Readers’ Responses to Our Question (110)

Tonio and Anonymous,

I think you're still missing my point. I'm arguing a bit from a "devil's advocate" point of view.

I know what the constitution says and what later federal judges and supreme court rulings have said about it. My point is that there is a good deal of subjectivity in interpretation.

When you say "constitutional" do you mean the "letter" of the constitution, the intent of the founding fathers, or perhaps what a federal court has defined as constitutional? These things might be slightly different.

Returning to my "religious" display in a small town courthouse lawn...

Does this mean that the judges enforce biblical law and not US law? Does this mean that those who refuse to worship the Christian God will be punished? Perhaps the town would be willing to put up a menorah or even some other religious display if asked?

Yet you have decided that this violates the constitution. Where does the constitution forbid the ten commandments on a courthouse lawn? In fact what do you REALLY think the 18th century anglo-protestant founding fathers would have said regarding such a display? Do you really want to know?

The point I have been stressing is that what federal courts have been enforcing in the past 40 years or so represents an INTERPRETATION of the constitution. In my view this (and your) interpretation is a bit left of center for me. Perhaps many would find mine "right of center". Fine. I admit my bias.

But it seems that you are not willing to admit that you too (as we all do) carry your own bias into any situation.

There is no ideology or religion that is called "secularism." It is just not being religious.

The Constitution IS A SECULAR document, because it is not a relgious document.

It is in fact, a very abbreviated, and terse, legal document.

If we are to be known by everything that we are not, then that would make the world quite complicated, indeed. Christians could be called non-Atheists, or non-Muslims. Americans could be known as non-Russians or non-Chinese.

Secularism is whatever is not religious, and atheists are people who do not believe in God. It is a fetish to obsess on these things, and make them the object of ones anxiety. If a person feels shakey in his own religious convictions, he needs to look into his own heart, to work it out, and not blame all the other people in the world, who believe differntly than he does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeZB2EsPqGE&feature=related

C Meadows

It is striking how obtuse your logic is when confronting issues such as "default religion."

Read Tonio's lucid and sane and logical response to your illogic, and try to emulate him with clear thinking.

This has NOTHING to do with whether Christianity is the majority religion in America. It has to do with a clear reading of the constitution, and then having a logical mind.

You have shown yourself to have an Il-logical mind.

"Just how is a courthouse lawn with the ten commandments forcing a or favoring a religion?"

Because the first half of the Ten Commandments are explicitly sectarian. There is no way the monument would pass the "secular purpose" test. The most likely purpose for such a monument is to claim that Judaism or Christianity is the "right" or "default" religion and that all other religions are "wrong." From the standpoint of government, there should be no such thing as a "default" religion.

By contrast, friezes in the U.S. Supreme Court building have a simple Commandments icon with just numbers, shown alongside other icons from religious and secular sources representing other traditions of laws. The secular purpose behind this display is clear.

"There are those who would suggest (not that I agree with them) that the founding fathers intended freedom of religion to mean freedom to practice whatever denomination of Christianity one would chose."

That would not be true freedom of religion. Freedom for only some equates to freedom for none.

Daniel ITLD

Thanks for your wise words.

I view Gary as a Poster Boy for the ignorance-combined with arrogance (Bush e.g.) that is a profound danger to the future of the world,

And in responding to him I don't expect to change HIS mind, but mostly to highlight the danger he represents and give it a "human" face.

Teaching children to DENY the evidence for evolution damages their minds in a thoroughgoing way.

It leads to the kind of ignorance of scientific matters that denies Global Warming, that denies the fact the EVEN ON ABortion, Evangelical positions result in many more abortions than does knowledge, reason, and basic human morality.

Tonio and Henry James,

I think that the constitution has been interpreted with a fairly "secular" slant as of late. I think we would probably all agree that a court of George W. Bush appointees might redner a different take on things than a court of William Brennans and Thurgood Marshalls.

Just how is a courthouse lawn with the ten commandments forcing a or favoring a religion? That seems quite subjective indeed. And this is my point - it's all subjective. There are those who would suggest (not that I agree with them) that the founding fathers intended freedom of religion to mean freedom to practice whatever denomination of Christianity one would chose.

I can give a single and strong reason for voting for John McCain: right now on the Washington Post Postglobal site which is found right next to the On Faith site the question of the week is about the headscarf debate in Turkey--and for some reason postglobal is having all posts passed through a "postglobal reviewer"! If this is a case of censorship and not some problem with the site then I will be forced to become more rightwing out of concern of censorship, political correctness, from the left. That is all.

