A Free Market For Beliefs

lthn mcurjnfit xpgdkqujn boie pobhlqkj carnu esdc

Vote: Deport John McCain all the way back to Panama, "NOT" hard working Mexican(s):

By: Cyber Friend(s) & Volunteer For "HILLARY FOR PREZ!"

VOTE: Abolish ALL PRE-APOCALYPTIC old-time "iMPORTED" [Not-Made or Prophecied in Sweet Sweet U.S.A.) Pre-Apocalyptic 'Cottage-Religions" and competing religilous's in U.S. of A., not non-religio Industry's, NOW!!

Deport ALL of the VATICAN 'PRE-APOCALYPTIC POLY-THEO Catholic Roman Empire "PEDAPHILE/HOMOSEXUAL-PRIESTS/BISHOPS/CARDINALS" & their SuperStupidStitious Man-Made (not genuine HOLY-COSMIC ECLATi made SYSTEM ) back overseas from whence they illegally Imported their 'CURSE & SIN(s)' into older U.S.A., but no longer into the "New APOCALYPTIC-AMERICA-NATiON" U.S.A of 100 States!!!!

Note: This is the E*C*L*A*T*i-ON Prophecy! Please do not be in denial to self nor others! Tonks!

VOTE: DEPORT ALL, Not-Made-IN-A*M*E*R*i*C*A, PRE-APOCALYPTIC old-time iMPORTED Religions, Not MEXICANS!

INstead Unite MEXICO w/U.S.A for an Additional 10 States!!! As a Matter of fact, VOTE to Merge & Absorb All AMERICA upto & No Further than PANAMMA, ironically John McCAINS "Birth Place! "Imagine" (john Lennon; pbuh) 100 U.S. States?

Then We can Say Good bye Middle East & Good Ridence!!!

Important: The Chinese Zionist {MAO's et al} are in Mexico too & populated Mexico 10-fold in last 10 Years! Remember, the Chinese want to POISON Americano's Minds via their Dangerous/un-Healthy Products!!! So They [Chinese Atheistic/Zionists] must be kicked-out of there ASAP! Ya Ya!

Trivia: Did ye knowth that Senator , wanabe Prez John McCain is a 'Dual Citizen of Panama & USA?

PS: Did you also know that John McCain & His Wife , are ALCOHOL Pushers & have lots of Blood on their hand for many Highway Car Crashes due to their Alchol Monopoly Biz in ARIZONA!?????

Please see these linko's on;

"...Cindy Lou Hensley the daughter of James W. Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor from Phoenix, Arizona. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife in Florida on April 2, 1980 and promptly married Cindy on May 17, 1980...."

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm

Shame Shame John & Cindy McCAIN!! Kennedy's too!

So: Vote: Deport John McCain all the way back to Panama, "NOT" hard working Mexican(s) et al YEA!

Ya Ya Yo Yo!

--
...

http://www .astronomy2009.org/////
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA USA!!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR
VOTO VOTO VOTO VOTO VOTO !!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE !!
PEACE,PAZ,SALAAM,SHOLOM.....__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

HELLO APOCALYPTIC-100-STATES-NATION, Sweet sweet U.S. of A.'s!

voto "HiLLARY Clinton" para el presidente ahora!

Daniel,

"That is what you are saying isn't it? You admitted it youself, that that "is the nature of Christianity."

What I am saying is that Christianity, as we find it in its source documents, makes some absolute statements.

Christianity without a risen Jesus, without right and wrong, is not an authentic Christianity. That does not mean that we should dominate, stamp out etc (which ever words you chose to use) - but it does mean that some absolute statements can be made. I am stating that Christianity by its nature makes some absolute statements.

There are those who would propound a Christianity which consists only of "love they neighbor as thyself" and "judge not lest ye be judged" - but this is not consistent with Christianity as we see it in the original writings. This would best be called humanism in Christian dress.

I have not at any time said that these things are unimportant. Rather I am simply pointing out that Christianity makes some exclusive claims (like Jesus being God's means of salvation), politically correct or not.

C Meadow

How is your freedom of religion restricted in America?

Because your religion is intolerant? and you seek to dominate everyone else, and to stamp all belief and points of view but your own? that is part of your religion? and because you have separated off specific groups, targetted for persecution, and because the civil authority will not permit you to pursue your goals and aims along these lines, then your freedom of religion is curtailed?

That is what you are saying isn't it? You admitted it youself, that that "is the nature of Christianity."

Speak for yourself; that is not the nature of Christianity; that is the nature of people who live and wallow in the mud.

