Constitutional Ignoramuses in the Senate's Dog Days

hay http://kasian.u.yuku.com/ ">ambien no prescription 8-]]]

QvtzWs hi! hice site!

xceihqmgp gzif niugjhp okjmcn xulsmjv lfjpveitq yfputl http://www.npjfso.pbyu.com

kjve uyhkx aulekz tawhpzlg xzqigj fkigwteo kguqwora

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/interieurstyis-vuitton-replica-keepall ">interieurstyis vuitton replica keepall http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-knapsack ">louis vuitton knapsack

Useful site. Thank you!
http://propecia.bestquestusa.net propecia

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://oil-furnace--brooklyn-ny.hunchopinion.com oil furnace brooklyn ny
http://fixing-air-leak-replacement-windows.hunchopinion.com fixing air leak replacement windows

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://oil-furnace--brooklyn-ny.hunchopinion.com oil furnace brooklyn ny
http://fixing-air-leak-replacement-windows.hunchopinion.com fixing air leak replacement windows

Useful site. Thanks!
http://light-box-plans.secondtaxopinion.com light box plans

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://toys-sex.secondtaxopinion.com toys sex

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://president-day.secondtaxopinion.com president day

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://president-day.secondtaxopinion.com president day

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://e-cards-sensual.secondtaxopinion.com e cards sensual

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://e-cards-sensual.secondtaxopinion.com e cards sensual

Useful site. Thank you!
http://irs-tax-forms.secondtaxopinion.com irs tax forms

Useful site. Thank you!
http://irs-tax-forms.secondtaxopinion.com irs tax forms

Useful site. Thanks!
http://valium.secondtaxopinion.com valium

Useful site. Thanks!
http://valium.secondtaxopinion.com valium

Useful site. Thank you!
http://valium.secondtaxopinion.com valium

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://dentists.secondtaxopinion.com dentists

Useful site. Thank you!!!
http://dentists.secondtaxopinion.com dentists

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://buttons-with-flashing-lights.secondtaxopinion.com buttons with flashing lights

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://buttons-with-flashing-lights.secondtaxopinion.com buttons with flashing lights

Useful site. Thanks.
http://buttons-with-flashing-lights.secondtaxopinion.com buttons with flashing lights

Useful site. Thanks.
http://buttons-with-flashing-lights.secondtaxopinion.com buttons with flashing lights

Useful site. Thanks.
http://caninis-familiaris.secondtaxopinion.com caninis familiaris

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://potty-training.secondtaxopinion.com potty training

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://potty-training.secondtaxopinion.com potty training

Useful site. Thanks!
http://reservations.secondtaxopinion.com reservations

Useful site. Thanks!
http://reservations.secondtaxopinion.com reservations

Useful site. Thanks.
http://memek-tante.secondtaxopinion.com memek tante

Useful site. Thanks.
http://memek-tante.secondtaxopinion.com memek tante

Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://memek-tante.secondtaxopinion.com memek tante

Useful site. Thanks.
http://styrofoam.bestprospecting.net styrofoam

Useful site. Thanks.
http://styrofoam.bestprospecting.net styrofoam

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://aspartame.bestprospecting.net aspartame

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://metabolic-syndrome.bestprospecting.net metabolic syndrome

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://metabolic-syndrome.bestprospecting.net metabolic syndrome

Useful site. Thanks.
http://internet-casino.bestprospecting.net internet casino

Useful site. Thanks.
http://internet-casino.bestprospecting.net internet casino

Useful site. Thanks!
http://buy-hoodia.thefirstsort.com buy hoodia

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://crossword.zarubinki.com crossword

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://window-treatment.zarubinki.com window treatment

Useful site. Thanks.
http://water-heater.zarubinki.com water heater

Useful site. Thank you!
http://outdoor.zarubinki.com outdoor

Useful site. Thank you!
http://outdoor.zarubinki.com outdoor

Useful site. Thank you!!
http://diabetes.superexploration.net diabetes

Useful site. Thank you!
http://super-tuesday.superexploration.net super tuesday
http://craigslist.superexploration.net craigslist

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://mexican.bestnavigate.com mexican
http://snoring.bestnavigate.com snoring

Useful site. Thanks!!
http://mexican.bestnavigate.com mexican
http://snoring.bestnavigate.com snoring

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://replica-watch.mustclickbuy.com replica watch

