All Comments (39)

"Separation of church and state does not require a segregation of religion from politics..."

I would have to ask that be clarified a bit better. I totally agree that the separation doesn't mean that agents of the government can't talk ABOUT religion, or even mention what their religion happens to be, any more than what their favorite football team is. However, government mandates and actions can't be solely religious... they can be inspired by a politician's religious faith, sure, but they can't be injecting religion as a form of justification for anything. THAT is where the "secularists" and the "religious reich" differ. The latter believes that the country was founded on the belief that the government should have the door open to make/enforce laws based on at least a generic religious belief... while those "crazy" secularists point out that the government is set specifically NOT to do that, and that it remains neutral on matters of religion.

Essentially, it's a separation of religion & state, just as much as church & state. You can talk about churches, you can't promote one. You can talk about a religious ideal, you just can't promote one. It's that simple.

What a pleasant surprise to hear a theist acknowledge the reality of American atheists and atheism: people who "should enjoy full rights of American citizenship and are as moral, if not more so, than many people of faith. Their patriotism and dedication to democracy belie the myth that Gov. Romney peddled in his speech on his Mormonism that freedom can thrive only when supported by faith."

Mr Walker is clearly a balanced and informed man; I will look to read his comments again in the future. If all theists could be reached by Mr Walker's comments, one large source of misunderstanding, and indeed problems, in the US would be solved. More theists need to speak out when neanderthals like Mr Romney are given a free pass in lying and pandering to the electorate.

Like Mr Walker points out, moral theists and atheists have much more in common than not, and in the practical matters of how we treat each other every day, there is little or no difference.
Cheers.

Wow...another 20 years gone by and still no original thinking. It doesn't matter what people believe as long as they keep it to themselves or share it with friends and family. I could care less that the "religions" have some form of godly being they need to be beleive in to make themselves feel better...just keep it to yourself. And just remember...there is no mention of anyone "going" to heave "when" they die in the bible.

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

If one is to be honest the U.S. Constitute by virtue of the 1st amendment can be said to be an anti-Jewish/Christian/Muslim document. Since the first amendment says you can worship any god this is in direct conflict with the dogma's of the previous mentioned religion. If fact, each religion calls for non belivers to be killed, ie..murdered for disbelieve. So I wish the fundamentalist religious would stop "lying for Jesus" with their unfactual claims that the USA was founded on Christian morals. Our country rejected those so called morals except for the right to owe slaves and the treatment of women as a second class citizen. Those cornerstones of Christianity were, sadly, incorporated into the USA.

If one is too honest the U.S. Constitute by virtue of the 1st amendment can be said to be an anti-Jewish/Christian/Muslim document. Since the first amendment says you can worship any god this is in direct conflict with the dogma's of the previous mentioned religion. If fact, each religion calls for non belivers to be killed, ie..murdered for disbelieve. So I wish the fundamentalist religious would stop "lying for Jesus" with their unfactual claims that the USA was founded on Christian morals. Our country rejected those so called morals except for the right to owe slaves and the treatment of women as a second class citizen. Those cornerstones of Christianity were, sadly, incorporated into the USA.

Steve: SAYS
I'd say the campaign has been anything BUT religious. Focused on religion, to some extent, yes, but religious, no.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's how it's turning out but not how it was planned. The great ministers, Billy, Patty, Hagard etc were supposed to speak to God and pick the God fearing, born again, roghteous, you know what I mean candidate to oversee the kingdom of God while we wait for Jesus to return.

Huckles-bury is the best they could do. hehehehe

Can't you picture a commedian with a Huckabee mask....? I wonder if McCain can or does. Who'll be his losing mate?

