Respect for Non-Christian Viewpoints, and Constant Whining About Religion

[Kathy in Cambridge]

This is a repost of my lounge thread for the GD Denizens who don't venture over to the Lounge.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2266553

I'm a Catholic by birth and by culture but I keep Christ out of politics. This is a political message board. Separation of Church and State. Freedom from religion should be as respected as freedom of religion. This Christian victimhood crap has got to stop.

Many DUers are Christians who believe that RELIGION IS A PERSONAL MATTER and don't want it shoved down their throats. They prefer to limit the discussion of religion to family and close friends, and on message boards for Christians and about religion. Not to mention that there are many NON-CHRISTIANS on DU who are here for POLITICAL DISCOURSE.

I am also BEYOND HORRIFIED to see many Christian DUers use the same rhetoric as the right-wing. Examples:

Stealing Baby Jesus from a manger scene is a hate crime like painting a swatstika on a synagogue.

No, Virginia. One is a prank that is committed by teenagers every holiday season, and the other represents the systematic murder of six million Jews.

Expressions of Christianity are being thwarted in the US by secular humanists.

You absolutely have to be RETAHDED to believe this. Try being a Jew during the Christmas season.

The Ukrainian genocide was committed because the Soviets were atheists, and the Ukrainians were Christians.

Little did the person who post this know that I wrote my thesis on this very subject. The main goal of the state-imposed famine or genocide in Ukraine 1932-33 was to break the spirit of the Ukrainian farmer/peasant and to force them into collectivization. The Ukraine at that time was the bread basket of Europe, and the Ukrainians had an individualistic farming tradition of private ownershp of land. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANTI-CHRISTIAN HATRED!!!

You never hear of the public schools putting on Ramadan programs where the all children learn Ramadan prayers and recite them to their families in the auditorium.

You never hear of any town or city sponsoring a Passover Festival for the entire community with public funds. PUBLIC FUNDS SUPPORTING RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY ARE A VIOLATION OF CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION

Also, I can't think of any other religious event where we expect to be greeted by the merchants where we are shopping. The whole spirit of Christmas now is crass commercialism.

Now that I've aired my grievances, Happy Festivus, Merry Christmas, and for Christ's sake, please get those chips off your shoulders.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

1. Since you picked on one of my comments

A quick question: Where do you get this freedom FROM religion? It's certainly not in any American founding document.

[Cobalt Violet]

2. Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.

First amendment, for a quick answer.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

5. Congress shall make no law

About establishing a religion, doesn't give you any right to avoid religion. Just limits the actions of Congress.

[GoBlue]

13. Excuse me sweetie

but I have every damn right to avoid religion.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

20. You have the right to do so

But not to enforce it on others because you don't like what they do.

You can stay in your home and cut yourself from the outside world -- totally free of religion. But in the outside world, people of faith will express that belief.

[Cobalt Violet]

87. In the outside world I'll be laughing at them. n/t

And I have every right.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

110. Yep, you do

and they have every right to pray for you.

[Cobalt Violet]

133. Just not in my face.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

136. Depends on how you view that

And how close you consider in your face. They can stand next to you and do so. They just can't stalk you.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

235. thats disgusting i am tired of being "stalked" by christians, ya know?

the mormons and the jehovahs knock on my door, disturbing my peace to bring me their religion, unbidden, and when I tell them that I am every bit as intelligent as they, and every bit as able to discern the truth and the nature of reality as they are, and that I do not require any "coaching" from them, instead of just going away, they hatefully throw in my face how they will pray for me. Damn, I pray for them too, but for their enlightenment, not their immortal souls, which I personally feel are totally indestructible anyway.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

234. all people are people of faith, the christian right is sooo egocentric

[Jazzgirl]

224. ^5 GoBlue!

n/t

[FM Arouet666]

19. So you are saying

Atheists have no rights. Lock them up, they are heathens. Certainly that is utter nonsense. The spirit of the first amendment has generally been taken to mean "separation of church and state," not that those without a church or belief are to be accorded no rights.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

22. They have the same rights as I do

They can express their points of view just as I can. That's the whole freedom of speech bit. It never says freedom from speech.

[FM Arouet666]

37. But, what you are implying

is that I, as an atheist, have no right, to be an atheist. Therefore, the state mandates that all have some form of faith. I just do not interpret the constitution in that way, nor do I think this interpretation is generally held.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

39. No, you are infering that. I am not implying

You have a right to be an atheist. I said that. You have no right to expect religion will not touch your ears in the public world.

[FM Arouet666]

47. Yes I do

see my post below, I do not have the right to prohibit individual citizens from expressing their views on religion. Freedom of speech. But I do have the right to avoid this speech as sanctioned by the state, again, the first amendment.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

52. You have the right to avoid any speech

But there is no guarantee you will succeed.

[FM Arouet666]

67. I think you are missing the point

Freedom from religion does not mean, at least to me, that I will be free from every conceivable religious utterance. It means that the state will not support your right to religion over my right to be without it.

I am getting tired of typing. Peace.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

71. Congress will make no law

It doesn't say what you hope it does.

Good night.

[FM Arouet666]

98. No hope here

This is how the constitution has been interpreted and applied by generations of legal scholars, much more adept at the law than either of us. Peace again.

[politicat]

161. You are avoiding the response.

The issue is not whether it is within civil rights to silence or protect an INDIVIDUAL's right to spout off about whatever zie desires, be it religion, UFOs, Bigfoot, or the efficacy of certain herbal supplements hawked on talk radio and spam. The individual has a right to do whatever zie pleases alone and in groups, on private property, as long as no one and no animal is harmed by zer practices. Human sacrifice is banned, and animal sacrifice is strongly discouraged. Controlled substances are under consideration; mutilation of children is very strongly limited to circumcision; physical mortification is limited to self-inflicted mortification. Those are the only limits on religious expression, and they are there specifically to preserve the public good and to ensure that abuse and mayhem are not covered over in the name of religion.

The issue is whether the publicly funded government - be it federal, state, regional, county, local, tribal or ward - can use public funds and public property to promote any religion, all religions, or one religion over another. In multiple Supreme Court cases and hundreds of cases at the lower levels, the answer has been no. Public funds, by their nature, cannot support the world view of a single entity in respect to the First Amendment. There has been an accretion of case law and legislation based upon the interpretation of the First Amendment so as to clarify and extend it to protect the minority without infringing upon the rights of the majority.

Christians have every right to display and enact their morality plays and dioramae provided that it is not done with public funds. Buddhists have every right to have parades and funerals in public view, provided that they do not use public funds. The use of public funds includes the use of publicly funded property.

What is not clear about this? What don't you get? This is some of the simplest case law there is. It's almost black and white. The basic concept is incredibly clear: Individuals and groups may indulge in religious displays provided they do not use public funds or property (and may use certain properties like parks and streets after obtaining a permit and usually paying a fee.) Publicly funded groups and properties may not indulge in religious displays using public funds.

So what are you missing? Or are you being deliberately obtuse because you want to see those of us who don't celebrate Christian holidays made even MORE uncomfortable by being forced to witness and support with our involuntary tax dollars religious propaganda? Is that it? Because if so, that's bigotry.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

177. Not promoting religion doesn't mean excising it

America has a long involved religious history. Religion has played a part in every aspect of our history. That goes part and parcel with everything. You can't expect government to ignore all of that.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Duncan Grant]

201. I can expect the gov't to ignore your perceived role of religion in the US

"America has a long involved religious history. Religion has played a part in every aspect of our history. That goes part and parcel with everything. You can't expect government to ignore all of that."

I most certainly do expect the government to ignore all "that" - especially when certain members of this society refuse to study American history or the origins of the Bill of Rights - or the Constitution.

The trouble with "that" (mentioned above) is it's often a ruse to disguise the most ignorant ethnocentrism imaginable. If faith requires its followers to surrender the most fundamental cognitive abilities - then I prefer that my gov't does not implicitly or explicitly advocate for it or endorse it.

Long story short, please keep your religion out of my government.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

251. So government has to excise religion in your view

Sorry, I don't agree. Religion has been a part of everyday life in America. You can't and shouldn't delete all references to it.

[politicat]

205. I can, actually, because we have changed and improved and evolved.

The "religious history" you mention was a cultural history that also allowed for the enslavement of others, segregation, the beating of children, the abuse and repression of women, the banning of books and other written materials deemed offensive by the very few... the culture of the 19th century was not exactly enlightened. We grew beyond that, until two of the most beloved and respected public figures at the end of the 19th century were Robert Ingersoll and Mark Twain. Both non-religious and openly critical of religion.

We can teach about that religious involvement, (and it has not played a role in EVERY aspect of our history; that's too broad of a statement and can't be backed up by you.) as long as we teach it in a manner that is not active in promoting religious involvement. Just as we can teach about slavery without promoting slavery, we can teach about the role religion played without teaching religion. And just as we can remember the oppression of women in our civic worlds without promoting that oppression, we can appreciate religion within the civic community without promoting it. We appreciate religion by giving them tax free status and holding religious organizations to only the minimum community standards so as to not place too large a burden upon them.

And as we're talking about American history, that's fine. Using this rationale, it's fine to commemorate the Utah Diaspora or the arrival of the Puritans. Those are American, historical, religious events. HOWEVER, the birth of a rabbi in the Middle East 2000 some odd years ago is not an American event. Jesus wasn't a Yank. So the creches have to go.

However, you're still avoiding the question. What is it that you don't understand about the basic case law that forbids funding religious statements from the general purse and prevents unnecessary meddling by government in private sector religious activity? It's pretty clear so please define your difficulty.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

252. No the creches do not have to go

That's been established. The creches are here and here to stay.

Your post focuses entirely on negatives and blames religion for them and ignores the obvious positives of religion. Kind of one-sided don't you think?

[Malva Zebrina]

261. Yes, that may or may not be true--you really do not know how many

did not practice religion, but kept up the pretense for expediency do you?

In the living museum at Jamestown, there is a slate tablet signed by the pastor back in the seventeeth century, discovered laid into the original floor when restoring this church. It threatened all those who did not come to church for all services, with severe punishment even DEATH. I cannot remember the exact words, but the message was clear--tyranny over the people and their religious practice in this first permanent settlement in the New World. Looks like a few of them or perhaps a lot of them must have been missing church.

