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

[Tyler Durden]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[A HERETIC I AM]

1. I have the perfect bumper sticker for you....

BTW, I couldnt agree with you more.

[Forkboy]

18. Oooo...I like that.

:)

[Steely_Dan]

130. Perfect....

Here's another:

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

-P

[Just-plain-Kathy]

148. Here's another: Religious groups should stay out of politics; or be taxed!

TWICE!!

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

FINDING A HIGHER POWER AT WEST POINT

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

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

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

[papau]

191. Founding fathers thought taxing religion was way atheists would destroy religion - and they

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

[Tyler Durden]

345. Then I hereby start the First Church of NOTHINGNESS.

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

[Plucketeer]

241. Whoa BABY!

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

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

[TheDoorbellRang]

294. Don't give them any ideas

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

[unpossibles]

335. well, you know burning people at the stake is necessary because it's not like Al Qaeda

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

[Beartracks]

158. Funny! Here's another...

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

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

[Mythsaje]

205. I LOVE that bumper sticker.

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

[Lautremont]

207. You're also bad at fractions...

heh.

[kimmylavin]

245. And another...

Displayed on my bumper, among the others:

Church + State = Taliban

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. How can I *not* recommend this?

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

[SidDithers]

3. K&R...

I feel the same way.

Sid

[papau]

4. There must be a separation of church and state - but expecting peoples values to be kept out of

politics is naive.

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

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

[SidDithers]

9. Atheists don't have beliefs...

but you already knew that.

Sid

[Dr. Strange]

53. You don't really believe that do you? n/t

[Tyler Durden]

101. Aaah...Yes?

Theism: belief in a god or gods.

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

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

[Dr. Strange]

119. I was refering to post # 9

Atheists don't have beliefs...

It just struck me as funny.

[SidDithers]

122. Yeah, you're right...

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

Sid

[RaleighNCDUer]

159. Why? We don't.

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

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

Belief, like faith, has no emprical value.

[scorpiogirl]

164. Well explained, thank you! n/t

[papau]

179. To assert the unprovable is to have belief. The agnostic has no beliefs-the atheist asserts "no god

n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

184. My opinion, based on all empirical evidence, is that there is no god.

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

But it depends on evidence, not belief.

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

[mcg]

408. You are entitled to your beliefs.

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

[PassingFair]

213. One more time, ad NAUSEUM...

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

[Dr. Strange]

211. It was the logical conundrum that popped into my mind.

SidDithers: Athiests have no beliefs.
Smartass: Do you really believe that?

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

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

[EST]

312. I can tell you what you do have...

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

[Dr. Strange]

358. Well, it's fun for me.

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

:evilgrin:

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

[mcg]

223. So you believe there is no evidence.

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

Example of some beliefs that *certain* atheists have:

There is no God.

This physical universe we live in created itself.

It was created by an unstable nothingness.

It came from a multiverse.

Something can come from nothing.

Life is meaningless.

Qualia don't exist.

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

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

[spag68]

235. sounds pretty sensible to me.

OK I'll go with that

[Alcibiades]

237. Good description of evolution

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

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

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

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

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

[mcg]

375. Evolution and Darwinism are not the same.

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

Darwinism is dead.

[Alcibiades]

399. How on earth does preadaption falsify Darwin?

It's a Darwinian concept.

[mcg]

412. How does Darwinism explain preadaptation?

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

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

[Quantess]

422. Darwinism has NOT "essentially been shown to be false"

Stop making stuff up.

[Quantess]

256. And that doesn't even begin to address agnostics.

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

[Indy Lurker]

291. I believe I'll have another beer n/t

[gollygee]

310. Beliefs backed up by scientific evidence don't count for more to you?

OK.

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

[mcg]

376. What evidence do you have?

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

[gollygee]

386. After you've won the lotto, looking back upon what happened, it might not look like chance, either

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

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

[mcg]

411. So how many photochemicals were formed from those molecules?

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

[unpossibles]

337. RE: your eye example

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

[mcg]

377. No, you don't understand evolution,

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

[Tyler Durden]

344. If you take an infinite number of chimpanzees and....

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

The equation is: Possibility + Sufficient Time = Certainty.

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

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

[mcg]

378. 'Literal Genesis'? What a pathetic misrepresentation.

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

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

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

"Eyes have been evolving"

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

[Tyler Durden]

382. Quite a little muddle you got there, sport.

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

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

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

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

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

[mcg]

409. Many atheists do hold those beliefs, and as I said

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

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

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

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

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

[LittleClarkie]

225. Unbeliefs, is it?

I seem to remember...

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

[Connonym]

263. but we DO have values

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

[BB1]

282. You're damn right!

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

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

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

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

[mcg]

379. If you want to believe that atheists don't have any beliefs, go ahead. nt

[ThomCat]

23. What is this Athiestic church you speak of?

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

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

[NMMNG]

34. Typical ploy

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

[D23MIURG23]

174. Its called Discordia!

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

[papau]

182. On DU which - believers or non-believers - are the loudest, most common voices?

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

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

[gollygee]

25. Please give me some examples of "athiest dogma"

that should be kept out of politics.

[papau]

183. The demand that believers not reference their belief when doing political speech. n/t

[PassingFair]

214. We DEMAND no such thing.

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

[papau]

254. I guess "no respect for stating beliefs" extends to when the religious are viewing DU atheist posts?

[PassingFair]

308. Fred Phelps has strong religious beliefs.

Should we "respect" those?

[gollygee]

298. You seem to have some trouble understanding the definition of the word "dogma" n/t

[LeftyMom]

64. I'm still looking for one of these atheist churches. I don't halucinate but I like pot lucks too.

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

[papau]

187. church (Anglo-Saxon, circe) is Teutonic for Greek "ekklesia" meaning "society" in the New Testament

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

[Ignis]

107. "Atheist beliefs?" Like what--gravity, thermodynamics, etc.?

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

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

:eyes:

[papau]

192. look up definition of dogma - and consider the unprovable belief that there's no god

[Ignis]

219. I'm quite aware of the definition of dogma. Are you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

:banghead:

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

[Lautremont]

221. Because you wrongly claimed that the earth was a PERFECT sphere

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

[Ignis]

240. I find your lack of faith disturbing.

:rofl:

[papau]

250. Many words for "a given to be accepted without proof" - dogma is one of them - it

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

[Ignis]

259. You are grossly ignorant of the definition of the word "dogma."

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

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

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

---

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

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

[papau]

303. Sorry friend - it is you who do not know all the uses of the word - link below

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

[Ignis]

325. Still afraid to provide any examples? Why so fearful?

Two points on your stubborn refusal to correct your ignorance:

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

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

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

---

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

[NoGodsNoMasters]

222. As opposed...

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

[zeemike]

289. Darwin's theory is truth, though shall put no other theory before me

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

[Ignis]

326. Hey, you come up with a better model, and we'll use it!

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

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

Any takers?

[Tyler Durden]

328. I suggest that if you think gravity and thermodynamics are SIMPLE...

Then you are no physicist.

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

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

[zeemike]

366. Not simple at all to understand but very narrow in scope

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

[unpossibles]

338. you have to be kidding, right?

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

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

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

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

[zeemike]

367. I am not kidding and I did watch the PBS show

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

[unpossibles]

372. ok, the flagellum was an example of how irreducible complexity is wrong

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

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

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

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

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

A precursor to IC lacking a part can have any functions except the specified one, which brings us to 'indirect' evolution. Consider a cow's tail. So far as I know, the main thing a cow uses its tail for is to swat flies. Did tails originally evolve for this function? Hardly. There were tails before there were flies. Long ago, tails helped early chordates to swim. Going back still farther, some very early animals started to have two distinct ends; one end for food intake (with sense organs for locating food) and the other end for excretions. As a consequence, this back end, and muscular extensions of it, could also be used to help the animal move. This illustrates yet another important facet of evolution: not only single mutations, but even large organs may begin more or less accidentally. It also illustrates that biological functions evolve. Indeed organisms and ecosystems evolve. It may not even make sense to expect a precursor to have had the same function.
...
How Might Irreducible Complexity Evolve?

How might an IC system evolve? One possibility is that in the past, the function may have been done with more parts than are strictly necessary. Then an 'extra' part may be lost, leaving an IC system. Or the parts may become co-adapted to perform even better, but become unable to perform the specified function at all without each other. This brings up another point: the parts themselves evolve. Behe's parts are usually whole proteins or even larger. A protein is made up of hundreds of smaller parts called amino acids, of which twenty different kinds may be used. Evolution usually changes these one by one. Another important fact is that DNA evolves. What difference does this make, compared to saying that proteins evolve? If you think about it, each protein that your body makes is made at just the right time, in just the right place and in just the right amount. These details are also coded in your DNA (with timing and quantity susceptible to outside influences) and so are subject to mutation and evolution. For our purposes we can refer to this as deployment of parts. When a protein is deployed out of its usual context, it may be co-opted for a different function. A fourth noteworthy possibility is that brand new parts are created. This typically comes from gene duplication, which is well known in biology. At first the duplicate genes make the same protein, but these genes may evolve to make slightly different proteins that depend on each other.

[zeemike]

385. Well if you want to be a scientist, do not challenge Darwin

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

[unpossibles]

387. but it DOES debunk the concept of IC

Debunking is presenting facts that disprove and no facts that disproved were presented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[eridani]

253. The differences between atheist and religious values are nonexistant

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

[IA_Seth]

398. Hallelujah!

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

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

[DavidDvorkin]

5. Another K&R

[MuseRider]

6. With you.

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

[BrklynLiberal]

7. YES!!!!! K & R

[Breeze54]

8. Right on!!

Great rant! :rant:

:kick: & Recommended

[jojo54]

10. I agree with you, but I'm afraid it's here to stay.

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

[LynzM]

11. Because religion is an antidote for fear and uncertainty.

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

:hi:

[ThomCat]

24. I disagree. Religion is a cause of fear and uncertainty.

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

[lazyriver]

35. Religion exists because of fear. It is in its best interest to

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

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

[FatDave]

178. Which is why at every funeral I've been to, a preacher goes on and on about

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

[spag68]

236. IMHO

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

[mitchum]

188. Nonsense...religion thrives on fear, control, and ignorance

[redqueen]

43. I disagree. Fear is causing people to revert to religiosity.

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

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

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

Here's to hoping... :toast:

[gollygee]

12. This is my favorite post of the day :D

k&r

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

[Prophet 451]

13. have a rec

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

[hfojvt]

14. you're not talking about separation of church and state

you're talking about war on God.

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


That would be, uh, unconstitutional.

[Tyler Durden]

15. WRONG.

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

Sorry.

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

SURELY that's fair.

