can you sit there and honestly say that simply opting to take a secular oath, tipping off the jury to your non-belief, wouldn't awaken this very kind of bigotry? Since jurors are generally pulled from voting records, statistically one could expect 7 of the jurors to be prejudiced against atheists.

What rate of bigotry toward the non-religious do you suppose exists in the part of the population that isn't considered "likely voters"? Do you suppose they would be more enlightened and tolerant, or less?

You seem very angry against Christians. Why is that?

Red herring. But a very common one thrown out there, one I assume is intended to mute the atheist's point of view by suggesting it is irrationally based in the emotion of anger. I'm angry about being viewed as a 2nd class citizen by at least 60% of the population, I'll tell you that.

What privileges do Christians get that others don't?

If you've been reading this whole thread and don't have an answer for that yourself, I really can't help you.

Not using anger as a debate technique. But you used the F word a couple times in your prior post, as well as saying you were sick of something. So it seemed a little angry.

So what if voters wouldn't vote for an atheist? That's not an example of the government doing anything against you, or a violation of church and state. That's the private decision of individuals. I disagree with it, but it's not the government intruding on your right to do anything. And what would you propose the government do about that? Force the people to vote for you?

I don't see what privileges christians have in this country. I really don't.

Then please give me some examples of how christians get special privileges.

thanks

Here's a list of 40 from a diversity workshop run by a professor at Seton Hall University.
http://pirate.shu.edu/~schlosle/cpexamples.htm

But really really stretching things. Most of these things simply come from the fact that christians are the majority in this country. Go to any foreign country where some other religion is the majority, and the same would be true for that religion.

And all this fear of violence, having one's kids taken away, etc. is really more hyperbole than anything else. Is there a lot of violence against non-christians in this country that I'm simply not aware of?

That's the point! Are you really this clueless, or do you have to work at it?

And all this fear of violence, having one's kids taken away, etc. is really more hyperbole than anything else.

Have seen many of these stories, covered by media outlets, right here on DU. I'll dig up a bunch for you if you're really interested - but I somehow doubt you're here to learn.

No need for insults.

I have to take some umbrage at your comment that I'm not here to learn, as if I am the mindless newbie and you are the esteemed scholar who is here to show me the truth. I'm here to discuss and debate like anyone else. And yes, I am very open to new things.

I'm really having trouble seeing your overall point. We live in a country where the majority of people are christians. You then cite a ton of so-called privileges that are not based on any state-sanctioned religion but the simple fact that christians are in the majority. As long as it's not the government ordaining discrimination, what do you propose? That people stop being christians so you will no longer be in the minority?

And yes, I'd be very curious to learn about violent acts committed against non-christians for religious purposes. I'm sure it happens occasionally (doesn't all crime) but I'm not aware of any instances. So yes, please gather some stories and share. I'd be especially interested in hearing about how peoples' kids were taken away for being the wrong religion.

You asked for a list of privileges. I gave you one with plenty. You hand-wave them away, saying they're just things that come along with being in the majority. THAT'S THE POINT. You do realize one of the reasons the Constitution exists is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, right? And it's not just about making sure the government as an entity doesn't codify discrimination. Laws may have been on the books guaranteeing equality in the 60s but bigoted individuals (who were an overwhelming majority in many communities) were discriminating against people because of their skin color. The way I read your logic, that really shouldn't have been a big deal, since burning crosses and keeping black kids in their own inferior school is just a benefit of being a majority, right?

Does an atheist deserve jail because 7 people on the jury of his peers don't believe they can trust his testimony - merely because of their personal prejudices? Does he just have to deal with that because it's individual prejudices and not "official" government-sanctioned discrimination?

I've done a little research on your posts, and I am detecting a common theme. I don't know how long you'll stick around, but hopefully it will be long enough to open your mind and learn.

Violence against non-Christians:
http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/adl_responds.asp

Of course you're free to Google any of the following phrases for enlightenment, too:
"atheists get death threats in America"
"wiccan child custody"

Just use some creative keywords. You'll find lots of hits. But I'm sure none of that really exists - I mean, you've never heard of it, so obviously it can't. Right?

