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
jcc:
You have a set of rules, that are supposed to be practiced.
Really? I was under the impression that these were cautionary guidelines for recalcitrant children. Original sin, & all that.
Really? & you don’t have any ‘required’ acts? So proselytizing is in actuality an altruistic sharing?
Hey, human beings are selfish creatures. Religion notwithstanding.
jcc, I wish all Xians were like you, believing in your god and leaving the rest of us alone. Like Karen said,
Man that would be nice, no belief in the rediculous to invade our senses every single day. Unfortunately you are definitely the exception to the rule. But if you truely follow a “no work” necessary policy then my hat is off to you.
anadrol
jcc never responded to my comment, so I don’t know where he stands on the “no works” policy.
He is arguing only faith in Christ is necessary, yet his presence here seems to also be a defense of Christiaity and possibly a form of proselytizing.
I couldn’t tell if you were being facetious with him or not.
jcc, any comment on my earlier post?
karen:
Correct.
My first thought of how you drew those conclusions was one of bewilderment, then I remembered how I once had a similar point of view. You know there is no Biblical mandate to perform any of those ?works??they?re done by Christians as grateful response to the hope they?ve been given.
But that ?adherence? is resulting in the attempt to completely eliminate the individual right to worship God publicly.
Yes, I am. As I?ve pointed out, just because adherence to atheism doesn?t offer an afterlife doesn?t preclude it from lending itself to ?religious? practices.
HeatheNZ:
Given that there is absolutely nothing Biblical about mandatory attendance of mass, or praying the Rosary simply indicates their ignorance of the theology they follow. The non-Biblical sacramental theology developed by the early Catholic Church was one of the primary reasons for the Reformation.
Actually, no, it?s not?as I mentioned, Catholic theology is sacramental in nature?it requires the performance of certain rites for salvation: baptism, catechism, confession, last rites, etc.?none of which are Biblically mandated, and none of which are left to the discretion of the individual.
Actually, you just exposed your lack of understanding of Biblical Christian theology.
Sigh, again, just because it?s not the one used most often doesn?t mean that it isn?t the one being misused most often.
reluctantatheist:
Nope. Christianity is, first and foremost, a personal relationship with Christ. That doesn?t mean I had to study for, and pass, an exam to be allowed to call myself a Christian. It means I willing chose to accept His Grace and as a result, following His ways became my desire, not my commandment.
I would add a small minority of liberal theologians would agree with that position. But had you provided the rest of that quote (?For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.??James 2:26) perhaps you would?ve gotten James? larger point: that in the end, true faith will compel the believer to not just ?talking the talk? but to ?walk the walk? as well.
It?s ?shrill? to take exception to your accusing me of having impure motives?
Agreed?they are exceedingly rare, if not non-existent among those not imbued with the Holy Spirit.
I made no pretenses for my righteous indignation at your assumption:
Actually, I was not dignifying it with an answer. Besides why would I want demerits for leading someone to Christ? The fallacy of your question lies in the assumption that I have the power to save a soul. Again, how can I explain it to you when you must experience it for yourself to understand it? Before I really ?owned? my faith, the last thing in the world I wanted to do was evangelize. It?s not something one does for self gratification or out of ego?it?s done out of compassion?for wanting you to know the joy and peace that I know. How can ego possibly be a motive for that when, in the end, all believers have exactly the same reward?
.No, they?re followed naturally as a result of faith.
Nope.
You got it.
jcc:
Sure, but then you have to follow a preset standard of rules & regulations.
Something that?s notably absent from the majority, I note.
Impure? I think you?re human, just like the rest of us. No better, no worse.
Pardon me for being a tad cynical ? again, in observing the vast majority of those of your faith, I really don?t see the altruism your alleged ?holy spirit? infuses them with.
Oops, caught out. I misused the word ?demerit?. Let?s substitute ?brownie points?, shall we?
Well, sorry, but I have to take you on your word for that. So you?ve delivered the ?good news? so to speak: why then do you belabor the point? Either we listen, or we don?t.
As evidenced by the preponderance of ?false christians?.