To Jeff P from Daniel on what I was touching on about the problem of overpopulation: It seems overwhelmingly that religious people are being blamed for promoting what leads to overpopulation while the secularists are the sensible people and have not at all had a part in the world becoming overpopulated. My reading is such: Religions have indeed said be fruitful and multiply and had great reason to say such because of having originated in the prescientific era and having needed to replace people in the conditions of ancient times. Overpopulation--at least to our extent, which is to say consistently and not confined to demographic problems in ancient cities--is a fairly recent problem concurrent with the advance of modern science--secular humanism--and it will not do to just blame the religious. The improved conditions brought about fairly recently have resulted in our current billions overpopulating the globe. So while religions are a part of the problem--fostering an old "just reproduce" mindset--it must also be admitted that modern science--the secular world--has greatly aided this ancient mindset. Once again--as in so many other cases--it can be stated as a case of technology being put into the hands of a populace not really mentally prepared for such. And of course technology and secular humanism gets no part of the blame. Not that I am defending religion, just that we had better be totally honest. If of course there is a variant reading of the problem that makes better sense I will change my mind. Thank you for the conversation. Hope I have not been too abrupt and rude. I am trying to cultivate better relationships with people.

Barack Obama would take the oath on a Christian bible, as he did when he was sworn in as a senator.

To Jeff P from Daniel. You quote Steven Weinberg as saying "the more we learn about the universe the more we learn that it is pointless". Then you ask whether that changes how we want to live our lives. I think you should answer that question yourself Jeff P. And I find it strange how you can hold all those points of secular humanism you laid out in your post and then conclude with Weinberg's assessment. You see no contradiction? My post was exactly about the contradictions of the secular world, how fragmented, how incohesive it is. Tell me how your secular humanism is supposed to exist with thousands upon thousands of Weinbergs telling childen in school for thousands of years that the universe is, after all, pointless. Religion might be overcome by secular humanism, but secular humanism cannot exist with millions of people saying everything is random or chance or pointless. Religion might be overcome but we still believe in reason--we have faith in such--and that of course is a refined type of belief in a creator --that after all there is some sort of meaning behind the mystery of the universe. Hope that clarifies my post.

For A. Christian

It is the traditional custom of American "Ceremonial Deism" to use the Bible for taking the Presidential oath, although I do not believe that it is mentioned in the Constitution. In that setting, the Bible has no religious meaning at all, but is just an object of state ceremony.

It shouldn't be worrying you, I hope.

If Mr. Barack Obama was to be elected as our President, and on inauguration day when he is taking the "oath of office" would he swear on the Holy Bible?

Thanks, Daniel ITLD.
I've noticed it myself, that those who are most vehement about others being wrong often turn out to be unsure about whether they are right. It's deep down, and usually the last thing they'd do is admit it to us or especially to themselves.
Personally I don't know what Jesus came to save us from if we are supposed to be so frightened of non-Christian knowledge.

Ti Henry James about GaryD

You're right; he is an angry person. I am sorry that he has been venting on you, but I am, at least, relieved he is not venting on me.

Sometimes, I get stuck on a little catch phrase that I keep using because it seems so useful; so I will say it againg, his Christian faith does not seem to be doing him much good.

Evolution is not a belief or a religon; it is settled science; it is the consensus of scientists. Believe it or not, it makes no difference, that it remains, nevertheless, settled science. I agree, that there is little consequence in "believing" it or not, except that it is better to know the truth, than it is to deny the truth about things.

If someone feels the need and compulsion to argue against science to justify ones own beliefs, then maybe one should re-examine ones beliefs. I think there are many Christians out there in the big wide world who do not need to challenge science in order to maintain their Christian faith.

Spiderman2 "Bible Thumper #1121",

You give fortune tellers a bad name!!!

And using John 3:16 as historic Jesus is not wise i.e. single attestation and apparent late entry to embellish the life of a simple preacher man.

See also http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/350_Jesus_to_Nicodemus

Note: John 3: 11-21 also makes god the padre guilty of filicide.

Jesus don't want me as a sun-beam.

Jesus don't want me as a sun-beam.

America has always viewed oil as a security consideration, and protected it by any means it deems necessary. Few of us doubt that the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf has little to do with its concern for human rights and almost entirely to do with its strategic interest in oil."
Arundhati Roy, author and activist
War Talk
"In America, the arms industry, the oil industry and the major media networks-indeed, U.S. foreign policy-are all controlled by the same business combines."
Arundhati Roy, author and activist
An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire

New WorId Disorder - War is peace. So now we know
"The International Coalition Against Terror is largely a cabal of the richest countries in the world. Between them, they manufacture and sell almost all of the world's weapons, and they possess the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction-chemical, biological and nuclear. They have fought the most wars, account for most of the genocide, subjection, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations in modem history, and have sponsored, armed and financed untold numbers of dictators and despots. Between them, they have worshipped, almost deified, the cult of violence and war. For all its appalling sins, the Taliban just isn't in the same league."
Arundhati Roy, author and activist
The Algebra of Infinite Justice

A phoenix is a mythical bird with beautiful gold and red plumage. At the end of its life-cycle the phoenix builds itself a nest of cinamon twigs that it then ignites; both nest and bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes, from which a new, young phoenix arises. The bird was also said to regenerate when hurt or wounded by a foe, thus being almost immortal and invincible — a symbol of fire and divinity. "Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand", Job 29:18. Seldom that a prophecy and mythology intertwine but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. Let the unbelievers test the pudding. Let them taste the truthfulness of the prophecy.

