The title above is a link to an article in today’s Washington Post. It is about the amount of effort the leading Fundamentalist Zealots are putting into promoting their agenda in courts by recruiting attorneys and countering the efforts of groups like the American Atheists and the ACLU.Reason for bringing this to everyone’s attention is to inform all of you about the need to materially support organizations like the American Atheists, the Godless American Political Action Committee, the ACLU, and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I want all of you to know I am a card carrying member of the American Atheists, the ACLU and AU, as well as support the GAMPAC and the Secular Coalition for America. Please join me in fighting these power hungry theocrats working to end our freedom to belief what we choose and force us to live in their Hell.Peter Nuhn
reluctantatheist:
My apologies. I was operating on the assumption that you understood exactly what that faith was in and had some inkling of its character and nature.
Given that you?ve taken your sardonicism to a higher, more caustic level, I?m proceeding here as cautiously as possible now. I have nothing to hide. I?d be more than happy to share my experiences with you (in addition to what you already know, and in what ever detail you?re comfortable with). May I suggest, for efficiency sake, we do it in a Q&A format??if not, I?ll be happy to oblige you in any way you?re most comfortable with.
I?m afraid I don?t understand your ?cut[ting] out folks from the herd if they misbehave? assertion?are you referring to excommunication?
Again, it has to do with the clear differences of what we?ve put our respective faiths in. He?s made no bones about his belief in universalism?a clearly unbiblical concept?he can claim to be a Christian all day long, but as long as he does it with that caveat, he?s being intellectually inconsistent?and dishonest. Sorry, but one cannot claim to be a Christian in the Biblical sense and espouse universalism?they?re mutually exclusive; it?s tantamount to claiming to be atheist who also believes in an afterlife.
That?s certainly your prerogative.
Actually I?m now at the point where I?m just here to primarily correct misconceptions, address blatant mendacities, and generally provide input where necessary on the subject of Christianity and Christians.
What, you think I?ll try to physically restrain my adult child from marrying an atheist? Do you honestly believe I?d behave in such a Neanderthal fashion? One of the great privileges of being ordained by God to be the father of my children is to instill in them the ability to be wise judges of character, honesty, and values. I?ve done my best to educate my kids with all I know about philosophy, theology and atheism. Forewarned is forearmed; and when they come of age, I?ll trust that they?ll have sense enough to know who they?ll be compatible with in marriage?and all I?ll be able to do then is either give my blessing to the union, or not.
jcc:
But you?re expected to live by certain constraints in your life.
Hey, I thought I apologized for that. There?s just rotten news all the time recently, combined w/that last ?xtian? poster, hey, things are looking pretty bleak. & you trotted out all the stereotypical nonsense about expunging religion from our culture.
Stereotypes just piss me off, is all.
I appreciate that. Let me think about it.
That?s 1 example. No true scotsman. Luther, Calvin, Torquemanda, there?s plenty to choose from.
& I don?t want, nor need, a keeper.
Well, looked it up ? I?ve heard it used before, but not by your parameters ? I found this particularly of interest:
? Universalism in Christianity
As noted above, in Christianity, Universalism, Universal reconciliation, or universal salvation, is the doctrine that all will be saved. Among theologians the doctrine is often referred to using the Greek word apocatastasis. The doctrine addresses the problem of Hell and notions of God’s mercy and justice. Universalists contend that a loving God would not submit anyone, regardless of his or her sins or beliefs, to everlasting torment. Some also argue that eternal condemnation in Hell, an infinite punishment, is not proportionately just with any number of essentially finite sins. Scriptural support includes Biblical passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Revelation 5:13. Some universalists, sometimes called “strong universalists,” hold that all creatures, including demons and even Satan himself, will eventually be saved. In North America, some adherents formed the Universalist Church, which in 1961 merged with the American Unitarian Association to form the Unitarian Universalist Association and creating a new form of Universalism called Unitarian Universalism.?
Now, that, my friend, is symptomatic of a truly loving deity.
I guess your version is conditonal after all.
I?ll let spanders speak to the universalism concept: I shan?t speak for him.
& object to profanity whenever you can.
Tell me: are we guilty of ?blatant mendacities?? Which 1?s? What misconceptions do you see here?
I honestly don?t know you well enough to make a judgment on that ? let?s rephrase it: how would you feel about such an ?unblessed? event? Withholding your blessing would probably be far more powerful than physical restraint anyways – & you seem somewhat rational.