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

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

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

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

[Chovexani]

21. Let's war on God right after we war on Christmas

:rofl:

[DangerDave921]

40. God is ingrained in our culture

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

[redqueen]

42. Where was God mentioned by the founding fathers?

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

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

[DangerDave921]

Invocation

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

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

[redqueen]

51. It means whatever the individual thinks it means... or nothing,

if they don't believe in one.

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

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

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

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

[NYC Liberal]

209. "Creator" could be anything. Could be nature, or whatever.

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

The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the US.

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U S forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not involve the principle of a national establishment...?

[mcg]

232. "I believe in one God, Creator of the universe."

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

[Tyler Durden]

44. I defy you to show "GOD" in the Constitution...

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

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

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

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

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

[DangerDave921]

46. Great!

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

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

[Cybergata]

52. Because . . .

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

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

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

[DangerDave921]

58. I am sorry for your pain

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

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

Good luck! :)

[Cybergata]

67. oh, I have learned to "Turn the other cheek" . . .

to the many who force their religion on me.

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

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

[RebelSansCause]

181. this is just an ass nine post

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

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

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

[D23MIURG23]

238. We'll see who has a charmed life when I'm teaching your children Evolution!!

:evilgrin: :hi:

[DFW]

247. Nothing wrong with a "Christmas" tree. It's a pagan tradition

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

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


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

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

[redqueen]

56. I suspect because you seem to be attempting to legitimize

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

[DangerDave921]

60. not attempting

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

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

[Tyler Durden]

65. "Before beginning the Council Meeting, let us bow our heads in prayer."

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

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

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

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

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

[redqueen]

70. This country has used religion to legitimize discrimination...

since it started.

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

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

[DangerDave921]

88. You got me all figured out

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

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

[redqueen]

97. The 'mere mention' is the open door to abuse.

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

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

[DangerDave921]

114. Pardon?

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

[redqueen]

115. The people who use religion as an excuse for bigotry.

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

[pegleg]

290. The bigotry displayed here is equal to anything anywhere else

[unpossibles]

341. bigotry?

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

[redqueen]

363. Sorry... which bigotry was that?

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

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

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

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



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

[Quantess]

413. I'm guessing "bigotry" against Christians is his/her beef.

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

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

[RaleighNCDUer]

324. There is a huge difference between the politician who says

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

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

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

[RaleighNCDUer]

162. Let me guess. You are a religionist.

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

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

This is "trivial"?

[DangerDave921]

287. Such an uproar

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

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

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

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

[Tyler Durden]

321. THE FOOT'S IN THE DOOR.

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

Oh and by the way...THANKS.

[trotsky]

401. It doesn't have to be persecution.

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

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

[DangerDave921]

402. atheist

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

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

I think the fair trial argument is misguided.

[trotsky]

403. If an atheist were to be honest,

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

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

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

[DangerDave921]

404. Oath

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

You seem very angry against Christians. Why is that?

What privileges do Christians get that others don't?

[trotsky]

405. 60% of likely voters would never vote for an atheist.

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

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

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

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

You seem very angry against Christians. Why is that?

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

What privileges do Christians get that others don't?

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

[DangerDave921]

406. Sorry

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

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

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

[trotsky]

407. Then you and I see different countries, apparently. n/t

[DangerDave921]

414. examples

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

thanks

[trotsky]

415. I'm so glad you asked.

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

[DangerDave921]

416. Interesting

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

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

[trotsky]

417. Well of COURSE a lot of it comes from Christians being in the majority.

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

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

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

[DangerDave921]

419. clueless?

No need for insults.

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

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

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

[trotsky]

420. See, the thing is, I don't know if you are truly interested in another perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DangerDave921]

423. Research

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

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

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

[trotsky]

424. Just following up on a hunch.

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

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

[DangerDave921]

425. I admit

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

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

[PassingFair]

216. You'd probably be getting you panties in a bunch if...

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

[unpossibles]

339. ok. how would you feel if we invoked satan or Odin?

seriously.

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

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

[GMFORD]

171. IMO

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

[wizstars]

154. "...one nation, under the deity of your choice..."

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

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

[Cybergata]

47. Many of the founding fathers were, YES,

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

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

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

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

[awoke_in_2003]

157. That first link is great...

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

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

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

[RiverStone]

63. Not my culture!

Though people tend to make assumptions...

Back to all those churches on every corner.

[earth mom]

146. Do you even know why this country was started? So the founders could be free religiously.

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

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

[DangerDave921]

156. Constitution

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

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

How is religion being forced down anyone's throat?

[earth mom]

168. Are you being willfully ignorant or what?

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

You obviously have an agenda. :eyes:

[hfojvt]

198. looking at post #40 and post #156

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

Also, here is a Constitution:

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

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PREAMBLE

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


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

[earth mom]

262. The fundie freepers love the religion argument-I've had it out with them before on another board.

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

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

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

[unpossibles]

342. How is religion being forced down anyone's throat?

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

[spoony]

268. LOL!

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

What freedom fighters!

[DangerDave921]

286. easy

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

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

[spoony]

400. Nothing I said was a joke.

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

[pokercat999]

152. right the people that enslaved an entire race.....just gotta

trust their word

[Alcibiades]

229. Actually, that's a lie

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

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

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

We are a secular nation, by intelligent design.

[pegleg]

296. But you are ignoring that one little clause which states

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

[unpossibles]

343. you are wrong. No one is saying the Christians cannot practice their religion

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

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

[ThomCat]

27. Wow, that's just wrong in so many ways.

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

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

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

[pegleg]

320. The 1st Ammendment doesn't mention separation between church and state

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

[magellan]

340. "Congress cannot favor an established religion"

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

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

All or nothing. PERIOD.

[SidDithers]

31. It's not a war on God, it's a war on gods...nt

Sid

[papau]

193. It is a war on any belief system that is not yours n/t

[SidDithers]

305. I don't have a "belief system"...

but again, you already knew that.

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

Sid

[redqueen]

37. Are you frickin KIDDING?

:wtf:

[hfojvt]

86. a little

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

from the movie "Dogma"

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

[redqueen]

106. Everything negative always seems to be increasing on DU.

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

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

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

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

[hfojvt]

132. it does not seem that far fetched to me to make the comparison

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

[redqueen]

138. I disagree that this thread proves anything in general

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

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

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

[hfojvt]

190. it is clear from the thread though, even from the OP

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

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

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

[PassingFair]

218. "they hate God"

:rofl:

Put down the crackpipe, lady!

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

:rofl:

[hfojvt]

265. it's quite simple and you know that God exists

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

[PassingFair]

307. That is your belief...

:crazy:

You go on hating concepts.

I will continue to mull over ideas.

[redqueen]

314. How is it clear that they want to get rid of religion?

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

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

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

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

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

[hfojvt]

364. post 49

also 6, 57, 61, and 135.

"I am sick of it in daily life"

"take your god and shove it"

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

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

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

[redqueen]

368. So when SCOTUS overturned Plessy v. Ferguson... were they out of line?

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

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

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

[hfojvt]

371. so upset?

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

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

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

[redqueen]

388. Hah. I did not know that you were a Giants fan...

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

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

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

[Tyler Durden]

384. If there is no difference to you, that's your problem, not mine.

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

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

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

[noiretextatique]

353. how can anyone "get rid of religion?"

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

[Tyler Durden]

383. Do NOT put words in my mouth.

I made my strictures to GOVERNMENT RELATED VENUES AND OPERATIONS.

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

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

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

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

[papau]

255. the "public arena" should forbid reference to god? Belief's in a closet or it offends atheists? The

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

[Tyler Durden]

300. Fair warning:

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

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

Fair is fair.

[papau]

304. Re your "fair warning" on "Shove ...in my face" - back at you :-)

:-)

[Tyler Durden]

309. I really am curious...

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

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

Is this too much to ask?

Really?

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

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

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

[redqueen]

396. I worded that badly, sorry. I meant areas paid for by the public.

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

It's obviously not being handled fairly now.

[earth mom]

147. News Flash: People are fed up with this religious crap across the country. Not just on DU. nt

[papau]

189. Some people are fed up with those that crap on religion. n/t

[earth mom]

260. I'm agnostic, and I DO respect peoples religion UNTIL they try and shove it down my throat.

BUT

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

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

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

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

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

Now who is crapping on who here?

[hfojvt]

267. that's what I hate about agnostics

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


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

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

[earth mom]

277. Who is invading who's space here?

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


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



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




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


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

[hfojvt]

323. again, those are your standards

not shared by everybody.

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

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


I will pray for you.


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

[Tyler Durden]

330. Those standards work just fine for me.

Your condescension is annoying.

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

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

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

[earth mom]

334. Let's see how much you'd like it if someone was in your face selling abortion or gay rights.

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

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

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

[hfojvt]

361. I refuse to understand? I am holier than thou?

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

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

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

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

[earth mom]

365. I'd rather hear about abortion or gay rights or workers rights or the environment

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

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

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

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

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


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

[pegleg]

374. I simply have a sign on my door that says

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

[earth mom]

380. Good idea-I think I will go that route, I've thought about it...

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

BTW-Welcome to DU! :hi:

[pegleg]

381. Others have them too and it makes good neighbors.

[scorpiogirl]

315. Why can't you accept that non-believers don't want to hear about god?

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

[hfojvt]

322. you can't always get what you want

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

You think that's a double standard?

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

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

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

[RaleighNCDUer]

327. And because I respect others' beliefs, I say "gesundheit".

I wish them good health, and refuse to say something that would invoke a deity, because I don't know if they care to hear it.

Your assumption is that everybody wants to hear it, or at the least doesn't mind.

Well, I mind.

You don't know me, and next time you say "god bless you" to a stranger, that could be me that you are throwing your god at.

[hfojvt]

356. actually I mind about the gesundheit

I don't really understand why anybody has to say anything when I, or somebody else sneezes, except that they have been taught to follow some silly superstition that believes "if you don't say something, you will get sick, or attacked by a demon."

But just because somebody minds what somebody else does, does not mean they need to be a dickhead about it, nor does it automatically make the other person a dickhead. We should all be able to tolerate very minor things that other people do that annoy us.

But that's just my standard.

[scorpiogirl]

346. I tend not to say anything contrary to a believer's face

because I don't want to be offensive. They, however, do not show me the same courtesy. You can act like I'm the one causing the issue, but really it's the other way around. I don't consider 'god bless you' a good thing to say. It's offensive but I keep that to myself. The person who said it, however, didn't give a second thought as to whether or not I wanted to hear it. This is not a big deal to me in daily life, but I just wanted to make that point. It's usually the non-believers who have to suck it up to get by.

[hfojvt]

357. we all have to suck up minor things that other people do that get on our nerves

I have a co-worker who always thinks it is necessary to say "have a safe ride home" when I leave from work. I still think you are hypersensitive because of your prejudice against religion.