You're researching my posts? Have a little extra time on your hands?

OK, you're in the minority. What do you want to do about it? Seriously. What are you advocating as a solution?

Of course no one should be discriminated against on the basis of religion. Or for any other reason. We are in agreement there. And there are laws against it.

Pretty easy to do once you are a contributing member here. You should consider donating! Giving money to Democrats is a good thing!

The only way you fight bigotry is by confronting it. Unfortunately there are so many Christians who express attitudes like yours - "Eh. Big deal. It's not like you're being burned at the stake anymore. As long as the government isn't instituting a state church, it's no real concern." I don't know how you force people to confront their own bigotry - especially when it's as ingrained (and sanctioned) as the bigotry toward non-believers. I just know that it's a problem and at least MAYBE you've come a little bit to acknowledge it exists. So perhaps I accomplished something today.

It is not something I ever thought of before - the privilege of being christian. So yes, you have made me think.

To me, religion does not ever come up in any aspect of my daily life so I kind of assumed it wasn't really a factor. Then again, I don't really think about being white either.

equal time on our money and court houses was
given to "In Satan We Trust" or "One Nation Under Allah"
on a rotating basis, you hypocrite.

seriously.

Let's pretend that some other religion - let's use Buddhism for this example - were the majority religion here, and not your religion. Now let's go further and say that because of the 'harmless' endorsement of Buddha on everything, some fundamentalists were trying to pass a law which outlawed all violence, including eating meat, because it was against their faith.

How would that make you feel about the whole issue? Honestly, please.

it's a long standing annoying tradition. And since the republicans have been taken over by the fundies, any mention of Jesus or God in government makes me cringe.

...has a nice ring to it...

OK, it's not in the constitution. I'm reaching here,

agnostic or uninterested in religion of any sort. I love how the "FOUNDING FATHERS" are always cited when religion comes up. The founding fathers were intellects, and had often questioned religion. Mostly, they agreed that religion must be separate from government. Here is a link to Archiving America that specks to the FOUNDING FATHER's religious beliefs:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

And other interesting links
http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html

http://www.undergodprocon.org/pop/FoundersQuotes.htm

that website, citing Franklin's essay "Toleration":

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

Seems like we are currently in the "complainers of persecution" period.

Though people tend to make assumptions...

Back to all those churches on every corner.

Which means that NO ONE could force religion down their throats and they were free to believe whatever they wanted. That means to believe in a god of their choosing or no god at all.

Boy, the twisting of the Constitution is alive and well! :puke:

How did I twist the Constitution? Where did I even make any claim of what the Constitution says?

Of course you have the right to believe what you want. Who said you didn't?

How is religion being forced down anyone's throat?

Read the Constitution. NO WHERE does it say "god"

You obviously have an agenda. :eyes:

I do not see him claim that it did. He claimed, quite correctly that 'mentions of God were there from the founding of this country'.

Also, here is a Constitution:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.preamble

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.


According to somebody in FReeperville, that is true of ALL 50 STATES, even states like Maine and Kentucky that were established very soon after the Constitution was ratified.

They argue "freedom from religion" vs the "freedom of religion" point relentlessly.

This 50 states argument is an argument I haven't heard before.

Obviously that point makes sense according to their twisted sense of logic. :eyes:

ok, I'm not sure I can take you seriously now. Seriously? You don't pay attention much to current events, do you?

Which founders are you talking about? The ones who came here to persecute others freely or the ones who signed a document declaring some people as subhuman?

What freedom fighters!

It's easy to make jokes, but what the founding fathers did was brilliant and visionary. Did they have certain social constraints based on the time? Of course. But to denigrate their accomplishment is to trivialize the greatness of what they did.

You really need to learn a little world history to appreciate their greatness.

You Americans are taught to worship these founders and never question them, in a way that any fundie would be in awe at. There was literally nothing the "founding fathers" did that was in any way genuine, original, or in the interests of actual liberty.

trust their word

propagated by those who would impose a religious tyranny if they could.