The Mayflower Compact was signed by only 41 of it's 102 passengers Who knows who the others worshipped, if they worshipped at all. Attendance at meeting house in colonial times, was required under penalty, if not outright threat of being shunned and it took place all day on Sunday, and once during the week with a minister up in the pulpit, shouting hellfire and brimstone the entire time.

How many simply sat in the bleachers (where the house slaves and servants sat on benches inclined at an angle downward, so they would have to stay attentive and not fall asleep) pretending out of fear, to listen and believe, went home, and did their religious African chants using their sacred totems-(shells, feathers etc.) This-especially amongst African slaves, who had NO access to anything to do with government, not being able to vote as a whole person. Imagine if they, with their substantial population had a say in it all --what religion would you now say should be the law of the land .

I suspect just a little of the white man's ethno-religious bias here in your posts that seem to be advocating that this is a Christian Nation simply because the rich white man sitting in the chamber, said so or practiced Christianity.

Excavations of slave quarters have revealed all sorts of religious artifacts to prove these peoples practiced their own religion, in secret of course.

The first Americans on this soil, the native American Indian, practiced pantheism until that gentle belief was deemed sinful by Christian missionaries and they forced Christianity on them when they were hungry, depopulated and vulnerable, and these people did not vote either.

But, if Christianity is so prevalent as to expect that our government MUST not ignore it's precepts in it's lawmaking or governing, I have only one thing to say.

The history has much NOT to be proud of. Present day unacceptable attitudes are intimately connected to this same religion and the hate, bigotry, greed, and murderous impulses do not lend credence to the idea that our laws need to be connected with this grandly led Christian history at all. Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.

I'll stick with the secular, and fight any incursion into the government on the part of any religion--particularly the Christian religion.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FM Arouet666]

49. No she is just fantasy. Sorry, I couldn't resist. n/t

[RetroLounge]

68. and freedom of speech has limits

as does freedom of religion.

but you knew that, right?

RL

[AliciaKeyedUp]

84. Every right has limits

But Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are in the 1st Amendment. Freedom of Religion is a fantasy.

[blondeatlast]

163. Somehow I knew you weren't finished.

You are actually FUN.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

180. Wow, that post REALLY misstates my views

Impressive in such a short space.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

182. I'm only parroting back what you've expressed in other threads

how quickly you forget.

[RetroLounge]

259. Not to mention banning books.

Cather in the Rye.

RL

[RetroLounge]

258. Puts the FUN back in Fundie.

RL

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

28. I defend her RIGHT to criticize the book

Not her criticism. If you are going to do the news, don't emulate the MSM's mistakes. Try getting it right.

[blondeatlast]

25. That thinking is so convoluted I'm still not sure I understand your point.

"Right to avoid religion?"

What the hell else would it possibly mean? Of course it allows ANYONE to avoid religion.

When you start getting your talking points from Sojourners instead of Heritage, will you let us all know?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

33. You can avoid it in your private life

You have no express right to avoid it in the public arena.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FM Arouet666]

40. Yes we do

Public places, or state property, is for all citizens to enjoy. By allowing a religious group express rights to its use, the state is functioning to support a particular religion over all others. In essence supporting the establishment of a state religion, which is prohibited by the constitution.

[Kitka]

45. No way.

You really think that? So, should our organization that was protesting the war not be allowed the right to organize to express our opinions/beliefs, because other members of the public do not wish to hear our opinions in a public space?

[FM Arouet666]

58. No, that is not what I said.

The constitution gives you right to assembly and freedom of speech. What I am saying, is that the state cannot support a particular religious group, above all others, without violating the first amendment. There is a difference between individuals or groups expressing a point of view and state sponsored or sanctioned points of view.

[Kitka]

73. Ah, but you were responding to the statement,

"You have no express right to avoid it in the public arena."... and I was taking the poster to mean public places, where of course you may encounter religious individuals expressing their views. If you are talking about something like putting the 10 commandments on display in a courthouse, then that' a different 'public arena', I think. I think a lot of this debate is fueled by people coming from different places.

[FM Arouet666]

107. Let me explain my take on it

I have the right to avoid state sanctioned religious content, however, I do not have the right to avoid individual religious content. The individual's right to freedom of speech or freedom of assembly does not contradict the separation clause in the first amendment. The fist amendment simply guarantees that the state will not sponsor or sanction such speech. And that is what is violated by placing crosses on public land, the ten commandments in the court house etc.

[Kitka]

123. I agree.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

46. The state must allow all groups access

Many of those groups are religious. It cannot prohibit religion.

[FM Arouet666]

61. See above

You are right, you have access, you have freedom of speech. You do not have the right to state sponsored or sanctioned support of your belief.

[Dora]

281. So if a group of Buddhist monks and nuns

donated a giant stone Buddha to your state for public display, and the state agreed to plant it smack dab in the middle of the Capitol grounds, how would you feel about that?

The truth of the matter is that there is no equality in the presentation of religions idols and statuary on public grounds. It is overwhelmingly Christian, and it is inappropriate. The idea that the state MUST allow all groups access is laughable. They don't. It's all lipservice.

[blondeatlast]

162. So it's okay for your Muslim friends to pray in the direction

of Mecca everyday and "witness" for Allah in the city park?

Okay for Satanists to to try to convert you while you are in the doctor's waiting room?

Fine with me--if I gotta listen to you, I'd like to hear from them as well.

You are NOT going to win the battle for hearts and minds at DU.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

237. Satanists? Convert? You must be kidding, or you have mistaken a gaggle

you must have mistaken a gaggle of roving, door knocking, jehovahs or mormons for satanists. Satanist do not ever, ever, try to convert anybody. It's actually against their religion, which by the way, is not a freestanding religion, but an offshoot of christianity. Satan is not recognised outside of christianity, as he is a christian invention, and is only part of the christian mythology. Satanists ARE christians, they are just disappointed, backassward, disenfranchised and embittered christians, but the ONE thing you can trust them not to do is to try to "convert" anybody.

[complain jane]

196. No kidding. *Public* arena.

Nobody's saying that they think that people should be silenced. What's the problem?

[Cobalt Violet]

96. I think it's a freeper talking point. n/t

[CaptainCorc]

43. Are you nuts?

If the constitution doesn't guarantee my right to avoid religion, what does? Because I've been avoiding it all my life and haven't broken any statutes that I know of.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

It gives you the freedom of religion

But it doesn't guarantee you won't encounter it. You are welcome to avoid it whenever possible. But Congress can't limit my religious speech to accommodate your desire to avoid it.

[CaptainCorc]

105. Speech, yes...but not religion.

You can speechify your religion all you want--that's guaranteed (as long as the government isn't paying for it or supporting it in some way). BUT, I can walk away from you any time I like. You cannot drag me to your church and neither can the Feds. And if you get your like minded congressmen to pass a law to change that, it WILL be struck down as unconstitutional even by a court full of fundamentalists IF they do their job and it's by no means certain that they will.

That's what freedom from religion means to me. Not that I will never see a Nativity scene or hear Merry Christmas somewhere. Ideally it would also mean that my government would not foster religion in any way...but that's too much to hope for.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

116. I don't want you to be dragged into church

Where we would draw the line between church and state might be different, but we aren't far apart on this issue I think.

[CaptainCorc]

137. No probably not once the shrapnel clears :)

But I would be interested to know...wait, let me get it verbatim...ok, got it :)

What do you make of this? Article 6 clause 3 of the Constitution:

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

+++++++++++++++++

I suspect my idea of religious testing and yours will be miles apart. And again, I :) when I say that because I know damn well I'm in the minority in believing as I do.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

142. That refers to a STATE religious test

There should be no STATE test.

It doesn't mean I can't ask you your religion and, depending on how you respond, decide to vote or not vote for you.

[CaptainCorc]

147. Like I said...miles apart on that one. n/t

[AliciaKeyedUp]

149. Care to elaborate a bit?

Just asking...

[CaptainCorc]

178. Well, I guess so, as long as it's with the understanding that

I have no expectation of changing your mind and there's no use trying to change mine either. So here goes...

I believe that a candidates religion should not be a deciding factor with a voter. Any voter. In other words, I think every voter should keep Article 6 clause 3 in mind when they vote.

You don't have to tell me that voters are under no obligation to do so, I'm well aware of that. You don't have to tell me it will never happen either. I got that pretty well figured out too. But that's what I believe.

Bob Scheiffer (or however you spell it) should never have asked that dumb question about faith during that debate (I think it was the last one) simply because it should not be an issue.

I will confess that, for me, a person's faith could be a negative deciding factor--if the guy thinks God talks to him, I mean literally talks to him, I'd be very reluctant to vote for him. Or her.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

183. Yes, we disagree

So I would say Bob's question was appropriate for a huge number of voters including myself.

[bobbieinok]

236. read the text

BOTH of the United States AND of the several States,

[tblue37]

130. What bothers me about Christian "witnessing"

is that such folks expect everyone else to tiptoe politely around their magical beliefs, but they feel no need at all to respect the beliefs of people who don't go in for their particular imaginary sky being. Jesus himself complained about those who pray ostentatiously in public. He considered it a sign of hypocrisy. I sure am with Him on that one!

As a teenager my son was a very aggressive vegan (i.e., super-vegetarian). As I would cook dinner containing meat for my daughter and myself, he would stand there and chant "Meat is murder! Meat is murder!" I believed then (and still do--and now he agrees with me) that his veganism (especially his impulse to push it on other people) was more a matter of bullying and control than a real concern for the rights of animals.

Now at 25 he eats far more meat than I ever do. He loves the stuff. But of course his "religion" of veganism was mainly about making himself feel superior to those of us who were not yet "saved" according to his particular doctrinal beliefs. I know many vegans who quietly practice their veganism. I also know many Christians who try to live according to the actual precepts of Christ and don't think their job is to force their beliefs on others.

But way too many Christians are mainly about getting into other people's faces and spaces. I see no significant difference between a lot of so-called Christians and the Taliban. They all want to force their beliefs on other people.

