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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First amendment, for a quick answer.

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

but I have every damn right to avoid religion.

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

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

And I have every right.

and they have every right to pray for you.

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

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

n/t

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

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

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

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

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

But there is no guarantee you will succeed.

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

I am getting tired of typing. Peace.

It doesn't say what you hope it does.

Good night.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as does freedom of religion.

but you knew that, right?

RL

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

You are actually FUN.

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

Impressive in such a short space.

how quickly you forget.

Cather in the Rye.

RL

RL

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

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

"Right to avoid religion?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There should be no STATE test.

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

Just asking...

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOTH of the United States AND of the several States,

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

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

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

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

Bullies.

Bleah.

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

I love New England.

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

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

and putting words in the mouths of others here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

because I'm Catholic. :eyes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. You put it beautifully.

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

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

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

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

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

Pcat

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

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

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

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

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

Some seem to want extreme limits.

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

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

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

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

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

That is a warped and demented analogy.

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

Not likely.

thank you.

But the difference is my view will be upheld.

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

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

RL

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

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

RL

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

Bingo!

RL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

another Fundie term I've seen lately.

You are quite amusing, and transparent.

RL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:think:

Jesus was getting really lonely up there on the cross!

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

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

From the American Statistical Abstract.

Here's the link if you missed it.

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

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

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

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

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

Why did you read it differently?

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

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

Now, go drink your coffee.

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

Happy Holidays!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I really don't like organized religion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And his stance on gay marriage was wimpy.

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

I expect other politians to do so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

whom/what to worship?

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

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

n/t

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

The First Amendment:

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

:toast:

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

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

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

"no law respecting "

:hi:

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

Separation of church and state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

equals freedom from religion if you so choose.

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

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

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

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

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

is explicit in Article One.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STFU!



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

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

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

Are you sure you are at the right place?

Julie

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stop singeling out My religion for exclusion alone.


Flame me all you want.

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

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

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

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

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

the author is a Christian.

In this thread and others, I took the opportunity.

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

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

won't cure though.

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

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

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

That's a laugh.

"Christ died and rose again


Deal with it.

Merry Christmas dearie"

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

Not before.

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

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

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

Clearly, I don't.

What in christ are you talking about. :evilgrin:

Thank you.

I'm not a Xian.

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

I respect other religions and expect people to respect mine.

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

No one is.

nt

God would want you to.

Amazing.

I am merely amazed.

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

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

Your attitude on DU? 'Nuff said.

"Deal With It."

PROVE IT.

Deal with that.

You can choose to believe or not.