Useful site. Thank you:-)
http://replica-watch.mustclickbuy.com replica watch

Nice site. Thanks.
http://www.one.100rozh.ru/index.php?razdel=akbhpc р
http://www.one.100rozh.ru/index.php?razdel=hfstereo р

Nice site. Thanks.
http://www.one.100rozh.ru/index.php?razdel=akbhpc р
http://www.one.100rozh.ru/index.php?razdel=hfstereo р

Useful site. Thanks.
http://mobile-gas-oil.groupusaguide.com mobile gas oil
http://gas-heating.groupusaguide.com gas heating

Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://yourmanshealth.com/cart.php?action=view_subcat&subcat=Zolpidem Zolpidem

Cool site. Thanks:-)
http://www.one.100rozh.ru а

Cool site. Thanks:-)
http://www.one.100rozh.ru а

ilmjygv cgsdq avhmoyq uxqjwd fjcxivon ackt yecml http://www.qdyk.gswbzmnd.com

xmhsejqrp whvxte vljxmn ghymifd kzyxpmcj xmrn jxfarmg

Susan- an inordinate amount of your posts start by calling someone who doesnt agree with your limited perspective as "stupid".
It does not necessarily follow that by calling others stupid, you are in fact smart.
Actually, it is the most childish and juvenile of responses. Your rants are tiresome in their predictability.

You can try to rewrite history if you want or you can go with the facts, this country was established by peoples who fled Europe to avoid relegious persecution. Who were they fleeing? The Roman Catholic Church of course! Do I believe Catholics are condemned to hell,no. Do I beleive they condemn me to hell? It's a matter of historical record. The pope says 'no one outside the Roman church can go to heaven'. That's what Marten Luther couldn't swallow. His challege on that point was what started the reformation. I hear it said quite often that more wars were fought over religion that any other thing. Guess who it was starting all these wars? The pope of course! Do I believe all muslims are damned to hell? No! My daughter-in-law was a muslim. I believe she can be saved the same as any other saved person can by repenting, turning fron sin, and accepting the only begotton son of GOD, our lord and savior Jesus. I have a couple of family who were Budist, same goes for them!
Lots of people go off the deep end and claim to speak for GOD or the church and they don't. I have no problem with you following your personal beliefs as long as you don't try to empose them on me. That's the problem. Millions of Christians share my beliefs and respect for the other mans free choice. One or two will cause a problem and we're all guilty? I can't make anyone come to my Lord. The only way any can come is to be drawn by the spirit. The Catholics killed an estimated 100 million protestants because they wouldn't deny their person experience with Christ. The muslims have killed untold numbers for the same reason. As two self professed Christians caused the stir you refer two and millions take the heat for their actions, a minority of muslims and catholics actions defame their masses. The news people do us a disservice when they report the news as a group of "XXXXXX" did this or that. Some radicals, some fanatics, or a group of crazies just wouldn't have the same impact would it?

To Smoke and others: I was raised catholic and I also went to 12 years of catholic school. I walked away from the church when I was a late teenager and I have come to realize that the reason was because it was starting to become a religion. I never stopped believing in God and as I have said numerous times I eventually met God. I pretty much didn't go to church for about 30 years but that didn't mean that God wasn't working in my life. God is actually so much nicer than you would ever believe by listening to what a lot of people that call themselves christians are spouting out. The bible has been so twisted and distorted by so many people that claim they know what they are talking about but don't have a clue. One thing that the bible does say is that TRUE RELIGION is taking caring of widows and orphans which basically means everyone else that is worse off than we are which more basically means everyone. Another thing about the 12 years of catholic school was that I remember liking religion classes in the lower grades but not in the upper grades and the reason that I figured out was that in the lower grades they taught about God and Faith whereas in the upper grades they taught about religion. Christianity, at least what we hear called christianity from so many people is so far from the teachings of Jesus and what Jesus actually did that it is disgusting. God is real and God is Love, actually Pure Love but you would never know by the utterly vile and bitter hatred being spewed out in His Name. God is God and we are not and He is God of everyone and His Plan is for everyone. One thing that I thank God for is that He is not anything like a lot of people that know His Name think that He is, and another thing is that His Plan covers All even the holier than thou's that seem to think that God is some vile, revengeful, egotistical piece of garbage that is ready at all times to pounce on us unless we do as they say to do. I've met God, Who Is A Trinity of Pure Love and I have also met satan who is not nice at all, it doesn't really matter if anyone believes a word I say but I refuse to be thankful to the loser that they think God is. I will repeat: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable also God is a searcher of hearts and minds not religious affiliations or lack thereof. I happen to be the New Testament Moses and I have said Yes. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

“Only since reading On Faith threads did I realise the personal venom of some atheists on believers.”

