Ceasefire Across the Religious/Secular Divide?

Mo says:
“what is the use of god if god is separated from the state.”

In societies that respect the religions of all of its citizens, they do not subscribe to a given religion as that of the state‘s. States do not have religions, people do. Enlightened people consider the relation with God as a private matter between the person and his creator. No dogma or belief of one religion is forced down the throats of others by the police powers of the state. The state belongs to all of its citizens and does not subscribe to any one belief system or the ideology of one group. The laws written by the participation of all the citizens are the guarantee that all are treated the same before the law. No room for discrimination between the sexes and between majority and minority religious groups as happens in societies ruled according to laws derived from the teachings of one religion.
The Omar Pact cited below shows how the "other" is treated in a state that"has a religion".

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-pact-of-umar.htm

Governments such as they were originally incorporated involved two distinct people, a king, emperor, dictator of one kind or the other and a high priest. The Sioux Indians are an example with their chief Sitting Bull and medicine man Crazy horse. The British crown with the king and, in the beginning the pope followed by the archbishop of Canterbury.

That model is what the average person has in mind for government. The president is a temporary king in the minds of the masses. Thus democracy is not in their way of thinking, only their vocabularies as a word often spoken but never understood. As Americans we're supposed to scoff at the notion of a kingly type leader and be shocked by the notion of a high priest. But it's so easy for government to be a king and high priest.

The high priest makes the rules and the king enforces them, (ten commandments the highest law?). Thus the high priest is the highest power. Everybody knows there's a God, high priest said so. His power comes from God from whence all power comes. And if you want to be elected king-for-a-while you had better acknowledge the power of the high priest.

The crud had crept into our government, more than once. While we've been busy fighting off the gaggle of would be high priests and stood idly by while Billy Graham was crowned pope of America another faith has taken over and accomplished what ordinary religion could not, become the high priest that makes the rules to be enforced by the government.

The Ecologist faith has become the power that is in America. They dictate all just like the pope during the Holy Roman Empire. And the king and all his men rush to carry out their orders. Now they must approve else the answer is no.

The government we now have is identical in every way except we don't have father to son succession for our king but rather we have a temporary monarch who is picked by the media. Otherwise it's just like King Arthur's court with the pope sending him and his knights on a crusade. That's not to be misunderstood. The crusade is not to the holy land for this is the holy land that is effectively owned by the ecologist faith. No one will do anything without their approval.

So the rest of you nitwits rushing to worship the being in the burning bush, He himself Lord of hell Lucifer have been outdone by even dumber ones who hug and kiss trees. Political correctness forbids I notice what they do to/with the animals of the forest and plain. You do have this else in common with them. They claim to be educated, scientists even with PhD's.

Every great economic disaster in history has been accompanied by a change in religion. Historians are quick to recognize the new religion but foggy at best about the one it replaced. The only thing that compares to what is now going on is Hindus dying of starvation while "holy" cows graze beside their dying bodies. How hungry do you need get before you realize genetically altered corn can be used to make ethanol or better yet eat it. Is it true you'd rather starve than see monarch butterflies go extinct?

Hell is of your own creation. A change of religion is in the offing. It won't change you just shift you from one dumb church to another...like both candidates for president. Let me encourage you to keep trying. We have already returned to the golden days of yesteryear when there was a high pries that made the rules and a king to enforce them. Sorry about Christians losing the race with tree huggers. This is an ecological nation like it or lump it.

working hard or hardly working?

judochristianity inspired secularism or secularism inspired judochristianity?or both are human secularism?

beliveing in one god means what ?and imply what on the individual and the society?what is the use of god if god is separated from the state?people say we belive in god ,we love god but they donot put god in the government , the most important to the individual and the society?

if god is the way the truth and life where is the laws of god ?why secular laws are prevailing?why secular ideologies are the way the truth and life ?

on sunday mornning judochristianity say ,jesus is the way the truth and life,while on monday mornning they say ,secularism is the way the truth and life?

secularism means separation from god.

the human personal savior of judochristianism is also a separation from god ,no more no less than the human secular ideologies.

This issue is largely a creation of a vocal fanatical minority among Christians who have pushed dominionism for the last quarter-century. "Eliminating religion from public discourse" is a straw man fashioned by that minority in an attempt to deflect criticism.

This blog has a great definition of the role for religion in public discourse:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/01/king-and-huck.html

From the article: "King's biblical oratory and Huckabee's bibliolatrous babble serve very different arguments. King's argument was ultimately a secular one: a call for justice in accord with the biblical prophets but also, even more so, in accord with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Huckabee's argument is ultimately a religious one: a call for the Constitution to be re-written in accord with the (alleged) fiats of his faith...Those are very different. It is in no way inconsistent to endorse the former while opposing the latter. In fact, it would be inconsistent not to."

Pagan advises me thus:
“Sometimes you gotta be a little brave to stay free.
Accept a little risk.”

That is what some advised us when dealing with Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. See what that got us.

I mean, yaknow, Ibrahim, just speaking as someone who expects to actually *be* in the future, mightily squalling my indignance in whatever they call Dydees by then, I'm just not seeing the advantage in spending the now demanding it's impossible to do better than we're cruising for.