Nope.
Oh, so all you need is faith? Then you can stop praying. Stop evangelizing. Stop going to church. Stop proselytizing, if so requested. Stop giving glory. You can just stop everything then, no? You?ve got faith, you don?t really need anything else, no religious trappings.
The gift that keeps on giving, whether the recipient wants it or not. Nice.
jcc
Their grateful responses would be better limited to giving simple thanks, feeding, clothing and sheltering the poor and orphaned -as I apparently was mistakenly taught Jesus said to do, and to “love one another”, which I’m pretty darn sure he said to do. I was also taught christians were to be “fishers of men”. Grateful responses of inserting symbols and faith-representative wording into all levels of governmental processes , and expecting all citizens to be in agreement is over-agressive, at best. Since, as you contend, it is not even necessary, there should be no complaint at the removal of such items. Why trample the rights of others with unnecessary and misdirected outbursts of gratitude?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You may worship publicly as you wish. As long as you do not infringe on anyone else’s desire to NOT worship publicly along with you. And as log as you are not interfering with govt. run functions. For example, as we talked about before, you may pray in school, but you may not interrupt class to do so.
Then I refer you back to HZ’s quote about baseball, fishing, stamp collecting, etc:
reluctantatheist:
Aaaaah! Why can?t you get past that? I thought you were well versed in Paul?s letters. Being born anew frees us from having to worry about ?keeping? the law: ?But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.??Galatians 5:18; but at the same time, it doesn?t exempt us from it: ?Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.??Romans 3:31. It?s the Holy Spirit within us who provides us with a new understanding of the purpose of ?the law? and, likewise, our behavior changes with regard to it.
No one has ever claimed that becoming a Christian makes one perfect.
Maybe that?s because you?ve only been observing them from afar. Perhaps if you took the time to develop a deeper relationship with some, you might think of them differently.
Unfortunately, yes, you do?that is, unless you try to experience it for yourself.
I wasn?t belaboring a point. I was pointing out how Christianity stands alone among the world?s theologies in that it provides relief from the all too common misconception that we can somehow earn our salvation.
Actually, as evidenced by the preponderance of those who don?t fully understand what Christianity is all about.
Again, it?s like having children, unless you?ve experienced it, you?re really pretty clueless about what it?s like. May I suggest you stop projecting your false impressions on what it?s like to be a Christian and instead, if you?re genuinely curious, start asking serious questions about the experience that has changed the lives of all those who have gone through it?
jcc:
Let me provide you w/the definition of ‘law’:
1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
2. a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
b. The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior.
It’s also extremely noticeable how xtians try to dictate ‘god’s’ law to others.
True, but y’all claim the high moral ground, based on nothing at all.
What, you mean perhaps, like my best friend, whom I’ve known nearly 30 yrs, who’s a BAX inerrantist? Or maybe spanders, who I consider a dear friend? Yeah, I live in an atheistic bubble, all right.
A-HEM – been there, done that.
I was inferring that your constant appearances on this blog was belaboring the point.
My, that statement smacks of hubris.
Again, been there, done that. False impressions?
Actions speak louder than words.
I almost joined. I really came close.
Fortunately, I did the research first.
While I respect your right to believe as you do, I find the pathology of xtianity entirely void & bereft of logic & reason.
Sorry.
jcc:
1 more thing:
I’ve done this as well.
You’re all a tight-lipped bunch when it comes to details, I note. I’ve asked several xtians about this, & I get hedging & hawing. For folks who want to share, well, maybe the intimate details are too intimate.
Or maybe too fragile.
karen:
Why are you ?apparently mistaken? about these?
Actually, it?s an order thing. Jesus said, ?follow me and I will make you fishers of men.??a result I can personally attest to but as I alluded to reluctantatheist (that I?m quite the misanthrope by nature), that part I wasn?t too keen on when I signed up. But what I found was quite astonishing; this good news is simply too great for me to keep a secret?in spite of my innate distaste for humanity.