"Death to America" is a staple in Arab mouths. The mythology states that "the bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes". The prophecy will happen and parts of America will burn. God will allow it because of America's growing secularism and liberalism. But those responsible are equally hypocrites. They too will all burn and Im not sure if they will be able to recover unlike the phoenix which is described as almost "immortal and invincible". People should be careful in picking America as their enemy coz as the prophecy foretells, that may spell the end of their civilization or their history. Believe it.

Before believing in evolution, crunch this:

DNAs are like computer programs on a CD but they act very differently. It's like plugging a CD on an electrical outlet and then that CD morphs into a CD player and plays its tune. That is how intelligent the maker of DNA is and I call that maker God. Science won't be able to reach that level of intelligence. They can only mimic or copy a DNA function but they can never understand it's secrets like how and why DNAs exist.

Anybody who claims that it is "incidental" or random is mad. The word random simply means "no solution" or "I don't know". It's actually an admission that they know nothing and they only cover their ignorance thru clever use of words.

You evolutionists should start explaining how DNAs evolve by your evolution theory and please stop using the word random coz it simply means "I don't know". You guys are also fund of using the word "reason" but I still have to hear some reason from you guys. This is your moment. Explain it.

Even the word "natural selection", has intelligence in it. How did a plant, animal or person become an intelligent working biological system? Who made the intelligent selection? You can't even build a descent skycraper if there is no "intellgient selector" who "selects" the material to use and "select" the dimensions of beams and columns. A skycraper is way too primitive compared to the intelligence that governs the system found in any living organism.

God calls atheist as FOOLS or idiots and rightly so coz even based on simple reasonings, they are so dumb and idiotic.

One reason why Heaven would be a nice place is because idiots are banned there. And that I believe, is literal.

The reason why the U.S is the greatest country is because it is the country that fit to the description of Apostle Paul which says that the children of faith and NOT the children of works (this includes the four major religions [ Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Judaism ] and some major false christian religions like catholicism) will inherit and rule the earth. A big portion of the people in the U.S and even the first settlers in Plymouth, Massachusetts believe that scripture. They inherit the prophecy by believing it. This country will ultimately rule the earth coz that is the prophecy.

The U.S. did not start WW2 but that was the beginning of the fulfillment of that prophecy and WW3 would establish it fully even though the U.S. won't start it.

That is the prophecy and those who would challenge it (there would be many) may temporarily win but in the final showdown, the prophecy would still prevail.

A lot of people will be "vaporized".

America has been protected by God from two World Wars but not this time because of the increasing liberalism and secularism among its people.

Salvation is personal and being a member of a religion would not save a person. But Eph. 2:8-10 and Jn 3:16 sums it all and those who live these verses in their hearts are the holders of true religion.

The history of this world is pretty much laid out already. Parts of America is liberal and secular and that will be destroyed by its enemies. But the bigger story is, America's enemies will be wiped off the surface of the earth.

America is not invincible and it could be defeated. But the irony of it is that it's a lot more stronger the second time around. Remember the famous phrase "I shall return"? In WW2, it did returned and pulverized it's enemy like powder.

The same will happen in WW3. The point is, it's not a good thing that America gets defeated coz the next episode will be the annihilation of its enemies. Believe it.

Throughout the world today there is increasing emphasis on harmonious coexistence of different religious faiths and Islam had inculcated this spirit from the very beginning of revelation of the Qur'an. The doctrine that religion and politics cannot be separated in Islam is a later historical construct rather than the Qur'anic doctrine. It is human construct rather than a divine revelation. One of the important aspects of modern secularism is of course separation of religion from the state. While the state should not interfere in religious autonomy, religious authorities should not poke their nose in affairs of the state.

"Secularism," as put forth by magical thinkers themselves, represents rational thought and the scientific method. How awful.

Even though magical thinkers avail themselves of computer technology to rail against rational thought, they see NO irony.

That is, of course, magical thought in a nutshell.

So Gary
you are "widely read" in evolutionary science eh?

Well you have convinced me.

I am going to believe you, who has yet to compose a proper English sentence on this site,

instead of

99.9 percent of trained and often brilliant (which you are not) biologists who have studied the phenomena related to evolution for years and years.

You show yourself as more deluded every time you post something. It is TRULY pathetic, but a wonderful representation of the Evangelical denial of evolutionary facts.

I really can't say it any better than Henry and Tonio already have, but here's a reminder. There are places in the United States where Protestant Christians are not the majority; either they never were or the ratios have changed over the years. Imagine that the courthouse displays beautifully painted quotations from the Quran, and that they are a tasteful, longstanding reflection of the local majority culture. If you are as comfortable with this as you would be with the Ten Commandments, then you are consistent in your views. If the Arabic verses would bother you, think about why that is....

And think about why those who do not want Barack Obama to be nominated for president are so insistent on using his middle name - Hussain - in all their attacks. Is it only because his middle name is the same as the surname of a well-known enemy of the U. S.? Or is it because it makes him sound more Islamic?