Bullies.

Bleah.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

141. I'm a New Englander; we have an MYOB rule with regards to religion

mind your own business. Ostentatious display of anything is frowned upon, and religion is considered private. I love it, because you never know what religion someone is. Makes it a level playing field.

[Cobalt Violet]

200. Perfectly stated and totally true.

I love New England.

[Az]

244. And a losing position

Unfortunately its sad but true. If you do not promote your position or beliefs and others are promoting theirs then eventually you are going to be surrouned by people that think you are too different.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

242. yeah, i remember that!

I was raised in New England and my mother told me early that "it is rude to discuss your religion in public". I think she was right, but, I think those days are gone, the discussion is forced by those who would distract us from more important issues, like war profiteering, election fraud, war crimes of torture, trillion dollar deficit. The religion furor, and the gay/abortion/consumerism furor are all just more of the same, circus circus, distract the crowds, it worked for the romans, go karl rove, insidious spin machine, go.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

240. yep, that's it in a nutshell

[complain jane]

199. You are making up an argument to argue against,

and putting words in the mouths of others here.

This has gone on long enough for you to be able to see the difference.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

239. who asked them to restrict your religious speech? nobody. could you pleas

could you please be so kind as to not knock on my door before you make your religious speeches though? Thanks. Hey, there are altogether too many laws in this country already, I haven't heard one single person suggest we make laws telling you to shut up with the Christ stuff, for Christ's sake, as much as we may wish you would, NOBODY has suggested making it illegal. However, you are suggesting making it illegal for me to tell you I don't like your hogwash so please get out of my face, and off my doorstep, and out of the tax free status of using my tax funds. You guys knock on doors, disturb people, set yourselves up as false sages who know more about the nature of reality than the rest of us, and park your religious monuments everywhere. Then you dare cry victimhood. How would you like to see a statue of the naked and senuous Goddess Estra erected in the town square at Easter? Because, you know, Easter is just another pagan holiday usurped by the christians, Easter predates Christ by 3000 years, it really originated and belongs to the pagans, and it is a fertility feast. So, instead of easter egg hunts in the city green, how about if we do love in's with group sex to honor the fertility goddess Estra, after whom the holiday Easter is named? That's the proper way to honor this good goddess, you know. Will that be okay with you? Or will you then desire to remember that the constitution provides you with FREEDOM FROM RELIGION being imposed on you. Christianity has always been well tolerated by non christians, but christians do not seem to understand tolerance for what makes their neighbors happy. If you want everyone else to keep their religions to themselves, you had better start doing so as well. And while you are at it, get your bible out of the courtroom, I could just as easily swear the truth on a book of Hans Christian Anderson Fairy Tales.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cobalt Violet]

I have every right to avoid religion.

You insult me. You think you have the right to shove Jesus down my throat. Im an AMERICAN!

[Solon]

102. Actually that's not true...

Thanks to the Reconstruction Amendments, the Bill of Rights actually applies to all law making bodies from Congress on down to the local assembly. As far as the right to avoid religion or not, I do not believe that is so much the goal, as to avoid having religious groups or beliefs gain preference over other religious or non religious beliefs.

[Hippo_Tron]

179. Congress funds the federal and to a certain extent state governments

When congress is funding something it is making a law. When ANYTHING associated with the federal or state governments does anything religious, congress is funding that activity and thus is making a law respecting the establishment of a national religion.

[Kitka]

7. I don't think that qualifies.

I tend to believe that the amendment stating that the government shall make no law establishing a state religion does not mean "freedom from religion". I am a non-Christian who is worried about the tendency of many to claim this is a "Christian nation" because I believe some mean that they do want Christianity as a state religion. But I can't say that I believe that the authors of that amendment intended to mean that we should officially be an athiest country, either.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

12. They were trying to avoid a repeat of England

with a state church. I agree that is an ideal, but that doesn't mean those who don't believe shouldn't have their sensitive ears bombarded with religion in day-to-day life.

[Petrushka]

94. "...but that doesn't mean those who don't believe shouldn't have . . .

. . . shouldn't have their sensitive ears bombarded with religion in day-to-day life." ??? Hm-m.

AHA! I get it! You're saying something kinda like that those who do NOT believe that Spike Jones makes beautiful music SHOULD have their "sensitive ears bombarded" until they get YOUR message!!! Right? Ri-i-ight!

[politicat]

190. Actually, they were trying to avoid the wars of religion that followed

when there was no separation between the Church and the Monarch. It wasn't just about England, it was about the German states going to war with each other over whether there were 7 sacraments or 2. It was about preventing a repeat of the Armada and of the hangings and burnings that went on after Henry VIII got tired of being married to a woman about his own age, had a midlife crisis and caused a schism. It's about avoiding the full scale slaughter that killed thousands of French Huguenots. It was an attempt to keep the brandings of Quakers, the beatings of Baptists and the exiling of Catholics that happened in colonial days from continuing.

There was so much that was in recent memory and was a clear example of why the monarch should not be responsible for the thoughts of the governed that the founders, and Jefferson especially, made it a point to not get involved in the most internal, private thoughts and actions of the individuals.

I think what you are not understanding is the greater history involved. We don't need any more wars of religion. And if that means keeping the public square secular, then it has to be done. I echo a poster above: This is a Christian issue, coming from the Dominionist side of the field. It is those who wish to remake the US a Christian nation (not likely when 1/4 to 1/3 are not Christian) who are pressing this agenda. You don't see Jews lobbying to make Yom Kippur a national holiday (though we could use a national day of atonement) or Hindus lobbying for national recognition of Diwali. This is not a religious freedom issue; it's a special rights for fundies issue. And we don't give special rights to any group. That's what equality means. Christians are not more privileged, more moral or better than the rest of us. So do us all a favor and accept it and grow up out of this childish belief that Christians are somehow more deserving of favor than others. It's not going to happen.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

255. It is obvious there is a secular push out there as well

Both sides are pushing or pulling in opposite directions. I don't want either to win 100%.

[Undercover Owl]

206. "sensitive ears bombarded with..."

Sounds very sarcastic when Alicia keyed up talks about "sensitive ears being bombarded..."

I bet this person distributes religious tracts on street corners.
Just a guess.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

210. She's probably the chick in Virginia who told me I was going to hell

because I'm Catholic. :eyes:

[AliciaKeyedUp]

256. Go ahead and bet, you would lose

Not that there is anything wrong with distributing religious material. I just don't do it. I volunteer in other ways.

[FM Arouet666]

31. The founding fathers are not supporting atheism

Separation of church and state does not imply that the state endorses atheism, in as much, as it does not support a state religion. They are to be separate entities. The spirit of the law suggests tolerance for all faiths, and by extension a lack of faith.

[Kitka]

41. I realize that.

It's hard because I seem to fall somewhere in the middle of this, and I jumped in mostly because I was suprised how I felt reading some posts on the topic. Because, as I say, I'm a non-Christian scared by the Bush administration and many fundamentalists' view of the role Christianity should play in government, I'm a bit stunned to find myself wondering why it bothers me so much to see people stating the first amendment equals freedom from religion. I do not interpret it that way. I get the feeling many people that are non-Christian are so upset at the spread of the fundamentalism that they now expect Christians to keep completely quiet about their beliefs, and I don't want to see that either. I believe that the intent of our founding fathers was that everyone was free to practice, promote, and talk about their religion... just not to make it mandatory for the government to enforce that religion. I think there are black and white issues, like public school teachers prostelytzing (sp?) and there are gray issues like our government offices being closed on Christmas. I don't like it when either side sees gray issues in black and white.

[FM Arouet666]

93. I agree

Fundamentalism has initiated an under current of extremism for separation issues, more so now, given the current climate.

"I believe that the intent of our founding fathers was that everyone was free to practice, promote, and talk about their religion"

Absolutely, but with limits. Most specifically limited where the state is concerned. I think the Right tends to portray the atheists or secularists as wanting to deny your assertion. But, I couldn't agree with you more, freedom of speech is also a powerful right we all hold. However, what I fear is that the fundamentalists wish to extend the individual right to a state mandated level. This is what fuels a more assertive stance from atheists.

[progmom]

172. Well said, Kitka.

Thanks. You put it beautifully.

[politicat]

198. As a non-christian, I don't expect any religion to keep quiet.

I've learned well enough that my expections, if they were to that silence, would be repeatedly and overwhelmingly dashed. :eyes: So I don't expect it. What I do expect is that any religious practice, religious promotion or religious discussion with intent to convert or control others take place solely in the private sector or after permitting for a temporary private license. (I.e. if a church wants to rent a school auditorium or gym on Sunday, I have no problem with this as LONG AS THEY PAY for the room, and their rates are not either lower or higher than any other group that wishes to use the same space for the same type of purpose.)

Now, private sector doesn't mean silent. Billboards are private sector. Bus stop benches though, are public, since rapid transit is a publicly funded project. I know in Denver, RTD has the right to refuse any ad that would create a hostile environment for its customers. Thus, an ad that said, "You're going to hell unless you come to X church" would not be allowed.

I don't care what any religious group does in the private sector, and even in the public sector such as in a park or on the street corner. I'll walk away from them, (or on one memorable occasion when the guy touched my arm, held on and tried to keep me from walking away, I ended up shouting fire and pressing charges, but that was because he was accosting me, not because he was trying to convert me). I have no problem with churches building on corners or with street frontage and using it to advertise their own brand of whatever. That's their right, as long as they don't violate the common community standards. (Seriously, this happens. One of the local ministers tried to get his water ticket dismissed on grounds that churches aren't subject to city law according to the 1st Amendment. This is during a drought, when we could have been without water by November if the entire city didn't conserve. His ticket was not dismissed.)

As for the gray areas, like closing offices, I would like to see nationally what Mr. Pcat's office is doing next year: in addition to his 18 days of sick/vacation time, they're giving 12 floating holidays and 4 fixed holidays - Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day and New Year's Day. You can use them as you please, as long as you and your supervisor agree, and for religious holidays, all reasonable efforts must be made yadda yadda yadda.

But his is an insurance business, where 24/7 coverage is the norm, not the exception.