In actuality, the "invocation of God" you cite was not there at the beginning. The Constitutional Convention opened every day WITHOUT a prayer to any god, whether it be a beam of light, a resurrected corpse, a being with the head of a crocodile or any other such nonsense. This was done on purpose.

I've been reading "Moral Minority: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers" by Brooke Allen. In it, she contends that, while it may be the case that most westerners were caught up in some sort of Christianity during the enlightenment, but it just so happens that our founders were not in that category. They were atheists, freethinkers, deists and heretics. The more you learn about the actual thought of the most important founders on religion, the more trivial and frivolous any such position relying on customary practice becomes. Thomas Jefferson was not Cottom Mather.

We are a secular nation, by intelligent design.

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which essentially means keeping government out of religion and people are free to pray or not to pray, or to reference their deity if they so choose.

They are free to worship whatever they choose, as long as they are not doing so on my dime.

I don't care if a politician is religious - I just do not feel it prudent to encourage making our nation appear to be founded upon a state religion the way it is now.

The whole idea that removing religion from government is a "war on god" is rediculous. God is perfectly safe in churches. Leave it to believers to insist that resisting the intrusion of religion is somehow a war against religion.

So if I invade your house, I'm innocent and you're the one who is guilty of attacking me?

It is not unconstitutional to actually implement the separation of church and state required by the 1st ammendment.

however there is the Establishment clause in which it is implied. By that Congress cannot favor an established religion, but they also can't stop the FREE practice of it.

Then why all the Christian prayers, chaplain, and so forth IN CONGRESS? Seeing as they represent us ALL, why no equal time for the many other religions practiced by this nation's people?

When government officials proclaim this to be a "Christian nation" and reinforce that at every opportunity, the effect on non-Christians is no different than if a white police chief repeatedly reminded everyone that his city was predominantly white. It may be fact, but it's unnecessary to point out and criminally irresponsible coming from someone with power over the citizenry. It's done only because it has a very calculated chilling effect on those outside the favored group: "You aren't one of US."

All or nothing. PERIOD.

Sid

but again, you already knew that.

You seem to be either incapable of, or unwilling to, understanding that.

Sid

:wtf:

Loki: "I've heard a rant like this before. You're not talking about going home. You are talking about war on God! Well, fu$% that! I have seen what happens to the proud when they try to take on the throne. I'm going back to Wisconsin."

from the movie "Dogma"

but anti-religious hostility seems to be increasing on DU. I have added to my collection of religion bashing OPs and threads alot in the last two days.

Hillary-bashing, Dem-bashing, party purges (;) have those started yet this time around?)

I tend to think that sort of thing is a matter of perspective more than anything else.

Anyhow... trying to get any and all references to "God" or "a creator" out of the public arena just does not in any way resemble a war on god, so that's what struck me as unbelievable about your comment.

I'm a spiritual person so I'm sensitive about people bashing religion or its adherents... but bashing the inclusion of religious stuff in the public arena... well I'm completely supportive of that effort.

I am not that supportive of 'bashing the inclusion of religious stuff in the public arena'. A plurality of this thread shows that it is mainly supported by people who are hostile to religion. I don't share that outlook, nor that priority on issues.

about people who recognize the value of getting all mention of religion out of the commons.

Unless by "it" you meant this thread... in which case... so what?

If it's not on your priority list, fine. But to act as if getting rid of the religious language in govt entities is somehow an 'attack on God'... well that's just ridiculous, really.

that they do not just want to get religion 'out of the commons' (wherever that is, is that any place outside of my house or my business (heck, even a business is public even if it is my bookstore) or a church? Is it a terrible thing when candidates like Gore, Jackson, or Kucinich talk about their religion? Is it bad for the local Democratic Central Committee to say the "PoA" before every meeting, including the words 'under God'? (Personally I think the whole saying the Pledge thing seems hokey and grade-schoolish and I do not even remember if we did it in grade school ten billion years ago.)

They want to get rid of religion period. They are religiophobic bigots who do not just hate mention of God in the commons, they hate God as many of their posts clearly show.

Again, I do not think it is ridiculous. A little bit hyperbolic and maybe not universally true, but not ridiculous either.