Oh.. Right.. It's the 'free market of beliefs,' that must mean 95 percent marketshare. OK. :)

"If using the Wiccan study guide gets me to 95 "

Ahhahaha. :)

Would it be OK to suggest Lady might say, '95 what?' :)

Thanks for the response.

All religions being equal? (maybe we throw humanism in there too? ) Equal by what measure? Getting to a good afterlife? Building good karma for the next physical life? Bringing peace to Earth? Helping me discover the true meaning of Life? Helping me discover the true meaning of God? Helping me discover who and what I truly am? That is a debate unto itself. The list of questions is infinite as is the debate.

I believe treating everyone well is a tenet of all religion (yes even the Koran for all the Islam bashers out there). Maybe we all agree on one thing?

As for Christianity being exclusive, it does seem that many (most?) Christians believe it to be that way and most people outside of it believe it to be this way; though my favorite Christian Thomas Baum would probably disagree. I think it matters whether people on both sides focus on the exclusivity or the core message, though the core message seems to be up for debate as well.

To me exclusivity seems to contradict the universe as I see it created (We are all One) and can create certain issues. The idea of placing an absolute on infinite concepts like, God, Universe and time never made sense to me. As my spirituality has advanced I have found exclusivity and absolutes to be less useful concepts. That’s not to say I am more or less enlightened than anyone else, it is just where I am at.

The interesting thing I have found about Christianity is the diversity of belief. Maybe that is present in other religions and I just haven’t been exposed to it.

Rob Adams,

Interesting take...

My post was directed mostly at the stance that says roughly that all religions are equal as long as we remember to treat everyone well.

My counterpoint to this is that evangelical Christianity sees Jesus as God's savior for the world. It is by definition exclusive on this issue. A Christianity with no resurrected Jesus, no God, and no moral absolutes is not, in my opinion, Christanity at all.

Some see this as "closed-minded" - but this IS the nature of Christianity.

C Meadows.

You are correct your religion is still protected by freedom of religion.

As for people being offended I think that is for the individual. Being offended is a personal choice. Am I offended that some ignored me, shouted me down, slapped me, put me in prison (like a Buddhist monk in a Chinese prison for 15 years.) The monk decided that he was not offended but feared every day he was in prison he would lose compassion for his captors. Some might even be offended by your post, not my preference but in the end the individual decides to be offended or not.

As for your religion being intolerant I guess that would depend on how someone represented your religion, or any religion for that matter. Believing your religion is the “best” is not intolerant. How you react or treat other religions would determine if it is intolerant.

As for “I do not think that all religions are the same and all lead equally to God.” I agree all religions are not the same, on paper. However the key is does a particular religion work for an individual. The “best” religion not “working” for an individual seems a bit of a waste. A “lesser” religion “working” for an individual to “improve” their spirituality seems more productive.

I have always equated ultimate spirituality as a course where you need 80% to “graduate”. If Christianity gets you to 90 but everyone else scores 75 using a Christianity isn’t the only answer. If using the Wiccan study guide gets me to 95 and using the Buddhist study guide gets my dad to 93 then that is what he and I should be using.

If everyone is forced to use one study guide then we set people up to fail.

Of course the big problem is the human race doesn’t even agree on what the course curriculum should be hence the need for separation for church and state.

Anonymous,

"Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to practice any sort of religion as long as it is multicultural and humanistic in outlook."

By this statement I meant that "freedom of religion" allows me to practice MY religion - and my religion is not a humanism. I am an evangelical Christian and as such my beliefs would be considered "politically incorrect" by some because I do not think that all religions are the same and all lead equally to God. I think there are some who would be offended by this "nonhumanist" stance and would see my "religion" as intolerant.

My point is that while my beliefs are not in the "humanistic" model they should still be protected by freedome of religion.

>>hardline evangelicals are not people with a superior moral conscience linked to an omnipotent God, but pathetic, misguided persons whose brains are locked in superstition and ignorance, several degrees removed from reality.

Conversely, could some of the evangelicals (or anyone for that matter) you speak of, being human, be misguided, swayed, deceived due to the reality that they actually live in..that is, a world where moral standards that used to define aspects of strengths, but now demoted to that of ignorance or not being enlightened, exist less and less? We cannot suggest that evangelicals are immune to the filth that reeks in our society. They are human.

In other words, I believe many millions of people could present the argument given above (>>), only in the reverse. I personally feel that most people who believe in a creator God are in a more sound reality of life than perhaps those who question or denounce basic morality and principles that promote human excellence and that have proven benefit to any given society. But that is only my opinion. I have personally experienced that certain moral standards that are generally poo-pooed in the world today actually keep us in check and promote a healthier lifestyle all the way around

All the best.