Pcat

[AgadorSparticus]

229. you could not have explained that any better. well said!

[Kitka]

3. Hmmm. I don't believe this person claimed that phrase to be

from any American founding document, just that the idea should be respected.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

6. And I asked for the origin of the belief

I don't want to live in a nation totally devoid of relgious expression. Most of us don't in fact.

[Kitka]

10. Well, no, you specifically asked for the origin of the belief

as it is found in our founding documents (per your follow up "it certainly isn't...) It doesn't have to be found there to be a sentiment held by many Americans. The origin can be and is a valid opinion in it's own right.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

15. Many, perhaps. Most, not likely

Most Americans are people of faith and like the freedom to express it.

[Kitka]

18. Of course, I don't think anyone disputes that.

I believe the problem at hand is that many people want to express that faith in the political arena, and the debate rages over when and to what extent that is appropriate. Wanting to keep religions our of public policy is quite different from wanting people to refrain from expressing their religious beliefs.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

24. But I think some posters here are all over the map on that view

Some seem to want extreme limits.

As for religion in public policy, how do you separate faith from those who have it?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

11. "most of us"??

who is this "most of us"? Most of the ladies at the grocery store? Most of the crackers in your neighborhood? You speak for "most of us" since when?

That you don't understand that the First amendment asserts freedom FROM religion is not simply a matter of misunderstanding nuance. It's a matter of willful ignorance.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

17. Us = people of faith, the majority of Americans

The 1st Amendment makes it clear that I have freedom of religion and Congress shall make no law prohibiting that. It says NOTHING about you being free from religion.

Your interpretation is merely wishful thinking, not founded in reality.

[sonicx]

21. most people were once for segegration

[AliciaKeyedUp]

26. So religion is not equal to segregation?

That is a warped and demented analogy.

[sonicx]

32. you said most people in America were Christian

however most people in America were once for segegration. were they right?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

34. You stick with the disgusting analogy and expect a kind answer?

Not likely.

[sonicx]

35. in other words, being in the majority doesn't mean you are right...

thank you.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

42. Being in the micro minority doesn't make you right either

But the difference is my view will be upheld.

[sonicx]

48. never said it did.

and you never know. in 50 years, Christians could be the minority.

[RetroLounge]

75. Well, if there is a god they will be.

at least the wack jobs will be. Maybe true Christians will take back their religion from the freaks.

RL

[tblue37]

176. Christians who want to break down the barrier between state and religion

are unwisely assuming their religion or sect will always be in the majority. Right now, most of those promoting state support of religion are Protestants. But the fastest growing religious groups in the US are Catholics, Muslims, and Mormons (which, by the way, they hate to to be referred to as). Are Protestant Christians thinking about the future, when the majority of Americans are either Catholic or Muslim? Will they be happy when their children or grandchildren are engaging in state-sanctioned religious practices decided by that majority?

The best way to protect your own religion from being dissed by a hostile majority is to stop dissing other faiths (or lack of faith) when you are in the majority. Populations change. Today's triumphant majority could be tomorrow's beleaguered minority.

[RetroLounge]

72. micro minority - nice personal attack

RL

[AliciaKeyedUp]

78. How is that an attack?

It is representative of the math of the situation, nothing more and nothing less.

[DireStrike]

82. "micro minority" is redundant and insensitive.

[RetroLounge]

83. redundant and insensitive.

Bingo!

RL

[AliciaKeyedUp]

89. So math is insensitive?

It's insensitive to say that two is a micro minority of two million?

How so? It's just a fact. Facts are neutral.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

95. How do you know facts are neutral?

I've never seen you refer to one fact. Ever.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

99. Then you aren't looking

[Kathy in Cambridge]

115. I only see speculation, flames and insensitivity

and obviously "most of us" here on this thread do also.

[TheWatcher]

140. And you certainly don't post any, So What is your point?

It's not likely you have one, but my you are an amusing one.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DireStrike]

There's no such thing as a "micro minority."

It is not a conventional term. You're using a term you fashioned to exaggerate how small the poster is, perceived as having the intent to diminish him/her.

Also, I don't think it really matters how small a minority is.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

101. Adjective and noun

Pretty common occurance. You take one and combine it with another.

And size does matter. A minority of 40 million has more impact than a minority of 40.

[DireStrike]

113. You constructed that term. You engineered its meaning.

In the context, it does not matter whether you are a minority or a "micro minority" - the point could have been made equally well with simply the word minority.

Since "micro minority" is an extremely uncommon term, one would wonder why you chose to express that here. It has no relevance to your point, and the only conclusion I reach is that the micro was tacked on to additionally diminish the poster and his/her views.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

119. We all make word choices

With each post. Personally, I like the term micro minority. It further clarifies the situation. It provides information. It gives context.

[DireStrike]

127. And provides room for interpretation in a heated conversation

...as an attack. You're right though, it was your choice.

[RetroLounge]

260. Which in turn give you room to use Super-Majority

another Fundie term I've seen lately.

You are quite amusing, and transparent.

RL

[bobbieinok]

238. but rights of minorities are to be respected...are there numerical limits?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

253. There are limits of what's reasonable

If 12 people decided something bothered them, would 280 million or so have to accommodate them?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DireStrike]

100. Hey, do I have to be the ref here?

Now that's an attack, if I ever did see one.

[Kitka]

120. Agree. Black and white thinking rears it's ugly head both ways.

[StopTheMorans]

222. so if everyone who doesn't believe in "God" is in the "micro-minority"

then kindly quit your inane bitching about how persecuted you are. I mean, how persecuted can you REALLY BE WHEN YOU'RE IN THE MACRO-MAJORITY AND THE MICRO-MINORITY IS HARASSING YOU? :eyes:

[Is It Fascism Yet]

248. good point

[PassingFair]

219. Au contraire...

If your view includes public displays of religion on public grounds, or in public courthouses, your myopic view will NOT be upheld as it will always be found unconstitutional by a reasonable courts.

[blondeatlast]

66. What Bible does your particular brand of Christianity study that

excludes Matthew? I;m forever pondering that, and I simply can't figure it out; no Christian sects I'm aware of purposely exclude Matthew--please explain.

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[Petrushka]

135. That "particular brand" also excludes . . .

. . . what Jesus taught about dusty feet! See:

Matthew 10:14
Mark 6:11
Luke 9:5

:think:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

76. Oh my

Jesus was getting really lonely up there on the cross!

[blondeatlast]

90. Heh, heh! Love it... nt

[TheWatcher]

138. I'm still waiting for your hard statistical data proving "Most Americans

Believe In Jesus", as you alluded to in another thread.

You can't of course, because you have no data or basis in fact that can prove this, but it would still be amusing to see you come up with anything other than your own opinion.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

145. I already posted it

From the American Statistical Abstract.

Here's the link if you missed it.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/pop.pdf

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

262. Why are you comparing religion and segregation?

Yesterday, many jumped on Alicia for seeming to equate stealing a Baby Jesus from a Nativity and desecrating a Jewish cemetary. I don't see how your post is any different (if not worse).

[Kathy in Cambridge]

265. So you think Stealing Baby Jesus is as heinous as swatstikas

in a Jewish cemetary? If you do, that speaks volumes about your lack of understanding of history and the murder of six million Jews.

[tx_dem41]

266. Well, since I didn't say that.....I guess it doesn't speak volumes.

In fact by using the phrase "if not worse", you should be able to see that I didn't approve of the analogy (either one, in fact).

Why did you read it differently?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

267. Woops sorry!

I didn't mean to offend. I read it wrong-I haven't had my coffee yet! :hangover:

[tx_dem41]

269. That's ok....

I'm sure I'll say something soon that you can jump on. ;)

Now, go drink your coffee.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

270. You probably won't be offensive

unlike some on this thread, you seem to be polite! :hi:

Happy Holidays!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

29. "Your interpretation is merely wishful thinking"

Um, no it isn't. again, you resort to personal attacks, patronizing behavior, and show a lack of legal knowledge and understanding of nuance. If Fox News doesn't spell it our for you, do you have a hard time with grey areas?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

36. There was NO personal attack

I can read the Constitution. Why not look it up again and show me the words Freedom Of Religion.

Your lame Fox News attack is beneath you...maybe.

[DireStrike]

77. I have to agree.

As annoying as I find it. Freedom from religion has no basis in the constitution.

But politicians should be restricted to some extent. An atheist can never expect to hold a high office. Hell, a non-christian can never expect it. And don't say that we can become the majority. As long as organized religion exists, atheists will always be a minority.

I guess I'm going off topic here. But there is supposed to be no religious test for public office. That is supported in the constitution, I believe. Yet public opinion will always favor one religion.

You may say that some politicians are free to express their religious leanings if they wish. I say it should not be allowed, in this case, as it interferes with the restriction on religious tests. There will always be one religion that, in the court of public opinion, is "right". If someone does not belong to that religion, they are unable to express themselves as such, and in fact their right to express their religion AND the right to not undergo the opinion test are not compatible. One of them is denied if public religious freedom is allowed to candidates.

But of course, it cannot be denied for many reasons. Some religious people will always use their religion to gain every advantage it grants them. This is unfair. I can think of no solution except to agree to common terms... it is common courtesy. But religious people feel persecuted, and so do non-religious people.

In fact, they both are. And as long as there is religion, they always will be.

I really don't like organized religion.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

80. Since you made a reasonable point

A quick question for you. How do you expect to separate politicians with faith from that faith? It is part of every decision they make and every vote they take.

[DireStrike]

91. I don't. It's definitely impossible.

I expect to try and prevent them from presenting their faith publicly during campaigning.

Once they make a vote, based on whatever they have faith in, that vote is there to be judged by all.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

97. Then at least someone here understands

Thanks. We don't have to agree on everything but at least you grasp that faith is what defines us and can't be separated out.

But why should they be prevented from presenting their faith? It's who they are.

[DireStrike]

104. Because it's unfair. Faith has no basis in reality.

That's why there's separation of church and state. It needs to be marginalized as much as possible where people of different faiths have to work together. The more faith is displayed, the sooner there appear unresolvable differences.

EDIT: I don't know if you find my choice of words offensive, forgive me if so.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

109. Faith is still part of who they are

And politics is never fair. It's a popularity contest in most cases.

