Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
Freedom from Religion
The following remarks were delivered at the opening of a debate which will be aired on PBS over the next few weeks (Yes, check local listings).
The event took place in Richmond Virginia at the splendid Jefferson Hotel and was sponsored by the Miller Center for Public Affairs and MacNeil/Lehrer Productions.
There were four participants debating the proposition that “religion should have no place in politics and government.” I was, as you might surmise, on the “pro” side and my teammate was the Reverend Barry Lynn. On the “con” side were “On Faith” panelist Chuck Colson and Bishop Henry Jackson. It was a wild ride, but a civil one.
As Prepared for Delivery
There is No Religious Freedom Without Freedom from Religion
Tonight we are debating the proposition that “religion should have no place in politics and government.” Let me state from the outset that I--a garden-variety Jewish atheist—wholly concur.
It has come to my attention, however, that many of my compatriots do not. Reverend Barry Lynn’s organization recently reported that 65 % of Americans believed that "the Founders intended the United States to be a Christian nation.” A 2006 study by the Pew Forum noted that nearly 7 out of 10 citizens say that “liberals have gone too far in keeping religion out of schools and government.”
In short, many Americans of good conscience have rejected the core principles of secularism. For them, considerations of faith must inform our leaders’ political deliberations. That, they argue, it what the Founding Fathers wanted. Our inability to respect their wishes, it is alleged, has transformed our country into something of a secular Apartheid State. Ours has become a nation where the whims of a small elite have supplanted the will of the majority.
Now let me be frank: The most pressing challenge facing American secularism today consists of refuting these beliefs. But the challenge cannot not only be waged in the higher courts--up until recently the “home field” of our secular worldview.
Instead we must prevail in the arena of public opinion. For, American secularism is facing a “legitimation crisis.” As the statistics cited above indicate, we have yet to convince our fellow citizens of truths we hold self-evident. Therefore it is our task not merely to litigate, but to persuade.
So in the name of persuasion here are three reasons to adopt tonight’s proposition. First, mixing religion and politics will grant an unfair advantage to one religion. Why is that? In a country where 80% of the population self-identifies as Christian, those who infuse faith into the government risk creating some sort of Christian Establishment.
But Christianity is many things. It is Southern Baptism and Catholicism, Mormonism and Methodism, Presbyterianism and Pentecostalism. Given how diverse American Christendom actually is, such an Establishment will not only alienate religious minorities, but most Christians as well!
This brings me to a second point: keeping the public square free of religious considerations has been a boon for people of faith. It keeps Christians, among others, off one another’s backs. Moreover, it provides believers of all stripes with the ability to worship the divine in peace and security.
Finally, the idea of segregating faith and politics is not antithetical to Christian thought, but lies at the very heart of its intellectual tradition. We find traces of it in Bible. We glean hints of it in the writings of Augustine (and isn’t it interesting that Pope Benedict recently commented that he found “true secularism” in Augustine’s City of God. If the Holy Father can find something redeeming in Secularism than it must be kosher, so to speak). We see this idea engaged in the political philosophy of Martin Luther and John Locke, to name but a few. The endeavor to keep the public sphere naked—pornographically naked if you like those sorts of metaphors-- is an idea with a Christian genealogy.
To conclude, I will proclaim that “there is no religious freedom without freedom from religion.” The two go hand in hand. It is this idea which I wish to convince you of tonight.
(For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs).
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
March 18, 2008; 9:56 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Evangelicals: Crisis or Flux? |
Next: Separating Islamism from Islam
Posted by: Good Bye "CHUCK" Colson , et al NO WAY Hose! | April 16, 2008 11:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There is no such thing as a jewish atheist, jews are jews by religeon and by nothing else. Their ancestry is from arabia which can only mean that their ancesters some 2000 years ago were arabs.
Einstein was an atheist and hence should not be refered to as a jew but an arab atheist. Likewise Christianity Judhism and Islam are Arabian Mythologies
Posted by: brian borrett | March 31, 2008 1:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion of Soul - Religion of All
Saint Tara Chand Ji Maharaj generally used to say in his discourses– Brahamana (a higher cast in Hindu cast system) is that man who has dissolved himself into Brahamic (cosmic) consciousness. He does not accept donation, but tries to give, whatsoever he has, to the needy, indigent and destitute. Power of Word, the Creator, reveals in his soul which fulfills all his desires. The Lord of imaginations (Kalpavriksha) accepts his offerings of Love and devotion and provides all the treasures of life to him. Saint Charan Das says-
Brahmana is that who identifies Brahman (God) in himself
Becomes introvert and seeks the vision of Lord
His senses cease to travel outward
He nurtures compassion for every creature
He becomes devoid of passions, anger, lust, greed and ego;
Brahmana is that who possesses these virtues.
We are devoid of internal treasures embedded in the deeper layers of our Self because we have not identified the hidden enrichment inside. The actual bliss lies inside but we are groping outside in the gloomy world of passions and grief. We are adopting lopsided approach which create imbalance in our life energies. The outer achievements are dominating over the spirit of rationale and wisdom which has created imbalance between the inner and the outer world. The result is tension, instability, selfishness, individuality, unhealthy competition, nepotism, communalism and terrorism.
The reason of this imbalance is that we have not awakened the spirit of Wisdom seated in the middle of eyes (Third eye); the Lord of which gives all the orders; all the actions originate from this sphere (Ajya Chakra) of actions. Ajya means command, Chakra means sphere. All commands emanate from this sanctioning authority. All the senses respond to the mandate of this housing spirit. But the inner Self of this sanctioning authority has been sleeping in his den for innumerable lives. We have not made efforts to awaken its power which is sleeping encoiled for many past lives. When it awakens, the life force starts dancing which is seen and enjoyed by the devotee, the yogi.
The Hindu scriptures have called this state as the ‘Awakening of Serpentine power’. It is called serpentine power as it opens its vistas of light like the expanding and contracting face of a snake. Sri Aurobindo has called it Psychic being who is the actual representative of Supermind and master of transformation in this phenomenal world of actions and reactions, and cause and effect. It is the immutable spirit which dwells in the mutable spectrum of physical consciousness. It is the glimmering spark of eternity amidst the fort of dark forces of relative existence. Bhagwat Gita has narrated this power as Kshara Purusha; the mutable Spirit of universe which goes on changing upto the time this cosmic play persists. This Kshara Purusha is the Lord of Works and Psychic being remains in its fold as the representative of Supreme Being, the Satpurusha. It coordinates and commands all the activities of this Ksaras Purusha in any individual existence. Upto when this psychic Being is not awakened, its spirit remains liable to mutability and perishability and remains the instrument of the changes of time, space and causation. It follows the principle of cause and effect. Its eternity does not manifest in its self. Its bliss does remain unveiled and disguised. The friability and fragility of its grounded nature becomes slave of lust and passions. Problems, sorrows and grief of the lower nature remain integrated part of its spirit. This state of helplessness and weakness of the spirit is called ‘Jiva’ in Hindu jurisprudence. When this spirit identifies its natal strength of Real nature, Para-prakriti, Para-shakti or Radha, it awakens and the higher nature of imperishable, intangible and immutable Purusha descends into the brittle regime of Ksara Purusha and dismantles the domain of illusion and hallucination. This immutable spirit has been called as Aksara Purusha, Aksara Brahman or Shabd Brahman; the eternal and imperishable power of Supreme Being which manifests through the melody of celestial Song (the Word Power) in the universe.
This Aksara Purusha or Brahman is the Lord of knowledge; the originator of all the streams of mental consciousness from where outflows all the gnosis of visible and invisible spheres of the existence. Discriminative power of mind and wisdom are the results of the outpouring of this Sun of luminous knowledge. Lord of Works draws its vitality from this Sun of gnosis. This Purusha has also been called Savitri-Surya or Gayatri-Surya. This sphere of consciousness is the golden womb, Hirnaygrabha; the womb of universe where lies all the seeds of this universe. The universe takes birth from this womb of Lord of knowledge; the Aksar Purusha.
There is third layer of consciousness which reconciles the opposition of Ksara and Aksara, mutable and immutable, God and non-God, thesis and anti-thesis. All the physical, vital, mental and spiritual forces become satiable in this stratum of consciousness. All works, all knowing and unknowing plunges into the ocean of Bliss of this Purusha (Soami), the Satpurusha or called Purushottama in Gita. Sri Aurobindo calls this state of bliss as the Supramentalisation of the being. This realization of the Self can come through self-giving as it is the inherited legacy of the Lord of love and devotion. The fortified spheres of Ksara and Aksar can only be surmounted and churned through the intense longing of love and devotion for Satpurusha. This realization goes beyond all the boundaries of abysmal lows and sublime highs. All the limitations and perceptions of life, mind, gods, and non-gods, virtues and non-virtues get vanished after taking a sip of the ambrosia, Amrit, of the sanctity of Satpurusha.
The path of self-realization starts with the awakening of sleeping power lying within ourselves. It is called opening of Third eye. Buddha says it Divya Chaksu, supernatural eye of brightness. Mahavir Swami says it Param Jyoti, the supreme Light. Hazrat Muhammad calls it Noor; Light as the embodiment of Allah. Jesus Christ calls this experience as the Light of the world. In this experience, supernatural powers of gods and goddesses of goodness and virtue shower their grace on the yogi. The endowed grandeur of cosmic energy starts flowing unobstructed through the yogi as through a vessel of Supreme Being. But this opening of third eye is the initiation of spiritual realization. It is the opening of consciousness of Ksara Purusha, the Lord of Works or Virat Purusha, from where all the physical and gross form of cosmos originates. It is the starting of celestial or heavenly experience.
Kapil, an Indian sage, calls this state of realization as the attainment of the power of discrimination, Vivekkhyatiprapti, and intuition. Patanjali Rishi narrates it the vision of cloud of Virtue, Dharammegha Samadhi. Sankaracharya, Sri Aurobindo and other seers of reality have called it the experience of Samprajyat Samadhi, a state of trance where all unknown becomes known. Vedic literature says when the Sun of Truth rises, the dark of ignorance vanishes; tat satyam suryam tamsi ksiyantam. This Sun of Gnosis remains refulgent for ever within the soul of yogi; adityavat prakashyati tat param. When this Sun shines inside the Soul of yogi, every kind of knowledge starts flowing towards him; yasmin vijyate sarvam vijyatam.
