Ive always taken any reference to "God" as a secular God, at least when it comes to our government. Its pretty damn cocky to think it means only "your" god. You cant throw the term "god" around and exclusively relate it to religion either. I can believe in God and fully believe all organized religion is a scam.

I have no beef with God being referred to in our government. I do have a beef with religion trying to instill their beliefs via the government or using my tax dollars to push ideology. Faith based initiatives is a prime example.. how is this fair... "Oh, I see you are NOT a religious soup kitchen, sorry no FUNDING for you". Yet, Moonies get 2 million of our tax dollars for abstinence courses to be taught in our public schools. thats just unreal. Thats not America.

Wouldnt it be something is Islam had a 51% stake in our country...
where would Christians be when Muslims try to get prayer 3 times daily in school? Or they want a copy of the Koran displayed in the entrance of a court? Do you think theyd be right there advocating for them?

All I can say is my opinion, I wouldnt want all laws based on that :)

Nativity scenes on Public land should not be a problem as long as all religions can do other things and Atheists can come and go as they please but not in governemtn buildings or their surrounding areas.....I can see how some people throw a fit about that, BUT IMO thats just silly. If someone wants to set a booth up, with city permission, to hand out flyers on their religion at the beach, so be it...as long as the city approves them all and atheists too.

ten commandments at the courthouse I disagree with becuase it gives the impression that all the laws upheld in the building behind it are based on those and if you dont believe in those than youre already at a disadvantage...That im not a fan of

dola...

Since Blackadar thought the same thing you did, Flasch, the misunderstanding about my point was most likely my fault. I apologize for being harsh and calling you a tool.

Im fine with public speech just not inside or surrounding institutional buildings, and Im NOT okay with Religious speak by institutions. We may be closer on this than I thought...

Im not one for keeping people's religions quiet, Im for exposing and talking about all...just in appropriate places.

no worries, i find debate fun....I love this stuff AND you dont have to worry about friends getting mad like in RL

Um...they do. There's a chaplain for both the House and the Senate. They also invite in outsiders occasionally for special prayers and invocations. Most state legislatures do as well. While some leave out "Jesus" in favor of a more generic "god," many do not.

As to whether this is a "Christian" nation or not, see my post above. In (think it was 1896...) the U.S. Supreme Court cited more than 70 legal precedents to indicate that it unequivocally IS a Christian nation. More recent court decisions have clearly refuted this claim. While I understand you may agree more with the latter courts, it would be wise for those who do to recognize the existence of the previous opinion and allow it to inform your arguments.

Regardless of which courts were correct, the ideal that some desire of a nation where all religions hold equal footing, where Christianity is not a fundamental component of institutions--law books, government practice, public schools, etc.--is still a long way off. We are less than 100 years away from a time when "freedom of religion" meant little more than "freedom of denomination within Christianity" in our nation. To claim that we are already there and that Christianity is somehow being newly "imposed" on others is historically ignorant. It is not being imposed, but rather being slowly shifted OUT of the public and into the private sector. Despite the emergence of a politically active Religious Right and the religiously devisive recent elections, we are not historically moving TOWARD a theocracy (as the idiots in our news media have been touting lately), but slowly AWAY from what used to be--less than 100 years ago--far more of a theocracy than it is today. (Example: In 1952 Eisenhower added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. Can you imagine trying to do something similar today? "Let's make 'God bless America' the national anthem." Yeah, right. It might have passed with flying colors in 1925, but not today.)

Most of the Religious Right are not trying to impose religion on anyone, but trying to preserve (or return to) our nation's historical--rather than modern--understanding of the role of faith in our institutions and society. (For the record, I disagree with their methods wholeheartedly. I, too, desire to see a more Christian nation, but this is biblically mandated to be done through love, personal relationships, individual transformation, and good needs, not socio-policial pressure and gerrymandering.)

They are actually completely disruptive and exclusionary. Absolutely. Imagine you are a Muslim or an atheist, hopefully thats is as far as i need to go.

A court, a park etc.. is owned by the government, which is in turn operated with our tax dollars. That nativity scene you mention, sits on PUBLIC land, owned by the STATE. That Courthouse, same thing. You can have all the nativity scenes you want, just put them on PRIVATE land. There are dozens of private parks in my city, most are owned by churches. They have every right to do whate ever they want and they do. No one has ever complained and I live in one of the most liberal cities in the country. I just dont understand why you think everyone who doesnt believe in your god should have to split the bill for your nativity scene or ten commandments monument. Do it on your time and tab, not my governments.