Sorry, but there ARE unresolvable differences in life. No use pretending otherwise.

[DireStrike]

124. There are always problems. That doesn't mean you don't try to solve them.

The "easiest" way to reduce irreconcileable differences is for people to reduce expression of their faith whenever possible. This is true of all politicians - even atheists have faith in something (usually science.)

It's not pretending the faith doesn't exist. It's leveraging your human capacity of reason as far as it can go towards eliminating the problem.

And I still hold that the current political climate, media, and people with your views are supporting a de facto religious test for office.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

129. No, you seek to limit religious speech with that

Faith can move mountains. Expecting people to speak without it is unrealistic.

Now, let me ask you, is it right for African-Americans to pick one of their own for office because that person understands who they are? If so, why can't Christians? Hindus? Muslims?

[DireStrike]

152. No, not really. Nothing can be done about that though.

This argument to me seems analogous to the legalization of marijuana arguments. Marijuana is illegal because it's bad for you. Alcohol is legal and yet is as bad, or worse for you, than Marijuana. So should we legalize MJ? Even if it means more car crashes, and more people doing harder drugs(assuming the gateway drug effect is tue), and more fires?

But I don't think we're really arguing any more. The point is in here somewhere, and it doesn't matter if we come to a consensus. Neither of us will crush the opposing view.

[sonicx]

92. John Kerry is pro-life, but votes to maintain the right to choose

he is also against gay marriage, but won't vote to ban it.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

103. Those are his choices

And his stance on gay marriage was wimpy.

[sonicx]

111. he voted against what his faith said, because it was his personal

belief and didn't want to push it on the rest of the nation.

I expect other politians to do so.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

122. He also voted against the rights of gays

I expect other politicians will, I just wish they wouldn't.

[sonicx]

132. first of all, what vote are you talking about?

second, you said originally "do you expect to separate politicians with faith from that faith?"

John Kerry has done just that, so my answer is yes. why don't you?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

151. Link please.

[PassingFair]

225. Both Washington and Jefferson

were not Christians. Washington was a FreeMason who wouldn't step foot in a church, and Jefferson clearly struggled with agnostic/deist philosophies.

[DireStrike]

230. I know, Jefferson is my favorite founding father

He still didn't manage to get "freedom from religion" into the constitution.

If the constitution were written today, it might include it. But I'm afraid it doesn't.

[blondeatlast]

Will you be happy when you are told how to worship, when to worship,

whom/what to worship?

Once we let religion of any kind determine our government, it won't be long at all until government defines our religion.

I'm a faithful follower of Christ, and I don't want the Wrong administration telling me how and when to worship; but I fear that day is nearly at hand.

[Jazzgirl]

226. And I don't care...

n/t

[Is It Fascism Yet]

243. that would be fine with me. why not start a poll and see?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

4. Oh boo fucking hoo

Please stop playing the victim card. It really denigrates the experience of religious and ethnic minorities around the world who really ARE persecuted.

The First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[AlCzervik]

8. Amen sister!

:toast:

[AliciaKeyedUp]

9. The amendment you quote supports my view

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

And why resort to personal attacks. Afraid your points don't cut it?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cobalt Violet]

114. But you conviently leave out the first part.

"no law respecting "

[NYC]

Season's Greetings.

:hi:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Separation of church and state.

[tx_dem41]

264. I'm confused, Kathy

The question asked was where you got the basis for "freedom from religion". And you answered with part of the First Amendment. I don't see how that answers the question. Maybe, I need to ask you: What do you mean by "freedom from religion"?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

273. The First Amendment states-and it's been argued in court cases

that the first part of the First Amendment (""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,") refers to the secularity of our country.

The Founding Fathers were Deists. If you don't think they meant this nation to be secular, check out these quotes:

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." --John Adams

"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise.. affect their civil capacities."--Thomas Jefferson, _Statute_for_Religious_Freedom_, 1779, _The_Papers_of_Thomas_Jefferson_, edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950, 2:546

"...our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opnions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"--Thomas Jefferson, _Statute_for_Religious_Freedom_, 1779, _The_Papers_of_Thomas_Jefferson_, edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950, 2:545

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." -- James Madison,_A_Memorial_ and_Remonstrance, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_ by James A. Haught

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."--Thomas Paine

[tx_dem41]

274. Maybe I didn't word my question correctly, Kathy...

I agree with your dissertation on the Etablishment Clause of the First Amendment. Now, what do you mean by "freedom from religion"? I'm confused because that phrase doesn't appear in the Establishment Clause.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

276. It's implicit in that clause-no establishment of a state religion

equals freedom from religion if you so choose.

[tx_dem41]

277. But, what do you mean by "freedom from religion"?

Sorry to keep asking the question, but it is what I need to know to put this thread in a proper context.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

278. Freedom from religion meaning not having it shoved down your throat

there-plain enough for you? If you can't read things contextually and take things literally, I can't help you.

[tx_dem41]

279. Kathy, I have spent most of this thread not knowing if I agree

with your original post or not. If you believe that one should be able to divine what "not having it shoved down my throat" means legally, then more power to you.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

280. Well, that's what it means-LEGALLY

it's been argued in courts over the centuries. Legally you can't shove Xtianity down someone's throat. Is that clear enough?

One thing I notice with this Chritian victimhood BS is the lack of critical thinking skills by the whiners. It's like they've never taken an American history class, and if they have, they weren't paying attention.

[PurityOfEssence]

30. Freedom from the imposition of religion from the government

is explicit in Article One.

The government is to make no statement or inference based upon this. We are to be free from any pronouncement that claims the existence of a supreme being or any belief system. Yes, within this we are also guaranteed the right of free expression, but when the expression of one assumption conflicts with another, they are nullified.

Businesses and individuals can do what every they damn well please, but the government may not endorse the concept of a (or more than one) supreme being or none without violating this concept. Thus, from the expression of government we are to be FREE FROM RELIGION.

Have it, use it, smear it all over yourself, but the government shall not EVEN MENTION the concept of the supernatural. Smart guys, those founding fathers, huh? It's not just a particular religion they meant, it's the very concept itself, and that is specifically the point.

We're at risk of all sorts of worldviews in the public realm, but the government must be strictly neutral and without a voice on the subject. Tampering with that concept shows a disdain for pluralism and equality: to endorse any assumptions on this level is to create an aristocracy and piss on those who don't toe the line.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

69. My good Catholic high school boyfriend stole Baby Jesus

and put Mary and Joseph in compromising positions. Surely he committed a heinous crime that should have fallen under the hate crimes act! :eyes:

[tblue37]

154. How many baby Jesi are missing from their mangers?

[Is It Fascism Yet]

233. yep. as an american i have a constitutional right to FREEDOM FROM RELIGIO

where you been boy? out from under that rock. of course we are entitled to FREEDOM FROM RELIGION! That was the whole point of founding America, remember? To escape having the Church of England forced down our throats? FREEDOM FROM RELIGION is not only promised in the Constitution, but it is far and away MORE IMPORTANT than FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

250. This is rude, but

STFU!



Girl, you are over the top and might look into a skin thickener.

[JNelson6563]

268. You have been especially shrill

and unreasonable, not to mention hypocritical. You need to upgrade your dialogue on this matter or continue to wallow in a puddle on non-credibility.

And yes, we are free from your religion or any other, whether you like it or not you have no right to stick it down our throats. But thanks for, once again, revealing your true intention. Funny how you take issue with one quote but your "argument" is against another part of post. Rather clumsy gymnastics I'd say.

Are you sure you are at the right place?

Julie

[tx_dem41]

271. What do you mean by "free from your religion...."? n/t

[FM Arouet666]

14. Freedom from religion

Thanks for the post, I especially liked the "No, Virginia" line. I responded directly to your original post, but was prompted to do so upon reading the first response. "Freedom from religion."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

My impression of this line, is that the founding fathers wanted to establish a state free from theocracy. Generally regarded as "separation of church and state." History seems to support this interpretation, as does the court system. That is, until the Shrub places activist judges in place to subvert the Constitution.

Oh, and Happy Festivus a Holiday for the rest of us.
:evilgrin:

[lgardengate]

27. How about all the Christian bashing threads?

Frankly i get tired of non belivers saying i believe in "invisible men" (God) or that i am a fanatic because i believe the Bible etc.

No one HAS to tell me Merry Christmas but, don't whine when i say it.The government need not pay for a manger scene...but then don't put up a symble of any other religion on public property and tell me it's just "historic",don't teach kids about islam in school (Yes,some schools do) if they can't include Christianity.

Stop singeling out My religion for exclusion alone.


Flame me all you want.

[sonicx]

44. that's fine. but fundies are the ones looking for special recognition

they are offended when people say happy holidays to them (and want to protest).

[AliciaKeyedUp]

50. Thanks for the definition

That means even by your admission, I'm no fundie. Which is good because I am not.

I don't care what expression people give. Myself, I choose Merry Christmas.

[sonicx]

i don't remember saying you were

we are talking about people who do care what you say to them.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

59. I was making a point

Around here, clearly believing in God makes you a fundie by comparison in the eyes of many.

[sonicx]

60. what does that have to do with this thread?

the author is a Christian.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

62. Since there are numerous attacks on my beliefs

In this thread and others, I took the opportunity.

[blondeatlast]

81. Please,oint out even one attack on your beliefs; not just in this thread,

but in any other DU thread in which you've participated.

C'mon, I dare you. I've been watching you and your little friend for a while now, and all I see are the attacks in your own mind.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

128. Yup, nothing a prescription of lithium and Jack Daniels

won't cure though.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kitka]

126. How is this person shoving religion down peoples throats?

I'm asking sincerely. Perhaps there is background I don't understand.

[Cobalt Violet]

131. In a few post this happened.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

139. How, by saying Merry Christmas?

That's a laugh.

[Cobalt Violet]

146. No you said to someone

"Christ died and rose again


Deal with it.

Merry Christmas dearie"

That's a perfect example of shoving it down someones throat. That's just one example.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

148. After the poster attacked the resurrection

Not before.

So I said it in response. You leave out a pretty salient point.