You can still get in on it. Annie Coulter and the LA'd lamebrain Limbauh are supporting the Democrat or your choice. hehehehe

GaryD:

Madelyn Murray O'Hair did only one thing. She got rid of prayer in public school classrooms, the greatest advance for religious freedom in U.S. history. Today, people like you are no longer permitted to impose their religion on my children.

efavorite: I understand:)

GaryD: There are many lawsuits centered around religious expression, usually objecting to government officials (including school administrators) pushing the boundaries of government endorsement of their faith. There are many politicians who pander to the faithful among their constituency, leading them to put nativity scenes on city hall property, re-institute teacher-led prayers in public schools, hang decalogues in courthouses, etc. These are all violations of the principle, well established in American history, of government neutrality to religion.

As for the appropriateness of having a minister comment on secularism, I must say that the separation of church and state does not exist to protect the minority of non-believers. The invention of secular government by our Founding Fathers was intended to keep Christians from persecuting other Christians, as they so often had in Europe. Government neutrality to religion is a benefit to all Americans, no matter what your private opinion on religion may be.

"Many of the candidates for president, including candidates of deep personal faith, believe in this vision [religious tolerance] for our body politic and understand it is part of the mainstream of our constitutional scheme."

Name a viable Republican candidate who has not spoken favorably of the idea that Christianity is or should be the de-facto official religion of the US.

GaryD: The distribution of reasonable and unreasonable non-theists is hardly relevant to whether or not secularism is or is not given a fair hearing in US policy making.

And, from my perspective, this distribution among theists is far more skewed ... which is similarly irrelevant.

Christians do not run the risk of law suit any time they display something about their religion in public ... this is a gross distortion of things, and I suspect you know this. When religious views are institutionalized in public facilities, that is different. Removing such is the only sensible thing to do, and certainly in no way attacks the religion.

Again: the absence of something is not its antithesis.

[My apologies for the earlier double post ... I thought I canceled the first in favor of a shorter post, but I guess it went through after all.]

I appreciate Mr. Walker's spirited defense of the separation of religion and government, but I strongly disagree with his statement "Our government should not be hostile to religion, but it must remain religiously neutral." No one should be in favor of preventing a government from defending itself when threatened by religious extremists. Is it wise not to be hostile toward the religious motivations of the Muslim men who flew hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Religion also has undoubtedly motivated the suicide bombing attacks worldwide. Should we maintain a neutral stance toward these faith-based tragedies? Neither should we be neutral toward Christian Scientists who let their sick children suffer and die in agony rather than give them medicine, while their well-funded lawyers push for--and too often attain--religious exemptions from child abuse legislation. Our laws should not be influenced by the infantile notion that all religion is good. There is no shortage of dangerous religious ideas toward which any prudent government needs to remain hostile and non-neutral to survive.

Casual perusal? If you think a few atheists are "unreasonable sorts", you should read some posts of religious zealots.

Anyway, GaryD, given your second sentence, you seem quite unreasonable. I've seen hundreds of christians doing all kinds of things in public today, and none of them were sued.

How do you casually peruse writings?

Casual perusal? If you think a few athiests are "unreasonable sorts", you should read some posts of religious zelots. Anyway, GaryD, given your second sentence, you seem quite unreasonable. I've seen hundreds of christians doing all kinds of things in public today, and none of them were sued. How do you casually peruse writings?

RPW then why all the lawsuits? Every time a Christian tries to do something in public these days he runs the risk of being sued. That sir is the legacy of Ms. O'Hare. Of course there are reasonable atheist you would appear to be one but even a casual perusal of the posts here has to reveal to you that for every reasonable atheist there seems to be at least two of the unreasonable sort.

Why on earth would you ask a minister about secularism? Isn't that like asking a vegan about bar-b-que?