When yogi surpasses this experience of refulgence, he reveals the truth in the form of superconscient light; not visible even with the supernatural eye of the Being. The fervour and intensity of this light becomes so dense that it is not visible through the celestial eye of gods; the Third eye. This is the experience of Sahasrara; the seat of Param Purusha (Supreme Being). This experience has been known as the realization of Nirvikalpa (beyond all alternatives), Asamprajyat (beyond all knowledge) and Nirbeej (devoid of all the seeds of happiness and sorrows) Samadhi. Christian mystics have called this state as the ‘Dark night of Soul’ or ‘Dark Secret’; the experience of which was engrossed by Prophet Moses on Mount Sinai. In this experience he was enveloped by a cloud of darkness when he approached the abodes of God. It is a blissful experience where the spirits of God and non-God get immerged into the ocean of Bliss of transcendental Eternal. The experience of Sahasrara has been considered just a milestone in Radhasoami Yoga. It is the lower seat of Brahamic (Cosmic) consciousness.
Osho opines that upto when the Ajya Chakra, is not awakened, man cannot break the shackles of slavery. He always remains in bondage of physical, economical, social and religious slavery. A slave of many masters, inner slavery as well as outer; an instrument in the hands of whimsical and unflinching forces of lower nature. Once released from the clutches of one master, he is incarcerated in the prison of another. He can not give command; he is not capable of giving command. He can only accept the orders because his power of Command, Ajya Purusha, is sleeping.
Tantric philosophy says that senses are the food of third eye. This eye is hungry for many lives because it has undergone through the trance of deep sleep thereby losing its sense of intuitive discernment. The gate of its sensibility has been locked. Key is missing. Key which can awaken the serpentine power has been lost. The treasure can only be unearthed with the key of wisdom and the power of true discrimination. This enclosed bud can open its petals of wisdom only through the incense of psychic enlightenment. Once this psychic awakening is realized, the gates of benevolence and magnanimity will open. All the treasures of life and knowledge will become accessible. The adamant and obdurate walls of ego and ignorance will shatter and their consciousness will ultimately transform into the gnosis and bliss of superamental Power. The impressions of grief and hunger will vanish from the mantle of humanity. The sense of self-giving will dominate the sense of wit and the doors of ‘Heaven on Earth’ will be opened to the aspiring humanity.
The sign of true religion is that it makes a man independent and provides redemption. It does not imprison him through the temptation of heaven and fear of hell. God lives within and it can be revealed by self-giving as love and devotion is the soul of supreme Realization.
This realization is complete in all the respects. It fulfills a person in totality. The beauty and outpouring of enlightenment from the Self enriches the depleted consciousness of body, life, mind and psyche.
Darkness is nothing but the depletion of light. Sorrow is nothing but the depletion of joy and bliss. Poverty and hunger is nothing but the depletion of faculty of mind and physique. Anger is nothing but the depletion of love. Vanity is nothing but the depletion of compassion. Greediness is nothing but the depletion of the spirit of self-giving. Communalism is nothing but the depletion of vastness of religion. Terrorism is nothing but the depletion of spiritualism from the core of the heart. Soul, being integral part of bliss, eternal splendor and consciousness, love, compassion, sacrifice and grandeur of the Supreme Being, impregnates all these qualities. All the virtues flow exuberantly and dwell inherently in the religion of Soul and Self-realization.
God governs all because he exceeds all and dwells in all. Hence the religion of Soul is the religion of God and the religion of all. That is why the religion of Soul is capable to replenish all the depleted energies of an individual as well as the whole humanity and the whole existence. It is a converging and enlightened state of all the diverging and combating energies and vital forces of the universe.
Radhasoami
Incarcerated beliefs of present day religion- Shackles of bondage
Thanks to the pluralistic culture of this country (India) that has endowed me with the right to utter these words, "Yes I am a true follower of Patanjali, Budha, Jesus, Muhammad, Nanak and Krishna simultaneously". Is it possible to reconcile the opposition and be released from the incarcerated beliefs of the religion? Yes, the solution lies within us.
A few rational forces thrust for a benign separation of religion and reason. The Gandhian philosophy compares the separation of politics from religion with the severance of logic from the consciousness. Aristotle elicits that man is a political animal; animal because he is gregarious in nature, needs society for personality development and political; for he is the only animal endowed by nature with the gift of "Reason". ‘Eater eating is being eaten in the evolutionary process’, says Aurobindo, indicating the existence as an integrated whole. He asserts that the ascension of lower nature towards higher nature brings a purified and enlightened reasoning which imparts the power of psychic understanding and right discrimination. The inception of higher consciousness builds a firm ground to solicit its well-deserving liberty and independence. Thus the right to live cannot circumscribe its boundaries with respect to the changing mental and spiritual perceptions of the society in which a man lives.
The evolution of life, in its turn earmarks a need for struggle between the individuals (Darwin) or a class-struggle between bourgeoisie and proletarian as predicated by Karl Marx. He emphasized that the seeds of opposition in a system always remain embedded in its base and upsurge with the swaying of congenial environment. His ‘Dialectic Method’ postulates that nature proceeds through rise and fall of opposites. Hence in the process of evolution, a conscious being has to confront and combat the creeping hostile vital forces of limbic system preserved in human mind, which sometimes due to loose control of conscious mind goes berserk and becomes violent. So we have to supersede the intricacies of life vibrating under the influence of forces of determinism and free will.
Nehru's explanation of free will and determinism enunciates, "Life is both. Life is like a game of cards. You have no control over the hand that deals you. The hand corresponds to determinism; the way you play the cards corresponds to free will". Determinism is fixity where the energy works like a machine; free will is flexibility which refers to the faculty of mind. Once the bullet is triggered off, it results into a vicious chain of reactions. But the decision to press the trigger rests with the free will of an individual which may propose or dispose the moral and ethical values of a society.
Some prominent western philosophers like Rousseau, Kant, Green, Bradley and Bosanquet have brought further refinement in defining "Free moral will", differentiating into actual and real will. Real will is the Sovereign will which must be honoured by renouncing actual will or individual will. Real will corresponds to higher self and actual will corresponds to lower self. Blind belief in religion or a political set up is covetous and a pursuit of lower self, undoubtedly baulks the progress of any society or nation. Cicero favoured moral law identified with right reason. It is neither true religion nor right reason that construes nefarious designs of communalism and fundamentalism.
The present-day politics has done a great harm to religion. The so-called saints are getting political asylum. When reason and spirit become intuitive, a 'Will-to-do' is born, either Copernicus or Gandhian; a stoics not epicurean, a celibate not utilitarian. But when the marriage becomes occidental lacking intuition, a disaster is predictable. Civilization barbarized. Dark Age becomes inevitable. The intrinsic values succumb to death. The intelligible reality dwindles to extrinsic and presumptuous rituals. 'Love and universal brotherhood are persecuted and put to strictures. Jesus falls prey to the orthodox and superstitious beliefs of the society. Stones are thrown on Mahatma Bhudha and Mahavir Swami. The great library of ancient Alexandria is burnt in the name of fanaticism and blind belief in God.
Higher life hardly recognizes written inscriptions. Life is a spontaneous and organic necessity that Budha, Krishna and Jesus were. Today Christianity is the biggest religion of world. There was a web of superstitions and exploitations when he was born. The same web of incarcerated ethical codes and rituals has been fabricated by the present-day Christianity leaving no possibility for the rebirth of the spirit of Jesus. For Jesus will be a barrier in the rigid superficial structures knitted by the mendacious papacy arrangement not different from the labyrinth constituted by Hindu or Islamic priests in intimacy with the statesmanship.
Extremism and fundamentalism are not sparing any religion of the world. Even Sikhism which had been considered a live and benevolent representation of values has now become out skirted from its umbilical teachings. "Revealing Word' which was called Jesus by Saint Augustine and other mystics of christianity and doctrine of intrinsic 'Sabad' called 'Gurvani' or ‘Sound of God’ by Sikh Gurus has undergone complete annulment. The ‘Supramental Word or Supramental Logos', called a creative principle of all worlds and heavens by Sri Aurobindo is buried to death.Hinduism which always offered opportunity to extend one self to the subliminal highs and abysmal lows of the multidimensional possibilities of the spirit, has started denigrating its age-long spiritual heritage known for its illimitable tolerance.
A true spiritualist does not entertain power for himself but offers his life for the welfare of people. He does not solicit awards. Personal lust of salvation or power vanishes from him. His working is a natural flow of higher consciousness, "Prajya”. He stays above mundane longings and aspiration; Trigunatit, beyond the modes of nature. Chuang-tzu, a prominent interpreter of Taoism, declined an offer to be Prime Minister of the State of Chu. He said, "It was better to be a free pigling wallowing in the mire than to be a sacrificial cow adorned for the kill". Such sages rarely enjoy power but their teachings deeply influence socio-political life of the nations for a longer time.
Religion without its practical utility is futile, says Vivekananda. He preached to have a glimpse of God in poor and indigent man and called God by the name of Dridranarayan (God of poor). Other philosophers tried to visualize the glimmer of God or Goodness in the formation of the most ideal State. State is individual writ large (Plato). State is prior to man and state is real nature of man (Aristotle). Citizen is prior to man (Rousseau). State is the body of God; state is ethical whole (Hegal). State is working conception of life as a whole (Bosanquet).
These western philosophers left lesser or no room for individual freedom. Hegal and Bosanquet had rudely sacrificed individual will on the sovereign will. For the sovereign will was thought to be the will of God and the body of State as the body of God. State which had been considered the result of "Sin' and Satanic Kingdom upto 13th century before the arrival of Saint Thomas Aquinas, was now made a medium for the vision of God. In this new set up, personality could be denounced for the State's cause. States dignity was a priority even at the cost of war. The inner vision of spirit thus found outer expression giving way to the adamant national patriotic forces which resulted into wars for establishing superiority. As and when the inner intuition was lost, there were spells of discord and disharmony and the history of destruction was written.