If you think any potential for peace has to be a big frame-up to hide some mass conspiracy of sleeper agents and inevitable war that can only be prevented by utter xenophobia, I got news for you.

People are *neither* that subtle, nor disciplined.

The few that are will not be deterred by blind xenophobia, ...They'll *use* it.

If you think only utter paranoia will protect you from Islam, you've already given their book too much power.

Now, I don't trust their book any more than I trust the Christian one.

But this is the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

Sometimes you gotta be a little brave to stay free.

Accept a little risk.

Hold out a hand or raise a torch like Lady Liberty does, and not only *accept* a 'stranger,' but *neither think nor accept any less than the best of them.*

We are *not* the Roman Empire. Nor the Holy Roman or the British or anything like that.

We are the United Federation of f'n Planets. (Guess I like the Star Trek metaphors tonight.)

Not that these hopes don't have maybe a little bit of arogance to them, but these are our hopes.

Our fears have been done already.

"Is this the kind of future Eboo wants for us?"

I dunno, Ibrahim, but, frankly, a lot of Christians tend to call anyone who proposes we can all get along a 'heretic,' too.

Somehow I'm not seeing Mr. Patel as the big problem right now.

Eboo says:

“it is fundamentally illiberal to exclude religious voices from the public square.”

Eboo is an Ismaili Muslim whose cult is not regarded as Muslim by many if not most of the other Muslims. What voice of Islam he wants heard in the public square?

Islam's dogma and teachings are the antithesis of every principle held by civilized people. To believing Muslims human rights means the Muslim male rights. Equality has no place in their ideology. Pluralism is anathema to them. They divide the world into Muslims and Unbelievers who must be forced to accept their ideology, which is the ideology of 7th Century Arab nomads of Hijaz. What can Islam improve in a 21st Century highly educated and technically advanced societies? The dominant Muslim societies in this country such as CAIR and ISNA which Eboo is trying to push on us are openly calling for the replacement of the USA constitution with the Sharia laws. This law is rejected by most Muslims except Saudi Arabia and Northern Sudan and some groups such as Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizballah and Hamas. Is this the kind of future Eboo wants for us?

" Anonymous:

""Religious people who know what's good for us are *also* secularist.""

"Maybe in your "small" world, however many others say and think differently, but you won't admit to that, it would be too “secular” of you to do so."

Oh, *do* go on how small you think my world is.

This ought to be good. :)

"Religious people who know what's good for us are *also* secularist."

Maybe in your "small" world, however many others say and think differently, but you won't admit to that, it would be too “secular” of you to do so.

"Religious conservatives still trot out their canards that "True liberty comes from obeying Jesus Christ"

What, you mean, some say, 'War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength?'

Sounds oddly familiar...

" Angela:

Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite,

"Do you and the other professing theologians on this post realize you will do anything, even turn your faith into a spectacle in order to promote tolerance."

Oh, Gods forbid anyone should make a *spectacle.*

I mean, what would Jesus do, if he ran into a Good Samaritan or some religious traditionalists with a bunch of rocks, or a centurion with a 'servant' he 'loved very much?'

Obviously, he defended the national borders against immigrants with mighty force, cast out the first stone to bean the 'affront to family values' with the nearest piece of thousand-year old metamorphic rock, and said, 'I hate queers, let them buy their own health care, since someone of the same sex is trying to ask for emergency treatment.'

Good you're standing up for Christian principles there.

" I for one, and I pray that many others who believe in One God, One Faith vote their morals, speak truth in love, and live and walk a life that is true to their faith. Let's just start singing CumBaya."

Kumbayah. Christian.

Susan - ditto Paganplace. Certainly you, a liberal theology dean, know that being religious and secular are not mutually exclusive.

Please tell me you know this. If you don't. Please figure it out soon so you won't confuse people. The public counts on learned people like you to clarify these sorts of things.

When I was religious, I was just as secular minded about church-state issues as I am as an atheist. My former church mates who are still religious are also secularists.

To use secular as the opposite of religious implies that secular is a synonym for atheist - and it's not. Unfortunately atheism still has a bad image in the US, so identifying it with secularism gives secularism a bad image too, which is even more unfortunate, since our government itself is secular.

THIS is the message that needs to be driven home.

Please get in the driver's seat.

Thanks.

This all SOUNDS great, but we still have:
50% of Americans disbelieve human evolution
40% think the world will end in their lifetime

Religious people are extremely good at re-defining terms to their liking. Michael Novak wrote a piece last week saying God isn't "out there" but in our hearts and minds. So does this God do things?

Religious conservatives still trot out their canards that "True liberty comes from obeying Jesus Christ" and a general stationed Iraq says he saw Satan in reconaissance photos and that we'd win because the Christian God is stronger than Allah.

By some measures, it looks like there's progress. But we're really cleaving into those who believe in tolerance, and those that are going to take advantage of the ones that do.

Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite,

Do you and the other professing theologians on this post realize you will do anything, even turn your faith into a spectacle in order to promote tolerance. I for one, and I pray that many others who believe in One God, One Faith vote their morals, speak truth in love, and live and walk a life that is true to their faith. Let's just start singing CumBaya. Read this article:

WASHINGTON - America remains a deeply religious nation, but a new survey finds most Americans don't believe their tradition is the only way to eternal life -- even if the denomination's teachings say otherwise. The findings, revealed Monday in a survey of 35,000 adults, can either be taken as a positive sign of growing religious tolerance, or disturbing evidence that Americans dismiss or don't know fundamental teachings of their own faiths.
Among the more startling numbers in the survey, conducted last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life: 57 percent of evangelical church attenders said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life, in conflict with traditional evangelical teaching. In all, 70 percent of Americans with a religious affiliation shared that view, and 68 percent said there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion.

"The survey shows religion in America is, indeed, 3,000 miles wide and only three inches deep," said D. Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist of religion. "There's a growing pluralistic impulse toward tolerance and that is having theological consequences," he said.

Earlier data from the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, released in February, highlighted how often Americans switch religious affiliation. The newly released material looks at religious belief and practice as well as the impact of religion on society, including how faith shapes political views. The report argues that while relatively few people -- 14 percent -- cite religious beliefs as the main influence on their political thinking, religion still plays a powerful indirect role.

The study confirmed some well-known political dynamics, including stark divisions over abortion and same-sex "marriage," with the more religiously committed taking conservative views on the issues. But it also showed support across religious lines for greater governmental aid for the poor, even if it means more debt and stricter environmental laws and regulations.

By many measures, Americans are strongly religious: 92 percent believe in God, 74 percent believe in life after death, and 63 percent say their respective scriptures are the word of God. But deeper investigation found that more than one in four Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Orthodox Christians expressed some doubts about God's existence, as did six in ten Jews. Another finding almost defies explanation: 21 percent of self-identified atheists said they believe in God or a universal spirit, with eight percent "absolutely certain" of it.

"Look, this shows the limits of a survey approach to religion," said Peter Berger, a theology and sociology professor at Boston University. "What do people really mean when they say that many religions lead to eternal life? It might mean they don't believe their particular truth at all. Others might be saying, 'We believe a truth but respect other people, and they are not necessarily going to hell.'" Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum, said that more research is planned to answer those kinds of questions, but that earlier, smaller surveys found similar results.

Nearly across the board, the majority of religious Americans believe many religions can lead to eternal life: mainline Protestants (83 percent), members of historic black Protestant churches (59 percent), Roman Catholics (79 percent), Jews (82 percent) and Muslims (56 percent). By similar margins, people in those faith groups believe in multiple interpretations of their own traditions' teachings. Yet 44 percent of the religiously affiliated also said their religion should preserve its traditional beliefs and practices.

"What most people are saying is, 'Hey, we don't have a hammer-lock on God or salvation, and God's bigger than us and we should respect that and respect other people,'" said the Rev. Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. "Some people are like butterflies that go from flower to flower, going from religion to religion -- and frankly they don't get that deep into any of them," he said.

Beliefs about eternal life vary greatly, even within a religious tradition. Some Christians hold strongly to Jesus' words as described in John 14:6: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Others emphasize the wideness of God's grace. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the "one church of Christ ... subsists in the Catholic Church" alone and that Protestant churches, while defective, can be "instruments of salvation."

Roger Oldham, a vice president with the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, bristled at using the word "tolerance" in the analysis. "If by tolerance we mean we're willing to engage or embrace a multitude of ways to salvation, that's no longer evangelical belief," he said. "The word 'evangelical' has been stretched so broadly, it's almost an elastic term."

Others welcomed the findings. "It shows increased religious security. People are comfortable with other traditions even if they're different," said the Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance. "It indicates a level of humility about religion that would be of great benefit to everyone."

More than most groups, Catholics break with their church, and not just on issues like abortion and homosexuality. Only six in ten Catholics described God as "a person with whom people can have a relationship" -- which the church teaches -- while three in ten described God as an "impersonal force."

"The statistics show, more than anything else, that many who describe themselves as Catholics do not know or understand the teachings of their church," said Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput. "Being Catholic means believing what the Catholic church teaches. It is a communion of faith, not simply of ancestry and family tradition. It also means that the church ought to work harder at evangelizing its own members."

"The acrimony between religious and secular folks about the proper role of religion in a democracy..."

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Professor... Who taught you there's a separation between religious and secular folks?

Who taught you that believing in secular government means you aren't religious?

(Yeah, I know you probably know better, but it doesn't make life easier for anyone if you talk that way. )

I know a lot of theocrats want to say 'theocrat is a slur,' but that's really the division: Do you believe in religion determining policy, or do you believe in American secular government? You can certainly be religious without wanting to undermine secular government. And forgetting or obfuscating that is what's led us so far astray as a nation just lately.

"If you don't vote this way, you aren't a believer," is what's turned too much of our democracy into something just as tyrannical as kings and bishops dictating policy, only more messy and indirect.

Also turned 'piety' into 'An indirect means to get votes.'

Religious people who know what's good for us are *also* secularist.