Just askin'.

C Meadows,

"Never mind that this would be disappointing if not downright offensive to most of the residents of the town."

You mean they're offended that their religion is not being given preferential treatment by the government? If that's not why they would be offended, then would you explain what they find offensive?

The core issue isn't about majority versus minority. The core issue is that the government isn't supposed to favor any religion over others, no matter which religion is in the majority. Since the first half the Ten Commandments are explicit religious doctrine, the courthouse display amounts to government showing favortism for Judaism and Christianity over other religions. Treating the issue as majority versus minority essentially says religious beliefs should be decided by majority vote. No. Religious beliefs are a private individual matter.

And please understand the distinction between a courthouse display and a public display at another location. The courthouse is for official government business, so any religious display there implies governmental favortism toward that religion. Any individual, especially one who did not grow up in America, might reasonably conclude that the judges and juries would rule in favor of that religion's members and against members of other religions.

GaryD,

Please list the books on evolution you supposedly have read.

And it would appear you have been Bred, Born and Brainwashed in some sort of Christianity. Here is the Five Step Program to free yourself from said brainwashing:

1. There were no physical Resurrection, Ascension, and Assumption since Heaven is a spirit state, i.e. no physical bodies plus there the stories fail historic attestation and stratum reviews. e.g. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/017_Resurrection_of_Jesus

2. Angels/devils do not exist. These are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

3. Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons/parts and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider.

4. The Holy Eucharist/Communion is a nice spirit symbol of our thanksgiving but body and blood do not exist there. This 24/7 blood sacrifice is simply more theological mumbo jumbo to keep the "pew sitters" agape in atonement.

5. There is no evidence, scriptural or otherwise that Jesus is the son of god. He was made into this offspring to compete with the Roman and Greek gods. e.g.

Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

Peruse these five steps and your neurons will slowly be cleansed of 2000 years of lies and distortions.

Daniel:

Let me try to give you another view of a secular worldview, secular humanism:

"Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:

Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method - A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children."

As far as overpopulation, it seems to me that we have mostly religious bloggers arguing that part of the reason that European countries are demographically "doomed" is that they don't have religious faith and therefore the necessary desire to increase population. I'm sorry I didn't follow your criticism well.

And finally, I don't follow the logic that I assume says, "well, due to the failings of secular ideas, we might as well be comfortable with various religious ones, however lacking they may be." Did I read you correctly?

Is it so terrible if, as we probe the depths of the universe and find that we are mere insignificant specs of dust in the greater reaches of space, we discover that (as physicist Steven Weinberg says) "the more we learn of the Universe the more it is obvious that it is pointless." So what? Does it change the way you and I want to live our lives?

I thought your post was very interesting but I'm not sure I took away from it what you intended..

Has this year's (2008) American political campaign been too religious? Are secular ideas getting short shrift?

The most honest approach to this problem should be to observe that religious views are problematical but totalizing views--views which offer a total explanation of the world but which assume much. Secular ideas on the other hand are victim of the "problematical" as a consequence of rejecting total explanations of the world which assume much.

This results for secularism in a strange mixture of fantasy, exactitude, and ruthless dismissal of all which might assume much. We have fantasy in the sense of wanting to replace religion by a Marxist utopia. We have exactitude in the realm of science. And we have ruthless dismissal--a clearing of the ground to the point of the sheer absurdity of existence--with atheism.

The continuing problem for secularism is the creation of new totalizing views of existence. There are secular ideas but they never really add up to a secular idea--a definite direction for man in a mysterious existence. In a sense of course this is to be expected as we would expect an improvement in mind to be comfort with constant hypotheticals and no easy assumption of what lies behind existence.

But it seems for most people that the secular world is one of confusion, one of a descent from totalizing views to sheer materialistic gratification, a gradual descent from the totalizing views of religion not to new hypotheticals and directions for man but an atomizing of man in an atheistic Epicurean garden which is being poisoned more and more each day by modern technology. It seems a ruthless, atheistic clearing of the ground results in not new edifices but a constant affirmation of a supposed absurdity to existence which can only be countered by sheer population increase, technological gizmos, and again, sheer materialism.

It would seem for man that learning to live in a world without religion, living in a world of hypotheticals, learning to think, is as difficult as a baby learning how to walk. Proof of that is what exactly do we mean by secular ideas? I understand a person being subjected to more ideas, greater diversity of thought as a counterweight to religion, but secular ideas? There have always been more ideas, so what is the difference between that and secular ideas? I doubt the concept of secular ideas will gain much weight (rather than simple empty popularity) until we have a critical mass of people really capable of dismissing religion without sinking into fragmentation, a critical mass capable of continuous refinements in totalizing views of the world.