Not necessary? Given your love for your children, do you find it not necessary to want to keep pictures of them for all to see? Do you find it not necessary to ever talk about them with others? How can, when you?ve discovered something so wonderful, find it not necessary to ever want to share it with others?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I may not worship publicly as I wish. There is a cultural war on Christianity going on in this country and it?s not just the result of the efforts to separate church from state. Christianity is being systematically singled-out and is the target for the attempted eradication of it from all aspects of our culture. If you so dare, I suggest you read Persecution by David Limbaugh to gain a better insight on the Christian perspective of this cultural purge.
reluctantatheist:
Let me remind you what I was referring to in that post. You stated:
Your ?rules & regulations? were the ?law? to which I was referring.
Yes, the historical Jesus Christ and His teachings are ?nothing at all.?
Ok, so are you as contemptuous of their faith as you are of mine?
Obviously not or you wouldn?t continue to misunderstand what I?m saying.
No more than what you?ve put forth before.
Really? I can?t recall you ever asking serious, detailed questions about my faith journey.
This sounds a bit like a cop-out. I?ve heard many personal details from many Christians eager to share how they came to faith?all you have to do is turn on the TV to any Christian broadcast station and I guarantee you?ll see someone sharing their story at least once during the day.
jcc:
‘Then you do have a set of rules to follow.’
Let me remind YOU, & I quote:
Sad but true, #2.
No, because they tend to be a lot more humble.
& you have really no yardstick to measure that by.
Hey, I don’t have to play by your rules.
I tend to be a tad self-involved, but at least I’m honest about it.
I wasn’t talking about you.
Oh sure, we hear the general turnaround/difference in attitude, the ‘life has been changed’ stuff, but I’m interested in more detailed descriptions: what was it like exactly? Did you manifest any physical symptoms? Was it a voice in the head, or just a rushing feeling that blossomed thruout the body?
Because, seriously, I can replicate all those things.
What really bugs the everlovin’ hell outta me, is
A. How everyone on your side of the fence can say, “All you need to do is believe”, yet you cut out folks from the herd if they misbehave (seeing how your philosophy is ‘forgiveness’, this loses me), &
B. Your attitude towards Spanders. You’ve pretty much stipulated here that he ‘doesn’t believe in the same god’ that you do, yet you say, all you need is to believe?
& if I read you rightly, you say the rules are the ‘natural inclination’ of true believers, but then you plant conditions on them. & your side of the fence has shown a distinct propensity for being unable to follow the playbook.
You can’t argue w/results.
jcc
Because you said
Yes, thank you for the correction. I remember the catchy (haha) little song now, too.
Follow me-get an eternal life.
Follow me-I will make you fishers of men.
But if one does not require the other, why does He bother with the second. Why not do his own fishing?
Actually, I usually get scolded for not carrying pictures of my kids and grandkids around. On occasion, I will purposefully gather some shots to take with me to show a specific person. But I think it’s rather rude to impose them on the world in general. Sure they’re great, beautiful, wonderful kids. So are everybody else’s.
There are numerous times when it would be completely inappropriate, and yes, absolutely not necessary.
People will indulge you the first few times you show them pictures of your kid, or tell them cutesy stories about them. But if you inundate them day after day, they grow weary of it. After all, they have kids too. If you’re not looking at their pics and listening to their tales, they’ll get fed up with yours. It’ll happen even quicker if they don’t have kids.
Works the same way with gods. I know you think you’ve got hold of the greatest thing since before sliced bread. But you’re talking about it to people who are saying, “Eh, I’ve heard it, seen it, done it; I’m not impressed.”
Now ask yourself, if only faith and not works are all that’s needed, why do you keep promoting your product where it has been turned down? You really don’t seem to have become all that much of a people-person. That’s just an observation, not a knock.
Are you sure that finding people who don’t find value in your product doesn’t somehow diminish the product for you…and you defend it in order to reconvince yourself of it’s worth?
How so? I will see if my library has that book, but I’m more interested in what you have to say. What is it that you personally wish to do that you are being kept from doing?
jcc:
Due to it’s invidious nature, this act of ’sharing’, well, most people are sick of it invading their personal lives.