Marty -- please be aware that I did NOT write this:

"Just as soon as you and others like you quit trying to use it as a whip and chair to deprive the religious of an equal shot at the public arena"

My guess is that someone wrote it in response to me and wrote my name in by mistake. I agree with you: "That is one of the big lies loose in the culture war, that secularlists are trying to remove religion from 'the public square'. "

Atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

i enjoyed your words and points....
ithink in my experience it really not about what a person says... or for that matter doesn't say... about themselselve... that is the important part. its the actual looking for the fruit the person has produced and what they actually did when real.... not fatisized things arose/// i know i fall far short of where i would like my actual spiritual walk to be in everyday life but find it much more helpful to deal with reality at least for myself as a means for explaining who i am... where i've been and what i have done to overcome myself..i'm never a loss for words on just what to say about things i have actually done both the good and the not so good... they are after all indellible facts already written by myself and witness by God as i actually walked through them. i myself find it facinating at tymes to see polititians.. and i guess.. preachers.. for that mater from time to time who want to do great things and have such desire ...energy and work habits but accomplish nothing because they use one hand to shake mine and others no stop ... and the other to pat themselves on the back.... leaving very little in really to do actual works... or even feed themselves spiritually much less someone else... jesus said give unto caesar what is caesars give onto god what is god... paul always was a citizen of rome but i think he was a deciple first in his mind.. jesus actual actions were to throw the table of the money changers over and chase the businessmen away from his father temple if i read the bible correctly. just how plain do evangelicals have to have it in jesus's writing before they get the message. do they think they know more than jesus... this night blindness caused by having sometimes dim light to lead with are not the exclusive domain of any section or sect or religion.. i don't think God would be very pleased with my fellow christians the jews who were my ancestors and the moslem to who i have much respect for spiritually ... there are facist in all major religions eye think battle them all admit you don't want to solve the problem if in fact you have even seen the problem correctly but i'm just an artist please check these
statements 4 truth

I'd say the campaign has been anything BUT religious. Focused on religion, to some extent, yes, but religious, no.

Isn't the problem, though, that frequently when government attempts to assert its neutrality with respect to religion, demagogues convince half the nation that their religion is somehow under attack?

I sent my distinction between two sorts of secualrism anonymously by mistake. If Fred is right that talk about God's will only repels people then there isn't much reason to worry that it will become too powerful, and even those whom I'd call strong secularists can relax.

If secularism is defined as the opposite of theocracy, which I would take to mean that the official representatives of a religion have a right to make or to veto laws, then secularism, or at least moderate secularism, means the absence of all such theocratic powers. This form of secularism must offer the only way to run a country with a large number of different beliefs about religion. I suppose that there's also what might be called strong secularism, which opposes the use of the argument 'God wills it' in public debate because this argument hands power - particularly if people in the mass are disposed to believe it and to stop thinking for themselves when it is used - to theocrats indirectly. This is a demand that people use reason when they would rather use faith, so to those who think that they have reason to rely on faith 'strong secularism' must be a tainted concept.

"The idea that no religious view should be seen in Public is in fact little more than a defacto declaration of atheism as the national 'religion'."

Disagree. It is not a defacto declaration of Atheism as a religion, but an understanding that nobody else's religion has any sway over anyone else in the public arena. I can't tune out faster than when someone 'of faith' begins to talk about how God has led him down this path, or brought them that understanding. And everyone who is from a different religion feels much the same way.

It's about keeping people from shooting themselves in the foot by opening their mouths, and proving themselves ignorant to everyone who doesn't share their 'Faith.'

You want to talk? Go ahead, but know that when you discuss your 'god' you lose a vast majority of the audience, VERY quickly.

Keep your talk of 'god' in your church, where it belongs, the public forum has no need of it.

Our country was founded on the principals of the Western Enlightenment--the Age of Reason--after emerging from hundreds of years of "Dark Ages" when religion cruelly and corruptly ruled the known Western world.

One way to view Secularism is a non-belief in Deities, or a non-belief in the model of the universe being a monarchy, with God as King, and humans as servants--a bogus model for which there is zero evidence. That being said, I believe most secularists, while not religious, are indeed spiritual.

What this country desperately needs is more spirituality and less religion.

This is a straw man on the back of a false dichotomy.