Previous post was mine. Sorry

C Meadows:

You said "Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to practice any sort of religion as long as it is multicultural and humanistic in outlook."

What are you talking about? Freedom of religion means precisely that - everyone is free to practice whatever religion they wish, including no religion at all, without interference or involvement of the government. Freedom of religion is not a Christian concept, it's a secular concept that applies to everyone equally.

GEORGIASON,

You failed to mention child abuse. Boston is heavily Catholic, but when I worked on the "Big Dig" there was graffitti everywhere that said simply, "Bernie the Pimp," in reference to the Cardinal who protected pedaphiles in the priesthood.

A little known fact, or much ignored fact, is that Jesus paid his taxes and discussed the reason why with Peter at some length. In a nutshell, once he paid his taxes, he didn't owe the government anything and was thus free from it.

When churches get tax exempt status, they are ipso facto subsidized by the government. It is both de facto and de jure a collusion between church and state -- not a separation. In order to attain tax exempt status, certain specific criteria must be met before the government issues a certificate with "the number of the beast." So far as I can determine, the government has never attacked a church, such as that at Waco, which enjoyed tax exempt status. Most churches are incorporated, which means they are corporations doing business as churches. Small wonder, then, that Jesus spoke of them as a cage full of every unclean fowl.

REPLY TO JOHN STEPHENS:

First, thanks for your positive feedback!

I do, however, have one problem with your post.

You left out Ted Haggard! Surely, he has now joined the ranks of the unadulterated hypocrites who populate the evangelical movement. I see from recent news reports that his church severed its ties to Haggard completely because the process of his "spiritual restoration" was incomplete. Meaning, I take it, that he had been caught red-handed engaging once more in the conduct that got him in trouble to begin with.

Question for Rev. Anderson and all you holy rollers out there: How many of your wonderful Christian leaders have to join the ranks of the disgraced and defrocked before they are recognized as the rule and not the exception? Let me put this statement on the table: "The number of immoral, hypocritical scam artists among evangelicals that have been publicly exposed shows that they are simply the tip of the iceberg of what's really there."

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Many of us are at least suspicious that this constant stream of busted evangelical leaders proves the point of people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett that hardline evangelicals are not people with a superior moral conscience linked to an omnipotent God, but pathetic, misguided persons whose brains are locked in superstition and ignorance, several degrees removed from reality. Afflicted, in other words, with whatever it is that afflicts Britney Spears.

Preacher Anderson, Contemporary Bible Thumper,

Some Reality thumping:

Once again as a counter to the milleniums of religious mumbo jumbo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Anderson, "That makes people of faith more comprehensive in perspective. We can and do engage in the issues and ideas of others (including secularists) and, at the same time, believe in God and have our faith to guide and inform us in dealing with the issues and ideas. So, of course we are interested in the religious perspective of political candidates because we want to know who and what is guiding their thinking.

To specifically answer the question: Secular ideas are not getting short shrift. They are just facing serious competition from religious ideas in our free market of beliefs."

I agree with this part of your article.

GaryD has a very good point here.

No one really knows exactly what the founding fathers would say if they could speak today. I suspect they would support neither a Christian theocracy nor a society where religious displays are permitted only inside private buildings...

But I agree that many secularists seem to think that theirs is the default or neutral position. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to practice any sort of religion as long as it is multicultural and humanistic in outlook.

For me as an evangelical Christian, the faith has a huge importance. I have no desire to force my faith on anyone - but I also have no intention of keeping it bottled up in order to avoid offending someone with thin skin.

Atheists and secularists have every right to say whatever they want and to worship or not worship as they want. But I also have a right to live my life as I choose. I don't want my children to grow up in a world where God is a politically incorrect concept and all morality is relative. As such I am going to do everything within my power to keep the country from becoming that. And I am going to do it at the ballot box and I am going to do it with my free speech.

I expect my secularist countrymen to exercise that same right. But just don't pretend that my position is biased and yours is not!

The problem arises Pagan when the Atheists pretend as they all too frequently do that they are the neutral position - the middle ground as it were.

They aren't they are merely another player at the table and one that seems to think that when it comes to politics they should be the only ones at the table.

Hi, Norrie.

Then again, let's not let the fundamentalists appropriate the notion of 'People of Faith' for their narrow point of view, either.

People that try to define faith *or* science down into some narrow view based on words, I think, as one who can look at the stars and see the milk of the Great Mother while contemplating emission spectra of HII regions ...the birth of stars and gravitation and all... that neither should preachers claim that denial of science brings some more 'comprehensive' view, nor should scientists claim that 'faith' is a tiny slit.