:rofl:

Put down the crackpipe, lady!

How can we hate what we don't believe EXISTS?

:rofl:

in the 'demented minds of the religiously insane' and also certainly exists as a concept, just as surely as Mike Gravel's UnFairTax (which I hate). A god exists, like a function in algebra, as a set of attributes in the religion that worships said deity. By hating the religion, it is the equivalent of hating the god to the people who believe in that religion and that god.

:crazy:

You go on hating concepts.

I will continue to mull over ideas.

I'm not reading all the posts... so... maybe I've missed the one that isn't about separating Church and state, and is instead about the goal of eradicating ALL religion, even in people's private lives. Would you do me a favor and please point one out? It's a big thread.

Anyway, by "the commons" I meant the things that we all pay for and have to share. Anything funded with tax money shouldn't be glorifying one religion to the exclusion of all or even most others. It's inherently unfair (AND IMO, unconstitutional).

I think it's a terrible thing when candidates are *obligated* to discuss religion, in order to be a candidate. We all know how well an atheist candidate would do, don't we? What does that say about society? It sure doesn't say that religion is in any danger of being eradicated, that's for sure.

In my opinion it's ridiculous. It's definitely hyperbolic... and how could it not be absolutely not universally true? How could it be universally true that anyone who believes in the separation of church and state is really wanting to eradicate religion / declare "war on god"?

Also, is it possible to hate something that doesn't exist? I don't think those people who you perceive as hating god actually do. Seems to me they probably just have contempt for the idea of any god, and you read the contempt as hate for a being that they don't even acknowledge exists.

also 6, 57, 61, and 135.

"I am sick of it in daily life"

"take your god and shove it"

Even this obsession about removing it from public life. That sounds like either prohibiting religious people from running for office, or prohibiting them from talking about their religion if they do so.

I never said that religion was in any danger of being eradicated, only that some people have the hatred and have the desire. Religion has already been pushed from alot of places where it used to be and done so by judicial fiat rather than by the will of the people. To me, THAT is unconstitutional - the job of SCOTUS is to prevent radical change, not to create it. The voters and their representatives are supposed to change laws and practices, not a judicial ruling class, even in cases where I agree with the judges.

I have answered the hatred and belief question elsewhere. Basically, hatred of religion I clumsily called hatred of God. From a followers persepective, there is no difference.

Sorry, but I can't agree that they have to kowtow to societal norms if those norms are unfair. This country is supposed to be about fairness, equality... all that good stuff. I know it hardly lives up to the ideal, but we shouldn't forget it entirely.

I only looked at the first two you mentioned cause I'm short on time now... but it seems odd to me that you're so upset by those that are upset by the disgusting nature of these religious institutions... but you seem to have little to say about the disgusting religious institutions themselves. Doesn't it seem to you that it's the disgust with the history and current practices of some religious organizations that the people hate?

Either way I do know there are people here who will shit all over someone simply for being spiritual or religious... so... there's no defending that kind of thing. That's just assholes being assholes, IMO.

I am more upset by the fact that the Cowboys beat the Giants :argh: than I am about any of the predictable religion-bashing posts in this thread. I am just trying to point out religiophobia and specious reasoning where I think I see it.

This: "organized religion is the greatest scam for social control and wealth redistribution ever..." seems like a ridiculous over-generalization to me, and really only germaine to the issue if the OP is "tell us why you hate religion".

My Oxford History of SCOTUS does not say when or how Plessy was over-turned. It's not about societal norms as much as it is established laws and customs. If they are constitutional in 1896, then they should remain constitutional until the constitution is changed. Unjust laws can be changed legislatively by agitating and educating. I think having nine elites change them by fiat is undemocratic and creates a dangerous precedent. For one thing, it allows a court packed with Scalias, Thomases, Alitos, and Robertses to impose alot of reactionary laws by fiat.

or is it more of a Cowboys-hater? :P

Understood that from your point of view, the statement about organized religion is over the top. However it seems a not entirely unreasonable point of view to me. And yeah, it's somewhat off topic but eh.