[Cobalt Violet]

155. What resurrection.

They said credit card dept has risen. That's a provable fact.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

158. It was mocking the resurrection

If you care to ignore that, it is your choice.

Clearly, I don't.

[Cobalt Violet]

165. Resurrection ???

What in christ are you talking about. :evilgrin:

[AliciaKeyedUp]

169. Your mockery proves my points

Thank you.

[Cobalt Violet]

174. What mockery????? What point for that matter??

I'm not a Xian.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

202. Jews don't believe in the resurrection

but the hubris and lack of respect for other religions of this type of Christian knows no bounds!

[AliciaKeyedUp]

254. Contrary to your pathetic claim

I respect other religions and expect people to respect mine.

[sonicx]

156. what happened to "turn the other cheek"?

what happened to '2 wrongs don't make a right"?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

159. I am not 100% Christlike

No one is.

[sonicx]

168. did you say sorry?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

171. You are not my confessor

nt

[sonicx]

185. not to me, the poster

God would want you to.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

189. Now you claim to speak for God?

Amazing.

[sonicx]

194. Christians do it all the time. Why can't I?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

195. No one is stopping you

I am merely amazed.

[sonicx]

197. God certainly isn't. He's waiting for you to repent.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

175. Ain't that the truth!

support for school vouchers? Definitely not Christ-like, because it dicriminates against the poor, and mostly minority, school districts.

Your thread from a few weeks back that was an apologia for Gitmo? Definitely not Christian.

Your attitude on DU? 'Nuff said.

[TheWatcher]

164. "Christ died and rose again"

"Deal With It."

PROVE IT.

Deal with that.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

170. I don't have to, I have faith

You can choose to believe or not.

[onager]

51. Christians and atheists aren't really that far apart...

You're atheistic about everybody else's god. I just take it one small step further.

Or to put it another way: there are about 500 different deities being worshipped on Earth today.

You Christians don't believe in 499 of 'em, and I just don't believe in one more.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

249. LOL! That's great! Please can I tell that to the next jehova who knocks

That is a wonderfully sucinct line, and says it all! LOL, Please may I borrow your phrase for the next jehova who knocks on my door to save my soul? (happens ALL the time, what a drag) Nevermind, I think I will just start answering the door naked, that might work too.

[Kitka]

54. I dunno... they have a right to be offended.

Even if I think they're loco for being offended by such a nice sentiment. They also have a right to protest. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it and all...

[lgardengate]

108. what fundys do you know that DEMAND you tell them Merry C?

My entire family are "fundys", (love Bush etc) and they could care less till someone Tries to get every hint of religion purged from public life.THEY feel they are being pushed then.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

53. This isn't a Christian bashing thread

It is a reality-based thread. I'm Catholic.

[blondeatlast]

55. Well, since you offered an invitiation, I wonder if I can still get banned

for doing so? :evilgrin:

For pity's sake--please cite a specific time and place (and if on DU, a specific thread) where anyone has called you out, whined at you, insulted you, or otherwise victimized you for wishing them a polite "Merry Christmas." I'll be happy to address them personally.

There is fat too much turmoil in the world and right here in the US for this follower of Christ to waste precious time on another Christian's hurt widdle feelings.

I suspect Christ isn't spending much time boo-hooing over this false holiday as well; not when children are the victims of war and genocide.

My sister in law's family had to leave Iran to escape oppression under the Ayatollah Khomeini. It was a damn site more serious than someone wishing them Happy--oopsie! the wrong holiday, sister.

Violence, dammit--that's what I call religious oppression.

[Kitka]

63. Violence is necessary for oppression to take place?

I don't agree. There can be oppression without violence. Detainment is not always violent but can be oppression. Economic oppression happens. I will not argue Christians are oppressed in the US, just for clarification, just arguing that one point.

[blondeatlast]

74. Not mnecessary--but what my SIL's family experienced is a whole hell

of a lot more oppressive than wishing a "happy" the wrong holiday is.

This is a RW wedge issue, and I will not allow it to infect DU or any civil discourse, because it's dreamt up by someone at the Heritage Foundation.

[Kitka]

117. Just commenting on that one allegation.

Of course your SIL's experience are a lot more oppressive. It just doesn't mean lesser forms of oppression don't exist and aren't worth acknowledging.

[RetroLounge]

56. Your religion has been hijacked by wackjobs

sorry to say.

RL

[NuttyFluffers]

57. aww, i miss all the fun. the ignore function spares me so...

poo... oh well, at least i can enjoy sensible conversation.

thanks for the post Kathy! pretty much how i feel. them chips seem to be quite deep in some people's shoulders.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

70. Oh come on! It's so much fun to watch someone go down in flames!

:evilgrin:

[onager]

85. And yes, the Founders deliberately left out religion...

The following is a quote from Rev. Dr. Bird Wilson, who personally knew the first 6 presidents of the United States (Washington thru Jackson).

According to the Rev. Dr. Wilson, NOT A SINGLE ONE of those 6 presidents was a "Christian" in the traditional sense. (George Washington, for example, was famous for refusing to take Communion. When a Philadelphia preacher wrote him a friendly letter asking why he refused, Washington coldly responded that he had his reasons, and if it bothered the minister, he just wouldn't come to that church any more. And he didn't.)

Anyway, here's the Rev. Dr. Wilson commenting on "Our Xian Founders" and the Constitution:

"When the (Revolutionary) war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected.

He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution.

The proceedings, as published by Thompson, the secretary, and the history of the day, show that the question was gravely debated whether God should be in the Constitution or not, and, after a solemn debate he was deliberately voted out of it...

There is not only in the theory of our government no recognition of God's laws and sovereignty, but its practical operation, its administration, has been conformable to its theory.

Those who have been called to administer the government have not been men making any public profession of Christianity...

Washington was a man of valor and wisdom. He was esteemed by the whole world as a great and good man; but he was NOT a professing Christian."

[Rowdyboy]

79. My only argument with your thread is this...you see "many Christian DUers.

use the same rhetoric as the right wing"

Now I'm not saying that the quotes you list as examples aren't accurate. I didn't see them but I don't read NEARLY every thread. But do you really find that attitude pervasive among the Christians on DU? I, for one, am an Episcopalian who really doesn't care what anyone else believes spiritually. Certainly, I don't feel victimized or mistreated by our overwhelmingly Christian society-that would be absurd.

My ONLY complaint is that here on DU some few people work overtime to stereotype all Christians as right-wing, knuckle dragging fundamentalists. Liberal Christian churches LED both the civil rights, and the anti-war movements of the 1960's. Yet, today, "progressives" in some cases automatically consider us the enemy. Maybe its a lack of historical context, I don't know. I do know that its tiresome, and shows a lack of sophistication on the part of those who choose to stereotype.

Those who equate all Christians with fundamentalists are as ignorant as those who think all gays are effeminate, all blacks are on welfare, or that all Native Americans are alcoholics.

Stereotypes, and people who rely on them, are offensive to people with open minds.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

106. I agree-I am a Catholic

but I really haven't seen that much anti-Xtian bias. More the opposite.

[Razorback_Democrat]

272. Excellent post !!!! Thank You!!!

Some posters here DO lump all Christians together.

Or blame liberal Christians for the fundies beliefs.

Liberal Christians are doing plenty to fight the good fight.

Liberal Christians help the poor and needy, just as other liberals do.

The fact that there is a wackjob movement of dominionist/facism masquerading as Christianity right now is a problem for ALL of us!

And don't think they speak for the majority of Christians, they just seem to have the floor right now because of the fact that they have some outspoken elected officials and the media seems to be enchanted with them at this time. (mainly because they have been conned into voting against most of their economic interests and in support of the corporatists running the country)

Let's all get along. Liberals don't need to splinter because of anger at the rat wang Christians being taken out on all Christians.

Thanks

[Behind the Aegis]

88. Great points!

I also posted in the threads you have mentioned. I have seen a few posts that were over the top on both sides, but I am still surprised at the number of Christians (here and out there) that feel they are under attack!! Just because they can't cram their version down our collective throats, doesn't mean that they can't practice what they want. I also am shocked at the lack of reading comprehension that goes on here...mostly on one side. I also see so many random attacks that amount to nothing. Sad.

Thanks for posting what MANY of us are feeling!

[Cobalt Violet]

125. Hannity and O'Reilly are telling them they are under attack.

So they believe it.

[complain jane]

209. Exactly.

I don't have a problem with Christians. I do have a problem with people who call themselves Christians and then abuse the teachings of Christ by manipulating them into something that they claim supports their bigotry, hatred, arrogance and greed. That's not a flaw with Christianity it's a flaw with these specific people who act this way (IMHO).

Same thing goes for other thing as well. 12-step programs like Alcoholics Anonymous. AA has a beautiful philosophy- believing in a "Higher Power", sponsors, and meetings on a regular basis (all of which works for some people, not for others and that's fine). When used together the way they were designed, these tools can better some peoples' lives and have been for years. And yet there are always people who abuse this system, twisting the tools and teachings into tools with which they justify their own character defects such as control issues over other peoples' lives, self-righteousness and whatever else.

I'm starting to ramble so I'll cut it but I'm just saying. I'm not religious, and I think that religious freedom means relgious FREEDOM and that's that. I'm not obligated to practice a religion and you're not obligated to be quiet about yours.

Both extremes need to loosen up. Those who want to walk around in the world and never see expressions of religion need to relax and those who insist that we're all obligated to participate in a religion need to relax too.

The real issue in my opinion is government funding.

[miss_kitty]

112. Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

You expect ADULT BEHAVIOUR? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Good luck KiC

[Kathy in Cambridge]

121. No, obviously, adult behaviour is out of the question

throw out some facts and heads are sure to explode!

[miss_kitty]

134. Now THAT sounds like big fun

I never cease to be amazed at the thinness of skin.

[jellybelly]

143. Fairness hard for some liberals...

the swastika on a synagogue killed 6 million jews!
Pretty big swastika on a pretty big synagogue right...
If Christians voted democratic, liberals would think vandalizing of a Jesus statue as a hate crime. Be fair please. If someone called the prophet Muhammod a pig you would scream "bloody murdering fascists"

[Behind the Aegis]

153. All over the place..

What in the world are you saying?! Who here called Jesus a pig?! Did I miss something? Nah...I think you are taking things out of context and making VERY poor analogies.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

160. What is it with the lack of reading comprehension

and inability to digest facts with these people?