Belief can be. Faith, properly defined, shouldn't, I think.

I think there's a fear, cultivated by people pushing *narrow* views of faith and belief, that science *takes away* that unbounded magnificence, ...I don't think I could ever see things that way... I often thank Carl Sagan, that avowed atheist, for helping give me those kind of eyes when I was a kid: I think I had every book he'd ever written well-thumbed by the time I was ten or twelve.

Despite some things he said, I don't think he was a person of no faith, I think he was a person with a faith that didn't need belief. Wonder's like that.

Maybe that's the only real faith there is, but in a finite-but-unbounded universe, maybe it's enough we're unlikely to see the end of wonder.

Science can't break real faith, and real faith can't break real reason. People shouldn't be so afraid.

To our consciousness, terrifying scales and distances and uncertainties may appear, as well as terrifying shapes of ghosts and goblins and spirits and songs and words.

In all of this, I find we're equipped to deal, and the wonder is worth it.

Sometimes I think certain elements in both science and religion are desperately trying to batter away fear, when showing courage and embracing wonder would probably work a lot better.

Faith isn't and shouldn't be narrow. Beliefs can be.

But we can deal with that, too.

What 'People of faith' has become code for isn't it, though.

If you look at this JJ, here he is claiming to have a 'transfinite' view, but isn't he just trying to batter away demons of one kind or another?

John Stephens, GEORGIASON:

Wow and bravo both!

Religion is a social necessity. That's taught in all schools both public and private -civilizations all came/come with religion as a distinguishing characteristic. Thus with education comes the very subtle mind set that religion is absolutely necessary.

In your essays I don't recall noticing how religion controls birth, marriage and death -baptisms or the equivalent, weddings and funerals.

I must confess that I had no idea how to go about burying a dead religion-less person -recall the evangelical expression concerning dead atheists. Not believing there is either heaven or hell they're "all dressed up with no where to go."

I questioned if those who "stood up" before a justice of the peace were actually married. Shouldn't one go to church to get a divorce?

I found it difficult to identify with those who had never been "washed" into some group even if it was Gypsies. Religion used to be a standard question on all applications even for government work like the Army.

But then I thought about early man. Yes indeed they died and were buried. They solved the mating problem else we wouldn't be here. And the record shows that they, early man and not so early as well heard voices in the wind as it blew past their cave openings and through the tree. Yes indeed, the wind speaks.

"The answer my friend is blowing in the wind." The answer to all questions is blowing in the wind for it is God speaking. Or could that be Devil's voice the evangelicals still hear? Maybe it's "That Old Devil Moon" in their eyes?

The big money goes to those, (Billy Graham etc) leading the multitudes to hell. "W" has lathered them in tax dollars to go along with tax-code tithing of the non religious. Small wonder the whole country is now sliding down that slippery slope. The "check is in the mail" but will it arrive in time to save us from hell?

Only Clinton's hair dresser knows for sure.

"By contrast, people with strong faith believe that God is relevant and important in all of life, including personal life and national policy.

"That makes people of faith more comprehensive in perspective."

Sorry, Pastor Anderson, but you're wrong and have things exactly backwards:

"People of faith" take the unbounded magnificence of the universe and, like a scientist using a diffraction grating, perceive it only through the single tiny slit of their faith. This completely distorts their view of the world.

William Blake described this well:

"If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thru' the narrow chinks of his cavern."

Liberal secularists generally have a more comprehensive perspective on existence than "people of faith", who have immured themselves in their prisons of belief.

Come, ye "people of faith": break out of your caverns of dogma: you have a universe to gain and only your self-destructive confinement to lose.

GEORGIASON:

Wow! Excellent post, with which I heartily concur.

Many fundamentalists teach a theory of end-times events that features a man, the Antichrist, who is alive now in the Middle East and will rise to rule the world and lead it into perdition. In fact, the antichrist is a spirit, which presupposes Christ, i.e. opposes Christ in the name of Christ. Paul said there many antichrists gone out into the world in his day. Let's take a look at some of the foremost fundamentalist leaders in our society.

Billy Graham has been touted as the nation's pastor. He had overarching ambitions and owes his success to William Randolph Hearst ordering his newspaper empire to "puff Graham." Billy prides himself on the fact that he knows several presidents by name and has been a guest in their homes. He played golf with Richard Nixon while Vietnamese children were being roasted alive by napalm in the bombing raids ordered by Tricky Dick. Billy Graham has never spoken out against war. Jesus had nothing to do with the rich and powerful. "He that is a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

Jerry Falwell, who is the author of the so-called Moral Majority, and foremost advocate of Christian involvement in national politics, was a racist. The first miracle of Jesus was making 90 gallons of wine at a party. Jerry Falwell preached that wine is a sin; it is a sin to drink it or even touch it. Thus, Jesus sinned.