It was a simple query misphrased. I did ask twice, but you probably missed the 1st 1.
I find this phrase particularly telling:
Way I see it, religion has made an enemy out of atheism. We want what’s fair: we want our rights: we want to be excluded from your clique, however large it is. We ask to be left to our own devices.
Instead, we hear a vast, resounding ‘NO’. We hear about how we’re not Americans. We hear about how the majority rules. & it’s not once: it’s many, many, MANY times over.
The compassion, the sharing, the ‘fishing for souls’, the decision to ‘watch out for us’?
It’s gone way too far.
We want what any minority asks for:
EQUALITY.
karen:
Yes, and unfortunately, I?ve done a poor job communicating the concept that though we are told to do those things, (which, when our hearts are in the right place, we do without prompting), our salvation does not depend on us performing them.
In a sense, He does, ?I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.??Revelation 3:20. But, like one beggar telling another beggar where to find food, He has also given us the authority and dignity of telling those who have not heard, ?Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.??Matthew 28:19
As I said to reluctantatheist, I?ve reached the point now that I?m here primarily to correct misconceptions and defend the faith when its attacked (but between you and me, even just doing that is really a form of evangelism too).
No offense taken. If you remember, I owned up to that a short time ago?I readily admit, I?m not much of a ?people person? by nature, but as Christ said would happen, did happen; I found it unavoidable in becoming a fisher of people?I know my technique stinks, but hey, I?m still pretty new at this and I hope I have a while to hone my skills.
Not at all. The resistance I encounter here is exactly the kind of resistance I once put up myself?if I could be changed by trying to understand it, anybody can be changed by it.
By the blatant and intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the Constitution. The First Amendment reads: ?Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion [i.e. the ?establishment clause?], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [i.e. the ?free exercise clause?]. Clearly, the original intent of the authors of the First Amendment was to prohibit Congress from creating a national, government sponsored religion or church and to protect the individual?s right to freely exercising his/her own religion?anywhere, anytime. The phrase ?separation of Church and State? is not found anywhere in the Constitution, yet irreligious, activist judges have successfully bastardized the establishment clause to convince the populace that it is unquestionably implied. In the process of so distorting the establishment clause, the courts have rendered the guaranteed right of the free exercise clause null and void. They have falsely tied the acceptance of money by a public agency from the government to an explicit endorsement by the government of whatever religious practices that may take place within that agency. And that makes it impossible for voluntary, free exercise of religion to take place within that agency?which is expressly forbidden by the free exercise clause. And all this seems to be done in the name of not wanting to ?offend? anyone?s sensibilities.
jcc:
Intriguing. From Wiki:
“The Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the free exercise clause. The Court required that states have a “compelling interest” in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct as it decided Sherbert v. Verner (1963). The case involved Adele Sherbert, an individual who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays as required by her Seventh Day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Court ruled that a law that “unduly burdens the practice of religion” without a compelling interest, even though it might be “neutral on its face,” would be unconstitutional.
The “compelling interest” doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it is constitutional insofar as the free exercise clause is concerned. In 1993, the Supreme Court revisited the free exercise clause when it decided Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santer?a religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter of Judaism. Since the ordinance was not “generally applicable,” the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet. The Court therefore struck down the City’s ordinance.”
& it is noticeable, that most xtians take a mile when given an inch – so when is it that 1 religion infringes on anothers?
Which is why they’re called amendments. We’re talking BOR, not Constitution.
Note that there are no religious oaths required for taking of public office.
As per Jefferson AND Madison. Oh, the infidels! How dare they?
Hey, feel free.
Just leave me out of it. & I’d rather not be badgered in public, thanks.
Is it possible that you’re that naive?
When money is donated, favors are expected. That’s just the way people are.
It’s not about ‘sensibilities’. I’m NOT going to have my tax $ go to religious crapola.
I have to ‘pay’ for this? No way, fella.
Worship away. But keep it out of government.
So unless you can come up w/a way, where only the religious folks’ taxes pay for the religious nonsense, forget about it.
Regardless of Scalia’s interpretation, our documents are fluid, not fixed. Amenable to the fluctuations of time & society.
” [Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason.
– Thomas Jefferson, to James Sullivan, 1797. ME 9:379″
I’ve got a right to insist religion be kept out of govnmnt, and good reason.
Lousy track record.
jcc:
Oh, & other items:
To which I point out:
“10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
10:6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.”