Philosophy is said to be handmaid of theology like waves on the surface of sea. Indian philosophy urges to seek Truth within microcosm for realizing the mystical secrets of macrocosm, ‘yat pinde tat brahmande’. “The kingdom of God is within you", say Jesus. Know thyself (Socrates). Be a lamp unto thyself (Buddha) and "I am Atma (the Soul)", says Krishna in the Gita. It is man who denigrates the brightness of the Sun of Truth that shines eternally within us, adityavat prakasyati tat param. The whole stock of society remains ever-beautiful in the innermost penetralia of heart. It is only selfishness that mars selfless, nobody else. The solution lies within us. Awakening towards ones own self is the answer.
Does it mean seclusion or departure from mundane responsibilities? Whether state or spirit? Neither state nor spirit, neither ought nor naught. Sri Aurobindo has reconciled this opposition of Ksara (mutable) and Aksara (immutable) into Supramental unity. Saint Kabir has stressed for the blissful fusion of physical and mental consciousness into the supreme Will which is a source of all oppositions and compositions. After merging into this state of consciousness, individual self is blessed and merged into the ecstasy of enlarged self of Braham (Supreme God). Each one is lifted to the higher self, loses ego, gets enlightened, and becomes Catholic or Braham. All the religions of world find their original source and ultimate destination. Such an evolution of humanity is a future inevitability.
Radhasoami
HELLO HUMAN BEINGS ,
"LIFE IS NOT A REHERSAL - IT IS THE FINAL STROKE TO ACHIEVE ANYTHING IN LIFE " & LIFE IS YOUR TIME , SO PLEASE DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME & CHANNELISE YOUR ENERGY TO KNOW EVRYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE BY TRUE WAY . SO ENLIGHTED YOUR COSMIC ENRGY ( SOUL ). COSMIC ENRGY OF YOU ALL HAS 18 SPHEARES OF THIS JOURNEY TO SUPEREMBEING ( GOD ) .
1) 6 OF PHYSICAL WORLD
2) 6 OF SUBTLE
3) 6 OF CAUSEL
- IF ANYONE SHOULD WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO THYSELF & OTHERS THEN FIRST OF ALL KNOW YOURSELF.
- IF ANYONE SHOULD WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE THEN FIRST OF ALL KNOW ABOUT YOURSELF .
YOU ALL ARE THE CONSCIOUS PRESENTATION OF GOD IF YOU WANT TO MEET & KNOW ABOUT GOD THEN PLZ ENLIGHTED YOUR ALIVE PART WHO NEVER DIES .YOUR PHYSICAL WORLD HAVE END BUT COSMIC ENRGY WILL ALIVE TILL UNIVERSE IF YOU ENLIGHTED YOUR INTERNAL CONSCIOUSNESS (SOUL) . REMEMBER LIGHT IS THE FASTEST IN THIS UNIVERSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW ABOUT PAST , PRESENT , FUTURE MEANS ABOUT TIME & AFTER THAT ALSO AFTER TIME WHICH IS THE MAIN CENTRAL GRATIVITY . THE ONLY YOUR CONSCIOUS ENERGY CAN CONTACT EVERYTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE YOUR PHYSICAL WORLD HAVE NO RANGE TO RAECH THEM .WHEN YOU ENLIGHTED YOUR COSMIC ENERGY ( SOUL ) THEN YOU WILL FIND THATYOUR ALIVE ENERGY IS THE PART OF UNIVERSAL ENRGY IS EVERYWHERE IN THIS UNIVERSE . THIS KIND OF CONTACT IS THE TRUE & HOLY LOVE OF GOD . WHICH NEVER DIES TILL UNIVERSE , THE OTHER SIDE YOUR PHYSICAL LOVE IS MAKING THIS WORLD COTINUE . PHYSICAL LOVE DOES BY OUTSIDE BEHAVIOUR , FOR THIS LOVE YOU HAVE NEED OF OTHER BODY & IT CRAETE THE PHYSICAL WORLD & ALSO HAS END BY TIME BUT INTERNAL LOVE DOES BY SOUL , IT HAS NO NEED OF OTHER BODY IT MAKES US ONE BY SOUL IT HAS NO TIME LIMIT & END BCZ IT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF SUPEREMBEING ( GOD ) OR SUPEREME NATURE OR SUPEREME POWER OR SUPEREME FATHER OR SUPEREME CENTRAL GRATIVITY .
THANKS FOR GIVEN TIME TO RAED & FOR MORE PLZ CONTACT ON jasdeep_sindhu@yahoo.com & PLZ VISIT www.radhasoamitaradham.com ABOUT WEBSITE PLZ CONTACT ON hariomkvk@gmail.com
Posted by: JASDEEPSINDHU | March 23, 2008 6:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
TO PAGANPLACE:
You wrote, "The fact is, though, whether it's atheists talking at you, or Christians talking to me with that notion of 'I'm 'allowing' you to have your beliefs,' they're still placing themselves in a position as if they have the right to judge, to 'allow' or not to 'allow,' and are 'tolerating' us."
I agree.
Also it is not only atheists talking at me, there are also some of the "christians" talking at me and one of the reasons is that I tell them that God does not fit into the box some have tried to cram Him into.
But that is fine.
I am a messenger and I know that and I tell you and the rest of the world that God is so much nicer than some think that He is and He is also so much nicer than some want Him to be.
The above sentence is quite an understatement but I have to try and put into words what I am here to say.
Some people seem to think that believing in God and/or knowing His Name is some kind of magic ticket but it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.
I repeat again: The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack there of.
You also wrote, "Too often, those institutions let their institutionalized problems and misdeeds slide on the basis, 'Oh, well, they weren't really being Christian,' and that seems a little problematic to me".
Actually the "institutional" part of the church, as you put it does quite a bit of good in this world but I would also say it is not perfect by any means.
I cannot live anyone else's life but I am resposible for my own life and how I live it and I would be the first to point out that I, myself, am far from perfect and it is not my job to judge others considering that what Jesus said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone", well I can not even cast a speck of dust.
I would like to bring up something else that Jesus said whether you or anyone else believes that Jesus is Who He Is or even believes if Jesus did in fact say it and that is, "Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock, I shall build MY Church and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it", if you notice Jesus did not say anything about HIS Church being perfect, did He?
Thanks a lot for your post.
Take care, see you in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].
I also would like to wish you a Happy Easter.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: Thomas Baum | March 22, 2008 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, sure, Thomas, I read what you write, ...it generally stands out from the noise a fair bit. :)
I don't really see the practical use of defining your Catholicism as not a religion, apart, perhaps, from distancing it from the associated institutions. , which I could see wanting to do, certainly.
Too often, those institutions let their institutionalized problems and misdeeds slide on the basis, 'Oh, well, they weren't really being Christian,' and that seems a little problematic to me, if for purposes of this discussion it does underscore a little problem with obligatory public piety and religious tests for government... what you get there may not be people who really keep your faith in the same way as you do, but instead those willing to *claim* they do.
It's kind of a funny thing, though, ...often people try to deny Pagans our religious freedom by claiming we don't *have* a religion, or a real one, and here you are claiming your Catholicism *isn't* a 'religion.'
Frankly, a lot of Christians ought to look on the above sort of thing with alarm... some of the very arguments used to try and marginalize us, could as easily be turned to disenfranchise Christians who don't believe in evangelical versions of Biblical literalism or any other version of doctrine government might find convenient.
The fact is, though, whether it's atheists talking at you, or Christians talking to me with that notion of 'I'm 'allowing' you to have your beliefs,' they're still placing themselves in a position as if they have the right to judge, to 'allow' or not to 'allow,' and are 'tolerating' us.
'Tolerance' can be a tricky word. It kind of implies some people are putting others out simply by existing, ...when really, freedom, equal rights, acceptance diversity and practice of civility are everyone's *due and obligation* under our American social contract.
Posted by: Paganplace | March 21, 2008 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
TO CHRIS EVERETT:
You wrote, "Knowledge OF the world comes FROM the world", and since we humans are so equipped, we can come to knowledge and to build on it.
I would like to add that knowledge of God comes from God, I used to believe in God but since God the Father came into my heart and God the Holy Spirit came into my body and that God the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, than not only do I know that God is real but also that God is a Trinity.
Also God is a Being of Love, Pure Love, He is not a loving God as in love being an attribute of God but is His Very Being.
Just because someone believes something does not mean that it is true and also just because someone doesn't believe something does not mean that it isn't true.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: Thomas Baum | March 20, 2008 10:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
TO PAGANPLACE:
You wrote, ""You also wrote, " We can allow them to believe in gods", that is mighty nice of you, don't you think?"
Frankly, Thomas, let me tell you, an awful lot of Christians talk to *me* like that
You don't want your religion any more dirty with politics than it always is."
First off, it is people that call themselves "christian" and second do you read what I write?
I am a Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith and I do not consider it a religion even tho some do, including both clergy and laity and those that are not Catholic.
I would also like to add here what I have said many times before: The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.
If you would read what I write, you would see that I most definitely say that there should be seperation of church and state, in that any kind of theocracy is to be totally avoided and I also have quoted Jesus as being in agreement with seperation of church and state.
Two quotes attributed to Jesus, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" and also, "My Kingdom is not of this world".
Jesus offered an invitation to, "Come follow Me", there is to be no coercion, and anyone that tries to cram the bible down anyone else's throat rather than trying to follow Jesus, doesn't know what they are talking about.
I am not saying that the coercion thing hasn't happened in the past or that it is not happening now, what I am saying is that is not what Jesus taught.
Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: Thomas Baum | March 20, 2008 10:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
TO JOHN LOFTON, RECOVERING REPUBLICAN:
You wrote, ". The God of the Bible is REAL. We must obey Him.", first off, do you know what obey even means, it means to listen to.
Some people seem to think that "Fear of the Lord" means being afraid of God, nothing could be farther from the Truth.
You wrote, "We must obey Him", you make it sound like we should do it coweringly rather than wanting to listen to God out of Love since He is a Being of Pure Love.
You also wrote, ", our politics must be Christian or we will be under God's wrath", Jesus, God-Incarnate, did not become a human being to try and get us to set up a theocracy on earth, no, not even close.
When Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world, ...", do you think He was lying?
God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition and His Plan is for all of humanity to be in His Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].
Christianity is not about setting up a worldly government here or anywhere else on this earth.
Christianity is not about shoving the bible down other people's throats.