If a senator or congressman wanted to challenge that I would be behind him/her...but if they are ok with it as it is now then so be it....but if/when someone effected challenges it, I will certianly understand their viewpoint.



hey, i agree, if through those things above, the whole world ends up one religion than so be it....I doubt it will but if through those than who can argue with that.

Prayer (as I'm using it) is an action - sexuality is more of a concept. The two aren't comperable. A better comparision is belief in God = sexuality.

But you're right, I'm speaking more from institutional speech rather than a personal speech. I don't care if someone wants to pray in school or in the middle of the street. I do care when someone in a position of authority - in my workplace, in my kids' school, at a school sports event - wants to stop everything and everyone to have led or planned prayer.

Two points:

1. To take another step, I'd say that the expression of one's belief in God and the expression of sexuality are really what we're talking about. Action = action. And I think that's where most of our social troubles arise. We don't care what other people believe. We just don't want them to believe it where we can hear it. :D

2. I'd agree with everything you said in the second paragraph except the bit about the workplace. But that's a different issue.

I'm one of those folks who believe that a business owner should be allowed to run his/her business however they want, and if that includes a morning prayer with all of the employees, there's nothing wrong with that -- or at least it isn't any more wrong requiring morning exercises. If a worker doesn't like it, they can work elsewhere.

There are all sorts of caveats and exclusions to this position, of course. An obvious one would be jobs where one worked for the state (though I don't extend this to jobs and companies that perform contract services for the state). I also exclude large companies, because I think corporations are really more public entities and have greater social responsibility than small business entities. There are more, but I don't have the energy to go into it right now. :)

So, other than the blanket inclusion of workplaces, I agree with what you said above.

Ah, so you've come back to agree with our original point. And that is the government can and does prevent expression of religion on public property, while allowing expression of other ideas such as homsexuality on public property.

I don't see where the Bill of Rights states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of homosexuality, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

Well, if youre wanting to think homosexuality is a idea, then i guess you'll think that.

How can you back a line like "while allowing expression of other ideas such as homsexuality on public property"..? What are you talking about? What PRO GAY tax payer sponsored monuments have you ever seen? I feel dirty even debating the notion homosexuality and religion are in the same boat. Religion - ideology. Homo - biology.

The Supreme Court ruled in around 1970 or thereabouts that Secular Humanism IS a religion in and of itself, complete with its own core beliefs and practices. So your really just choosing one religion over another when you claim to be a 'Secular Humanist", and not at all being impartial or neutral. So says the Supreme Court.

What? Is this along the lines of GB senior's comments of asking how I can even be a citizen? I don't understand you here.
Talk about quotemining. Here is the next paragraph of the DoI:

Our institutions derive their powers and authority from 'the consent of the governed' (ie, the people) and not from God.

Well, nobody can spew it like you can...if you support abortion that does not make you 'pro-life', at least in the abortion argument cause you support the state-sanctioned ability of a woman to kill the unborn. Pretty simple for most folks. But keep dicing everything up to suite yourself, its pretty entertaining :)

I never claimed to be impartial or neutral, but the question remains: how do you finagle your 'God' references to include me? It's impossible. Religion is not meant to be all-inclusive, it's meant to be divisive.

1. Secular Humanism is not inclusive when its policies conflict with Judeo-Christian or other religious policies.

2. Your problem with classifying Secular Humanism as a religion is with the Supreme Court, not with me! They the ones that did it!

I support the rights of hunters, but i refuse to hunt.
I support the rights to worship, but i refuse to join a church.
I support freedom of choice, but i would not choose to have a abortion.

Catching on yet Bubba?

There's a trick question...

I am completely confused. As for (1), I never called secular humanism all-inclusive (in fact, I called all religion the opposite). As for (2), I never said I had a problem classifying SH as a religion. Am I completely missing your point? If so, what is it?

The laws, ethics, values and very concepts of fairness in this country were and are founded on Judeo-Christian principles in philosophy if not the outright religion itself...

Not on atheism, Islam, Buddism, ect...,so in that very real respect Judeo-Christian (one coming from the other) philosophy deserves its rightful place at the head of all others in terms of being honored for being our countries foundation. This is not to be intolerant of others, they just do not hold the same place in our country's history and as such do not need to be included with every religious reference ever stated in a public place. Most Americans understand and agree with this, at least according to the polls.

So in terms of the hunted, does that make you pro-life or pro-choice? Or, according to Blackadar, you can be both?

Well, if your acknowledging Secular Humanism as a religion and not some impartial/neutral position as many attempt to do then I stand corrected.

What you choose to do in your own life and what you believe others should have the right to do can differ. I don't personally have any interest in hunting, but I don't feel opposed enough to it as a practice to say that no one else should be allowed to hunt.