Oral Roberts publicly testified that God told him that He would kill him unless he raised a million dollars. So, God is an extortioner and a murderer with a cash flow problem.

Pat Robertson, who claims to speak with and for God, advocates assassinating Hugo Chavez. Jesus never killed anyone, neither did he advocate killing anyone, nor did he sanction killing anyone. He laid down his life rather than kill and commanded his disciples to follow his example.

Jimmy Swaggart lives large and hires prostitutes with church funds to masterbate for him while he chokes the chicken and spanks the monkey.

Jim Baker lived lavishly with church funds and was convicted of embezzlement. He, too, lived a sumptuous lifestyle, with gold faucets and an air-conditioned doghouse.

Benny Hinn is a shameless charlatan, fleecing the flock for millions.

James Dobson is an adherent of family values. Jesus said, "He that hates not father or mother or daughter or son more than me is not worthy of me." "A man's enemies shall be they of his own household." It's good to love your family, but that's not the message of Jesus Christ.

Most anyone but a boob can see that the televangelists are con artists. They make a mockery of Christianity in the spirit of antichrist.

The word "reverend" only appears once in the entire Bible and refers to God himself, "Holy and Reverend is His Name." No one who knows God or has seen God would have the audacity and affrontery to call himself or herself by the very name of God. Never trust anyone calling himself or herself holy or reverend.

It's always startling when someone writes a commentary that reads like a parody of what that person might write. Mr. Anderson has succeeded in writing an article that reads like a Saturday Night Live parody of the President of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Surely Mr. Anderson does not intend to be taken seriously when he depicts recent history as a case of religion finally beginning to gain ground over secularism. Surely he is either kidding—or lying. All of us know that evangelicals have been the dominant strain in America for decades. They gained virtual control of one of our two main political parties. They had veto power over its nominees and its policies. Mr. Anderson is either kidding or lying if he ignores that fact.

Mr. Anderson and his fellow evangelical Christians elected a President of the United States. A president that they owned lock, stock, and barrel. A president who openly and loudly proclaimed his born-again experience. A president who openly declared that Jesus was his favorite political ideologue. Mr. Anderson is either kidding or lying if he ignores that fact.

A president who established an office of faith-based initiatives in the White House. Who zealously sought funding for those initiatives. A president who zealously sought to elevate the status of faith-based groups and charities in American life. Mr. Anderson is either kidding or lying if he ignores that fact.

Mr. Anderson and his fellow evangelicals snapped their fingers, and their allies in the US Congress and the White House cut off all funding in foreign aid for birth control and abortion. Mr. Anderson is either kidding or lying if he ignores that fact.

Evangelical Christians took virtual control of the FOX News Network. Mr. Anderson is either kidding or lying if he ignores that fact.

Evangelicals succeeded in making sure that creationism and intelligent design theories remain in the forefront of America’s educational agenda. All over the US, evangelicals succeeded in taking over school boards and forcing their intelligent design nonsense down the throats of the local schools. Americans who support the separation of church and state as established by the Founding Fathers had to mobilize and wage mighty battles to win elections and to bring court cases challenging the religious usurpation of the educational system. Americans who simply wanted their children to be taught according to basic scientific principles had to fight a religious juggernaut that wanted to return education to the Dark Ages. Mr. Anderson is either kidding or lying if he ignores those facts.

Surely Mr. Anderson does not intend to be taken seriously when he depicts religious-minded persons as more enlightened and more receptive to other ideas than secularists. Surely this is some kind of in-joke for this fellow Christians. Mr. Anderson would have to be kidding or lying to make that statement.

Evangelicals became so powerful in America that by 2000 a candidate for President of the United States, John McCain, found it necessary to denounce them as the soul of intolerance. He lost. Evangelicals are so powerful that when Senator McCain decided to run again in the 2008 election, the very first thing he did was to fly down to Lynchburg and kiss Jerry Falwell’s behind. Mr. plain-speaking, maverick McCain had to humble himself at the altar of the evangelicals, so powerful are they in the Republican Party. Mr. Anderson is either kidding or lying if he ignores that fact.

The tide in America is indeed turning. Americans as a whole have become fed up with the holy roller juggernaut. Even mainstream Republicans have become fed up with the evangelicals’ hijacking of their party. They are fed up with having their party controlled by the ignorant, smug, self-righteous culture of evangelical America. Republicans have begun taking back their party from the religious extremists. That is the real news of the past few years. Mr. Anderson is either kidding or lying if he ignores that fact.