Christianity is not about being a holier than thou, I'm saved, are you?, God loves me because I know His Name or anything even remotely like that even tho some seem to think that that is what it is about.
Christianity is at least trying to attempt to accept Jesus's invitation to, "Come follow Me".
Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: Thomas Baum | March 19, 2008 7:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminus,
No disrespect intended, and I would fight to defend your freedom of conscience. Nevertheless, "God" is a preposterous notion that qualifies as a delusion. If it doesn't, I don't what would.
Knowledge OF the world comes FROM the world. Anything else is superstition.
Posted by: Chris Everett | March 19, 2008 7:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"You also wrote, " We can allow them to believe in gods", that is mighty nice of you, don't you think?"
Frankly, Thomas, let me tell you, an awful lot of Christians talk to *me* like that, as if they really had some inherent right to determine what Gods to 'allow' the worship thereof, which they believe they're indulgently forgoing to 'let' me have my own faith.
They even think they're 'entitled' to do so based on some sense of having been oppressed by Romans doing the same thing,' (Ever actually looked up the Gods the Roman state demanded obeisance to? You wouldn't recognize the most of them from mythology class, and frankly, neither would I. :) )
You don't want your religion any more dirty with politics than it always is.
Posted by: Paganplace | March 19, 2008 7:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
TO YOYO AND THE REST OF HUMANITY:
You wrote, " But keep them out of politics." That is not what the constitution of this country is about, that we should tell people what they can and cannot believe, actually it is just the opposite.
Have you ever heard of people that are "prisoners of conscience", this happens in lots of places but it seems to be more prevalent in totalitarian regimes than in democracies even tho democracies are far from perfect.
If you do not wish someone to be in office because of what they believe, then don't vote for them.
If someone is in office and tries to set up a "theocracy" of any kind than they went against their oath to the constitution, so obviously they should step down or be thrown out of office.
You also wrote, " We can allow them to believe in gods", that is mighty nice of you, don't you think?
Religious Freedom is one of the basic freedoms that this country was founded on, was it not?
Something to think about: In reading some of these postings honestly, does it not seem that some of those that don't believe in God can be just as self-righteously bigoted against those that believe in God as some that believe in God can be so self-righteously condemning of those that don't believe in God or is that just my take on it?
I find it rather amazing that the simple teachings of Jesus have been so twisted by some thru the ages and in the present age as to bear no resemblance to what He said.
What Jesus taught was simple, yet hard, and you know what, Jesus did not even say, follow My teachings but He extended an invitation to, "Come follow Me".
Some people would rather follow a religion than follow Jesus and that can include both the laity and the clergy.
I am a Catholic and I chersih my Catholic Faith and like I have said before and I repeat: The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant, God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.
Catholicism to me is not a religion even tho to others it is.
It is important what you do and why you do it and what you know whether you believe in God or not.
I have met God, and God is a Trinity and God is Love and Jesus is God-Incarnate and you know what, some of the vile bile coming out of some people's mouth that call themselves 'christian' make me want to puke.
Just thought that I would make a few comments on some of what you wrote, take care.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: Thomas Baum | March 19, 2008 7:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Chris and Hohandy,
I am Christian. I support separation of church and state completely and totally. With my life, if necessary. I am not the only one. Give us some credit.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 19, 2008 5:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh, but, Kurt:
"All Tyrannies. Not so sure about Secularism. Depends on how you define it."
Bingo. What we are asking of you here is to consider that we must not dismiss our secular principles because someone *defines* 'Secularism' as somehow a religion of itself.
It is on us, as Americans, to choose the definition of 'Secular' that our law intends and best functions by, (not the most convenient one to our own beliefs of the moment,) ....and *hold our institutions to it,* even if we'd rather not.
You have no right to impose Christian ceremony or beliefs on our government, (Frankly, I wouldn't mind a couple 'God Save This Congress' es or whatever... Presidential turkey pardons, egg-rolling contests in the Rose Garde ...umm... Ok, whatever, have fun... Can Pagan troops get a decent burial, now? ...If it *weren't* being used as a lever against our freedom, it'd be different to me and always ways, but that's what's going on these days because of the political ambitions of some religious folks who try to turn these little things to tyrannical ends. Stopped being fun and started being *threatening* some time ago, in other words.)
Frankly, a lot of Christians of theocratic bent call themselves 'Oppressed by Secularist Religion' as a way of *whining* when the state won't enforce their tabooes on others.
You want something done in government, you prove a reasonable and necessary state interest, before you go exalting yourselves and trying to enforce your ways on others.
This is how we do it in the land of the Free, and the home of the Brave.
Show a little guts, here, speaking of freedom and bravery. Let's be free. Even when it's not so comfy.
Posted by: Paganplace | March 19, 2008 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kurt,
OK, maybe we have something to go on here. Perhaps it is the classical 'failure to communicate'.
Tyranny: the rejection of rule by law, and that law as being decided by the will of the governed shall not rule. Therefore, no religion must rule, and neither should non-religion (rejection of all religion) rule.
Which brings us to 'secular'.
It means 'separate from the religious'. That means that no view of religion, either for or against, must be there in the law. Secular does NOT mean rejection of religion, it means, pure and simple, keep it out of the law of the land.
It protects religions of all stripes and brands, and protects the non-religious, and protects the law and our government.
Is that so hard to understand?
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 19, 2008 4:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, leaving English law aside for the moment, just on this:
"Think of why the State is the "plaintiff" and the sole arbiter of punishment in a criminal murder case."
Actually, the American justice system places the judge and jury as representatives of the *people,* and where the state seeks to prosecute, the state (like the police or DA's office) is the *plaintiff,* ...as in the ones who *plead,* (that's what plaintiff means) *to* the jury, as presided over by the judge, who represents the law and referrees.
So, it's kind of a mistake to call the state the 'sole arbiter and plaintiff,' ...it's *really* set up such that the state must prove its case as a 'pleader' before the law and the people.
Posted by: Paganplace | March 19, 2008 4:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
HOHANDY:
Very informative. Thanks.
Posted by: Chris Everett | March 19, 2008 4:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Err, that doesn't follow, Kurt.
I know it's kind of fashionable for some Christians to claim it's 'intolerance' when they aren't allowed to lord it over others' lives, 'express' defamation of others, and try to claim our government and public property as exclusively-theirs, but that doesn't stop being 'tyranny' just cause you are one of the ones who *like* it.
America is based upon *strong* individual rights and freedoms, and *collective* decision-making with *sharp* limitations on the government power groups like religions are allowed to express through the public institutions.
Whining that it's *you* being oppressed when you aren't allowed to impose *your* religious tabooes on *me* doesn't mean you're subject to 'tyranny.'
It just means America says 'no.'
You are free to observe your religion. If you want to obey someone who says 'Pretend you aren't gay,' ...you're perfectly free to do so. If you believe you must enforce that Christian taboo on those who are not Christian, or who don't believe Christianity requires this, ...too bad.
You're the one seeking to be the tyrant, there, or, really, to identify with the tyrants.
If you believe your religion requires you to use 'Caesar's' stuff to enforce your religious practices on *others...*
Too bad.
This is America.
'Secular' means *religiously-free.* Even when you don't like it.
You want the freedom, though, trust me, even if you feel all frustrated when you can't just wave a Bible and get your way. The alternatives get nasty, every time.
Our nation is based on the proposition that freedom is worth it.
Posted by: Paganplace | March 19, 2008 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To insist that religion has to have a formal place in society - or not including religion in the affairs of the country is somehow damaging to or discriminates against religion pretty ignores some basic historical facts about our country and the legal system that we inherited from the British and that is enshringed in the Consitution as our own legal system
Consider jurisprudence. In a nutshell - in the old English court system there were 2 types of law - the King's law, having to do with matters of what we consider civil society and which became "common law" - the stuff that developed into torts, property law, contracts, wills, criminial law, etc., etc. - the kinds of law that the King needed to keep the peace among his subjects. Note, for example that the crime of murder wasn't a crime because it violated one of the 10 Commandments (giving the lie to the idea that our laws are based upon the Commandments and the Bible) - but rather, it was an offense against the King because killing someone deprived the King of the services of one of his subjects. Think of why the State is the "plaintiff" and the sole arbiter of punishment in a criminal murder case. There were two kinds of courts in the English system that dealt with the civil King's law - Courts of Law, and Courts of Equity.
There was also a completely separate body of law which was Church law - which governed religous affairs and matters pertaining to the Church. There was an entirely separate court system set up to deal with Church law - the Ecclesiastical Courts (these courts still survive to govern internal Church affairs as illustrated by publicity of recent Church controversies involving the roles of homosexuals in the church)
When the colonies were founded, all colonies had Courts of Law and Equity, and some, depending upon whether or not there was an offical "State religion" or not. Most notably, for example, early anti-abortion legal precedent from colonial times generally comes from 17th century Ecclesiastical Court cases in Maryland, where the Roman Catholic Church had official status.
Now go to the Constitution - Article III, Section 2 - where the Founders were setting up the legal branch of the 3 branches -
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity..."
They had the model of the three types of courts - they had the English model of jurisprudence which was kept and incorporated as our legal system - yet they specificially and deliberately excluded Church law and the Ecclesiastical Courts from the American legal system as having anything to do with "law". Churches are free to regulate their own internal affairs, but do not have the power or backing or any offical status of the government or what is considered "the law".
It truly follows the "render unto Ceasar" model, if one insists on putting it into Biblical terms.
So those who insist that religion has to play an intergral part in our country and government, and who insist on terming "civil" law and affairs as "secular" (implying that it only exists in relation to religion, rather than having legitimacy in it's own right in the affairs of men quite apart from and having nothing to do with religion) are really displaying an ignorance of some very fundamental things about this country and its legal system and its history.
Which isn't surprising, actually. People I know live their lives around their church - several hours on Sunday and mid-week services. Several hours a week in Bible study - learning all about a middle-eastern civilization that flourished thousands of years ago. And how much time do thise people actually spend learning about our country, its legal system and its history?? Certainly not the hundreds of hours a year that they spend devoted to learning about their religious beliefs. So it seems almost natural that they insist on redefining our country according to their relgious paradigm, rather than according to its actual history and its founding principles.
Posted by: hohandy | March 19, 2008 4:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius:
"Define 'tyranny' and give three examples.