Total world views can only be countered by total world views. Fragmentation accomplishes little. Atheism accomplishes still less. All atheism is is a part of the common thought process--a clearing of the board to start anew. It is not a position to be held as some sort of ultimate. Simple proof of that is an atheist rejection of God but then statements such as a belief in reason, morality, etc.--a return in other words to belief at least in the possibility of the increasing of reason and morality in man. Man can reject all the "false" totalizing views he wants such as religion, he can become as exact as he can, but in the end he assumes even if he calls it operating hypothetically--unless of course he wants to be a true and consistent atheist and just declare existence to be an absurdity.

But that is a secular view which will not widely take...

Secular ideas. All the complaints of secularists.

Create and people might follow. Ultimately dismissing religious views will only occur when man is capable of being something of what the best of religion has long expected: a miracle worker, a profound and wise being. And what atheist has ever been such? A going beyond religion definitive only when not only the worst but the best of religion has been dealt with. Start at the base of history, work your way up to modern man, and then push beyond. But secularism is notable for its dismissal of history. Religion has not been overcome: we have simply overcome the Mass by increasing masses of people overpopulating the planet. We have few quality human beings to adequately address the shortcomings and promises of religion let alone push beyond to more complex and promising views of the world.

Religious reaction in the United States can be characterized as an attempt to return to an older and narrower view of the world in the face of a population explosion and sheer masses wired toward...a sheer pleasure in mass and material gratification more than anything else. Happy atheism--except for the planet being wasted and no ability to convince the great many by truly inspiring views to uplift the mass beyond religion.

No, I see no real secular views. Fragments, yes, but nothing really coming together to a view of the world beyond religion.

Mr. James I've read more books on all sides of the theory of evolution now than you likely know to have been written. I find the evidence pro to be unpersuasive at best.

To know nothings like you, who sound as if you've scarcely ever sat through more than the basic amount of science one needs to get through in order to acquire a degree in English Literature, who have absolute faith in the hokum upon which the theory of evolution rests and who wish to disbelieve in even the possibility of God, The theory of evolution is your bedrock position and anyone who challenges it must be treated as some sort of drooling cretin because if he or she is correct then this edifice you have erected to protect you from the possibility of God must come crashing down.

C Meadows

We agree that the constitution prohibits Establishment (not too hard, since it clearly does).

We seem to agree that Preference by government for one religion over another (or NO religion) is therefore forbidden.

We disagree whether having the 10 Commandments in public courthouses is a Preference, and therefore a violation.

You say, incredibly in my opinion,
"The contemporary (politically correct if you will) interpretation of the establishment clause is in my mind quite slanted against those who wish to practice religion."

Government has done NOTHING to restrain your *private practice* of your religion. You are completely free to worship, in private, where and how and who you please.

The court has generally said that pubiic institutions MAY NOT practice or promote ANY particular religion. That is what the establishment clause dictates. NO PUBLIC support/establishment of religion.

Henry James,

You said, "You use 'politically correct' disparagingly. In this context, it means 'CONSTITUTIONAL.'"

I think this proves exactly what I have said. The contemporary (politically correct if you will) interpretation of the establishment clause is in my mind quite slanted against those who wish to practice religion.

Sorting of what "constitutional" I think is difficult. There are some who would say that Lincoln's use of force to prevent southern secession was unconstitutional.

My point is that, from my perspective, "separation of church and state" was intended to prevent establishment of a national religion. As such it's interpretation by you and others today is not what the founding fathers had in mind. I think they would have objected to forced imposition of beliefs. I do not think they would have objected to a public display of a cross or "creche" or othe the ten commandments.

My opinion.

Viejita,

Well said. Very reasonable points. Our system is set up to make those in minority feel more welcome.

I feel though that at times our system goes too far out of its way to cater to minorities at the expense of the majority.

Consider a small rural town in which the ten commandments had been displayed on the courthouse lawn for 150 years. Then the ACLU comes in and sues on behalf of a nonChristian family who claims to be offended by them. Most federal judges would, invoking the separation of church and state, declare that the ten commandments should be moved. Never mind that this would be disappointing if not downright offensive to most of the residents of the town - at least the minority feels more accepted.

I understand both sides of this sort of thing. But I still think that our society has become so multicultural the the only culture that doesn't matter is that of the "majority" (namely white protestant Christians).

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

Candide
You are absolutely right. I hope not too many people take your advice!

Thanks, C Meadows.
I did misunderstand part of what you were saying. You seem like you mean well in a truly Christian way, so I have no expectation of changing your mind, but let me try to help you understand the other side. It is not based in a rejection of faith in G-d, rather in an acknowledgment of the differences in the forms and intensity of people's faith.

Here's the difference between being Jewish in Israel or Muslim in a Muslim country) and being a Christian in the United States:
Those countries have an official religion, while we are officially secular. If my child was in public school in Saudi Arabia, I would expect that there might be times when he was -- at the very least -- excused from the classroom while the majority prayed to Allah, and I would be hurt but not terribly surprised if he felt coerced to join in the religious observation. BECAUSE THAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S OFFICIAL POLICY. I'm not the type to take you to court, but if my child showed up at an official school event and was socially coerced into participating in a prayer or other religious act that went against my family's beliefs, I'd be looking for a new school.