“But a slave of [the] Lord ought not to strive, but to be gentle towards all” 2 Timothy 2:24-25
& finally:
John 18:36 – “36 Jesus answered, ?My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.?
“In the next world, you’re on your own” – Firesign Theater.
jcc
I’m not too certain that very many christians share or understand your views on this. Considering the fervor with which they “share,” it would seem they feel it is conditional to their being saved. Unless we are correct in thinking they simply want to bend us all to their (i.e. their god’s) will.
Um, we’ve heard. Everyone in this country has heard. Job done. You can go back to worshiping in private now.
Well, I thought so, but wanted to be clear on it.
It’s hard to become a people-person if you aren’t one naturally. And this is a really tough sea to go fishing in. Id say you can get lots of practice here if you stick around. We will certainly try your patience and sense of humor-two very important aspects of the people-persona!
Absent some physical proof, I don’t see how anyone here will have a change of mind.
I was looking for some personal examples of how you were actually prevented from worshiping as you like, not a generalized staement about the Constitution and the establishment clause. Ironic that it’s the same argument we use to say religion has been allowed too much influence in govt. and daily life.
The way to keep religious influence fair across the board is to keep it out of govt., period. People within agencies are free o worship and donate monies as they wish, but they should not be allowed to governmentally donate my tax money to religious based programs which are in bed with any agencies.
As RA said, or implied, let religious organizations fund themselves. Let them operate without govt help.
Now, do you have any example of how you personally have been unable to freely worship?
reluctantatheist:
Yes, but again, salvation is not dependant on failure to do so .
Anytime you?re ready.
Actually, that?s symptomatic of an inconsequential theology?if everyone gets saved, what difference does it make what you believe in?
Conditional only in the sense that we get to choose to either be with God or without Him.
Great sadness?not for me, but for my child?assuming of course that my child has chosen to be a Christian and still marries an atheist. The overwhelming majority of unequally ?yoked? marriages are moribund from the start.
I?m no legal expert, but it seems to me that the examples you site have little to do with the misapplication of the establishment clause.
Huh? The Bill of Rights is separate and distinct from the Constitution??even still, the phrase appears nowhere in either set of documents.
Perhaps not, but the Declaration of Independence?s ?endowed by their Creator? along with ?do you swear to tell the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God? oath for witnesses in courts of law are clearly religious.
The intent isn?t to badger the heathens?it?s about being able to freely exercise the right to express one?s religion.
I don?t think the na?vet? is coming from me. It shouldn?t matter if money is donated?as long as I?m not interfering with other?s abilities to do their jobs and am not on company time, I should have the right to worship or discuss my faith with others on government property.
That?s not what I?m saying.
It sounds like you?re confusing ?not of this world? with not derived from this world?
jcc
Just what do you mean by “yoked” and by putting the word in quotes?
jcc:
So…Luther & Calvin get to rub shoulders w/their victims.
So I’m right – it IS conditional.
You’re ‘yoking’, right?
How do you know that?
You’re ‘yoking’, right? Favoring 1 religion over another? It takes no degree to see how xtians take advantage, when the odds are stacked in their favor.
Express as freely as you like – but keep it out of the schools, & keep it out of the state,local, & federal govmnt. Because, as evidenced in your book, you people want to TAKE OVER. The control issues y’all have are just ridiculous.
Oh, don’t insult my intelligence. This got fixed up by the 14th amendment, as early as:
“Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter’s opinion, which stated that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.”
The DOI clearly doesn’t talk about mr. mythical or YHVH. Very easily applied to any deity.
I used to buy into that nonsense too.
& for the record, I think the requirement to swear on a bible in court is a clear violation of the 1st amendment, whether you appeal to tradition, or not. It’s a slap in the face to someone like myself. What, I need the fear o’ god to keep me honest & in line?
Hey, feel free.
Fine, do it on your own time, not my dime.
I think you’re missing the point by mixing ‘n matching.
Fact is, your side has slipped the reins of power, via abuse – it’s now time to pay the piper. I’ve seen the propaganda your side propounds – rest assured, propaganda is the proper word.
Your side can’t be trusted to play by the rules, or respect others’ lack of desire to ‘share’.
But that’s what’s happening
Oh, here we go again. It’s there in black ‘n white. It’s allegory time, boys ‘n girls, hunker in close while uncle jcc explains how this phrase doesn’t mean what it says.