We all have our own hypersensitivities too. I tend to say very little, and then people find my quietness offensive or disturbing, while I often wish they would just shut up. It's all give and take.

[eagler]

370. If you as sensitive as that ,then how bout if you sneeze and someone says that

[scorpiogirl]

393. What? Not following what you said, sorry n/t

[PassingFair]

421. But if I turned around to that same person, smiled, and said:

"There is no god".

That IS "shoving something down your throat"? Yes?

Understand, I'm not "going ballistic" here.

I'm just cheerfully answering back.

Our very disbelief is "disrespectful" to belief. This is the problem.

[unpossibles]

352. really?

so the 10-15% minority is oppressing the majority? Really? Is that like the how Homosexual Agenda is suppressing straight people?

[GMFORD]

172. That's because the Christians

won't keep God in church where he belongs. They insist on dragging him into government, sporting events, awards ceremonies and in everybodies face at the workplace, the gym, on the street. Those of us who are not Christians are getting annoyed and want them to just keep their beliefs to themselves.

[hfojvt]

176. yeah, that old free speech amendment is such a pain, isn't it?

Put your Christianity back in the closet instead of flaunting it.

[spoony]

270. Cheers, hfojvt

Really good posts you've put up in this thread.

[earth mom]

279. Yeah and your free speech ends where mine begins. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

329. Exactly!

Matt.6

1. <6> But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

You can believe anything you want - just keep it to yourself, and leave me alone.

[earth mom]

278. Great post! Exactly-they shove it down our throats where ever we go.

BTW-Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Quantess]

72. "war on God"

:eyes:
Take your god and shove it. I'm sick of religion mixed with government.

[Arugula Latte]

135. Amen, so to speak. "Take your god and shove it."

I'd like THAT written on all our currency. :D

[FatDave]

186. From your lips to my ears

(Umm, I mean fingers to eyeballs or something, though that invokes images of the 3 stooges...)

But anyway, I think I'll start writing "Take your God and shove Him" on all the paper currency that passes through my hands.

[treestar]

16. I agree, and I'm somewhat religious

When the politicans do it, it sounds so insincere. They are just catering to the damn fundies, who are a minority and should not have such influence.

[riderinthestorm]

17. In my area, it's in the schools too, not just govt affairs.

Kick and recommended. Great rant!

[RethugAssKicker]

19. Georgias governor

is holding a prayer session this morning..... praying for rain !!!

Can you believe that shit !!!

[Chovexani]

22. LOL

I bet you if me and my coven got together to do that on the public dime they'd figure out a way to arrest us

[NMMNG]

26. My friend's mother, a devout Catholic, used to say:

Pray in one hand, sh*t in the other, see which hand fills up first.

:P

[RethugAssKicker]

32. LOL.... Good one. I'll have to remember that one !

[CrispyQ]

33. I was on the phone when that story was on CNN & I wasn't sure I heard it correctly.

Holy fucking shit, batman.

To the OP, I could not agree more!

[redqueen]

39. Wow.

Now that is some impressive inaction.

Wonder if they're working on implementing any water-saving upgrades to their infrastructure.

[NMMNG]

50. Why do that?

When you can sit around and wait for God to fix it for you?

[Iris]

369. or the market

thus killing 2 birds with 1 stone

[conscious evolution]

78. Picked a great time to do it too.

Just a couple of days before a cold front moves through the area.

I wonder how many people will fall for it.

[Dukkha]

143. shouldn't he be calling upon Native Americans for a rain dance?

while playing The Cure's "Prayers For Rain"

[RaleighNCDUer]

173. Damn silly thing to do.

If it doesn't rain, he just looks silly, and his god is either ineffectual or mean.

How is that a winning scenario for him?

[Chovexani]

20. This Pagan agrees with you

I am so beyond tired of these Talibornagains with diarrhea of the Jesus.

Didn't these bastards pay attention when Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's? Lookee here, separation of state is IN THE BIBLE.

[MANative]

28. An enthusiastic kick and rec

All the phony and hypocritical "christianity" and religiousity drive me up a wall.

[NMMNG]

29. But if politicians aren't allowed to keep religion in politics,

We might get stuck with some evil whackjob president who will lie us into an immoral war, piss away our civil rights, run up a huge deficit, and ruin our reputation with the world.





Oh, never mind.

[Steely_Dan]

139. LOLOLOLOL!

[yardwork]

30. Another pagan giving a thumbs up to your rant.

The key point is: "There's a church on every corner. Go there."

[redqueen]

36. But if we just woo the Christians... we can WIN!

ALL the candidates should go on gospel tours!

:bounce:

[NMMNG]

41. Better yet

Just stone all the gays to death in the public square. That will be a guaranteed win for whichever candidate does it.






















:sarcasm:

[spanone]

38. thank our leader for faith-based politics....federally funded

[nancyharris]

45. You obviously have not read the Constitution

People have a right to express their religious belief or disbelief (or agnosticism as you have done) in any public or private forum including political. If you do not believe in the sentiment "God Bless America" then don't sing it or sing whatever words you think appropriate. You may disagree with people that believe in God but the Constitution prohibits your stated "challenge" to hearing the word used (by individuals) in any discourse, private or public.

[earth mom]

149. No, the Constitution prohibits the word god because the founding fathers used the word creator.

So the word "god" doesn't belong on our money, in the Pledge of Allegiance or in songs like god bless america-let them sing that one in church. :puke:

[nancyharris]

206. LOL

I think if you read the Constitution of the United States you will see that it does not "prohibit" the use of any words - Quite the contrary!

[earth mom]

261. So I should have used the word "exclude". Happy now? nt

[AlCzervik]

48. i watched "Inherit the wind" last night, "Gimme that old time religion"

always an excellent movie and even more relevant today.

[Dukkha]

141. I saw it too

I was amazed something like that could've been made in 1960.

[AlCzervik]

142. yup, a truly amazing movie.

[RaleighNCDUer]

180. Are you kidding?

The 50s and 60s, all a holdover from the 40s and the war that killed 60 million people, making hundreds of millions of people doubt the existance of god, were nothing like today. Our culture is so god-soaked today that those of us who remember the 60s can hardly believe it's the same country.

There was a small minority who equated god with anti-communism, and it was the anti-communism and McCarthyism that got god on our money and in the pledge of allegiance - not a nationwide devotion to religion. Church attendance was at record lows, holy-rollers were openly ridiculed, and evolution was taught without question in every state of the union. Science and reason were what won WW2, and science and reason were what were going to beat the Russkies. God was not a factor.

'Life' magazine even headlined "Is God Dead?"

It is TODAY that that film could not get made - at least, not by a major studio. It would have to come out of some little indie studio.

[warren pease]

49. organized religion is the greatest scam for social control and wealth redistribution ever...

Without organized religion to keep the serfs docile and scared of postmortem retaliation, what's to keep them from ripping the heads off their feudal lords, taking the fields and livestock for themselves and living independent lives? And without compulsory tithing (think taxation), why would anyone be so naive as to continue funding the wealthiest oligarchies on the planet?

So religion complements governmental control and codifies subservience as an unquestioned value, exempt from criticism or logic. It's no coincidence that the pope, from about AD 300 through about AD 1650, was the most powerful figure in the western world. Arguably the most corrupt, too, although the competition for that title was pretty stiff.

And tithing, or filling the collection box, is simply taxation taken into the spiritual realm. It trains young church-goers to fork over their disposable income without protest, which is exactly what the various tax collection agencies of the world demand from a compliant citizenry.

I think it's significant that polls taken over the past couple of decades show American religiosity rising to levels unseen anywhere else in the industrialized world. In fact, the 85 to 90 percent of the US population who say they believe in a standard, monotheistic gawd contrasts sharply with the progressive social democracies of western Europe, where religiosity is around 15 percent and dropping. Not surprisingly, in contrast to western Europe, the US is increasingly repressive, conservative, bitter, divided and reactionary.

As an aside, it's astounding to me that gawd -- omnipotent and omniscient though she is -- always seems to need money, and her surrogate beggars always seem to have silvery pompadours, sharkskin suits, southern accents and cable TV networks. You'd think such omniscience would allow her to make a killing in the stock market or at the track without having to panhandle on national TV. Maybe she just likes occasional degradation. Maybe her ego needs to take an occasional hit to keep unbridled narcissism in check.

Anyway, I share your loathing for Gawd Bless America during the seventh inning stretch, the cracker fools sitting on school boards who demand creation and Darwin be taught as equally valid theories, the zealots who plaster the 10 commandments on public buildings, the religiously insane loons who get their spirits healed and their hypochondrias cured in revival tents, the hypocrites masquerading as men of gawd sanctimoniously denouncing anything remotely progressive and the bible literalists who seem to honestly believe that the earth is a little over 6,000 years old.

Most of all, I loathe the sophist biblical "experts" who dare to equate a belief system, based on pure fantasy and intended to produce compliant sheep, with the scientific method of developing a hypothesis, getting reproducible results based on that hypothesis, writing it up and submitting it for peer review, revising it accordingly and relentlessly pursuing the truth -- to the extent that objective "truth" actually exists in the scientific sense -- until today's hypothesis becomes tomorrow's grad school curriculum.

A pox on these professional bullshitters who prey on the undereducated, ill-informed, uncritical, ignorant and thoroughly indoctrinated. If the terrors that punish evil behavior in the hereafter are actually real, I hope these vermin are consigned to the hottest, most acrid, most painful corner of hell for all eternity. It's the least a just gawd could do.


wp

[nancyharris]

54. Certainly, at one point in time.

"organized religion is the greatest scam for social control and wealth redistribution ever..."

True. However, since the beginning of the 20th century I think you will find that Communism was the greatest scam for social control and wealth redistribution.

[redqueen]

55. Are you serious?

:wow:

[nancyharris]

62. Absolutely!

It was also responsible for millions of political murders, relocations and imprisonments.

[RaleighNCDUer]

170. Like religion wasn't. nt

[Cybergata]

59. Still stuck somewhere in the 50s I see! n/t

[warren pease]

75. Can't hold a candle to religion...

Murdered citizens: USSR -- ~ 60 million

Major religions since dawn of Christianity -- incalculable but arguably far more than Stalin could even imagine.


Money moving from poor to rich: USSR -- all assets over a population base of about 149M in 1928 rising to about 287M in 1989.

Major religions since dawn of Christianity -- considering centuries of plundering medieval Europe by the Roman Catholic church, the plundering of the former Ottoman empire by the Eastern Rite Catholic church, colonialist plunder throughout the Americas and Africa financed wholly or in part by the Catholic church, the plunder of Spain and Portugal by the Ottomans, the British empire's program to create opium addicts of hundreds of millions of Chinese so they could get cheap tea, a the Church of England production... There's been quite a bit of wealth transfer from bottom to top in the name of organized religion and I'd suggest it dwarfs eight decades of upward wealth redistribution schemes perpetrated on the people of the USSR.