Let me try an analogy. I am close to a couple of Jehovah's Witness families with children in public schools. They do not believe in saying the pledge of allegiance or celebrating holidays, even birthdays, because they feel that this puts human concerns ahead of Jehovah's wishes. When the class recites the pledge or passes out birthday cake, my friends' children sit quietly and politely but decline to participate. This makes some of the older kids feel embarrassed and "weird," and angry with their parents for having non-majority beliefs. In this case it is probably unavoidable, since there is nothing in our Constitution prohibiting official celebrations and statements of patriotism. But it is still an official act of government that interferes with what a family is raising its own children to believe.

It is not fair to assume that everyone shares or is comfortable with your majority faith practices. Here's another example. There are places in the United States where Protestant Christianity is not the majority faith. Would you be comfortable with a statue of the Blessed Mother in the courthouse, or with a Muslim prayer to begin a soccer game, if that were what the majority was used to? Actually you sound like you could handle it, but what would you tell your children?

Everywhere in the United States there are people whose beliefs and practices are different than the local majority. Our system is set up to make them feel welcome, not to use social pressure to make them change. I know a woman who grew up in the Soviet Union when it was officially atheist, and she was mocked at school because her grandfather had been a rabbi. That's not the way we want to go.

C Meadows

There are a couple of "constitutional confusions" in your most recent post:

1. I agree that voters have the right to be interesting in whatever they want. It is, however, NOT appropriate for elected officials to make policy BASED on a religious belief. If he believes Christ is the Son of God and therefore creches should be allowed in public spaces, I as a Jew have the right to object that such actions constitute "establishment" and are unconstitutional.

Muslim, Christain, and Jewish churchs have have right to put religious symbols ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY, and viewable by the public.
Government, however DOES NOT have the constitutional right to display them or favor religious symbols of any kind over non-religious. symbols.

As far as Majority favoring 10 commandment display etc (the 10 Commandments were JEWISH, by the way).
Google 'minority rights" and study up on it.
A majority in the south favored denying colored people the right to vote. But the constitution prohibited such practices.

You use "politically correct" disparagingly. In this context, it means "CONSTITUTIONAL."

The best way to further secularism is to avoid talking about it. Americans like to pretend they are religious but actually they are not. Even churchgoers know very little about the dogmas of their church and the Bible. Ignoring the religious dimension is the best way for it to disappear. But don't bother people about it. Remember what LaRochefoucauld wrote in the 17th Century: Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.

I haven't heard the other candidates criticize Huckabee's recent endorsement of theocracy, or make an issue of his past endorsements of creationism and patriarchal marriage. In fact, Obama's "Call to Renewal" is the only time in the current campaign that I've heard the general issue discussed at all. I define the "general issue" as the principle of nonsectarian government. This principle is not anti-religion, because "religion" is not a single entity. Instead, different religious doctrines offer conflicting and competing claims about "the way life should be." With theocracy, creationism, and patriarchal marriage, the common thread is a hostility to freedom of conscience and freedom of the intellect.

Veijita,

Why would any Christian deliberately give offense? That would not be Christlike.

But I think you missed the points I was suggesting.

The first is simply that if religion is important to American voters then it makes sense that these voters would be interested in the candidates' religious stances.

The second is simply that religion is very important to people. I certainly do not want to enlist the government to enforce my beliefs on others. But I do think that my freedom of religion allows me to practice that religion. If I were in Israel I would expect to see Jewish holiday symbols. If I lived in a predominantly Muslim country I would expect to hearing the calls to prayer five times daily. I would not go running to the authorities to complain that these people were violating my civil rights.

As a Christian in a predominantly Christian country and state (I live in the "bible belt") I see nothing wrong with displays of the 10 commandments or with prayers at high school football games if the majority would favor such a thing (which they would here). That does not constitute forcing others to participate.

Certain individuals have decided that freedom of religion means freedom from any religion outside of the home. I think that that is a biased stance - and one that tends to try to force my religion into a humanist mold.

Let me repeat I don't advocate forcing my religion on anyone. It's just that I'm tired of the politically correct interpretation of freedom of religion being hailed as neutral and unbiased.

It is regrettable that America, which prides itself for values like freedom, democracy and human rights, has killed largest number of innocent people around the world after Second World War. Such behaviour naturally breeds terrorism in certain sections of population. Terrorism can never be fought with terrorism. This violence torn world needs more peace than ever before. America talks of freedom and democracy but freedom and democracy can flourish only if there is peace and justice in the whole world.

That was me earlier.

But oh my goodness, C Meadows!
You wrote: "for many Christians (and certainly those of other religions as well) belief is MORE IMPORTANT than not offending others. This type of belief is not always compatible with the humanist model."

I agree there are ways of being a Christian that do not agree with a humanist model but I do not see anything Christlike about deliberately giving offense with your own self-righteousness. Secular tolerance does not require that you forswear your own beliefs, only that you not enlist government in forcing your beliefs on others.

My G-d is awesome enough not to require the aid of earthly powers and coercive attitudes.