One good example should be 'rule by religion'."
1. Rule by Christianity.
2. Rule by Islam.
3. Rule by Judaism.
4. Rule by Atheism.
All Tyrannies. Not so sure about Secularism. Depends on how you define it.
Posted by: L.Kurt Engelhart | March 19, 2008 4:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
LKE,
Funny you should quote Arminus: "Saying "Religion is bunk" is the flip side of saying "Atheism [or secularism] is bunk". Two sides of the same coin called intolerance."
I was originally going to take him to task on that post, because the two statements are NOT the flip side of each other. Some things ARE bunk. Creationism is bunk. Unicorns are bunk. Bigfoot is bunk. Astrology is bunk. And religious revelation is bunk.
The standard for "bunk" is that the assertion is preposterous in light of the physical evidence. By equating religion with atheism, you are essentially saying that physical reality does not have a privilaged position with respect to the truth. Of course, this is what religions tend to assert - namely, that reality itself is bunk. Only by cultivating belief in this absurd notion can they then fill in the existential vacuum with their "revealed" truth.
Posted by: Chris Everett | March 19, 2008 4:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kurt,
Define 'tyranny' and give three examples.
One good example should be 'rule by religion'.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 19, 2008 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius:
"what's the problem?"
You said it yourself:
"Saying "Religion is bunk" is the flip side of saying "Atheism [or secularism] is bunk". Two sides of the same coin called intolerance."
We even have to tolerate intolerance, but we do not have to tolerate Tyranny.
Posted by: L.Kurt Engelhart | March 19, 2008 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
That's really an important bit, Arminius: People who want special government power for their religion tend to not understand how history is just *full* of examples where even the beliefs they believe are *perfect* are prone to 'error' and injustice when political power is there for its taking.
Secular government isn't your *enemy.* It's your *protection.*
From *becoming* the monsters of history Christian religions always seem to become when they get the government power.
As a wise (And if I recall, religious) man said,
"When you mix religion and politics,
You get politics."
You may not *believe* you want separation of church and state, ...cause you think it'll give you something you want... But, trust me. You don't want that.
Ain't worth the karma.
Posted by: Paganplace | March 19, 2008 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Chris, Jeff, Paganplace,
We have agreement here. Jefferson's Wall must stand, else America will morph into a nightmare creature.
Kurt, what's the problem? A president need not shed his/her religious beliefs when he/she takes that oath to uphold and defend our Constitution. He/she need only refuse to try to make those beliefs into law. Secular means separation, not rejection. The first amendment was there to protect both the government AND religion.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 19, 2008 2:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with Jeff. The intent of the wall of separation between church and state is that the state must not presume the validity of scriptural assertions and strictures. Instead, what the government considers true and right must have reason and evidence as its origin. That's what secularism means.
Many religious people cry "foul," declaring secularism to be a "religion," and asserting that in fairness their religion should have political power too. They often cite the supreme court's Torcaso v. Watkins case that calls Secular Humanism a religion. But they fail to distinguish between freedom of conscience, which is what the case was about, and doctrinal authority, which is what the "foul" criers are trying to impose on everyone else. Besides, secularism does not imply Secular Humanism, whether one consders that a religion or not. It just happens that Secular Humanism comports with secularism generally because it is NON-DOCTRINAL, respecting the authority of reason and the scientific method.
Then there are those who labor under the illusion that ethics are intrinsically "religious." They equate ethics with religious strictures such as ten commandments, and conclude that laws, which codify ethics, are really codifying religion. This is wrong. Ethics preceeds both, and has its origins in our biological circumstance as social animals. One can construct laws that reflect consensus ethical standards without any recourse to religion whatsoever.
LKE's doublespeak about religious bias being necessary to secularism is peculiar, and flies in the face of one of my favorite George Washington quotations (which I think I've posted before):
"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."
Posted by: Chris Everett | March 19, 2008 2:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is simple: government's business is not to support or endorse religion or the lack thereof. Build bridges, schools, control crime and pollution, defend the country, etc. That is what government is about. In terms of religion, it must remain neutral and butt out -- and this means no religion in public schools, no tax dollars spent on manger scenes, no bugus anti-evolution stickers, no chastity classes in lieu of real sex education, etc.
Posted by: frank burns | March 19, 2008 2:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"True, but it is interference to make secularism the law of the land."
No, it's not. 'Secularism' simply means 'aside from religion,' not 'opposed to religion' as some who believe religion must rule keep insisting.
"The difference between our perspectives is that I believe that some form of religious belief is essential to rational understanding. This is simply a matter of how our minds work."
If you believe that, it's still irrelevant.
I have a religious belief, different from yours, and know plenty of people with none who are perfectly rational. All Americans. We must come together for good governance in a forum for *all* the people, and that means a religiously-*neutral* one.
You've said yourself that your ideas lead to 'Now we have to decide what constitutes 'good belief' or 'bad belief,' and *that* in context of government *is* interference with religion using state power: in fact, where Christianity manages to make policy as it *is,* I'll tell you it leads to oppression and injustice, based on *unreasoning authority,* ...the very thing secular government is established to *avoid.*
Posted by: Paganplace | March 19, 2008 2:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"What we are really looking for here are criteria we can all agree distinguish a "good" belief from a "bad" one."
Mr. Englehart: that may well be what you and others here are looking for. My point was that the separation doctrine was put in the Constitution because, and only because, for government to promote any religious belief at all is coercive-- it has the effect of distinguishing a "good" belief from a "bad" belief, which we all know is in direct conflict with the purposes and express language of the 1st amendment- to promote, not retard, freedom of religion (yes, including atheism, humanism, etc.).
Posted by: Jeff | March 19, 2008 2:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Notice that most all of the theocrats' arguments here (e.g. Spiderman) involve playing word games that amount to trying to sneakily redefine "secular" AS "religion."
Because they cannot prevail over the obvious force and power of the argument for secular government, they resort instead to clever word games aimed at claiming that there is no such thing as "secular."
Question is:
Did the Founding Fathers have these word games in mind when they adopted the First Amendment and Article 6, Section 3? Were the Founders playing word games with each other, thinking between themselves that secular government is another form of "religious" government?
I suspect not.
The Founding Fathers were referring to "religion" in the typical, commonsense manner, not in the manner of these word-gamers on the Religious Right.
Therefore, the word games of Spideman, et al, are not even relevant to this discussion.
Posted by: ChurchStateWall | March 19, 2008 1:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff:
Religious belief is an unavoidable aspect of how any human (at least those we have observed) understands the world.
What we are really looking for here are criteria we can all agree distinguish a "good" belief from a "bad" one. I congratulate you on your willingness to engage in this debate.
Posted by: L.Kurt Engelhart | March 19, 2008 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kurt, you somehow said,
"Based on what we know about religion today, this is not logically possible."
Huh? Say what? Please try to explain your 'logic'.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 19, 2008 1:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
""it simply avoids introducing any religion into what government does"
Based on what we know about religion today, this is not logically possible."
---------------------------------
Mr. Englehart: why is it not logically possible? It simply is a doctrine requiring the government to refrain from participating in any religion- it does not in any way retard Christians, or Jews, or Buddhists, or ? from doing or believing anything.
Posted by: Jeff | March 19, 2008 1:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeff:
"it simply avoids introducing any religion into what government does"
Based on what we know about religion today, this is not logically possible.
Posted by: L.Kurt Engelhart | March 19, 2008 1:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Any attempt legally to remove religious bias in government would constitute interference in religious practice. This would occur if any government, or non-government, activity were legally required to be “secular.” Whatever the meaning of the word “secular,” such a requirement would obviously be interference in religious practice. One might conclude from this that “secularism” is in itself a form of religious practice."
-----------------------------
Mr. Englehart, I think there is some confusion here about why the separation of religion and the state is recommended in the first place. The idea is not that "secularism," as you call it, is superior to other religious beliefs as a basis for policy and institutions. The idea is that keeping religion and government separate is the only way to preserve true freedom of religion. Any religion that is exercised by government or endorsed by government or is given the "imprimatur of approval" (to quote the Supreme Court) by government will coerce people of other faiths and reduce their freedom to practice their religion.
The act of keeping religion out of government is not going to promote "secularism" in the larger society at the expense of other religions -- it simply avoids introducing any religion into what government does. You are suggesting that keeping a secular government retards Christianity or Judiasm or Islam-- I disagree 100%. Americans are free to practice their religions now, under our doctrine of the "wall of separation," as imperfect as that wall is, and if you ask them, they will tell you the U.S. is one of the few places on earth free of government interference or pressure in the religious life of it's citizens.
Posted by: Jeff | March 19, 2008 1:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John Lofton,
Welcome to the wonderful world of free expression! Did you finally get tired of preaching to the choir on your wingnuts-only echo chamber of a web site?
And thanks again for deleting my profile merely because I expressed a view that you did not agree with. If your intolerant web site policies are consistent with your personal views of free expression, then I'm glad to see you post here where you can't hide behind the cloak of authoritarian religious censorship.
So, congratulations for having the courage to finally venture outside your closed-minded cocoon! I hope you have the guts to stick around, engage us, and try to defend your silly fairy tales although my guess is you're more of hit-and-run/my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy so I won't expect to see you actually engage here anytime soon. You can certainly dish it out but I seriously doubt that your views can stand up to the scrutiny of a real debate.
Posted by: Freestinker | March 19, 2008 1:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Paganplace:
“It's not "interfering with religious practice" to *not* make a specific religious practice the law of the land.”
True, but it is interference to make secularism the law of the land. The difference between our perspectives is that I believe that some form of religious belief is essential to rational understanding. This is simply a matter of how our minds work.
Posted by: L.Kurt Engelhart | March 19, 2008 1:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Paganplace:
“It's people who want their own religion to have a special power in government who try and claim secularism and religious neutrality *are* 'Irreligious' in the first place.”
Yes, many are using the terms “atheism” or “secularism” or “humanism” as privileged claims to religious authority. While they may have good reasons for making such a claim, the reason cannot be that they are not religions.