Religion as social control mechanism: USSR -- the state religion of communism, backed by the NKVD and later the KGB, demanded total conformity and shipped the unorthodox off to die in the soviet gulag.

Major religions since dawn of Christianity -- when even kings must toe the church's line, when entire societies are organized around obedience to some designated representative of the deity, when the church has the power of life and death over the citizenry, when heresy -- otherwise known as political dissent -- is punishable by burning at the stake, stoning, drowning, drawing and quartering, and other such ghastly deaths, when Torquemada rampaged through Spain, murdering thousands for imaginary sins against orthodoxy -- I'd suggest that the social control strangle hold imposed by the Catholic church makes the KGB, GRU, NKVD, Stalin and the entire Politburo look like second-rate pikers.


Mind you, I'd never argue that the USSR was a utopian society. Far from it; it was an repressive dungeon and environmental sewer. I'm simply responding to your conjectures comparing the great red menace with the great gawd scam.


wp

[redqueen]

116. Thank you for taking the time

to address that post with a substantive response. :hi:

[warren pease]

120. All comments deserve a reasoned response...

...except the ones that are too weird to merit one.

Like yours. ;-)


Just kidding... (where's that damn sarcasm icon when you need it?)


wp

[redqueen]

125. Hahaha... yes, you're right...

but sometimes they're so... !?!... that I just don't how to even begin to address them.

I'm so glad there's usually another DUer around to fill in the blanks when that situation occurs. :hug:

[nancyharris]

210. I think you will find

that I made no "conjectures" comparing Communism with religion. I only pointed out that since the beginning of the 20th century Communism was "the greatest scam for social control and wealth redistribution". You seem to have made my point - thanks!

[warren pease]

244. And you assume the scam has been over for more than 100 years?

Who do you think laundered the Reich's stolen treasures -- for a substantial commission, of course. That alone may well have been the single largest wealth redistribution scheme of the 20th Century, although the institution of the federal reserve bank probably equals or exceeds it. And there's nothing like Dachau or Auschwitz for a little social control, not to mention mass murder. True, Stalin murdered several times as many people as did the SS, but you have to admire that meticulous record keeping.

Hannah Keller. Female. Juden. Age 33. Brown hair, brown eyes. 5' 3". #34948632-7. And so on...

All in the name of religious and ethnic purity, with an ample assist from the Vatican bank in hiding, laundering, middling, auctioning and smuggling Nazi gold, jewelry, heirlooms, art and the rest of the spoils of genocide.

Yeah, it was a real hell of a century, and this one's starting out like it wants to set new records for bloodshed and venality, not to mention lock down suppression. Only this time, the religion will probably be some variant of consumerism or renegade capitalism, since money is now our one true god and it will not have strange gods before it.


wp

[nancyharris]

248. You may want to get your historic information from somewhere

other than the Internet. Nazi Socialists did not inflict the horrors of the Holocaust in the name of "religious purity". Nor did the Catholic Church hide, auction and smuggle Nazi gold, jewelry and heirlooms. That is nothing more than religious bigoted nonsense.

[warren pease]

336. Funding ODESSA and other post-WW II fascist groups

The Reich did in fact inject religious purity, along with racial purity, into the whole Seigfried mythology, which was embodied by tall blonds with blue eyes and "pure" minds and hearts. They developed this set of twisted "christian" tenets to justify their racism.

Modern right wing American hate groups like the KKK, Aryan Nations, Army of God, White Aryan Resistance, The Order and on down the list have adopted those tenets wholesale. Here, this racist cult is usually known as the "Christian Identity" movement and is described by religioustolerance.org as:

A number of small, extremely conservative Fundamentalist Christian denominations which have accepted Anglo-Israelism, and grafted it to racist, sexist, anti-communist and homophobic beliefs. They view the Jewish people as descendants of Satan. Followers tend to be involved in political movements opposing gun control, equal rights to gays and lesbians, and militia movements.

As to Nazi gold and Vatican involvement in laundering and/or redistributing it, here's what I know about the status of the ongoing legal investigation as of this moment:

A lawsuit -- Alperin v. Vatican Bank -- alleges that all or a portion of the treasury of Croatia’s government, the Ustasha, "was transferred to cooperative Roman Catholic clergymen and members of the Franciscan Order for transport to Rome" where the funds eventually "found their way into the hands of the Vatican Bank, among other recipients."

The suit was originally brought before a California court in November 1999, but in 2003 lawyers for the Vatican Bank and the Franciscan Order successfully argued that the case was outside the jurisdiction of a US court because it involved issues of foreign policy. However, in 2005 an Appeal Court overturned the earlier judgment and allowed the claims for restitution to proceed. The Vatican Bank and the Franciscans then challenged this ruling, but in 2006, the Supreme Court, by declining to hear their case, has opened the way for the lawsuit to proceed.

In addition to internet scrounging, I've read three books on the subject over the past few years ranging in tone from breathless spy thriller prose to serious, well-sourced and extensively footnoted investigative journalism. All of them make similar claims: the Vatican Bank acted as an intermediary between German bankers and their international counterparts to convert stolen treasure from much of Europe, and primarily Croatia, into a stable currency, most likely Swiss Francs at that time. The Vatican Bank, for a healthy commission, managed to launder or resell billions in gold, art, jewelry and other valuable stuff looted from a range of sources: from museums, castles and manor houses to the dental work of Jews and other undesirables consigned to the camps. The currencies received in these transactions was then stored in Vatican Bank vaults for later retrieval by the Reich's top dogs.

Not having access to any primary sources who can confirm or deny these allegations, I'm stuck with secondary research. One book that I haven't read but probably should is called "The Intermarium." The publicity blurb says:

Much of the historical background of the Vatican Bank Claims is documented in this book authored by Dr. Jonathan Levy who also serves as plaintiffs' co-counsel in this case. This is supported by thousands of pages of declassified documents and the testimony of former Army Counterintelligence Agent, William Gowen who served in Rome 1946-1947.

Not that he doesn't have a bias, but I'd really like to see the declassified docs and read the testimony.

So that's today's contribution to the great debate: Resolved: The USSR's thievery, genocidal practices and social control enforcement systems in the 20th century make similar efforts by religion look like the work of a third-rate pretender. Or something like that.


wp

[unpossibles]

360. the Nazis - socialists in name only, remember - did not commit their crimes in the name of god?

they did not kill people over their religion, for purity? what?

You're kidding, right?

Gott mit uns!

[RaleighNCDUer]

169. Really?

Which has survived in the Soviet Union? Communism or the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Communism is a blip that in another hundred years will be forgotten. But religion will still infect 80% of the worlds populace.

[unpossibles]

359. religion affects far more people than communism

unless you are including rabid anti-communistic McCarthyist leftovers from the last century in this.

[Cybergata]

57. Amen - hee hee, no I meant Olé

There was nothing like studying European History in college back in the 1970s to make me paranoid of any organized religion. Too many wars have been fought over whose god and which interpretation of god is real. Too many leaders have used religion to control people and even slaughter people (see St. Bartholomew's Day massacre). Everything I've ever learned in history just proves that it is bad voo-doo to have religion anywhere close to government.

[nancyharris]

66. Still stuck somewhere in the Middle ages I see! n/t

[Tyler Durden]

69. You're the one that started playing tit for tat.

I'd say you asked for it.

[Cybergata]

73. Hello other Nancy!

If I'm stuck anywhere in time, it is the in the early half of U.S. History, the Ancient American Civilizations, Spanish settlement of New Mexico and related historical topics since those are subjects I teach to 12 and 13 year olds.

It is amazing how after years and years of helping kids understand the Constitution of the U.S. how strongly devoted I have become to that document. It seems like every year as I approach the topic, I feel panic over teaching a document which has always been such a revered document, yet has been so easily ignored when it comes to following it. I worry that I will say too much about the present time, or don't really explain the importance of Checks & Balances as well as I should. In the end, year after year, I love the constitution more than ever.


But, no matter where I am in the past, I must admit the middle ages will always be "nipping at my heals!" ;-)

[jonnyblitz]

61. bwahahah!! great rant!

:thumbsup: :D

[LanternWaste]

71. I didn't know that I was any more...

"And tithing, or filling the collection box, is simply taxation taken into the spiritual realm."

In my church we use the collection plate offerings mainly to fund Meals on Wheels, two night shelters and the rectory. It's less being "trained to fork over the money", and is simply another avenue for charity.

That being said, I didn't know that I was any more or any less compliant, docile or controlled than anyone else...

Some think religion was the opiate of the masses and while that may or may not have been true, I happen to think gaming consoles and I-pods have moved into first place in keeping the people a bit more compliant, docile and controlled (but that's probably because I'm "undereducated, ill-informed, uncritical, ignorant and thoroughly indoctrinated" :evilgrin: ).

[Tyler Durden]

74. Mark 10, v17-25

<17> And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
<18> And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
<19> Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
<20> And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
<21> Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
<22> And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
<23> And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
<24> And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
<25> It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Either you believe it, or you don't. I won't call you a hypocrite, if you LEAVE ME ALONE.

[LanternWaste]

79. I'm afraid I don't understand the point...

I'm afraid I don't understand the point you're attempting to make... :shrug:

[Tyler Durden]

84. You started talking like a Pharasee, I treated you like one.

See, I don't need to know how you and your church (building costs how many hundred thousand?) do your little charities. If you feel good about it, FINE. I don't tout how I do my alms:

Matthew 6, 1-4

1. <1> Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2. <2> Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3. <3> But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4. <4> That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Just don't bring your religion into the POLITICAL argument, that's all I ask of any of you.

[papau]

194. We all bring our values to political argument - including those based on beliefs in a God or

beliefs in the unprovable statement that there is no god.

[Tyler Durden]

311. You MAY NOT make your "beliefs" part of the Political Argument.

It is not Constitutional, and frankly, it's just plain rude.

Catholics believe that EVERY pregnancy MUST be carried to term on the tenants of their religion.

You want your DAUGHTER raised that way, there are religious schools. USE THEM.

[LanternWaste]

350. However, we all bring our own personal moral and value systems...

However, we all bring our own personal moral and value systems into a political discussion, yes? And if many people base their personal moral and value systems on their religion and on their faith, then I'm afraid I don't see how that person's religion (if even only implicated) could be denied as part of the discourse.

[Tyler Durden]

354. I could not disagree more.

Suppose YOUR religious values insist that Gay Marriage is Sin and in fact, Homosexuals were perverts and had no place in society? This is not far fetched, as there are those people today. Shall I in fact respect your discriminatory religious beliefs as valid?