Maybe Brown v. Board of Education would be a better reference, that's the case that resulted in the law changing. The custom at the time was that blacks weren't allowed to mingle freely with whites. It was as constitutional at the time as allowing mega-churches to be run as businesses and get away with paying no taxes, I suppose. ;)

Personally, I actually LIKE certain religious groups. The local Episcopal and UCC churches for example. The UCC minister is a personal friend, and a fellow veteran for peace. He would rather stick his hand in a meat grinder than make a "God wants you to vote this way" comment, and every year he declines to make invocations at local government functions.

Now THAT is my idea of a Just and Religious man. The local "Crossroads Franchise," a creature of the DeVos family and massively fundamentalist REGULARLY pillory that good man, especially after he invited the Islamic Center of Flint to come and have a joint prayer service, which I participated in, by the way. One can enjoy the beauty and power of the Muslim "Call to Prayer" without believing in Allah.

The reason that you get that kind of backlash is the condescending "what's the harm?" attitude that allows the FUNDAMENTALISTS to get their foot in the door of government and remake it in THEIR image.

i don't think christians have a right to dominate public discourse with their faith. i think christians have every right to worship, as they choose, in private. i don't understand why christians believe otherwise in a country they share with athiests, muslims, jews, buddhists, etc, etc, etc.

I made my strictures to GOVERNMENT RELATED VENUES AND OPERATIONS.

"Religiophobic Bigots"? Are you sure you're in the right place here? I do not give a damn what YOU believe as long as you don't make any movement to rub my face in it.

You sound just like one of those Bushites saying "They hate America." As to hating God, you might as well say that I hate Zeus or Isis because I give those "deities" as much validity as any other, which is none.

My request is reasonable and small: keep your RELIGION out of the GOVERNMENT. You want a Creche on the City Hall Lawn? I don't care; fighting about that makes as much sense as if I objected to a Blow Up Santa Claus.

You really need to stop putting words in other peoples' mouths and purporting to read their minds.

public arena includes discussions of many things including what motivates one - and if that is religion one must be silent?

Keep shoving your religion in my face based on your "Free Speech" rights.

I'll show you and any of your kids present a little free speech: I'll Invoke Satan's wishes that all your sexual and material fantasies come true.

Fair is fair.

:-)

What is the problem with just not wearing your Religion on your sleeve?

I realize that these irrational (by definition: faith is NOT rational) beliefs in certain myths keep you warm at night and stop you from being afraid of the dark and death, but some of us do not have your faith, and would appreciated NOT having our phobias enhanced by your constant preaching.

Is this too much to ask?

Really?

We don't come into your church and start in on Chaos and Nihilism. Why do you continue to torment us with your (what we consider) BLATHER?

Just to use a STUPID comparison, it's like if your kids believe in Santa and mine don't, then I don't feel free to disabuse your kids of what I consider to be their illusions, do I?

If nothing else, what you do is just plain RUDE.

Religion shouldn't be silent by any means... but if public money is used to pay for these things, it should be done fairly.

It's obviously not being handled fairly now.

BUT

I don't want to hear about religion from politicians!

& I don't want to hear about religion when I'm out shopping and someone that doesn't even know me says god bless you!

& I don't want people knocking on the door to my home to proselytize to me!

When I was growing up people kept their religion to themselves.

Now these religious nuts won't leave people in peace.

Now who is crapping on who here?

they always want to control other people (I am kidding, of course, but look at what you wrote, basically "I do not want other people to violate my sensibilities by talking to me about their religion." Basically, you want to impose your standards about proper topics of conversation on everybody else.)


I would say that the person who goes ballistic is crapping on the other person who cheerfully says 'God bless you'.

It's a little bit confusing when people say that having another person talk to you is 'shoving something down your throat.'

FYI-when someone comes on MY PROPERTY and tries to INVADE MY WORLD-then I have a right to tell em to shove off-and that's being polite about it!


Sorry, but when someone blesses me or who says all sorts of religious-y things to me-someone they don't even know or what religion I am or NOT-it is RUDE and INTRUSIVE and PRESUMPTIVE.