As noted previously but with additions:

As Truth and Reality replace the religious mumbo jumbo of the last 6000 years, religions will converge into something like the Bill of Rights. The "pew sitters" and "bowers" of old are on the march to said secularism as they "deflaw" the founders and foundations of religions and find that nothing of godly and "angelic" substance remains.

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was an embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythicall character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven,warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the assassination of Bhutto, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds these acts of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life. e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

Gary

It is sad that you seem not to realize how much of a fool you make of yourself every time you "open your mouth."

If I had any faith in your abiiity to comprehend written material, I would suggest that you read five books on Evolution by legitimate scientists (ie NOT Michael Behe, whom his own department has disowned).

As it is, you are a Poster Child for the Ignorance of many American Fundamentalists when it comes to evolution and global warming,

and people like you are truly frightening as far as the future of our republic is concerned.

Anonymous,

I understand that many have different convictions, with some holding these convictions in just as high esteem as I hold mine.

The point is that this is the nature of religious belief for many people!

A humanist outlook sees religious belief as just one aspect of culture. Within this scheme each should "respect the beliefs of others".

But what does respect mean here?

My point is that for many Christians (and certainly those of other religions as well) belief is MORE IMPORTANT than not offending others. This type of belief is not always compatible with the humanist model.

C Meadows
I think you underestimate what a strong force culture can be in someone's life. When you say devotion to G-d is the most important thing in your life, are you saying that it is impossible for anyone to feel as strongly about anything else? Also, many people are as devoted to their concept of a higher power as you are to the Christian G-d, although they show it in cultural practices that are different from yours. There are even people here who appear to feel as passionately about His non-existence. I am sure they are wrong but I have to respect their process if I'm asking them to respect mine. I think part of secularism is allowing for differences in how we show that selfsame devotion.

veijita, read my whole post again. In most of science whether creation took 15 billion years or seven days is at best an after thought. Only if you are a paleontologist or maybe an archaeologist are you very much concerned about the age of things.

To the chemist how molecules are assembled is of foremost importance, To the biologist how the various organism function in relationship to each other is key. In neither case is how long these things have been going on is of little concern.

Interesting thread...

I think that religion is important in the presidential race because it is important to those voting in the race!

Most who would consider themselves secular would, I assume, see religion as an aspect of culture. As such people could benefit from sharing but should not suggest that their own was better than someone else's.

This sounds proper assuming one has a fundamentally humanist outlook. But many Christians are not humanistic in outlook. To most evangelicals (me included) devotion to God is as important as one's own life and family and is definitely NOT simply an aspect of culture.

Interesting thread...

I think that religion is important in the presidential race because it is important to those voting in the race!

Most who would consider themselves secular would, I assume, see religion as an aspect of culture. As such people could benefit from sharing but should not suggest that their own was better than someone else's.

This sounds proper assuming one has a fundamentally humanist outlook. But many Christians are not humanistic in outlook. To most evangelicals (me included) devotion to God is as important as one's own life and family and is definitely NOT simply an aspect of culture.

Gary,
I don't mean to be rude but creation science is the last thing I would chose to prove that Christians are intellectually advanced. I for one thank G-d every day for the intelligence He gave me, but I also find it ridiculous to claim that scientists don't care whether evolution happened or did not.

And that Mr. James is your problem you believe as you claim Christians believe, things that simply aren't true.

There are several Scientist out and about that no longer believe the theory of evolution adds up. #0 million years to get from something the size of a large rat to something the size of a sperm whale? I've rather grave doubts and I believe well founded ones. How many hours of college level science have you attended Mr. James? Does the earth appear to be a few billion years old? Certainly. Does that, of necessity, mean that it is? Of course not, appearances can, of course, be quite deceiving.

We know that there is more to the universe than what we can perceive, unless some one seriously messed up the various computer models, and no one has figure it out yet. Currently scientific opinion favors the concept of dark matter and dark energy to date the evidence that exist for them is that something has to be there or the universe would fly apart. There exists, currently, no way to detect either of them. In other words we have no more evidence for them than we do for any counter proposal variable gravity being one and the other being, of course, God.

Einstein appears to have believed there was a God. Exactly what the nature of the God was in which Einstein believed is unclear. Is every atheist then smarter than Einstein? Hardly. Is every believer the equal of Einstein intellectually? Of course not.

If you can produce a scientific study clearly showing that Atheists are intellectually superior to Christians please do so. But you'll need to give me more than just results.

Oh and one last thing the theory of evolution has nearly zero impact on any other science. It doesn't matter a whit to the petroleum geologist if the layer is 4000, 4 million or 400 million years old. What does matter is whether it is permeable or impermeable and whether or not the necessary stratigraphic traps exist for it to contain oil.

Just to underline what many of you have been saying --
This is from the current (March) issue of The Atlantic. The full article is probably available online (or will be eventually).