Posted by: L.Kurt Engelhart | March 19, 2008 1:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Also, not to put too fine a point on it, Kurt, but this argument is pretty nonsensical to me:
"Any attempt legally to remove religious bias in government would constitute interference in religious practice. This would occur if any government, or non-government, activity were legally required to be “secular.” Whatever the meaning of the word “secular,” such a requirement would obviously be interference in religious practice. One might conclude from this that “secularism” is in itself a form of religious practice."
You've put the cart before the horse, here: one only 'concludes' that if one goes *in* believing the religious pronouncement of certain religions that secularism is a 'rival religion' in the first place.
It's not "interfering with religious practice" to *not* make a specific religious practice the law of the land.
You're free to have your religious beliefs: you are *not* allowed to use the government to impose your religious practices. And you should be glad of this: even Christians have been known to really cheese each other off by imposing particular views of Christianity on other Christians who do not agree: for instance, most Christians believe someone should swear oaths on the Bible in court or upon swearing int to office, and raise a stink if someone swears by something else or uses the 'affirmation' option originally meant to accomodate those Christians who believe it's blasphemy or something to swear oaths.
Not-imposing one religious view or the other on all comers is part of how secularism *prevents* as best it can, the imposition of religious beliefs and practices on those who believe other than whoever decides 'Of course more of my religion is better.'
Again, it's Orwellian doublespeak to try and claim 'Non-imposition of (my) religion is anti-religion, therefore we must destroy religious freedom in order to 'save' it.'
Our secular government is *why* religion flourishes in America, where Europe, still nominally-officially religious in government in many places, has not had this. Certain evangelicals are essentially clamoring to kill the golden goose, in this regard, I think. Most of the evangelical *base* is actually anti-government to obsessive degrees in the first place. Do you really want to *become* the government?
Posted by: Paganplace | March 19, 2008 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Arminius- I stand corrected!
Posted by: stuart | March 19, 2008 12:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, Paganplace,
I have a couple of interesting replies for you over on Starhawk's blog.
Nice reply to Kurt, by the way.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 19, 2008 12:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, Kurt, it's people who want their own religion to have a special power in government who try and claim secularism and religious neutrality *are* 'Irreligious' in the first place.
People whose views are influenced by their religion have no difficulty at *all* pursuing their agendas in our government, ...the secular system, however, demands a higher standard of argument than "This is a Sin" or "The Bible Says So."
Posted by: Paganplace | March 19, 2008 12:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hooking up religion with government has all kinds of unpleasant implications. If you want to have Christianity and government bonded together so, because you think it will make us stronger as a nation...do you also really want to have the "official prayer book" of the United States Federal Government? Because that is one of the implications of merging religion and government together, bureaucratic standards that have to be adhered to. If so, what religion, or sect of Christianity is this prayer book going to be modeled after? Do we really want to have governmental religion? Do you really want to have The National Christian Church of the United States of America? To me, that is a greater abomination, than keeping secular life and religious life as separate as possible.
Posted by: whoo_whoo | March 19, 2008 12:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To err is human, to forgive is divine......
When did I, we, stop believing such sound counsel?
Okay....okay....and okay.....
Posted by: Apology to you | March 19, 2008 12:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Any attempt legally to remove religious bias in government would constitute interference in religious practice. This would occur if any government, or non-government, activity were legally required to be “secular.” Whatever the meaning of the word “secular,” such a requirement would obviously be interference in religious practice. One might conclude from this that “secularism” is in itself a form of religious practice.
I think it is safe to say we know more about the effects of religion on culture than we knew when the US Constitution was created. It is increasingly clear that church and state cannot be entirely separated. If this is true, then what we have intended by use of the word “secular” is not actually possible. Yet what we intended is still needed: a fundamental perspective on all religious activity that will insure that no particular religious dogma controls the state. Those with dogmatic views of religion will never be happy with this perspective, but we may hope more “enlightened,” not irreligious, views will prevail.
Posted by: L.Kurt Engelhart | March 19, 2008 12:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Stuart,
A correction is necessary: the word 'religion' (actually, 'religious') does appear once in the body of our Constitution. Article VI, where it states "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 19, 2008 12:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Saying "Religion is bunk" is the flip side of saying "Atheism is bunk". Two sides of the same coin called intolerance.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 19, 2008 12:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Err, that should read, 'in mine,' and sorry if it posted twice. I'm just all manner of fumble-fingered today. :)
Also, Yoyo, not everyone is in the religion they were raised to... something a recent Pew survey noted as a most remarkable trend.
It really doesn't help to come on these boards and parrot "Religion is bunk" at everyone.
Posted by: Paganplace | March 19, 2008 12:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"And none of which can withstand philosophic scrutiny."
Eh, we do OK in mind, but then again we're usually all *for* secular government. :)
Posted by: Paganplace | March 19, 2008 12:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Religions are the opiate of the masses, all 35,000 of them. And none of which can withstand philosophic scrutiny.
Posted by: Victor Kelley | March 19, 2008 11:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Religious people like Spiderman2, always use the old mantra that North Korea- a communist dictatorship-, is a fine example of a secularist nation. Therefore, let's bring religion into our government to shield ourselves from the "communist, atheist" among us. The one factor that he forgets is democracy. USA is a secularist democracy. So is western Europe and most industrialized "first world" countries. The reason why these nations have progressed and prevailed is because they allow their citizens the freedom to express whichever brand of religion they fancy. In other words, these countries are not theocracies. If you wish to experience what is to live in a state sponsored religious state you are free to move to Saudi Arabia. How many Swiss, USA, French citizens are moving there. How many are flocking to North Korea? None. Proof that a secular democratic society works. That is what our founding fathers in their inmense wisdom intended. AMEN!!
Posted by: Sisoto | March 19, 2008 11:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
spiderman2- "It's impossible to have a constitution that has no shade of religious doctrine."
Would you be shocked to learn that the words "god" "jesus christ" "bible" and even "religion" do not appear in the US Constitution? (until the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion")
What shade of religious doctrine would you call that?
Posted by: stuart | March 19, 2008 11:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"The ethical and political philosophy upon which this country is founded is itself an outgrowth of Christian religious teachings. So in many important ways we are indeed a Christian nation."
Despite the Founding Fathers saying otherwise, and people trying to obscure the obvious basis in Enlightenment thought and Deism, ...not the evangelical Christianity that frankly, didn't really exist as such back then.
"Most of our politicians are therefore Christians. They are going to be influenced by that. The only way to get rid of religious influence on government is to be governed solely by athiests and robots."
Of course there's a lot of Christians, here, but we betray our government when we go for all these de facto 'religious tests for office.' Or give Christianity special privilege in government while excluding and discriminating against others while claiming, 'It's a Christian nation, suck it up,' when people treat others as second o third class citizens.
Try getting ele
Posted by: Paganplace | March 19, 2008 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
We are slaves to our upbringing.
So many opinions here,so many ways of seeing things.
What do the whole range of different views tell us?
How do we know which viewpoint is closest to the truth?
We all believe that our own opinion is the correct one,
otherwise it wouldn't be our opinion.
But we can't all be right, though we can all be wrong.
Our parents raise us to believe certain things.
Other parents raise their kids to believe other things.
Then we grow up all fighting with each other over 'big' issues,
and accuse others of being mistaken, while they likewise accuse us of the same thing.
All we believe is what our family and culture pushed into our little heads when we were children. Surely it's not wise to assume that what OUR parents taught us about religion is necessarily the truth. Surely it's at least doubtful; even unlikely.
Maybe we should examine what we were raised to believe a bit more skeptically.
It's just too easy to assume that WE have been taught the truth while others have been taught lies. If everybody thinks like this, we're never going to get anywhere. Ever.
Posted by: yoyo | March 19, 2008 11:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Religious people like Spiderman2, always use the old mantra that North Korea- a communist dictatorship-, is a fine example of a secularist nation."
The fact is, North Korea is *not* a secularist nation, it's a theocracy of the cult of Kim Jong Il. He is treated as a god-king and credited with miracles, *prayed to* in publis ceremonies, and otherwise considered a supernatural figure.
It's creepy.
Not secular, though.
So it has been with many allegedly-'atheist' regimes.
Apart from that, it's kind of beside the point.
If you don't have the freedom to say 'yes' to the religion of your choice, you don't have religious freedom.
If you don't have the freedom to say *no* to someone *else's* religion, or someone else's view of your own, you don't have religious freedom, either.
Freedom is freedom, not the Orwellian doublespeak of those who claim "American religious freedom means you're free to worship *my* God."
Posted by: Paganplace | March 19, 2008 11:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Religious people like Spiderman2, always use the old mantra that North Korea- a communist dictatorship-, is a fine example of a secularist nation. Therefore, let's bring religion into our government to shield ourselves from the "communist, atheist" among us. The one factor that he forgets is democracy. USA is a secularist democracy. So is western Europe and most industrialized "first world" countries. The reason why these nations have progressed and prevailed is because they allow their citizens the freedom to express whichever brand of religion they fancy. In other words, these countries are not theocracies. If you wish to experience what is to live in a state sponsored religious state you are free to move to Saudi Arabia. How many Swiss, USA, French citizens are moving there. How many are flocking to North Korea? None. Proof that a secular democratic society works. That is what our founding fathers in their inmense wisdom intended. AMEN!!
Posted by: SSoto | March 19, 2008 11:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Good point, Jacques.
I hear this sort of thing from certain people about how we are supposed to have been a Christian nation, etc. Well we ain't and we shouldn't be. I think we agree on that.
However, they do have a point. Some 92% of Americans can self-identify with one Christian denomination or another. Whether they go to church on Sunday or not. That makes us the most religious nation in the developed world.
The ethical and political philosophy upon which this country is founded is itself an outgrowth of Christian religious teachings. So in many important ways we are indeed a Christian nation.
Most of our politicians are therefore Christians. They are going to be influenced by that. The only way to get rid of religious influence on government is to be governed solely by athiests and robots.
Posted by: ZZim | March 19, 2008 11:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Freedom from religion is only applicable to animals. If atheists really want absolute freedom from religion, they have to renounce their being human and agree to be governed by the rules of the jungle or some man-made laws concerning animals.
If they see signs like "no pets allowed", they should not enter or they'd be whacked. If they choose to fight back, they'll be sent to the dog pound or be sent to the jungle so they can live free and not be a danger to the human population.