I’m really sick of the martyr complex. Cry me a river.
You people have literally taken over some states. You have direct lines into the White House. You have dominance in the legislature. We can’t even get an atheist in there: no 1 will vote for him/her. We consistently experience discrimination at your hands: we are branded leper, outcast, unclean! & when we have the AUDACITY to complain, we’re told to shut up, stop yer whining, majority rules so piss off.
& you have the temerity to accuse US of contempt! You accuse US of discrimination. Balderdash.
As you sow, so shall you reap.
jcc:
Oh, & 1 other thing:
You got some nerve, fella. I’ve defended you on this blog. I’ve defended other theists.
Thanks, BTW, for stepping in w/sirboxer & javier.
You’ve got a right to your faith.
I have a right not to have faith.
& I’m more than a little sick of the righteous attitudes of the faithful.
reluctantatheist:
Let me try this one more time. Unlike all other ?works? religions, salvation, as prescribed by Christianity, is not conditioned on the performance of specific acts (?works?) or the following of specific ?rules? (i.e. mandatory prayer, mandatory fasting, etc.). Yes, we are to abide within God-given ?rules? (do not kill, etc.), but as I?ve tried to point out, doing so literally becomes a no-brainer when one is born anew.
Are you asking me specifically or rhetorically?
Examples please?
Yes, it?s obvious that he and I don?t believe the same thing at all?but it?s not simply a matter of belief alone. Besides, why should that bug you?
Examples again, please?
No argument here?we?re all life-long sinners.
Let me get this straight. You draw first blood by insinuating that I?m trolling for souls for brownie points and then seem surprised that I found that offensive, yet I ask an honest question about how you treat your other Christian acquaintances and you respond as if I insulted your mother? I must say, you have me quite confused.
jcc:
Hey, I did understand all that. Problem is, actions louder than words. History tells a different story.
You were the 1 who sallied out w/’all you need is faith (all together now)’ – Beatles reference.
Specifically. What, do I stutter?
You’re kidding, right? The ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
I dunno, when Karen asked you:
So if I am understanding you correctly, Christianity only requires that one accepts Jesus. No works, no worship, no proselytizing is necessary.
& YOU respond w/:
Correct.
& spanders does this also, you move the goalposts, & say he doesn’t qualify? Why? Because he doesn’t agree w/your ‘objective morality’ spiel? Because he handles himself differently? What? You have me at a a distinct loss.
I think spanders will be sufficient for now.
I ain’t buyin’ that for 1 minute. Probably never.
Well let’s see: you’ve been coming here for what? A year now? Your message has been delivered: several times, in fact. & yet you keep on coming on, like a jilted lover. It doesn’t take a degree to see something else besides sharing is going on here.
Besides which, there’s that injunction of becoming a ‘fisher of souls’.
I’m just calling it the way I see it. Sorry if it offends you.
You’re entitled to to your faith. Whether I deem it foolish or not. But I’m certainly not going to clam up because I’ve stepped on a few toes.
Sorry if I got a little worked up, but you started in w/this ‘persecution’ nonsense, mostly because that ’sharing’ thing y’all got going on, is WAY outta control.
What you’re seeing, the culture wars? It’s the result of too many years of repression, oppression, & discrimination. It’s a pressure cooker: it was bound to start letting off steam at some point.
& you probably had nothing to do w/it as an individual. But your religion had, & still has, a HUGE hand in it.
& you never answered an earlier query of mine:
Would you let your daughter/son marry an atheist? Be honest.
Because if the answer is NO, then you might understand the rage, the bitterness, the ‘1 note of doom & gloom’, the cynicism.
Way I see it, I get to choose, no matter what ‘belief system’. Why?
I’m an American, that’s why. & I shouldn’t have to take any heat over it.
On a related note: I was wondering if anyone has compiled a list of companies to avoid because of support for radical religious groups.
Tyson foods
just plain religious zealots
rapala,storm,and artic fox all one companie all have used the fishermans prayer in ads rapala is the worst of them for that fact but the sad thing is the lures are the best out there they need not use relgious tactics for sales
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.