Even more heartening, real Christians are beginning to take back their religion from the extremists who have dominated it for the past several decades. They are fed up with a Christianity whose only goal is to oppose gay rights, oppose abortion, oppose the teaching of evolution, oppose stem cell research. They are fed up with Christians whose single-minded pursuit of those goals blinded them to the growing number of Americans without medical care and to the rape of the environment to serve big-buck interests. Real Christians want a Christianity based on the real message of Jesus—one of love and of compassion for the less fortunate, and that sees Man as the steward of God’s handiwork, not its destroyer.

Mr. Anderson is either kidding or lying if he ignores that fact.

If neochristians brand us a "secularists", we are told to just shut up and not even speak when we say what we personally believe is NOBODY'S BUSINESS BUT OUR OWN.

Keep the prying, judgmental Cheneys and neochristians out of our bedrooms, out of our lives and out of our government. Go posture, pose and cluck with your own kind all you want on Sundays. Exercise your religious freedom but grant us ours also and LEAVE THE REST OF US THE HELL ALONE!

" garyd:

That's as it should be Pagan. That is not what is always meant by those using the term however."

Agreed, there, GaryD: part of the problem is that certain conservative machines have basically twisted the word 'Secularism' to mean 'Anti-religion for God-Haters' ....instead of aforementioned neutral forum for good governance.

Garyd:

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul kinda grabs ya don't it.

How intelligent is Devil worship? Evangelicals don't care, minds made up, facts be damned. How about evangelicals in the damned department? They're willing to damn the whole country to get their way which is what God or Devil wants?

Only the ones with no brains at all think about things like Moses selling his soul to Lucifer. The really bright ones sing the praises of the Lord God of Israel never giving it a thought.

That's as it should be Pagan. That is not what is always meant by those using the term however.

"I think of secularism as a perspective that doesn’t present God or religion as relevant. Not that secularists don’t believe in God or don’t belong to a religion; it’s just that neither God nor religion are much considered in daily life or national policy. By contrast, people with strong faith believe that God is relevant and important in all of life, including personal life and national policy."

This is an impression some take pains to bring across, in order to push for a more-religious basis for the expression of government power:

*Secularism* doesn't depend on Gods or beliefs being irrelevant: it simply accepts that beliefs, even within the same religion *differ,* and are *unverifiable,* (as well as often incompatible:)

*Secular* government is something which attempts t o *ground* our many beliefs in a mechanism which is *not* a power-struggle between competing religious authorities, (who have a tendency to say 'Because I say so, and damn the effects of what we do,') but rather base the government of society in the *shared* forum of *reason,* which we can all partake of.

It doesn't *preclude* religious belief, it simply says that religious belief is not a suitable *mechanism* by which to determine how we express political power.

To say it makes religion 'irrelevant' is both common propaganda for theocrats, and misses the purpose of a representative democracy based in individual human rights and freedoms.

Secularism is the forum in which we determine what is the best thing to do in the material world, according to standards we can all access and participate in. Religious authorities do not generally or necessarily allow this, and thus *assertions of religious authority* are (theoretically) set aside from the (theoretically) reason-and-evidence-based process of representative government.

Otherwise it becomes a mere popularity contest between competing groups who *do not* hear each other.

For instance, my faith group is well-known for holding the Earth to be sacred, even to the point of considering Her to be the very local embodiment of the Goddess... thus many of us are staunch environmentalists... If there were some Pagan theocracy, even a de facto one by some kind of Wiccan televangelists or something, one could see influential political-religious figures getting sold on the idea and claiming that turning food crops into ethanol was the virtuous thing to do... (We don't actually work that way, but take it as a hypothetical,) ...Well, if you de-secularize the debate, you might find no one particularly mentioning that as much in the way of fossil fuels goes into turning corn into ethanol as just making gasoline does, and all you do is raise food prices while still dumping too much fertilizer into the watersheds... Meanwhile, better fuel sources like mixed prairie grasses have a much better yield with less impact... Doing something with that, (even if there's no Big Agriculture of these plants) ...isn't just some religious commandment, or popular impression of one, ...it's the actual reason-based thing to do, and in a secular government, can stand on its own in a forum of reason, even if one's faith motivates one to take the issue in hand.

In reality, we often have people taking ideas like 'abortion,' (and no one realy *likes* abortion, per se,) ...and if it's framed in a religious way, people start trying to emulate their God and prohibit and punish it... instead of reducing the *need* for it by improving the use of contraception and education and social support for mothers... also things variously associated with 'sin' and impiety in certain religions, but real and effective solutions to the problem.