If I weren't a Christian myself, I would surmise that reasoning abilities and belief in Jesus were mutually exclusive.

[Behind the Aegis]

166. I so agree

I think I even said the same to you in another thread like this! It seems people latch onto one thing and are like a dog with a bone! It is not just this topic, but it seems to drag out some real "winners!" BTW, I really thought the premise of this thread was really a good one, it is amazing to see how it has spun to the outer limits...and evolved into what you were commenting about....how Christians are so attacked in this country and DU! Geez, some people need to lighten up and learn to read!

Kudos for an interesting thread!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

181. Thanks for the compliment

It is really frightening. Sometimes I feel like the inmates have taken over the asylum!

[Behind the Aegis]

187. You are right!

The thing is there are some really great people here who are capable of great discussions, then comes along the "haters." You started this thread a little over an hour ago and it is almost at 200 posts! Good Grief! To be fair, I have seen some questionable posts from non-religious folks, but nothing like the victimization I have seen from the other side. I am glad to see there are some great thinkers here!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

191. These faux-Christians give us a bad name

to be fair, most of the over-the-top threads are from Christians. I do see the occasional insult from a non-believer, but the nuts on these threads are priceless, I can't take it anymore! :crazy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2858862#2859433

[Kathy in Cambridge]

157. No I wouldn't

Did you even read my post? I grew up Catholic. Every year someone stole the baby Jesus. It is a teenage prank.

A swatstika is a symbol of the deaths of 6 million Jews. Aside from the Romans feeding the Christians to the lions, was there ever a time when Christians were systematically murdered because of their religion? More often than not, the Christians killed in the name of religion (the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition).

"If Christians voted democratic, liberals would think vandalizing of a Jesus statue as a hate crime."

Most Christians where I live vote Democratic. Where do you live? Are you a Democrat?

[jonnyblitz]

173. wow there is more than one of them!!!!

UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!!

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cobalt Violet]

188. 80% of the people in my state voted Democratic.

Are you saying none of them are Christian.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

192. I think that's what he/she is saying

:eyes:

[onager]

193. Obviously those voters are not...

True Christians. :-)

BTW, thanks for your threads in the Groups. I really enjoyed the one that got locked. Will join in as soon as I...uh...contribute...

[DemBones DemBones]

203. If others here didn't attack & mock my faith, I wouldn't discuss religion

at DU. Religion being part of life, though, it is brought up here and discussed, usually with 90% of the posts being antagonistic. And you think we have chips on our shoulder because we're not fond of being attacked? We should just lie down and let the people who hate us walk all over us?

You seem to doubt that the rights of Christians are being denied.. .

FACT: In some areas of the U.S., court cases have been entered into because public displays of Nativity scenes have been banned while public displays of Jewish (Star of David, menorah) and Islamic (crescent and moon) images have been allowed. Christian children are not allowed to pray in public school unless they do so clandestinely or outside school hours, but in Atlanta, schools are proud of their new arrangement to release Muslim kids from class to pray. . .

In short there are reasons why Christians are complaining.


I don't really know what to think if your statement "You absolutely have to be RETAHDED to believe this." I find it disturbing when people use "retarded" as an insult.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

204. I was using a Boston term. Sorry if you found it offensive,

But it rather proves my point about oversensitivity. Maybe it's cultural as well. I'm a New Englander and we tend not to be as PC in our speech.

And honestly, these cases you state are few and far between, and pale in comparison to the religious and ethnic persecution suffered by those less fortunate around the world. Those that are not mainstream Christian are the minority in this country. We should respect our minorities, but in many states, that isn't happening.

[Behind the Aegis]

207. 90%? I think that number is a little over inflated.

I have seen some nasty posts about Christianity, so I can see jumping in on those posts, I have as well and I am even a Christian! But, what I have seen here is mainly stories about right-wingers screaming about how they are so oppressed..PUH-LEAZE! Because the MSM has taken to promoting this lame "oppression," I think more people are reacting to that. I don't think you should lie silent when real attacks take place, but I really don't think 90% is an accurate number.

[tjdee]

208. Me too....

In general.

I don't think DUers hate Christians, but I do think Christianity (actually most religious beliefs) is mocked from time to time--equating belief in God with believing in the Wizard of Oz, posting of a Jesus movie in which Jesus is masturbating and slapping ass during sex...

I think it's because Christianity is the predominant religion in this country. If this country had a long history with Islam, it'd be different. I think right wingers have ruined it for everyone, and now they're whining about how ruined it is.

Here though, I'm especially irritated that as soon as a Christian says something slightly irritated/off, they get jumped on with the "gee, that's not too CHRISTIAN of you" or "gee, aren't you supposed to be NON JUDGMENTAL" or whatever. Christians aren't perfect, don't profess to be....it's such a straw man, and it's irritating.

I like DU. I like DUers. They're not going to change, and I can deal with that.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

211. When you come to a non-denominational POLITICAL message board

and start talking about Jesus, you can expect a certain resistance. I personally would be offended if I were Jewish or Muslim and heard this constanting sqwuacking by Christians. Christians in this country have no idea what oppression is.

[tjdee]

212. How many religious threads are started by Christians?

As DemBones said, I'd be happy to never mention religion here.

But often, it is brought up in a mocking/"oh look what they've done now" fashion by a non-Christian. Should we not respond to those? I think that's unrealistic, as this is a discussion board.

Again, I don't think we're oppressed. Mocked yes, oppressed no.

[Behind the Aegis]

214. Mocking

Most of the threads I have seen about religion (except in the Agnostic forum) have been started BY Christians! I think what most people are mocking are the "fundies" who are proclaiming oppression. IT has led to some ugly comments about Christians in general, but that goes with the territory. It is sad that more people are not open to the ideas of others' and content to be happy with letting them express those ideas without claiming victimization.

[tjdee]

217. Can you point me to some of them?

Because the ones I click into never seem to be. (except for example, this one)

I agree with what you said about the fundies and the kind of trickling over into remarks about all Christians, and as I said, I'm not expecting that to change, I'm not leaving DU, I don't dislike DUers, etc.

[Behind the Aegis]

221. I could try

Point me to a thread you feel is attacking Christians, and I can always ask that person if s/he is a Christian. The reason I made the remark I did was because many of the posters, like this one (Kathy) usually state somewhere in the thread that they are Christian, often stating which branch (Catholic, Methodist, etc.) Now, as for the hateful posts about Christians, those people may or may not be Christians, more likely not, but I have seen enough self-hating gays, to know there are self-hating Christians out there too!

[tjdee]

228. Hmm...

I'm apparently a "search" moron, LOL...and it's late, so I'm throwing in the towel on it tonight. Been trying to get further back than the Christmas season. I've been looking at it as you've suggested, a sort of self-hating thing...hmm.

Again though, it's not attacking so much as it is mocking/screwing with. Here's one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=2265565

And another:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2855570

I can't find the thread where the original poster linked to a little movie somewhere with a movie where Jesus, "who is everywhere", is masturbating in the shower, choking a sick man and grinning...that'd be another.

I am finding that most (in the past few days) are as you said, starting out talking about fundies and devolving into statements about beliefs, etc.

[Behind the Aegis]

241. Search moron....that is funny!

You have a good sense of humor about this, that is for sure. :) Now, I am not absolutely sure...and I could contact them, but I am pretty sure the first thread you posted was composed by an atheist (perhaps, agnostic) and the second, I am fairly sure, id's himself as Christian. I could be wrong...there is always a first time. :)

The past few days are mostly like I said, and I see you agree. I would compare this to (and this is a stretch) a thread started about the Pink Panthers (a radical gay group) and the thread dissolving into a free-for-all against ALL gays. It is sad that people use another group's extremism to criticize ALL members of that group.

I am sure once Christmas has passed, things will lighten up.

The third thread you mentioned, I never saw, but it sounds damn scary!

I hope you have a good sleep! :)

[Kathy in Cambridge]

215. I see mocking of fundies, not DU Christians.

I have seen some anti-Catholic sentiments, but they're usually posted by disruptors or other Christians.

Honestly, I've seen a few incidents but I think everyone is over-reacting.

[tjdee]

220. I think what Behind the Aegis said is the thing.

Starts out mocking fundies, ends up being remarks about Christian beliefs.

Expected, yes.

Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Oh--I should clarify that I don't feel we're under attack. I just think it's pretty clear how some here feel about Christians at DU (that we're basically delusional people who might as well be worshipping the Wizard of Oz, or this rock right here)...and that doesn't make me feel attacked.

It's kind of how, if you're a Van Morrison fan, and some of your friends think he's a talentless hack and his fans are idiots. It's not the biggest deal, but it's a bummer. That's more my feeling.

[Az]

213. I am not certain this if a viable option any longer

Its simply a matter of systems and processes. The more liberal and open minded belief systems tend not to propogate themself. That is the more open minded you are the more likely you are to keep your opinions to yourself unless invited. This makes for a decidedly slow spreading social meme.

Meanwhile the more aggressive systems are more than willing to cram their beliefs down anyone's throats. They don't always get a win but the simple law of averages means they are growing while the more liberal ideologies are stagnating. If you want to find out what happens to an ideology that does not have an effective propogation methodology simply ask a Shaker* about their beliefs.... if you can find any.



* Shakers were a Christian faction that held to some extreme notions including forbidding sex and children.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

218. I love Shaker furniture!

but I know what you're saying. Will I have to move to Europe to not thear the constant whining from the fundies? :eyes:

[Taverner]

216. Kathy, I agree with you

And I would identify myself as a Christian (even though I don't go to church...)

[Jazzgirl]

223. Thank you Kathy!

I've read a couple of threads where one person in particular constantly attaches religious meaning to everything. Can't stand any disagreement with their belief. I'm pretty fed up myself.

JG

[Lexingtonian]

227. you're great, Kathy

I agree with everything you say.