No non-theist I am aware of is suggesting that people shouldn't be able to talk about religion in public or that there be an official test for a-religion for public office. Nearly all non-theists I know respect the first amendment far too much to advocate such things.

Secularism is the idea that we consciously observe a plurality of belief, unbelief, and disbelief in our country and arrange our public discourse, our policies, and our processes to respect this plurality ... and that the best way to respect it, is to keep it out of our official policy and institutional statements as much as is feasible. I don't see how this position is any kind of attack on religion -- moreover, I see the tactic of casting it in this way as dishonest.

Secularism, as neutral-toward-religion is most certainly given short shrift in this country. Secularism as moderate Christianity may get its due, I suppose ...

Rev. Walker: I respect your right to your beliefs, and hold no contempt for your Christianity, but you are a dishonest advocate for neutrality. Please mind the false dichotomy: The absence of something is not the same as its antithesis.

This is a straw man on the back of a false dichotomy.

No non-theist I am aware of is suggesting that people shouldn't be able to talk about religion in public or that there be an official test for a-religion for public office. Nearly all non-theists I know respect the first amendment far too much to advocate such things.

Secularism is the idea that we consciously observe a plurality of belief, unbelief, and disbelief in our country and arrange our public discourse, our policies, and our processes to respect this plurality.

We should not codify blatantly religious notions into our law, demonstrate a proselytory messages in our institutions, or require statements of religious conviction in our oaths and statements. I don't see how this position is any kind of attack on religion -- moreover, I see the tactic of casting it in this way as dishonest.

Secularism, as neutral-toward-religion is most certainly given short shrift in this country. One merely has to look at the statistics of non-theism and the demographic makeup of our public offices to see one of many symptoms of this ... or read our currency, or consider the current version of our pledge of allegiance.

I'm not hostile toward religion, I am entirely neutral ... I honestly don't care what someone believes, I only care whether their policies are reasonable and can be defended rationally. But I also do not want to be inundated by some else's belief system (nor do I want others inundated by mine). I am not seeking the dissolution of Christian churches, but neither do I want to support them.

THAT is neutrality.

Rev. Walker, on the other hand, is a dishonest advocate for neutrality. How easy it is for him to suggest that things are in balance from a secular perspective ... how facile to imply that simply NOT having a public statement of Christianity is somehow an attack on religion.

As long as our nation persists in the false dichotomy that the absence of religion from our institutions is tantamount to an attack on religion, secularism (in any reasonable sense of the word) WILL get short shrift.

hi everyone – I enjoyed reading the following site :

http://akram.rediffiland.com/blogs/2007/10/06/Read-It-Translate-It-Forward.html

(note: please copy & paste the above address correctly to read the article. if not copied properly, the article may not show up.)

hi everyone – I enjoyed reading the following site :

http://akram.rediffiland.com/blogs/2007/10/06/Read-It-Translate-It-Forward.html

(note: please copy & paste the above address correctly to read the article. if not copied properly, the article may not show up.)

hi everyone – I enjoyed reading the following site :

http://akram.rediffiland.com/blogs/2007/10/06/Read-It-Translate-It-Forward.html

(note: please copy & paste the above address correctly to read the article. if not copied properly, the article may not show up.)

re: efavorite: "Just as soon as you and others like you quit trying to use it as a whip and chair to deprive the religious of an equal shot at the public arena"

No one is trying to deprive the religious to an equal shot in the public arena. That is one of the big lies loose in the culture war, that secularlists are trying to remove religion from 'the public square'. Religious people are free to express their convictions, even to demonstrate them with symbols, decorations, etc. People forget that the 'public square' is almost entirely comprised of private property. The only limit secularlists would like to see in religious expression is to prevent public (i.e., tax-payer supported) property, from being used to promote religion. Atheists and other secularists are not trying to close down the many religious TV and radio stations, newspapers and magazine, religious bookstores, prevent christians from putting up Christmas lights, or talk about their beliefs in public. Politicians are welcome to talk about their faith and their values. They just cannot imply that their personal convictions amount to an official endorsement of their religion.