It's impossible to have a constitution that has no shade of religious doctrine. If they can't live with that, they should live with the animals and be animals themselves. For sure, many of them really dream for that -- to live like animals and be free from all restraints.
Ok guys, you can do whatever you want but make it sure you're not around during hunting season.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 19, 2008 11:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Jews are no better than Muslims in this respect. When they are in the minority they want the state to be secularist, but in places where they are a majority they want the Gentiles live under their respective brand of Theocracy."
--------------------
This is a lie. I and many other Jews are against theocratic governments of any kind in any place. We aren't all fervent Zionists, either. These are myths perpetuated by the Jew-haters around the world, who love to blame Jews for every problem and affliction in the world, rather than taking personal responsibility for their own inadequacies or misdeeds.
Posted by: Jeff | March 19, 2008 10:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Well said, Jacques. But I'd be very clear: the majority will is SUPPOSED to be thwarted if it clashes with Constitutional rights. In this case, we must have and maintain strict separation of religion and the state, if all are to be free to practice their personal religious beliefs without pressure to adopt the majority religion or the religion of a favored minority group. If you believe in freedom, you have to believe in the separation of religion and government. The first amendment is in accord in its express language: "...shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." It says "religion," not "a particular religion."
Posted by: jeff | March 19, 2008 10:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Wow! Why do we have to argue about something that is so self evident? The religious people of the world always equate communist regimes to secularist societies. What about religious states such as most of the middle east? Their states are ruled by religious monarchies. Spiderman2 mixes democratic secular values with communism to support his delusional believes that religion and government should be together. There are multiple examples throughout history of nations that mixed religion and government and none of them looked like a democracy. That is what our founding fathers intended, and that is why our system has prevailed. Secularist democracies are the type of of government in democracies of to name a few, western Europe and alas,the USA. Last I checked these are examples of first world industrialized nations. How many French, Swiss, or American citizens do you see moving to the middle east, or North Korea. Don't mix secularism with communism unless you want to pass as an ignorant. The fact is that any kind of government sponsored religion will only erode democracy itself.
Posted by: SIsoto | March 19, 2008 10:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. Religion has no place in government. But lately, we are seeing each and every political candidate put religion at the forefront on their campaign. I wish we could have a candidate run for office and never disclose his religion. That should be the goal we strive to achieve! I understand that these candidates are doing this because they feel they must. Because of the media, because of the christians in this country who fight try to infuse society with their type of religion, (we'll call those christians the remaining 30% who support Bush.)
If religions want to get into politics and government, then they should pay taxes!
Posted by: Kelly Miller | March 19, 2008 10:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sadly, most people don't really want 'freedom of religion' but instead just want freedom for their religion.
Posted by: chris | March 19, 2008 8:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Christianity is founded upon Judaism. For 300 years in the Roman Empire, Christianity flourished as a variant type of Judaism with some influences from Mithra, another popular off-brand religion around that time.
The founding prohibition against a state religion was a backlash against the Church of England. Before the revolution, Americans had to pay a tax to support the salaries of local clergy, who often advocated for British Colonial Rule in America. We don't do that anymore.
What's all this other fuss about?
Posted by: Kacoo | March 19, 2008 8:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jews are no better than Muslims in this respect. When they are in the minority they want the state to be secularist, but in places where they are a majority they want the Gentiles live under their respective brand of Theocracy.
Posted by: Observer | March 19, 2008 8:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What is a religion? I would have thought that one essential was true belief in some supernatural entity. Therefore it seems to me that any kind of coercion or indoctrination of children must always rule out true belief and disqualify that ethos as a religion. Doctrine such as death for apostasy or forced wearing of certain clothes also implies coercion which logically means that such an ethos can never have had true belief since members would always have been aware of that threat. I believe that to be defined as a Religion in law, an ethos can never be practising any form of coercion in regard to recruitment and retention of followers. We need this written into law to prevent actions by vexatious religious litigants over matters of manufactured outrage.
Posted by: Keith | March 19, 2008 7:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It really should be self-evident to anyone that “there is no religious freedom without freedom from religion.” However freedom of and from religion is clearly not what many Christians want, rather they want their religious world-view imposed on everyone whether or not they are Christians and they want this done via statutes and legistlation that reflects the doctrine of their religion.
Posted by: P. Gibbs | March 19, 2008 4:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
spiderman2 quoted Jacques' statement: “there is no religious freedom without freedom from religion.”
And then he followed with: "There's nothing more false than that statement. We have seen freedom from religion being practiced in all communist states but what we've seen are prison states instead. The only freedom they have is when they speak nice to their leaders."
Clearly we have a reading comprehension issue on spiderman2's part. Berlinbleau's statement establishes that freedom from religion is a NECESSARY condition for freedom of religion, but doesn't at any point state it's SUFFICIENT for it. In other words, freedom from religion is needed for but DOES NOT GUARANTEE freedom of religion by itself.
That was crystal clear for anybody who took and passed Logic 101 (or AP Logic in high school). spiderman2, please come back after completing the course.
Posted by: Dan | March 19, 2008 4:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Neal Obstat observes, "Gee thanks, John Lofton, for that reasoned argument buttressed by all that evidence. Very convincing!"
Welcome to the strange near-solipsism of the Theonomist mindset. What they refer to as the "Biblical worldview" amounts to their claiming for themselves the right to assume a massive assertion to be true (in this case, the Bible as they interpret it) and then proceed to build their own virtual reality upon it.
Don't ask them to defend their brazen claim as John L. has done here -- because they don't feel they *need* to. They reserve for themselves the "right" to just proclaim it so and impose it on the rest of us.
What's worse, they claim to possess special powers and abilities to interpret the Bible that the rest of us supposedly lack. An "unregenerate" person (i.e. someone outside of their sect) lacks the special powers needed to "properly" read the Bible.
If you disagree with their interpretation, then you're "wrong" -- simply because they say so.
Take it from me, a guy who has studied this for 16 years.
Posted by: ChurchStateWall | March 19, 2008 1:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Gee thanks, John Lofton, for that reasoned argument buttressed by all that evidence. Very convincing!
Posted by: Neal Obstat | March 18, 2008 10:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Freedom from Spidey2's religious prison, that should be the topic.
Posted by: Arminius | March 18, 2008 9:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Freedom from false religion, that should be the topic.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 18, 2008 7:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Care for the poor" is a Christian/Buddhist/Islam doctrine and that means it's a religious doctrine.
When a president says he doesn't want to help the poor, does that mean he's practicing "freedom from religion"?
Delusion characterize every atheist's viewpoint. When they speak, my brain always somersaults in disbelief. You can always be sure that when they open their mouths, they spew out ignorance and stupidity.
"Freedom from religion" is just one of their stupid ideas. Just look at North Korea if you want a concrete example of how stupid they are. It is a nation that is "free from religion" and look what they have become. Atheist communists care also for the poor but they all end up as poor. What do you expect from a deranged person self-medicating himself?
"Thou shalt not kill" is a Christian/Judeo doctrine and that makes it a religious doctrine. If a president kills, does that mean he's practicing freedom from religion?
These atheists are silly people. If you listen to these guys, you become deluded yourself.
If you feel a little bit confused that is because we are dipping in their world of delusion.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 18, 2008 7:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, Thomas Baum!
Yes, we are all in this together. And yes, He hung in there for ALL of us.
There are other blogs going on here where you could contribute. I miss your input.
God bless, have a great Holy Week.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 18, 2008 7:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
TO ARMINIUS:
Hi, thanks for the comment, remember we are all in this together and I do mean ALL.
He hung in there for us, all of us, and we are to hang in there for Him and for each other.
Happy Easter to you and all of the rest of humanity.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: Thomas Baum | March 18, 2008 7:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Why should a nonbeliever take religion seriously?Why don't they take nonbelievers seriously? I don't believe in the biblical creation. There's no logicical about it at all.
Posted by: swaluw | March 18, 2008 4:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is claimed by many that this country was founded as a Christian nation. Hmmmm..let's see:
1. Many of the Founding Fathers (no Funding Mothers)were slave owners.
2. We were a nation for almost a hundred years before we did away with slavery.
3. We were a nation for over a hundred years before we permitted woman to vote.
4. God is reported to be a man.
5. The Bible was written by men.
6. The Bible does not object to slavery.
I guess that the U.S. was really founded on Christian principles, or at least Biblical principles.
Posted by: Ralph | March 18, 2008 4:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Due to misuse of so call man made religions humanbeing are marching back cave man period again.humanbeing without morality and charactar are worse then animals and beheaving like puppets/slaves of nature without any self control on greed lust ego and attachment.now more and more peoples are becoming selfish after asking god to forgive them,therefore we do not require to be attach to any man made religion except our fundamental natural religion'humanism'and do not think and do or wish bad for any one god will be very pleased by this much only and always help in goodness only.
Posted by: Prince | March 18, 2008 4:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The views of Mr Lofton and those who think like him scare me. I will not allow a theocracy to ferment in this nation. Such an ursurption of the ideas of this government will be fought with rationale and logic. Against such weapons ignorance cannot sustain itself.
Posted by: holybushman | March 18, 2008 3:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John, you said:
"When will some Christians understand what Jesus meant by "My Kingdom is not of this world".
I am grateful to those who have taken it to heart."
Some of us still do. And still know that Jesus really preached love, not the sword. God bless.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 18, 2008 3:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"The God of the Bible is REAL. We must obey Him."
You can yell it all you want, but it doesn't prove it is true. Christianity is a faith, a belief. The Bible says so itself. Christians want to take up a sword and fight and control, just like other religions they condemn. Not Christ like at all.
When will some Christians understand what Jesus meant by "My Kingdom is not of this world".
I am grateful to those who have taken it to heart.
Posted by: John | March 18, 2008 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Does your name mean blue cocktail sausage ? Cool . Reminds me of JFK .
Posted by: nat turner | March 18, 2008 3:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2,
I love you. You are the most wonderful argument against faith I've ever encountered. Keep it up.
Posted by: Ash | March 18, 2008 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John Lofton- "There will NEVER be any useful discussion of the mess we are in until we stop speaking in abstractions. The God of the Bible is REAL. We must obey Him.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com"
___
SO the answer to "speaking in abstractions" is to blindly accept YOUR abstraction as "real."
Cute.
But then again, I know you "presuppositional" professional question-beggers.