"And The Winner Is..." by Alan Wolfe:

...breathless warnings about rising religious fervor and conflicts to come ignore two basic facts. First, many areas of the world are experiencing a decline in religious belief and practice. Second, where religions are flourishing, they are also generally evolving -- very often in ways that allow them to fit more easily into secular societies, and that weaken them as politically disruptive forces. The French philosopher Blaise Pascal once famously showed that it would be irrational to bet against the existence of God. It would be equally foolish, in the long run, to bet against the power of the Enlightenment. The answer to the question of which religion will dominate the future, at least politically, may well be: None of the above.....

...But secularism is not the opposite of belief; nonbelief is. Indeed, secularism has religious, specifically Christian, roots; it renders unto Caesar what is Caesar's, while leaving to God what properly belongs in his realm. John Locke argued as much in "A Letter Concerning Toleration," first published in 1689: genuine salvation, he wrote, can never be achieved through governmental coercion. In contemporary societies influenced by Lockean ideals, then, religion's priority of belief and secularism's commitment to individual rights are not in opposition; rather, they complement each other. It was once thought that the First Amendment was written to protect public life from the depredations of religious orthodoxy. It is now commonly accepted that the Founders also separated church and state in order to protect religion from government....

Is Religion Bad for Your Intelligence?
Are Secularists Superior?

Parker says
"I don't consider you (secularists) intellectually superior one whit."

While individual cases surely differ, multiple studies clearly show that

1. The More Religious a Person is
The less likely HE is to believe in Evolution.

Do we think it is "smart" not to believe in evolution? I think it is a danger to the competitive future of our country, where the Non-believer percentage is INCREDIBLY high.
In my "impolite" opinion, it is Ignorant not to believe in evolution.

2. The more intelligent a person is
the less likely she is to believe in God.

Parker doesn't believe these two propositions. Because they are based on data? I don't know.

Denial of facts threatens the future of the world. The second leading Republican Candidate does not believe in Evolution. Can you IMAGINE the US having a President who doesn't believe in Evolution? Come to think of it.......

Henry James,
I don't care at all for your generalizations, but I'm glad for your clear example here. The original question seemed to me to be about secularists feeling marginalized. Sort of "why us, who are so intellectually superior?" I think you marginalize yourselves. I don't consider you intellectually superior one whit. Bye.

Atheism is the only world perception deserving the epithet of human dignity.

When I was a boy, I had epileptic attacks. Nice to imagine that Jesus would have chased this demon into a couple of pigs. I certainly wouldn't have made it to this day.

No, thank you, dear Christians.

Romancing the Pope

We are at the point of prophetic history where the final powers are courting each other. The American politicians currently do this for ideology or for political survival. The Catholic church does this for world domination.

At least since 1989, this is the known involvement of the government with Catholic goals.

1989 - Joined forces under Ronald Reagan and Pope Paul II to end communism.

2001 - Religious education assistance (School Voucher Bill) which was stated in the language of Catholic canon law on education.

2001 - Religious charity assistance (Faith-Based Initiative). George W. Bush publicly seeks the approval and advice of the Catholic Bishops. In the months after his inauguration he did the following:
-Proposed the two religious laws on the day of his inauguration.
-That Friday he had dinner at the home of the Archbishop Theodore McCarrick.
-Met twice with the pope (once while campaigning for president).

March 1, 2001 - spoke at the opening of the John Paul II Cultural Center
-Met with Miami Archbishop John Favalora
-Met with Donald W. Wuerl, Roman Catholic Bishop of Pittsburgh
-Met with Archbishop Justin Rigali of St. Louis
-Met with Anthony Cardinal Bevilacqua Archbishop of Philadelphia

July 2001 - Awards the congressional medal of honor (the highest civilian honor bestowed by Congress) to the late Cardinal Cardinal O'Connor.
-Met with 120 Catholic bishops where he was overheard telling the bishops in an open microphone that not even the republicans want the school voucher bill.

January 2001 - meeting with Archbishop Egan and thirty other Catholic leaders to discuss the new faith based initiative.
-Appointed John J. DiIulio, a Catholic as head of the new office of Faith-Based Initiatives
-He has weekly conferences between his administration and Roman Catholic advisers. He reportedly tries to meet with any Catholic leaders he can when he visits other cities.

Protestants, are you sleeping! Read Revelation 13.

Speaking of the growing power of the church in the top layers of government, "The Central Intelligence Agency", page 271 Jim Marrs:

"Politically, she looms ever larger in the White House, in the Senate and in the Congress. She is a force in the Pentagon, a secret agent in the FBI and the most subtly intangible prime mover of the S.S. wheel within a wheel."

Who's running this country, the Pope? Who's Bush taking orders from, we see who he's reporting to and who he seeks advice from.

If I were a betting person, I would say that we will soon have talks about making Sunday a national day of rest...Keep Watching...

Also...In the final days of President Clinton's frustrated attempt to make a peace agreement in the Middle East, they called on Pope John Paul II to intervene. The Pope told Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that he would - on condition that he becomes the ruler of Jerusalem with the United Nations forces as the army.

Will this be the only option for President Bush and any subsequent leader?