Perhaps I am a Fundamentalist of the farthest fringe, declaring all beliefs besides mine to be anathema and heresy: must you respect my point of view and give it a voice in the execution of the law of the land?

The fact of the matter is, Religious Belief is OUTSIDE of secular government. Say that your beliefs prohibit supporting the Death Penalty; under VOIE DIRE as a potential member of a jury in a capital crime, you will be asked if you can support the Death Penalty. As you will not be able to support a statute on the books depending on the state, you will be excluded from participation.

Do you see how this works? If you cannot support COMPLETE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, then, if you are a person of honor, you must recuse yourself from participation. To do otherwise is to be in conflict with the constitution and support a lie.

[LanternWaste]

348. It was simply a counter-response...

It was simply a counter-response to the implied claim that churches spend recklessly on unnecessary gewgaws rather than the inferred-- an attempt to advertise the piousness of any one person. Sorry you misunderstood.

[Tyler Durden]

355. Actually, I misunderstood nothing.

If you meet in a fine building while others are sick and starve, they you deny your faith.

If this is too literal, I understand, but then you cannot claim the absolute high ground and bring your "Faith" into the body politic under your own definitions. To do so is hypocrisy.

I do not condemn anyone for this: I merely suggest that your absolutism ie the inclusion of your religion is invalid.

[LanternWaste]

351. Edit- self delete

[warren pease]

82. Well, those are some good points...

Particularly pointing to gaming consoles and ipods as the new docility producers. I'd go with TV as the all-time champ, but its influence seems to be on the decline as things like gaming, the internets and incessant cell phone chatter and texting absorb some of the time previously used for staring at the TV.

And certainly there are legitimate uses for money collected at church, although when I was a kid (and an altar boy, of all things) the whole game was about rebuilding the convent or getting new stained glass windows or upgrading the statuary. So my experience is somewhat different from yours.

While you may not have been rendered "docile and compliant," that doesn't negate the obvious fact that, historically, religion has been used to keep the peasants in line by feeding them a steady diet of bullshit about knowing their place, setting limits on their expectations, rendering unto Caesar what's Caesar's, accepting authority, submitting to institutional dominance in return for some heavenly reward, and a host of "values" that restrict individuality and creativity while suppressing the human spirit and subordinating it to the will of the church, state, police, political party, George W. Bush... You see where I'm going.

And you see the results: the only reliable base Bush has left is the lunatic fundie right, which is stuck with him because they must have a champion in government willing to obliterate the wall between church and state and there's nobody else to turn to.

Finally, I didn't mean to imply that you, personally, are "undereducated, ill-informed, uncritical, ignorant and thoroughly indoctrinated." But religions do attract inordinate numbers of people who are members of one or more of those groups. Sociological and psychological studies have confirmed that link ever since people in those disciplines first started poking into human motivations and ideologies juxtaposed against religious affiliation.

Good comments, though.


wp

[Tyler Durden]

85. Hi Warren.

This one's a sore spot with me for some highly personal and private reasons involving a hospital, a close family member, and a Fundy Evangelist physician with a chip on his shoulder.

Nice to see you though.

[warren pease]

93. Likewise...

Nice to see you, too. Hope all's well, despite the failed escape attempt.


Best,

wp

[Tyler Durden]

96. Hey, they can't kill us all.

Or can they?

[warren pease]

104. I'd go with planetary extinction for a thousand, Alex. n/t

[Tyler Durden]

110. Yeah, when the $1000 door goes up, an comet smacks into us.

BOOM!

[mak3cats]

68. K & R from a Reformed Druid (I made that up) (eom)

[Cybergata]

76. Make that a . . .

"crypto-druid" since druids are always the second to be persecuted. ;-)

[bpeale]

77. HEAR HEAR!!! thank you! i feel the same way

[Hydra]

80. K&R

Amazing how many morons have posted support for "God" in government. John Adams, who I don't really like(I'm a Jeffersonian), put it perfectly:

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen … it is declared … that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. … The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

As other people have pointed out, would you tolerate it if I led a prayer to the powers of chaos and disorder, that they may lead us to new ideas and the elimination of stagnation?

[nancyharris]

83. That is not a quote from John Adams

It is a quote (article 11) from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by Adams and ratified by the Senate. It was probably written by John Barlow (the diplomat that negotiated the treaty). The treaty was later renegotiated without this article.

[Tyler Durden]

87. HOKAY, you asked for this one:

I give you, John Adams.

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church

"When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it."
-- John Adams, from Rufus K Noyes, Views of Religion, quoted from from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.... And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814, quoted in Norman Cousins, In God We Trust: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (1958), p. 108, quoted from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, also from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."
-- John Adams, letter to his son, John Quincy Adams, November 13, 1816, from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

[Cybergata]

92. GMTA

. . . except that my thoughts seem to be posting two at a time!

[nancyharris]

105. You are unlikely to win a battle of John Adams quotes on God

"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.” (June 28, 1813: Letter to Thomas Jefferson)

“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!” (April 18, 1775)

“July 4th ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
(letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress)

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (October 11, 1798)

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."
(December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson)

[papau]

195. LOL - well done - great founding father quotes! :-) n/t

[Tyler Durden]

332. With one blow, I knock you flat.

"The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations."
John Adams

and another just for good measure:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."
-- John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief

Strike 3, you're OUT:

"I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself."
-- John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756, explaining how his independent opinions would create much difficulty in the ministry, in Edwin S Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 88, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"

Sounds like a REAL CHRISTIAN to me.

[Cybergata]

89. But John Adams did say . . .

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion's Mouth be forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years."

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."

[Cybergata]

90. But John Adams did say . . .

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

"We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society."

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"

"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion's Mouth be forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years."

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."

[Hydra]

91. How about this one then:

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. Read over again all the accounts we have of Hindoos, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Teutons, we shall find that priests had all the knowledge, and really governed mankind. Examine Mahometanism, trace Christianity from its first promulgation; knowledge has been almost exclusively confined to the clergy. And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated and applauded, but touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes."

I preferred the other for brevity. Let's see what my hero Jefferson has to say, shall we?

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."

"I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another."

"They believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."

-On members of the clergy who sought to establish some form of "official" Christianity in the U.S. government. Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush (September 23, 1800)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

We shouldn't even be having this discussion, anyway. Jesus said it himself:

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen."

Pounding your breast in public or fawning over those who do is the attempt to gain social standing.

[opiate69]

199. But.....

your post, and your position in this debate, seem to infer that it was renegotiated because of that article..or that the renegotiation somehow invalidates the original. But that's simply not the case. The Treaty of Peace and Amnesty was negotiated and ratified 9 years after the original, after the Pasha of Tripoli violated the original.

[nancyharris]

203. Sorry, I didn't see your "But...."

I did not mean to infer that the treaty was renegotiated because of the article 11. As I understand it, the Arabic translation given to the Pasha did not even include article 11. I was only pointing out that the quote was not from President Adams but from the treaty which was later renegotiated without the clause.

[opiate69]

217. Maybe I was reading too much into it then..

it just seemed like the argument was heading towards "the Treaty of Tripoli can't be used as evidence that the US was not founded as a Christian nation because it was later renegotiated". Which of course would be wrong, since the treaty was in fact enacted and signed by the President and the Senate, many of whom actually helped write the Constitution.

[Tyler Durden]

95. Here's one just for you!

I give you, Thomas Jefferson:

"And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter."

[nancyharris]

113. Here's one just for you!

"God wants universal healthcare and an end to NAFTA and the WTO" - (Dennis Kucinich February 2004, Democratic Primary debate)

[Tyler Durden]

118. A truly stupid comment.

God has nothing to do with it. Dennis sometimes needs to keep the pie hole closed.

And ANYONE who claims to KNOW what "GOD" wants (like the pig Bush does) is suspect of being "tetched" in the head.

[RaleighNCDUer]

166. I LOVE his sense of humor. nt

[Fearless]

81. Amen. ....Well not exactly...

:rofl:

[bdamomma]

94. I do not wear my religion on my sleeve and never will

religion to me is someone's own private beliefs and others should not force their religion on others. Especially all those who think their god is better than mine.

[Tyler Durden]

98. BRAVA

That is exactly the attitude that will never be criticized by me.

[bdamomma]

99. I am from the old school, and pretty glad that I am on that issue.

[Mrspeeker]

100. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!!!!!!

[smokey nj]

102. Amen Brother!

TESTIFY!
:applause:

[eagler]

103. I guess it can be over done but personally I'm tired of people tearing down religion.

Get over it. You are allowed to believe or not believe.

[Tyler Durden]

108. NO, you're NOT.

NOT if when you attend a Town Council Meeting in a city of 20,000, you get "Before we commence, let us all stand and bow our heads for the blessing."

OR if you get some Fundy/Evangelist Physician in an ER telling a female in your family that she is risking her immortal soul by having a rape kit done.

I'm sorry, but don't tell me to get over it. KEEP YOUR RELIGION IN YOUR CHURCH, AND LEAVE ME AND MINE ALONE. This does not include your X-mas tree and is not a "War on Christmas" or God. I put up a tree myself.

That's all we ask and it's not much to ask.

[eagler]

109. I certainly agree with you about the fundy doctor in the ER.

[Tyler Durden]

117. You see, this is the whole issue.

It's like M&M's: they just can't STOP. The "Evangelists" have to win ALL OF US, and because they are DOING IT FOR OUR OWN GOOD, we are supposed to tolerate it.

BULLSHIT.

Matt.6

1. <6> But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.


DON'T preach to me. DON'T witness to me. DON'T lecture me, and DON'T infringe on my LEGAL RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN in the NAME OF YOUR RELIGION.

Not directed specifically at you.

[eagler]

121. I agree with you. To me voluntary prayer is neutral. If you are an

atheist, then anyone praying is doing nothing more than talking to themselves. A moment of silence is just that. However, forced or coersive prayer is always unacceptable and in the case of the doctor in the ER - he should be sued. Peace.

[Hydra]

126. That's a hazy issue

I keep silent during such prayer sessions, but you can easily be the subject of retribution for doing so.

As Tyler and others pointed out, it would not be considered acceptable for me to preach the doctrine of chaos and entropy were I to be a social servant or someone subject to a Hippocratic oath, so why should it be tolerated for the people who believe in the bearded big brother in the sky to do so?

[eagler]

145. retribution is illegal, free prayer is a protected constitutional right

[Hydra]

150. Illegal or not

it happens. So does ostracism or even firebombing of people "not with the program."

That's why I understand Tyler's point- you give an inch, and they take several miles. Then they say "it's always been this way- you're persecuting us!"