Lastly, Politicians should know better than to bring religion up since most of em have a$$ ki$$ing down to a science & they know they mustn't offend.




So excuse me, but I find that your logic is twisted. But then, most people who defend pushing religion will do anything to justify what they are doing.


That's what I hate about religious nuts. :eyes:

not shared by everybody.

I do not consider it an invasion when somebody knocks on my door. I do not consider it rude when somebody says something to me which they consider to be friendly (except for the idiot drivers who tap their horns at me when I am on my bicycle, what the fu$# are they thinking).

My logic is not twisted. My standards are just different. Your intolerance of other standards and arrogant and rude belief in the superiority of your own does, however, make you a fine fundamentalist.


I will pray for you.


(Secretly I am hoping that your head just exploded.)

Your condescension is annoying.

We do not begrudge you your church: most of us do not even begrudge its tax-free status (I do, but I'm in the minority).

The chambers of government are not your church. My house and property are not your church. I do not attend your church and am never to be found in it.

Do not accost me with your religious views. I do not accept them, and the implication that I am somehow defective for not holding them is insulting at best.

Or who says Praise Allah or Buddah or whatever religion you are NOT to you in line at the grocery store. :eyes:

Your holier than thou attitude says it all: you refuse to understand because you think it's okay to verbally upchuck whatever you feel like on people whenever you feel like it whether they like it or not.

Well, that's just rude and piggish and obnoxious.

maybe you could re-read this thread. I am not the one assuming that the person who disagrees with me is a nut or an a$$hole. In fact, I am probably guilty of going door to door "selling abortion or gay rights" since I have done lit drops and canvassing for Democratic candidates. I hope any Republicans whose doors I knock on, or where I leave literature are more tolerant than you.

I cannot understand when somebody hyperbolically equates going door to door with getting "in someone's face" or how making an off-hand or friendly-intended comment is the same thing as "verbally upchucking". Unless they are trying to be funny.

Your own words demonstrate your intolerance for any point of view or manners than your own, but I am just pointing that out, not making a condemnation.

Either way, it's probably rude and obnoxious, IYO.

or anything OTHER than religion. However the people who want to discuss those topics are NOT the ones knocking on my door or bothering me out in public. No-it's ALWAYS the fundie religious nuts. Yes, nuts. Because anyone who obsesses that much about religion is nuts IMO.

You know something? I put up with the intrusion upon my beliefs oh so politely for years and years. But I'm DONE with being polite. When * used the christian religion to manipulate and control the population, that was when I put the gloves on. Enough is Enough.

BTW-You need look no further than Iraq to see the evil extreme christian religion has wrought. I'm not talking about the muslims. I'm talking about the christian fundies & freepers who cheer all the killing over there because they HATE muslims. And don't say they don't. Only people who hate muslims with all their being could support the war over there.

The christian fundies have not built any bridges with their actions. All they've done is further divide this country. Maybe if they shut the hell up there would be some "tolerance". Except they have no idea what that word even means.

WWJD? Not what the fundies are doing by any stretch of the imagination!


Here's something you should read:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2278120#2278210

No Solicitations - Commercial, Religious, or Charitable! It works every time.

but didn't want to "offend" the neighbors. LOL! :crazy:

BTW-Welcome to DU! :hi:

Will the 'god bless you' person then be offended when the reply is: that's silly, there is no god? Of course they will. You can't challenge their beliefs. They would be outraged. It didn't even occur to them that maybe the person they said 'god bless you' to doesn't believe. No, they just assume everyone does and go about their day oblivious. It's a ridiculous double standard.

but if you try sometimes, you might find, you get what you need.

You think that's a double standard?

One person says "God bless you" which is the translational equivalent of "I wish you well" or, if you have done something nice "I want good things to happen to you".

It's not an invitation to argue cherished beliefs, although I have done plenty of that with Christian friends. So, yeah, if you respond with the equivalent of 'screw off, you silly idiot' to a comment meant to be friendly, then some people will get offended.

Is it really an awful world when people go around making idiotic comments in an attempt to be friendly? It is just what happens in a pluralistic society.