Posted by: ChurchStateWall | March 18, 2008 2:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John Lofton,
Good to see that the Christian Taliban has chimed in here! Fortunately, the American founding fathers (a collection largely of deists, agnostics, and the occasional atheist) disagreed with your view and established secular government with a strong wall of separation between church and state (Jefferson's words).
Be thankful, because if they hadn't, your denomination may have been illegal and would have never come into existence; we'd have a state church, probably Anglican.
You're free to believe what you wish of course (that's what religious freedom is), however to the non-Theistic, your God is about as relevant as Zeus or Attis. Have a nice day!
Posted by: DAN | March 18, 2008 2:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I believe wholeheartedly and vehemently that "religion" should have no place in politics/government. And, of course, it does not because there is no such thing as "religion." Nobody practices anything called "religion" any more than they eat "food" or play "sports." These are abstract categories that do not exist. I do believe, fervently, that Jesus Christ is Lord of lords, King of kings, and that He has ALL power in heaven and on earth -- including power over politics. Thus, our politics must be Christian or we will be under God's wrath -- as we are now because we have ignored Christ. There will NEVER be any useful discussion of the mess we are in until we stop speaking in abstractions. The God of the Bible is REAL. We must obey Him.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
JLof@aol.com
Posted by: John Lofton, Recovering Republican | March 18, 2008 2:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Very true, professor. It's time to leave sectarian religion at the door of politics where it belongs, regardless of the reticence of its adherents. Mixing politics and faith will only produce Taliban-type governments.
Posted by: DAN | March 18, 2008 1:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It totally agree that there is no religious freedom without freedom from religion. This is laicism, no government sanctioning of religion, and no religious interference in government. While this is technically accomplished through the "free exercise clause" and "establishment clause" it is not precisely defined or followed. Keep religion personal, not political.
Posted by: Ryan | March 18, 2008 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The moment a government has anything to do with religion, it ceases dealing with the practical duties it exists to perform. What aspect of religion helps a government perform which functions more ably for the benefit of its constituents?
This is about the insecure fighting imaginary phantoms with useless talismans.
Posted by: Mobedda | March 18, 2008 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau,
I think your comment cuts to the heart of the matter, as do the responses. It is jarring to some to hear the truth: if you don't support separation of church and state, then you oppose religious freedom.
To me the most frustrating aspect of the discussion is that so many people see equal protection under the law as an affront to their Christianity. They fail to realize that they would be as unhappy as the rest of us if they got the "Christian government" they demand. Who would then determine who was Christian enough for government? We've seen this model at work in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet Christians think it wouldn't happen with them.
Posted by: skeptimal | March 18, 2008 1:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality:
I took a look at your website. I don't think I have ever seen a more demented twisting of fact, history, and the true message of Christ.
The first part of the oath I took as a soldier, many years ago, states that I shall uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. I still hold to that. Your group is on public record as promoting the perversion of the law of our land into a theocracy. Therefore, you are a domestic enemy. And I am not alone.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 18, 2008 1:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Of course we must have freedom from religion and freedom to giggle at the silliness of the superstitionists who believe in a skygod and demons etc., when as far as we know it's all in the mind.
We cannot hand over control to the deluded. We can allow them to believe in gods and tooth fairies and whatever else they choose to think real if they want to. But keep them out of politics.
We are already suffering from the demented ideas of Bush the younger, whose god told him to destroy the evil in Iraq; and look how that turned out.
Posted by: yoyo | March 18, 2008 1:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spiderman2, why are you complaining about communist governments? They must have been part of God's plan. Read Romans 13:1-5.
Posted by: Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality | March 18, 2008 1:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Harvard University legal scholar William Stuntz has argued that the framers of the Constitution viewed the 4th Amendment as a mechanism for protecting political dissent. In England, agents of the crown had ransacked the homes of pamphleteers critical of the king -- something the founders resolved that the American system would not countenance. They were wrong.
Under Prescott Bush, there was only one Kristallnacht. Under the Bush Brothers, there have been many in the United States.
Perhaps we should ask Saudi Arabia to send Saudi-style religious police to apprehend the perpetrators. Because the Bush-Rove Department of Justice has not done so.
Posted by: Pastor Ted | March 18, 2008 12:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia recently held a debate on the question, Should Religion and Politics Mix? The debaters were Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and Jacques Berlinerblau of the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University on one side; and Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship Ministries and Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church on the other. Please listen-
Posted by: Anonymous | March 18, 2008 12:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Professor, it's not the case that "considerations of faith must inform our leaders’ political deliberations"; rather, the reality is that considerations of faith DO inform our leaders’ political deliberations.
The proposition that “religion should have no place in politics and government” is tantamount to proposing that people of religion should have no place in politics and government. People of religion won't ignore their religious beliefs and values just because they are involved in political deliberations.
Get real! We are not leaving!
Posted by: Not Leaving | March 18, 2008 12:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thomas Baum,
Hello, glad to see you here again. I agree with what you say.
Mr. Berlinerblau,
Perhaps your best essay here. Thanks.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | March 18, 2008 11:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques wrote : “there is no religious freedom without freedom from religion.”
There's nothing more false than that statement. We have seen freedom from religion being practiced in all communist states but what we've seen are prison states instead. The only freedom they have is when they speak nice to their leaders.
The only reason why atheists can coin these kinds of statements is because these people are under delusion. They are blind and can't see afar. From beginning to end they always shout freedom from everything but they all end up as prisoners to themselves building walls around their country fearing everything. They become a nation of paranoids.
Posted by: spiderman2 | March 18, 2008 11:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If we define "religion" as the premise or experience that informs our reason for being, acting or dying, then everybody is religious. There is no way to keep religion out of public life. The quest for a secular state is a religious act.
We have a conundrum. We worship our religion, It becomes our god. The fruit of this conundrum is, sadly, a revolving struggle within the human community.
Posted by: W. E. Crews | March 18, 2008 11:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jesus said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's".
If you do not freely give to God, whatever, then you are not giving to God at all.
God gave us free will, whether anyone believes it or not, and without freedom to believe or not believe, how could anyone construe that to be using our free will.
It is a very "Christian" thing to have seperation of church and state, remember Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world".
Jesus did not come to set up a "theocracy" and neither should we.
Jesus forced Himself on no one and He did not ask us to force Him on anyone either.
Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: Thomas Baum | March 18, 2008 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
When human beings try to put "God" in government, it's because said humans want to take the PLACE of God -- no questions asked (or permitted).
Mixing dogma and state is dangerous because it results in a government that doesn't feel any need to consider the plight or the objections of its victims.
Government by dogma is a government that sees no need to listen. This is always dangerous, and often, bloody.
Posted by: ChurchStateWall | March 18, 2008 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To say thank you comes nowhere close to expressing my gratitude for your words. They say what every seeker of spiritual meaning and human rights needs to remember.
Posted by: susan abendroth | March 18, 2008 11:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Freedom from Religion
The following remarks were delivered at the opening of a debate which will be aired on PBS over the next few weeks (Yes, check local listings).
The event took place in Richmond Virginia at the splendid Jefferson Hotel and was sponsored by the Miller Center for Public Affairs and MacNeil/Lehrer Productions.
There were four participants debating the proposition that “religion should have no place in politics and government.” I was, as you might surmise, on the “pro” side and my team mate was the Reverend Barry Lynn. On the “con” side were “On Faith” panelist Chuck Colson and Bishop Henry Jackson. It was a wild ride, but a civil one.
As Prepared for Delivery
There is No Religious Freedom Without Freedom from Religion
Tonight we are debating the proposition that “religion should have no place in politics and government.” Let me state from the outset that I--a garden-variety Jewish atheist—wholly concur.
It has come to my attention, however, that many of my compatriots do not. Reverend Barry Lynn’s organization recently reported that 65 % of Americans believed that "the Founders intended the United States to be a Christian nation.” A 2006 study by the Pew Forum noted that nearly 7 out of 10 citizens say that “liberals have gone too far in keeping religion out of schools and government.”
In short, many Americans of good conscience have rejected the core principles of secularism. For them, considerations of faith must inform our leaders’ political deliberations. That, they argue, it what the Founding Fathers wanted. Our inability to respect their wishes, it is alleged, has transformed our country into something of a secular Apartheid State. Ours has become a nation where the whims of a small elite have supplanted the will of the majority.
Now let me be frank: The most pressing challenge facing American secularism today consists of refuting these beliefs. But the challenge cannot not only be waged in the higher courts--up until recently the “home field” of our secular worldview.
Instead we must prevail in the arena of public opinion. For, American secularism is facing a “legitimation crisis.” As the statistics cited above indicate, we have yet to convince our fellow citizens of truths we hold self-evident. Therefore it is our task not merely to litigate, but to persuade.
So in the name of persuasion here are three reasons to adopt tonight’s proposition. First, mixing religion and politics will grant an unfair advantage to one religion. Why is that? In a country where 80% of the population self-identifies as Christian, those who infuse faith into the government risk creating some sort of Christian Establishment.
But Christianity is many things. It is Southern Baptism and Catholicism, Mormonism and Methodism, Presbyterianism and Pentecostalism. Given how diverse American Christendom actually is, such an Establishment will not only alienate religious minorities, but most Christians as well!
This brings me to a second point: keeping the public square free of religious considerations has been a boon for people of faith. It keeps Christians, among others, off one another’s backs. Moreover, it provides believers of all stripes with the ability to worship the divine in peace and security.
Finally, the idea of segregating faith and politics is not antithetical to Christian thought, but lies at the very heart of its intellectual tradition. We find traces of it in Bible. We glean hints of it in the writings of Augustine (and isn’t it interesting that Pope Benedict recently commented that he found “true secularism” in Augustine’s City of God. If the Holy Father can find something redeeming in Secularism than it must be kosher, so to speak). We see this idea engaged in the political philosophy of Martin Luther and John Locke, to name but a few. The endeavor to keep the public sphere naked—pornographically naked if you like those sorts of metaphors-- is an idea with a Christian genealogy.
To conclude, I will proclaim that “there is no religious freedom without freedom from religion.” The two go hand in hand. It is this idea which I wish to convince you of tonight.
(For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs).
Posted by Jacques Berlinerblau on March 18, 2008 9:56 AM.