[DangerDave921]

167. ER

How is an ER doctor a governmental entity?

This whole thread is about church/state. There are assholes in every area of life. An ER doctor is not considered the government.

[Tyler Durden]

280. All part of the "I CAN PREACH WHEREVER I WANT..." BS.

A PUBLIC hospital is NOT a pulpit, and my relatives are NOT this fool's flock.

[DangerDave921]

288. Then complain to the hospital

Seriously. Make a complaint to the head of the hospital. But you can't turn this single episode into a church/state argument because it's not.

Just like if some sales clerk at Starbucks started lecturing you about the Bible. That's not the government doing anything against you.

[Tyler Durden]

297. I am talking about the innumerable Council Meetings.

Somehow this got micro-sidetracked.

And if someone's RELIGION tells them that they can infringe on me with proselytizing, can it also say that they discriminate against people of color? The Mormons changed that to be more popular, not to conform with any law.

[nancyharris]

128. As irritating as your first example above is,

and as wildly absurd as your second example above is, both are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. You may be annoyed or even offended by the presence of other people exercising their religious beliefs in your presence but the Constitution provides those individuals with that freedom. Feel free, however, to advocate the repeal of any part of the First Amendment you deem inappropriate.

[D23MIURG23]

161. Absurd like fundy pharmacists refusing to dispense the morning after pill?

Technically I think you are right about the first amendment issue in the second example. In the first there is an establishment clause issue related to the fact that it occured at an official government function, and could arguably be a governmental establishment of religion.

But neither of these cases are at all absurd (as examples of offensive religious activity - which is how I interpereted your comment). Fundy pharmacists have refused to dispense contraception, fundies have been known to blow up gynocological offices, and they have even picketed the funerals of fallen soldiers to protest tolerance for homosexuality. Like any fringe movement they have a right to free speech and religion; luckily we can reign it in with criminal law and job competency issues when it involves blowing people up or refusing patients medication. In any case, the original post was about the obsessive need for politicians to affirm certain sorts of religious beleifs, which I myself think is a legitimate complaint, all first amendment establishment vs. expression issues aside.

[nancyharris]

200. Tyler’s first example...

Tyler’s first example was a Town Council meeting opening with a “blessing”. There is no establishment clause issue here. That has been long settled by the USSC. Thus, both the US House and Senate start their day’s work with a benediction.

I assume by using the expression “fundy” you are referring to fundamentalist Christians. One does not need to be a fundamentalist Christian Pharmacist to refuse to sell Plan B emergency contraceptives. Two of the 3 persons recently fired in Texas for doing so were Catholic. I assume you do not think practicing Catholics (like Senators Kerry and Kennedy) are “fundamentalist Christians”. The recent federal lawsuit in Washington State (in which the federal judge issued an injunction against forcing Pharmacists to sell Plan B) was filed by the Washington State Board of Pharmacy (hardly a “fundamentalist Christian” group).

I am sometimes amazed at how some progressive Democrats think it just to force people to act against their religious beliefs.

[scorpiogirl]

228. But it's ok to do that to someone, say, an atheist, who has no beliefs?

If the pharmacist's religious beliefs are getting in the way of doing his/her job, then he/she should feel free to find a line of work that won't clash with their beliefs. They should not be accommodated so that they can force their beliefs on others by NOT doing their job. Seems simple enough to me. Any other person who didn't want to do their job, would be fired for failure to do so. Instead, their beliefs are considered more important than the person trying to get their prescription filled, whatever it may be. But apparently, you're ok with that because you have a belief you have deemed more important than another's beliefs. I have a right not to have my medications dispensed at the discretion of a religious zealot.

Let me ask you a question. If all pharmacists use their religion as an excuse to not fill a doctor prescribed medication, when would you consider the patients well-being negatively affected? Where does it end? By telling even one of them that it's ok to discriminate using their religious beliefs you are telling them all that it's ok. It's not!

[D23MIURG23]

234. What if you are a member of Mel Gibson's church?

Does that give you the right not to dispense Insulin to people with Jewish sounding last names?
:hi:

[nancyharris]

258. Your argument is facetious

Doctors are not required to perform operations or medical procedures they think are unethical or contrary to their sense of morality. Nurses and medical assistants are not required to assist in procedures they feel are antithetical to their religious or personal morals or values. Similarly, Pharmacists should not be forced to prepare and dispense drugs for which their religious beliefs may condemn. The Pharmacists in question here were active in their profession long before Plan B emergency contraceptive became available. They certainly should not (as you propose) "find a line of work that won't clash with their beliefs.".

Your last question (If all Pharmacists...) is patently absurd. One could ask the same: If all doctors... A "hypothetical" is not needed. The fact is, all Pharmacists do not hold such religious beliefs and as long as there is another Pharmacist (or another Pharmacy) that can fill the prescription there is no harm done to either the patient or the Pharmacist.

Finally (and perhaps most importantly) is an honest sense of fairness and decency one human being might extend to another human being. We don't want to see anyone forced to act contrary to their conscious if at all possible. We hope that our community both holds in high respect a person's personal religious belief and that a person with religious beliefs holds in high respect any differing set of beliefs.

[Quantess]

331. A pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription because of religious beliefs

IS imposing his/her religion on others. The woman who got denied Plan B because the pharmacist refused---religion was imposed on her. Her rights were encroached by someone else's religion.

"as long as there is another Pharmacist (or another Pharmacy) that can fill the prescription there is no harm done to either the patient or the Pharmacist."

Well, what if there isn't another pharmacy in the small town? And even if there is another pharmacy, it is unreasonable for the woman to spend precious time (time is of the essence with plan B) commuting across town to get a prescription she needs.

With this latest ruling, pharmacists are allowed to assert religious beliefs and hold power over individual customers. It is such outrageous bullshit!

[scorpiogirl]

349. Excellent points, but they'll never get it as long as their

viewpoint is legitmized by this ruling. It's as though if you believe in god, then that is more important than if one had no belief. I really think this person feels this way. It's very close-minded. I agree with you completely however.

[D23MIURG23]

230. I refer to anyone with a right wing, or literalist approach to Christianity as a Fundy.

I don't think that fits Kerry or Kennedy at all, but the label would still be open to them as Catholics in my opinion. Bill Donahue and Mel Gibson are both fundies by my reckoning.

As for forcing people to act against their beliefs, my attitude is that you should pursue a career you are willing to execute. Claiming a religious objection as a pharmacist is a cop out if you knew you would be required to violate your beliefs. Observant Quakers and Mennonites (both pacifist) exercise this same prerogative correctly by choosing NOT to join the marines. The key difference here is that if you become a pharmacist as a fundy you are now empowered to force your religious beliefs on the next rape victim who walks through the door by refusing them plan b in the name of your own "religious freedom".

When the Christian Scientists start becoming physicians and refuse to offer any treatment other than prayer for their patients, will hospitals be required to keep them employed as well? How about as ER docs?

Isn't that part of their "religious freedom"?

[Quantess]

246. I am amazed that someone posting on DU

would actually take the side of pharmacists, who put themselves in a position of power over individuals trying to get their prescription filled. You actually agree that it's acceptable for a pharmacist to interfere with a doctor-patient-relationship? Incredible.

[Tyler Durden]

283. You don't want to act against your religious beliefs?

Then avoid situations and vocations that will require you to do so, and don't ask reasonable people like me to make an exception for you.

And a prayer that asks all present at a PUBLIC meeting of a town's political governing body to pray "...in Jesus' name..." establishes Christianity as the "Religion of Choice" for the meetings of that body.

As far as Fundamentalist Catholics, obviously you know nothing about Opus Dei.

[Tyler Durden]

281. Fine.

Drop your minor children off with me this afternoon. I'll be happy to exercise my "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" to tell them all about Chaos and the Heat Death of the Universe sans GOD.

This "Doctor" had no right to preach at and condemn a Minor Female from my family. Perhaps you think it correct and proper for a salesperson at Macy's to offer comments from Joyce Meyer's Prosperity Theolology with every jewelry purchase?

Your naivete is very disturbing.

[Bluebear]

127. "Get over it" - marvelous.

:eyes:

[Arugula Latte]

136. eagler -- If you think you're tired of people tearing down religions here on DU,

just imagine how the rest of us feel about having our noses rubbed in religion on a day-to-day basis in the non-virtual world.

[Tyler Durden]

284. Actually, I'm not tearing down a single thing.

I merely wish that Religionists would keep their Religion to the church and themselves, and keep it out of my face and the body politic.

This is not an unreasonable request: I do not ask that I get equal time, just that they take what I view as Mythology down the road.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

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

[Lurking Dem]

112. Tyler,

It really, really concerns me when you hold back like this. Not only is it unhealthy, but I think it inadequately communicates your true feelings.

:+

[Tyler Durden]

123. I know, I know.

I just have to learn to let it out, don't I?

:rant:

[Dukkha]

124. your faith is weak if you need the state to acknowledge it

and your God is weak if s/he can't hear a silent prayer in a school without it being acknowledged.

and if I were a believer I would be terribly offended at all the politicians trying to cash in and exploit my most sacred beliefs for personal gain.

[Steely_Dan]

129. One Of The Best Rants I've Read

Nicely done.

-Paige

[FiveGoodMen]

131. You said it!

Couldn't agree more.

:toast::headbang::applause:

[rateyes]

133. Hey Tyler, when you

read the entrails, let us know how that goes. :rofl: I would LOVE to see that.

[happygoluckytoyou]

134. remember to breathe

I don't mind religon... I don't actually have one, but the people who do--- the "average" believer is not evil. Now ORGANIZED religon, and the organization accepting the $$$ to build $billion$ churches, and the television-evang. guys... a different thing.

As a non-believer--- I actually don't mind taking a minute to bow my head and reflect on the state of the universe... and if the person next to me believes in a grand-creator and wants to thank him for this, that is okay too.

BUT what really chaps my hide... what really boils my onions...
---------could we all just remember to breathe once in a while

(and yes... i know you are angry... it is why they call it a rant...

[Snarkturian Clone]

137. Zod bless you.

but seriously, it's not that big of a deal. People believe this stuff and aren't about to let it go. When you're a member of an extreme minority like atheists and agnostics are in some places, it's unfair to ask everyone around you to change their ways just for you. I'm the only atheist non-fundie at my job- a government job- and people around me are constantly bringing up their jesus and starting meetings with prayers. I deal with it. I'm not about to stand up and make 75 other people change the ways that run their entire lives just for me. For some of the people I work with it would be like asking them to eat a shoe for breakfast.