"Separation of church and state does not require a segregation of religion from politics..."

The outcome of political debate directly affects my future in concrete ways. Ipso facto, the debate should have agreed upon parameters based upon our common reality. Since I cannot join a separate reality that exists only in the heads of the religious, how can that work? It simply wouldn't be fair of me [nor would it bring consensus any nearer] to invent my own set of imaginary constraints, so how do religion and politics mix?

[That said, I believe very strongly in freedom of religion, just don't ask me to make decisions or frame debate based on a set of beliefs for which I do not see any real-world evidence]

Just as soon as you and others like you quit trying to use it as a whip and chair to deprive the religious of an equal shot at the public arena.

Rachelle,

While it is obvious that a religious value such as polygamy would most likely eliminate a candidate from serious presidential candidacy, how would a strong anti-pornography stance sit with the average voter? My faith dictates that pornography is not only wrong, it is destructive to the social fabric of our society - yet tens of millions of people enjoy viewing pornography everyday.

Does my platform on pornography put me in direct contrast with "American" values? Is it enough of a contrast to prohibit me from a serious opportunity at public office? (Well, maybe with democrat voters who seem intent on protecting every pedophile and sex offender in the country).

Not a sermon, just a thought.

Rev Walker -- Good. Now the next step is to get the word out that secularism as actually a GOOD WORD.

Our Government is founded on it and that's a GOOD thing.

You know who started making the term "secular" bad -- religious people. It was wrong of them to do that, as you know, so please tell them to STOP IT.

Thanks

But then there arises the question as to exactly what are American cultural ideas as distinct from religious values? One of the more interesting juxtapositions is that while something around 80% of Americans are against same sex marriage more than 50% have no problem with civil unions among same sex couples.

I don't understand how whether or not you are Catholic, or Methodist, Mormon or Buddhist, would affect your public policy decisions. I think that if your religion played too big of a role in your platform, you wouldn't be a major candidate. For example, if a Mormon wanted to legalize polygamy--he probably wouldn't be a big name in the election. His ideas are too drastic. Therefore, all candidates' religious beliefs must conform to American cultural values...it's just the way it is.

Excellent Job Mr. Walker. The consitution indeed is not anti religion but Religiously neutral especially as regards one's belief or lack there of.

The idea that no religious view should be seen in Public is in fact little more than a defacto declaration of atheism as the national 'religion'.

Executive J. Brent Walker:

There's just one thing left to do according to your version of secular. We must decide who will honcho the kingdom of God while we anxiously await the return of Jesus to claim His throne as king of earth...earth too big for just one king...Jesus be king of kings.

I doubt there would be much argument that Devil, deviltry at least is the enemy of democracy. Appears to me that Jesus is the enemy of democracy too...wanting to establish a dictatorship better known as a kingdom...entire earth too...no place to run to and no place to hide from the religious authorities.

With that thought in mind, assuming one is mentally capable of the analysis of two pieces of evidence at once, just which supernatural being is the actual father of Jesus, God or Devil?

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul says the father of Jesus was 'A' Devil named Lucifer. We can argue that it wasn't Lucifer but it's difficult to argue that wasn't 'A' Devil in the burning bush. Got anything to say IT was God? I didn't think so.

"Religion is the great enemy of democracy" can be limited to the three great faiths...worshipers of the being in the burning bush, so far.

Give it up. There is no reconciling democracy and kingdom even when the kingdom is that of God. We must assume that God is in favor of democracy and God has given 'we the people' the wisdom to determine what is moral, public behavior only and what is not.

Things are looking good on the political front from my viewpoint. McCain makes the big mistake of choosing a preacher for a running mate and loses in a landslide or doesn't and squeaks out a win for himself. God is watching while Devil and His many agents, ministers are hard at work so it would seem. The question left to answer is which being McCain will hear, God or Devil.