The founding fathers were more deists than christians. Only 2 of the 10 commandments (the biggest laws in judeo-christianity) are illegal in the US (murder and perjury). Most of our laws come from English common law. It's completely incorrect to say that our country was founded on judeo-christian principles. Influenced, of course, but not founded on. It was founded on universal principles. You don't have to be judeo-christian to want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's a liberal myth about them being mostly deists, most evidence points to them being Christian worshipping Jesus Christ Our Lord for the most part. The deist thing is revisionist history began pretty much in the 60s in public education to push secular humanist agendas.

I'm probably more of an apathetic agnostic than a true secular humanist, but either way my religion as it is doesn't involve any prayer, so to say that you can change a prayer's wording to include me (like an earlier poster said, not you) is kind of illogical.

Doesn't really answer the question, can a person claim to not like a practice but support it legally and hence consider themselves to be both pro-life and pro-choice? BTW, thought mostly politicians did that Blackadar opens the door for all of us to have it both ways in everthing now!

I was against the war in Iraq, but support the President's authority to do it so in that respect I am both Pro-War and Anti-War at the same time! That how it works, Blackadar ;)

Where is this 'evidence' that you speak of, and who specifically are you saying were Christ worshippers? The Constitution is based more on the writings of Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire than on Matthew, Paul, and Peter, so I assume you are looking at the people rather than the product.

I think you have to be both. You always have to respect someone elses ideology, especially when it comes to their own body and it hurts no one else.

What gives you the right to say you know whats best for a woman? Or for anyone for that matter? Just because I believe you shouldnt kill a defenseless animal for sport, doesnt mean that its wrong if you kill a animal for sport. It just means I dont like it, I shouldnt be able to restrict your ability to kill a deer just because I personally wouldnt kill one.

Is the concept of allowing people the freedom to do things that you wouldn't do for yourself REALLY that foreign to you, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

I don't think he's a sophisticated enough thinker to play devil's advocate - I think he's simply incapable of understanding the concept of being willing to let others have the choice of doing something you yourself don't support.

Considering he can't spell well enough to get my name right, I'd say most things are foreign to him.

The question is how do you vote on it? Which side do you support? Anybody can see the merits on different sides, but then they usually come down on one side or another and consider themselves the one or the other. Pretty basic stuff, or used to be...some like yourself apparently open to trying new ways...right...calling yourself both names is sophisticated how?

Just because you come down on one side doesn't mean you have to eliminate the other side. It doesn't have to be "us vs. them". It can (and should) be "us AND them".

You da man! And you have very pretty handwriting as well! :D

Nice of you to go back and edit your posts to correct it. Thanks!

Actually, my RL handwriting sucks...

Still confused...are you Pro-life, Pro-choice, or some new designation you've come up with?

Under the definition I provided above, it should be very easy to figure out that I'm a pro-life, pro-choice advocate. Reading comprehension is your friend...

its crystal clear what you do... You dont vote in a way that violates another humans rights.

Anyone who votes to ban abortion across the board is a facist and has no place in American government. They are simply trying to enforce their beliefs on others.

:eek: You did it again (oops!)

Yes, those damn unborn are all little facists in the making!

Ok, someone else needs to interpret for me because we're having a communication problem...

Like I can be a Pro-war, Anti-War advocate? Or on any issue, I can be Pro-___ and Anti-___?

please someone interpret this for me too.


Its been painfully obvious for far too long Bubba just refuses to broaden his mind past what hes been "taught". Anyone who thinks differently than him is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. NO NO NO, LAALALLA I DONT HEAR YOU. I gues the fear of hell will do that to people... eventually.

Every single logical response given to you is returned by nonsensical one liners, or a paragraph of conjecture labled as "facts".

Actually, in your war example above it would be more apt to say you were anti-war, pro-administration.

If you can't understand an anti-abortion (as a personal choice), pro-choice (legal rights of everyone) stance......then perhaps you simply lack the intelligence for comprehension.

Bubba is making stuff up again. Please provide a citation for your belief that the Supreme Court held that secular humanism is a religion. A simple proof that it is not recognized as such is to look at the free exercise clause. If I say an illegal action of mine is part of a secular humanist belief, I will not be able to use the free exercise clause to defend my practice.

You state that those who believe in protecting the life of the unborn are 'facists' that basically 'violate the civil rights' of those who would choose to have an abortion. Is this not correct? You just left out one component of your analysis, the unborn themselves? What civil rights do they have? But this has all been hashed out before on many different levels.

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/de...m_religion.htm