[Quantess]

251. I feel the same way, about certain benign little things when you're interacting with people

But a lot of the religious encroachment is not so innocent. When it's a big deal, it really does come down to religious people trying to make everyone behave in accordance to their particular religious beliefs. The innocent transgressions, I can easily overlook. But religious fundies will push the envelope as far as they can. If the fundamentalist Christians had their way, the USA would have the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law.

[earth mom]

140. I SO agree! Once * started getting all religious is when I started getting interested in Politics.

The way * & Co have manipulated and used religion to get what they want is just the most disgusting and diabolical thing ever. :puke:


Our founding fathers knew that religion had no business in politics and are probably rolling over in their graves by how their Constitution has been so trashed! :grr:


The Golden Rule is all anyone needs to get through life-hence my user name.

[AuntPatsy]

144. You and me both, it reeks of idiocy and what's worse is those that buy into

such obvious what is and shouldn't be fail safe campaign slogans.

[McCamy Taylor]

151. If religion never entered politics MLK Jr never would have given this speech.

Now, maybe you think that you could have done better leading the Civil Rights Movement than Dr. King, but I know you could not. And I know that America would not have listened so closely to a lawyer or a doctor.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm

I think a lot of what is going on in the left is just sour grapes because the right wing has all the preachers at the moment. We should get some of our own.

P.S. And the religious right just loooves it when people at DU post about how they hate Christians and hate Buddhists and hate all forms of religion, because that means that we will never ever compete with the Republicans on their own turf. Sometimes I even wonder if the Freepers come over here and pretend to be atheists just to convince people over here how bad it would be if we ever copied the Liberation Theologists. How sad if we managed to get lower and working class people to vote socialist in this country by spelling out the true nature of Christianity!

[Der Blaue Engel]

163. You know what I don't care about? What the religious right "just loooves" or doesn't

They're going to make up their own bullshit persecution whether it exists or not.

Furthermore, I didn't see "I hate Christians!" anywhere in that post. That's a bit of a stretch from demanding respect for the belief systems of all by keeping religion out of government.

And please remind me, what public office did Reverend King run for?

[Arugula Latte]

177. Tell 'em, Der Blaue Engel!

:yourock:

[go west young man]

153. A link to the true founding fathers.

http://www.nativeamericans.com/Photos.htm In their truly spiritual world there was no necessity to put "god" in everything as they knew all things were connected. The dream world and reality were one. I think our desire to have "god" put on our money and in our schools is a sign of our own insecurity and fear. And as an agnostic I believe that "if" there is a god then that god would be disappointed in those who wasted time praying to his ass. What kind of super being wants people kissing his ass because they are afraid? It's paradoxical.

[Tyler Durden]

275. Sort of like "The First Church of God the Utterly Indifferent"

from Sirens of Titan.

Now Vonnegut may have been God. Or Sagan.

[countryjake]

295. and the rules of common civility - a Franklin anecdote on failings of Christianity..

from an essay which he wrote on the "Savages of North America":

"A Swedish minister having assembled the chiefs of the Susquehanna Indians, made a sermon to them, acquainting them with the principal historical facts on which our religion is founded, such as the fall of our first parents by eating an apple; the coming of Christ to repair the mischief; his miracles and sufferings, etc. When he had finished, an Indian orator stood up to thank him. 'What you have told us,' said he, 'is all very good. It is indeed bad to eat apples. It is better to make them all into cider. We are much obliged by your kindness in coming so far to tell us those things which you have heard from your mothers. In return, I will tell you some of those which we have heard from ours. In the beginning, our fathers had only the flesh of animals to subsist on; and if their hunting was unsuccessful, they were starving. Two of our young hunters having killed deer, made a fire in the woods to broil some parts of it. When they were about to satisfy their hunger, they beheld a beautiful young woman descend from the clouds, and seat herself on that hill which you see yonder among the blue mountains. They said to each other, it is a spirit that perhaps has smelt our broiled venison and wishes to eat of it; let us offer some to her. They presented her with the tongue; she was pleased with the taste of it, and said, 'Your kindness shall be rewarded. Come to this place after thirteen moons, and you shall find something that will be of a great benefit in nourishing you and your children to the latest generations.' They did so and, to their surprise, found plants they had never seen before; but which, from that ancient time, have been constantly cultivated among us to our great advantage. Where her right hand touched the ground they found maize; where her left hand touched it they found kidney- beans.' ... The good missionary, disgusted with this idle tale, said, 'What I delivered to you were sacred truths; but what you tell me is mere fable, fiction, and falsehood.' The Indian, offended, replied, 'My brother, it seems your friends have not done you justice in your education; they have not well instructed you in the rules of common civility. You saw that we, who understand and practice these rules, believed all your stories, why do you refuse to believe ours?'"

[D23MIURG23]

155. Praise Bob!

[McCamy Taylor]

165. Agreed! Give me slack or...oh, who cares?

[Ignis]

220. Silence, heathens!

*fnord*

[BobTheSubgenius]

233. Slack?

I'm all about slack. Really. ;)

[D23MIURG23]

239. WELCOME BOB!!!

Always good to see new weirdos around here!



:hi:

[Hawaii Hiker]

160. Great rant Tyler

& I agree totally, :woohoo:

[RoccoR5955]

175. And I thought that "freedom of religion" should include...

...freedom FROM religion!

[papau]

196. Freedon from religion and those that are religious has no more validity than freedon from athiests

[Tyler Durden]

333. We don't seek you out to convert you.

We would consider it rude.

Take a hint.

[mitchum]

185. I will always blame JIMMY CARTER for injecting his faith into a campaign as a "positive"

because he did
Uh, thanks a whole helluva lot, Jimmy

[louis-t]

197. Sick of hearing "Have a bleh-ssed day" on voice mail

or from the checkout person. Just realized, it always seems to be women who say this. I wonder why that is?

[Quantess]

257. Never heard of it.

That must be a regional saying. Move to the west coast so you won't have to hear it anymore.:)

[JFN1]

201. Awesome post!

If we kicked religion out of government, religion fears it will be weakened. So those with an interest in keeping religion a viable force in American life lobby hard to keep as much 'God' in government as they can get away with.

[TZ]

202. I believe we see eye to eye on this issue..

Here is a very similar thread I posted in R/T a while back:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=144270&mesg_id=144270

[C_U_L8R]

204. I'm all for freedom of religion

as long as we have freedom from religion

[Dukkha]

208. The forced theocracy is a big part of the vast right wing conspiracy

the centrist christians here ara part of it but would never fess up to it. Another atheist was just on CNN talking about the Georgia fundy Governor using his position to force christian prayer and as usual, she's dismissed as a 'lefty loony" like all secularists are in the M$M. It is government sponsored shit like this that needs to stop and the religious right silenced once and for all.

[David Diderot]

212. Faith kills

Faith kills.......  Religion is responsible for most of human
misery.

[southerncrone]

215. Strongly agree w/the OP. Every time you turn around there's some

excuse for a "prayer". It's a subtle form of social engineering. If you DON'T agree, you are an outcast--i.e. "bad person".

We waste a lot of time & energy with these "hokie prayer sessions". Praying should be a personalactivity. That makes it much more reverent.

These "public prayers" are like a sick form of bragging--"My religion is better than your religion!"

[nankerphelge]

224. Amen!

n/t

[NoGodsNoMasters]

226. Nice thread.

Personally, I believe religion to be one of the three principal sources of human misery. (The other two being nation states and unrestricted private enterprise.) This really illuminates a paradox on the right, they paint themselves as the embodiment of our nation and fetishize Americanism,.....while completely opposing almost everything the founding fathers stood for. The majority of the founding fathers (With a couple exceptions, Adams, for example, was very religious.) were agnostic if not Atheists. These guys were totally influenced by the enlightenment, thus, highly critical of religious dogma and all things irrational. We are the only, or one of the only, nations who actually have a protection AGAINST religion written into the fabric of our government. This is a BEAUTIFUL thing!In Britain, for example, church and state are still deeply intertwined. I also RESENT this notion that candidates have to be seen at church and profess they're faith as if it makes them more qualified. I don't give a FLYING FUCK if Hillary goes to church, I just want better healthcare and an end to Iraq! To paraphrase Bill Maher (One of the greats.), I cain't WAIT to hear some congressman/woman stand up and say proudly "I am an atheist." Seriously, it's like you should be ashamed of it or something.

[katandmoon]

227. Thank you so much for expressing this -- ICAM.

If you say you saw a UFO you get laughed out of town, but if you quote an imaginary being (and the GOD politicians are always deferring to IS an imaginary being, something they've made up in their own falsely pious images), you're taken seriously?! Something definitely wrong with this picture.

[BobTheSubgenius]

231. Coincidentally......

....I'm watching a PBS broadcast about the Dover PA School Board controversy about teaching evolution\ID in public schools. These fanatics make me CRAZY!

I know. I watch PBS. I'm prolly going to Hell.

[Plucketeer]

242. Trust in God -

- my ass.

Someone lives? "Oh! God's Will!"

Someone croaks? "Oh! God's called him home!"

What a CROCK. We're here - on a rock in space - you're gonna live until you die and you're gonna decompose back into the elements you grew from. The only hope I have of for the rapture is that if it DOES turn out to be true, all the damned goody-goods will leave and make this rock a better place for those of us who can think for ourselves.

Our only "curse" is that we evolved with a brain that allowed us to percieve of our own being and consequently think WAY MUCH MORE of ourselves than we really deserve. Thinking as we do, that we're so blessedly special, we MUST be the product of some caring entity and therefor deserving of more importance than the simple elements.
In the end, we may well be the cause of the next big wave of extinctions. It's happened before and how will that be any more tragic than a whopper of an asteroid or multiple volcanic eruptions??? Of course - if YOUR world is only 6000 years old, never mind!

[UrbScotty]

243. Well you OBVIOUSLY haven't accepted Ronald Reagan as your personal lord and savior

So I'll see you in hell!

[DFW]

249. I'll stick to André Gide's simple statement:

Croyez ceux qui cherchent la vérité. Doutez de ceux qui la trouvent.

("Believe those who seek the truth. Doubt those who find it.")

I do and I do.

[Norrin Radd]

252. Couldn't agree more.

[sampsonblk]

264. Straight to the back of the class

You seem to have forgotten how this nation was formed. Yours is a tiny minority view - and for good reason. Its faith in God that has shaped the ideas that made this nation great. Look at the laws they wrote. God God God God God. If so many of the framers didn't believe in God, where would all the ingrates live?

While you're talking with Zeus, you might mention to him the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

So there you have it. The Framers believed that the rights that you keep invoking all come from God, and the purpose of the govenment is to secure them for you. I have an idea. Why don't you refuse to accept all those rights, since they were said to have come from God. Yeah, that's the ticket!