Often the religious authority will be in denial of the fact that imposing more of a particular religion, though ignorance and saying 'abstinence or sin' a lot... has the opposite effect on abortion from what we'd like: the result is we not only get less freedom, but more human misery, with people clamoring for more religious control in a blind attempt to cope with that increase in human misery, not to mention how disempowering it must feel to feel that the 'Godly thing' isn't working.

Then it gets to points like where those who live under the *most* theocratic authority have the highest divorce and teen pregnancy and abortion rates, in spite of it all... but their sense of political power depends on being on the unquestionable God's side... So, someone must be blamed. The world must be ending.... Again... And the hatred and oppression comes in force...

Secularism is not *anti-religion.* It is our *protection.* Religious or not.

It's the place where we all are supposed to stand together and figure out what the best thing to do is. Based on *real reason.* Otherwise it just becomes competing mobs with campaign funds, and no real freedom.

No such proof as of yet exists. Least of all hoax busters which is as fine a piece of wishful thinking as has ever been written and then fallen for by people who consider themselves intelligent.

Where have all the secularist gone...gone to hoax buster every one...when will they ever learn?

Seen-your Jacques only expresses an opinion by one person, himself. The 'right' is in a state of panic. They have no candidate at all. They rejected God's candidate, Mitt. Wannabe Huckabee is dead in the water. The only decision left is whether a liberal or conservative secularists will be president, Hillary/Barak or Mac. Secularist can support any one or all while the 'thumpers' are all dressed up with no place to go.

McCain was one of the first of many if not all senators to know the Bible is now a proved hoax. Methinks Lott retired, outright quit over it. There's little doubt, Mac plans to do a lot of hoax busting himself if elected...something about brainstorm sessions, how all MUST live, Muhammad with supernatural beings in an Arabian cave. The war on terror must eventually address the source of the terror. "Hell is terror max."

Only the dumbest don't know that was NOT God Moses made the deal with and the even dumber think God's representative gave Muhammad license to steal. The whole political situation is a genuine laugher...jokes on evangelicals and their Muslim cousins.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is equally valid for all faiths. IT is Devil that all faith is in and never God. All sacred scriptures are the word of Devil, not just the Hoooooly Bible.

The Devil now has His Hoooooly Due, chaos amongst His Hoooooly followers. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...getting to heaven is the loftiest of all possible intentions. They promise heaven but where does all the chaos, hell's primary attribute come from, God? Blasphemy!!!!

Beware of people who claim to speak for gods.

TO LEITH ANDERSON:

You wrote, "To specifically answer the question: Secular ideas are not getting short shrift. They are just facing serious competition from religious ideas in our free market of beliefs.", just what does this suppose to mean?

A few of the things that Jesus said, "Give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's, sounds to me like the seperation of church and state.

Those sayings referred to as the Beatitudes: Blessed are the poor..., Blessed are the poor in spirit..., Blessed are they that mourn..., Blessed are the Peacemakers..., and so on, is Jesus being a "secularist" here?

If you look honestly at some of the Beatitudes there is no mention of believing in God to be Blessed by God.

It says in the bible that 'true religion' is taking care of widows and orphans, it doesn't say believing in God is true religion, does it?

The story of the Good Samaritan is another example, the Samaritans of Jesus's day were despised by the Jews of Jesus's day and Jesus holds the good Samaritan up as one to emulate, does He not?

As I have said many times before, God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

God is Pure Love and God is a Trinity, God is not a He, a She or an it even tho God-Incarnate was a Man, a Jewish Man, Jesus of Nazareth.

Another thing that God, whether anyone believes He is real or not, told us is, "I will send the simple to confound the wise.", well, here I am.

God has a Plan and His Plan is for All of His people to be with Him in the Kingdom;, oh yes, page one, "Let Us make man [mankind] in Our Image [Love]."

Some people seem to think that God looks at whatever label we put upon ourselves, actually He looks at who we are and what we do, not what we call ourselves.

Take care, be ready, see you [all of humanity] in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

If Mr Mark is trying to suggest that there is no Tooth Fairy, then I for one am not amused.
I have experienced the wonder of the presence of the True Tooth Fairy, which is beyond anything you can imagine and is more real than the greatest reality.

The fool in his heart says there is no Tooth Fairy!

The wise man knows otherwise.

Preacher Anderson,

You noted: "They (secularists) are just facing serious competition from religious ideas in our free market of beliefs."