We live in strange times. I went back and looked at all the larger Republican polling upticks over the past 15 years and more closely at those of the last 4+, And it's ugly, really. Everything on the Republican side has increasingly run off of 'conservative' Christianity. From 2000 to early this year the essential dynamic was about opposition to nonwhites' Christianity/'morality' and nonEuropean religions: blacks and Latinos in 2000 via 'morality', Asians and Arabs in 2002, 'Old' (Modern) Europeans aka Atheists and Islam (in general) and American Indians (tacitly) in 2003.

2004 is theologically an embracing of tacit Christian/European anti-Semitisms and quasi-Marcionisms: about Kerry 'looking French' and playboyish (on the surfboard) and Teresa being 'too assertive'/too rich/'too loud' and Democrats being painted as liberal/feminine/gay/atheistic/critics/intellectual/'Hollywood'/false Christians and all being funded by George Soros. In part the story is how in the late '90s Judaism became the only religion to portrait as respectable and compatible with Modern life on network TV- rabbis are the respected figures these days in pop culture, Southern Baptist ministers are not (for good reason, of course).

At the same time Dubya is embracing the most cultish and European-paganized symbols and talk and groups, positions and images in general, and the Catholic Church evidently helped out the Religious Right do the dirty work against Kerry. Of course, he simply found Kerry's vulnerability and exploited it. And these days, the workable political cover for running a campaign against Jewish values and associations and liberal Christianity involves being pro-Likudnik. (German Nazis are pro-Likudnik these days.) That is "values". The "values" vote. That is why he did so much better with people who are infrequent churchgoers this time around.

There is a major complication involved- the 'leadership' and the 'war on terror' bit- which I haven't fully unravelled to my satisfaction yet. The 'leadership' bit is easy- it's a mirror to peoples' incompetence and irresponsibility vis a vis the American problem in the Middle East since WW2- but the 'war on terror' has some kind of medieval Christian/European theological core I haven't quite nailed down.

You have no idea how disgusted I am by it all. But that seems to me the reason for the way the arguments about 'religion'/religion-based politics have cropped up as they have.

That they would- well, Dubya has no intentions or ability to hold up the way Modernity (people abandoning theistic for non/post-theistic religion and ramifications in the perceived Divine Order Of The World) is slowly coming into domination. He only exploits it via those who resist it foolishly, making the polarizations worse and the political stances absurd.

But this polarization and abuse and latent conservatism/nonModern beliefs is dragging out all the people for whom 'traditional' (generally colonialism-compatible, i.e. to varying degrees paganized/materialistic/racist/exclusivist/privileged) American Christianity is an itch that demands to be scratched. Be that affirmatively or in rejection.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

231. Thats a good suggestion. What if schools had a Winter Holiday Concert

instead of the usual Christmas Concert, at which they would invite the children to perform any songs and celebrations they wished, invited them to perform the songs and celebrations that their FAMILY TAUGHT THEM! Then, some kids WOULD recite Ramadan prayers, and others WOULD tell the Hanaka stories, and others WOULD sing Christmas Carols, and others WOULD rejoice the pagan Solstice, and they could all take their turns, expressing themselves as they pleased, and then, nobody could complain. In such an instance it would actually be an educational cultural exchange, and you know, politics and culture is all it is. All religions promote the same basic code of ethics, it's just the myths that differ. Without the intrusion of politics, all religions are remarkably similar, and further, advanced philosophical reasoning also promotes a similar code of ethics, debunking the myth that the non religious are without morals. And yes, you are absolutely correct, the "Christian Victim-Hood Whining" has GOT TO STOP. Yes. BTW, I used to think Mel Gibson was very handsome and saw every one of his movies until he chose to make "The Passion" of the Christ, at a most inflammatory moment in history, and in a most inflammatory manner of presentation. Also, the suffering of Christ seems so similar to the suffering of tortured Iraqi prisoners, I really don't know how the Christians can stomach it, they MUST use DOUBLETHINK! And why do the Christians find the suffering of mythological Christ to be so remarkable anyway? For surely Christ did not suffer one little bit more than the many, many Iraqi's we have tortured to death, nor did he suffer as much as the jews in the holocaust, nor even as much as those who jumped from the WTC, nor even as much as all those dying painful deaths in hospitals because Shrub won't let them have stem cell therapy. Suffering is part of the human condition, each one of us does it, and none of us escapes this world without some suffering, and for many of us, profound suffering. Then, it's over. Wasn't Christ's message about conciousness surviving death? Yeah, that was Osirus' message too, and the message of all the mythological messiahs. That's the message all along, we suffer, we die, but in some way we go on. When Mel Gibson made the movie about the Wallace hero guy, I thought he looked marvelous in his kilt, with very appealing knees, (trim, strong, cute, furry, and the kilt tempting the breeze!) but now, after his sickening public/politically motivated display of what is one of the least charming religions on the planet, I don't even like his knees anymore.

[shockra]

245. Thank you for saying that.

About the suffering of Christ. That used to trouble me a LOT when I was a kid. I knew there were plenty of people suffering horrendously -- as we were sitting there in church, even. But were people racing out to help them? No. They were sitting there week after week obsessing over the suffering of one man thousands of years ago. It was ludicrous to me. If people really cared about the suffering of Jesus, you think they'd be upset about ALL unspeakable human suffering. But apparently you had to be some kind of ultra-celebrity for your suffering to really matter. Or somebody imagined to be near perfect as perfect can be. The key I guess, is imagined. People care more in theory than in reality.

All that outpouring of love and sympathy FOR A DEAD GUY used to really chap my ass, when those fine feelings could be better directed toward so many of the living, who actually need it NOW.

Religions and so many other institutions are about misdirecting (monumental amounts of) energy, and people in power want to keep it that way. That's what keeps them in power. And it positively makes me sick sometimes, to see it.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

246. yes, you are quite welcome, and I am in complete agreement

[Bridget Burke]

232. The Dominionists are behind all the controversy

They've morphed their "Christianity Under Attack" into "Christmas Under Attack". More worthy stories have been forced off the air. More worthy threads get little attention.

And some post here, posing as Christians, whose behavior is calculated to arouse contempt. Posting hundreds of whiney pseudo-Christian posts (& a few others in favor of vouchers, guns & torture) will not turn me against those good people of faith I know. I also wonder why such good "Christians" have nothing better to do at this season that post on a political board. Shouldn't they be attending church, giving to the poor, or spending time with their children?

[Is It Fascism Yet]

247. u r right but please

Please don't lump those of us who treasure our second amendment rights in with the trolls! Many democrats, like myself, DO support 2nd amendment rights, because of the historical truth that disarming the populace is ALWAYS one of the first orders of business in a newly founded tyranny. Witness 1936 Germany, 1994 Afghanistan, etc. I've been left of the left for 52 years, on all other issues, and I never owned a gun, nor shot one, but I am all against giving up my RIGHT to own a gun. I consider the protection of each and every one of our civil liberties to be a left position. Would all the good democrats please move two steps left? Thanks! Please do not usurp my second amendment rights and call it the democratic way. I so disagree. Please do not further usurp ANY of our civil liberties. I really think the democrats should have re-thought this plank in their platform, but, it didn't matter anyway because Diebold can't count. Just the same I will make you a bet, you watch Shrub, now that he is unleashed; a lame duck. Now you will see him say it is necessary to disarm the public (to protect us from terrorists, of course!) After he feels sure few guns are left among us, he will next say it is necessary to use torture to interrogate American dissidents (to protect us, of course!) and will progress to "purifying" the populace (of everyone who isn't a right wing nut, beginning with hot targets like gays). That's the way it goes historically, and don't think for a minute that it is not relevant in the 21st century, because, Afghanistan was disarmed and then fell into exactly the same sort of tyranny in the course of less than 2 years, and that was less than a decade ago, and ground weapons/ground warfare have not changed that substantially in the last decade. So, if Taliban had to take the people's guns before they could completely take the people's freedom, doesn't that example set off any alarms in your head? Shrub has to take our guns too, before he can complete the job of taking our freedoms, and before it's completely fascism yet. Watch, you will suddenly see "gun control" become a popular repuklican issue, I bet Shrub will even claim he is doing it as a concession to us dems.

"It's gonna get a lot worse before it gets worse!" Lilly Tomlin

PS the problem with violence in our country does not stem so much from the access to weapons, as weapons used in violence are most frequently legally obtained anyway. Passing more laws does not make them less accessible. Furthermore, the violence in our society stems more from the frustration of having overworked parents who don't have time to raise their kids, from having crappy schools which are really institutions of conformity not education, from the schools allowing bullying behavior, from over medicating children with Ritalin and other heavy drugs that are not necessary if they could ever get any parental guidance, and from pollutants which actually alter the health of our children's' nervous system, like high doeses of lead and mercury in their food and water. If you poison kids and never have time to raise them because you struggle for a living, then send them to an unloving institution like our crappy schools where they are treated badly, they crack. It's that simple. The way to have less violence is not to disarm the public, but to take better care of the public, to relieve these stressors. Another source of violence is sending 18 year old soldiers to war, say for instance, to Iraq where they are ordered to torture prisoners. Sadism may or may not be an acquired taste, and for some, it may be an enduring one.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

263. Good point

"Posting hundreds of whiney pseudo-Christian posts (& a few others in favor of vouchers, guns & torture)"

You hit the nail on the head!

[TWiley]

257. "Christians" bundle themselves with dogs, and expect

everyone to approve their divine judgment.

When someone points out that an issue bundled with so-called "christianity" is wrong, then "all christians are being attacked". Next, "holy" institutions like marriage, christmas, patriotism, paternalism, and tradition are threatened.

"Christians" have become the aggressors, and the champions of many evil causes. If there is a difference between "Christian political beliefs", then it is up to those particular people of faith to point it out.

For some reason, they expect secular folks to intuitively understand these things. If they do not separate themselves from the flea's, then they should not cry about being associated with them.

"All Christians" is the battle cry of the fundamentalist religious community. It is not an image that is being hoisted upon them by others.

[robbedvoter]

275. "I want my faith back"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2860192

[Moderator]

282. Locking.

Per DU rules, please do not cross-post into multiple forums. Thank you for understanding.