[SidDithers]

390. What a crock of shit...nt

Sid

[unblock]

266. here's mine: "god doesn't need help from politicians"

[spoony]

269. I'm tired of hearing about religion in GD

Because it's almost invariably some negative, condescending, hyperbolic, sneering, uninformed, spamming, smarmy, and/or hateful trash.

There are at least three better forums for those who cannot control their obsession with or bitterness toward religion to throw their fits:

Religion/Theology (especially good if you've got some article about a priest in some distant small village embezzling funds or some such, which makes up about forty percent of the forum)

Atheists and Agnostics Group

and Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group

[TZ]

272. Let me ask then..

So you think that what the Republicans have done injecting religion into politics is a GOOD thing? And the constitutional separation of church and state a bad thing? Cause thats gonna put you in the minority here for SURE.

On edit: You know, there is a feature which allows you to IGNORE threads. Sheesh. If you are that thin skinned what the hell are you doing posting in GD (or any message board) anyway?

[spoony]

273. I'm also tired of the cack-handed twisting of my words

Seriously, that was really clumsy.

[spoony]

274. As to your edit

I imagine you don't see the irony in saying such a thing in a thread perpetuated by people who are so "thin-skinned" about, threatened by, and unable to deal with even the slightest nods to religion in public, even by non-government entities.

[Tyler Durden]

276. Who said ANYTHING about that?

I can give TWO SHITS about public X-mas trees, Mennorahs, or a giant gold Buddha on the front lawn.

WHAT has any of that to do with NOT having my nose condescendingly RUBBED in someone's religion simply because I choose to exercise my RIGHT to attend and address a City Council meeting?

Why is "So Help Me God," an invocation to a mythology, to be taken as proof that someone is going to tell the truth? Personally, if that was taken as an "oath" in a court where I was on trial, I'd be the first to object, saying that I did not recognize the stricture to honesty expressed in such an oath. I'd prefer a 10 second summary of the Perjury statute, a much better truth-telling motivator in my opinion, considering how may people LIE in the "Name of Jesus."

But you can put a NATIVITY CRECHE on the front lawn of city hall, for all I care, but keep your 10 "Commandments" (that I have yet to see ANY of you keep) on grounds of your CHURCH thank you VERY much.

This is not too much to ask, kids.

[countryjake]

299. When top of the news is a Governor leading prayer on Capitol steps...

which surely should be discussed in GD:

Georgia Governor leads "Pray for Rain" session; protestors kept away
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2276527&mesg_id=2276527

it is not surprising or negative for those in utter disbelief of such supernatural policies to feel a need to raise a ruckus in this forum.

[unpossibles]

362. wow - in my opinion that breaks the first twice!

"protestors kept away" - some people's rights are apparently more important than others.

I feel like I have learned a lesson here: my first amendment rights mean nothing and I should just get over it. After all, the Bill of Rights was created to protect the views of the majority.

Hail Satan.

[rAVES]

271. "One nation under the Sun" sounds fine...

The Wackos have way to much power.

[riona]

285. Great rant with strong support

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”
George Washington

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history”
James Madison

[Malidictus Maximus]

306. And Jefferson had some good things to say, too

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone.
-- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, 11 January 1817, in Lester Cappon, ed. The Adams-Jefferson Letters, (1959) p. 506, quoted from Jeremy Koselak, "The Exaltation of a Reasonable Deity: Thomas Jefferson’s Critique of Christianity"

I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely (June 25, 1819), quoted from Dickinson W Adams, ed, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Second Series (Princeton University Press, 1983; note that attributions saying "Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University (June 25, 1819)" are incorrect, as that Ezra Stiles died in 1795) ††

Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson, considering three different explanations for why sea shells would be found at higher elevations than one should reasonably expect an ocean to have existed, in Notes on the State of Virginia ††

[happygoluckytoyou]

292. IF GOD DID NOT EXIST ----> PEOPLE WOULD INVENT HER

Sadly, what you hear about God at the workplace would only be replaced by....
---------IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN
---------IT'S NOT ABOUT RACE, BUT...
---------IT'S NOT ABOUT GENDER, BUT...

Religon has been used as an excuse for most WAR... (Crusades, Spanish Inqusition, WWII...), but without religon as an EXCUSE the "masters of the world" would have used....color (slavery), fear (Iraq), or some other TRIBAL BULLSHIT (american indians)... in order to take what they want.

Have you noticed that the wealthy..... first become the scum of the earth... selling drugs... killing without cause... etc... and then ONCE THEY HAVE THEIR ADVANTAGE, yell "let's all be friends and forget the past and keep things the way that they are"

TO THAT END... i don't mind hearing a "true believer" praise the god they have invented, any more than i express a cheer for my own goddess (lady luck) when i win something.

WHAT I DO MIND... IS WORKING FOR A CORPORATION WHERE THERE IS A SCHEDULED PRAYER MEETING "BEFORE WORK HOURS" AND THAT THERE IS WORK BUSINESS CONDUCTED THERE (SIMILAR TO THE MEN'S ONLY CLUBS WHERE BUSINESSWOMEN ARE LEFT OUT)

[pegleg]

293. The US is not a secular nation. It is a FREE nation.

[Tyler Durden]

301. WRONG.

Seems you need a few definitions:

www.aNaturalPhilosophy.com Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
sec·u·lar /ˈsɛkyələr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.
–noun
7. a layperson.
8. one of the secular clergy.


—Related forms
sec·u·lar·ly, adverb
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
sec·u·lar (sěk'yə-lər) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting from century to century.


n.

1. A member of the secular clergy.
2. A layperson.





sec'u·lar·ly adv.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
secular
c.1290, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state," from O.Fr. seculer, from L.L. sæcularis "worldly, secular," from L. sæcularis "of an age, occurring once in an age," from sæculum "age, span of time, generation," probably originally cognate with words for "seed," from PIE base *se(i)- "to sow" (cf. Goth. mana-seþs "mankind, world," lit. "seed of men"). Used in ecclesiastical writing like Gk. aion "of this world" (see cosmos). It is source of Fr. siècle. Ancient Roman ludi sæculares was a three-day, day-and-night celebration coming once in an "age" (120 years). Secularism "doctrine that morality should be based on the well-being of man in the present life, without regard to religious belief or a hereafter" first recorded 1846.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
secular

adjective
1. of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
2. characteristic of or devoted to the temporal world as opposed to the spiritual world; "worldly goods and advancement"; "temporal possessions of the church"
3. not concerned with or devoted to religion; "sacred and profane music"; "secular drama"; "secular architecture", "children being brought up in an entirely profane environment"
4. of or relating to clergy not bound by monastic vows; "the secular clergy"
5. characteristic of those who are not members of the clergy; "set his collar in laic rather than clerical position"; "the lay ministry"

noun
1. someone who is not a clergyman or a professional person

Not concerned with religion or religious matters. Secular is the opposite of sacred.

Note: Secularization refers to the declining influence of religion and religious values within a given culture. Secular humanism means, loosely, a belief in human self-sufficiency.


World Literature, Philosophy, and Religion


The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.



Find any of these helpful?

[eagler]

317. Like he said , a free country ... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof "

[Tyler Durden]

319. Like THIS?

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

If that's your "free Exercise," I'll take vanilla.

[countryjake]

302. So what gives the USA a right to demand that Iraq be secular?

Why all the flurry and hubbub from our leaders over the Iraqi Parliament trying to add a Sharia clause to their Constitution?


The US Constitution most certainly does NOT establish any religion in this nation! Far from it.

[gollygee]

313. A free nation with a secular government

and lots of churches and other religious organizations so people can worship however they want, if they want.

[eagler]

318. Agreed

[Tyler Durden]

316. Mark Twain's comment on the Cannibals' exposure to Christianity:

"We understand Christianity. We have eaten the Missionaries."

[OzarkDem]

347. You mean stuff like this...

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/11/13/ddn111407dann.html

Ohio GOP demands apology from Ohio AG (D of course)for taking Jesus' name in vain...

A story in Sunday's Dayton Daily News revealed that on April 6, Dann e-mailed Communications Director Leo Jennings III about an editorial

that ran in their hometown newspaper, The (Youngstown) Vindicator. "Bentley said there are six nasty

posts after the Vindy editorial. All about you," the e-mail stated. "Jesus had it better on good friday."

GOP Deputy Chairman Kevin De-Wine said, "His remark comparing a bad press day to the crucifixion of Christ is outrageous and inappropriate from anyone, much less an elected official ...If comedians and talk show hosts can be fired and publicly scorned for a single racist remark, Marc Dann should be held no less accountable."

[Tyler Durden]

395. RACIST?

Now Christians are officially a RACE?

Check, Please!

[A HERETIC I AM]

373. Wow. Over 370 posts. And to think i got the first one in....

Makes me all kinda tingly like....like maybe there is a GOD DAMNED SPIDER ON MY LEG!!!


AHHHH!

This is the T-Shirt i want for xmas:

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheism/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_20580635/opt_/c_666

Christianity:
The belief that some cosmic
Jewish Zombie can make you
live forever if you symbolically
eat his flesh and telepathically
tell him that you accept him
as your master, so he can
remove an evil force from your soul
that is present in humanity because
a rib-woman was convinced by a
talking snake to eat from a magical tree.


Makes perfect sense

[Tyler Durden]

389. I love you.

You know, I can't seem to get it through the skulls of the Religionists that if THEY want their little ritual performed before the Congress, then we have the right to have OURS, except we don't HAVE ONE.

We have GOT to think one up. I still vote for the reading of the entrails. We could probably get a local farmer for a small fee to whack one of the chickens he's sending to market at the start of the City Council meeting or session of Congress.

[A HERETIC I AM]

391. Backatya! I am all for Ritual Toad Licking, myself

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

"And now, before we begin, let us all take a solemn moment, close our eyes, retrieve our toads and have a bit of a lick"

Even if it doesn't make you high, it should be considered!

Think of the applications...

Pray for rain? Lick a toad
Want to win the lottery? Lick a toad
Want to get rid of the grey? Lick a toad
Trying to beat the yellow light? Lick a toad

Want responsible Government? Lick a toad ( Although it could be argued that we are essentially experiencing this currently)

The possibilities are endless

[Tyler Durden]

394. Here in the First United Church of Pot.....

"Take and toke. This is bong of Happiness, given for you so that you may forget the fucking MADNESS out there."

[kestrel91316]

392. Best. Rant. Ever.

[TWiley]

397. Well Said .......... Here Here

I will even go a step further

I am sick of hearing about religion no matter what the context is. From my chair here, all religious discourse is shear BULLSHIT.

Everything, absolutely every religious idea is a Theory. Bar none.

It is time that it is properly refered to it as theory and not fact

[WindRavenX]

410. I love you

:yourock:

[NoFederales]

418. Super OP, and loooooooooong. Religion poisons all. nt

NoFederales