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

As Truth and Reality replace the religious mumbo jumbo of the last 6000 years, religions will converge into something like the Bill of Rights. The "pew sitters" and "bowers" of old are on the march to said secularism. Get out of their way and look for other employment which is what you really fear, a fear well founded as the Truth spreads as an enveloping wave of Reality.

Thought provoking article. A few things Mr. Anderson said, though, I submit my own opinions:

1- "I think of secularism as a perspective that doesn’t present God or religion as relevant."

Not true at all. Secularism does not present gods or religion as irrelevant. Actually, quite the opposite. They are extremely relevant...to some people, not to all people. Secularism strives to ensure that those who do see religion or gods as relevant can worship as they wish, without influencing the daily lives of those who do not. Many posters here have said the same thing - how do you legislate any god's words into national laws? Which god? Is a god available to say exactly what they want? No. All we have are the writings of humans, not gods. As everyone knows, even the best of humans can misinterpret sacred texts.

2 - "That makes people of faith more comprehensive in perspective."

I'm not sure I understand this at all. People of faith do not have a more comprehensive perspective, merely a different one...many different ones, actually, depending on what faith one is a part of.

Craig

A Thorn.

Well said indeed.

I did like Mr. Anderson’s post with one small exception which you point out.

Mr. Anderson says “By contrast, people with strong faith believe that God is relevant and important in all of life, including personal life and national policy”.

I am in agreement with 90% of this. If you are religious then you should be taking this faith into account including personal life and national policy (bear with me for a moment). Regardless of your belief, whether it comes from religion or as an atheist from your life lessons, we should live our beliefs in public. Either you stand for something or you do not.

That being said we do need to be careful when it comes to national policy. Anyone’s beliefs should shape their OPINION, even on national policy. However we can NOT legislate God. We need to be careful here. Once you concede your freedom to a human higher in power than you invite corruption and injustice. Man will coerce “God’s Law”. This is what we do. If we can cite God’s law as a reason to do something then how can anyone object?

I believe in God. My definition of God is different than most but that is not important. Currently we can not prove or disprove God exists. Let’s assume God does exist. What is important is that everyone’s path to God is different and until we can prove one religion is more correct than another we need to ensure the freedom to follow any path including a path of not believing at all.

If God does not exist then we are no further behind because we have made our laws through the court of public opinion with freedom of religion as the safe guard.

Instead of converting everyone to one belief we should be focused on a few core ideas. Be what you want to create.

Help everyone be more loving by being loving.
Help everyone be more peaceful by being peaceful.
Help everyone be more respectful by being respectful.
Help everyone be more understanding by being understanding.

If you want to be really brave with this then try the following.

Help everyone be more loving by being loving, even to our “enemies”.
Help everyone be more peaceful by being peaceful, even to our “enemies”.
Help everyone be more respectful by being respectful, even to our “enemies”.
Help everyone be more understanding by being understanding, even to our “enemies”.

All of this could be accomplished regardless of belief.

Anonymous and Gaby:

Thanks!

Anonymous:

Ditto!

A. Thorn:

Well said.

"That makes people of faith more comprehensive in perspective. We can and do engage in the issues and ideas of others (including secularists) and, at the same time, believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and have our faith to guide and inform us in dealing with the issues and ideas. So, of course we are interested in the perspective of political candidates on Santa and Toothy because we want to know who and what is guiding their thinking."

Mr. Anderson:

"I think of secularism as a perspective that doesn’t present God or religion as relevant. Not that secularists don’t believe in God or don’t belong to a religion; it’s just that neither God nor religion are much considered in daily life or national policy."

I think you have a very slanted opinion on secularism. I have known some very religious secularists, that go to Church on Sunday, do charity work, help others, and believe in having both Jesus and God as part of their daily lives. However, they do not want God legislated. And that is what secularism is about. It's not that people need to not believe in God to be a secularist, they just need to understand that not everyone believes in God, and that to have a peaceful society, we need to respect the opinions of others, even if they go against what we personally believe.

To be a secularist, you can be an Atheist, a Pagan, a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim. Being a secularist is more about your social opinion, not your religious one. Saying that there is only one way: God's way, like Angela does, not only ignores that fact that not everyone interprets the Bible the same way, but that not everyone in this country believes (nor should believe) in God. If you personally feel that God is the only way, that is fine. A secularist, however, knows that if one person gets to legislate that God into law, then there are going to be a lot of people who get hurt by that law. And they work to prevent that.

I'm in total agreement with this article. We are told to just shut up and not even speak about what we believe is the right way: God's way...

Hello young Devil worshiper whoever you are.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

Hell ain't half full yet.