Hi Jihadist

As an agnostic I will try to address your comment above.

Background: I was raised as a strict catholic. In my family religion was used to hurt, instill fear and manipulate people. My grandparents refused to attend my wedding (or even acknowledge that I was married) because I wasn’t married in a catholic church. That’s just for starters (there is a hell of a lot more)…

I escaped from the church about 20 years ago. Since then I strongly disliked christianity but I took a “live and let live” approach. Except for catholicism, at which I have always spewed venom. I’ve gotten a lot worse since the pedophilia cases came to light. No apologies on that.

Currently, however, this country has a bunch of christian conservatives ramming their hateful beliefs down our throats. Believe what you (by this I mean the general “you”) want but when you start enacting laws, manipulating science (intelligent design, etc) and flat out lying (condoms have a 100% failure rate and never protect you from an STD, abortion causes breast cancer, etc) based on your religious beliefs, my claws come out. Anything that is proposed solely “because the bible says so (or someone told you that it did)” should immediately be rejected. There is some overlap and that is fine. Example: one of the commandments tells you not to kill and we have laws that say the same thing. Not killing each other is necessary for a civil society and “the bible says so” isn’t the only reason for the law.

I’ll gladly make the following deal with christians: you leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone. Never gonna happen…

Wikipedia says this:

"Ceremonial deism is a legal term used in the United States for nominally religious statements and practices deemed to be merely ritual and non-religious through long customary usage. Proposed examples of ceremonial deism include the reference to God introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, and the phrase "In God We Trust" added to U.S. bills in 1957."

Prayers offered up in the Senate or the House of Representatives would certainly fall into this category. At most, they are nominal courtesies, to demonstrate to the electorate how pious and spiritual the members of Congress are. But no one with even one ounce of sense could possibly confuse this sort of meaningless, ceremonial prayer with true religion. How then, could it possibly matter, if the prayer is Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or Hindu? If such prayers are to be offered at all, it is just a respectful nod to these many contending and competing groups, but doesn't really mean much. There are so many other things to fight about. Why fight about this?

Islamist,

You asked:

"Who are you? A Christian evangelical? A Christian theologist? An athiest liberated from Christianity? What do you believe in?"

A religious realist who believes in the reality of religions.

How about addressing the reality of Islam??

i.e.
Mohammed was an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "pretty thingies" aka angels and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of the infidels.

This agenda continues as shown by 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 Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics where most of this misery was supported by the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Jihadist:

In the Secular Corner, I find that if I use the zoom function on my Internet program to zoom in to 150%, the print gets big enough to read, and all of it fits on the screen.

Huang Po said, 'all is just the One Mind' and absolutely nothing else besides this One Mind exists. Mind is the Buddha, and the cessation of thought is the Way. When you arrive at the point when there is no 'self' and no 'other' you will have crossed over and will abide in the true
Darmakaya of No Mind. In fact, there is neither Mind nor No Mind in ultimate nature.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

Who are you? A Christian evangelical? A Christian theologist? An athiest liberated from Christianity? What do you believe in?

Cheers and good day mate

Deb
I made the similar comment in my last post, before reading you question, is God choosing us. I have heard some people say that, and it does seem to be that way, that could be. When I hear that, and think of it, I like it. One reason I like it is because then you don't need a really long and complicated explanation to non-Christians, to explain yourself. And if they are not satisfied, then that is ok; they don't have to be.

But he doesn't choose everybody, at least not in the same way. And it is not for me to correct him. There is much in the history of Christianity that has gone wrong. Christians have done many bad things. I don't want to be one of those kinds of Christians.

lepidopteryx said:

"I agree that people don't choose what they believe. I cannot make myself believe something - either it makes sense to me, in which case, i believe it, or it doesn't, in which case I don't."

Yes! You've got it! It seems like a very radical thing to say, but if you stop and think about it for even a minute, it is obvious. You cannot choose to believe something that you do not believe. Try it. You will see its futility. And what-is-more, no one can make you believe something you do not; no one can force your belief; no teacher, no parent; no palace guard nor policeman; no Pope.

Everything in the world that we encounter has "appeared to us" by some means that we cannot explain. Even our bodies, which we take pride in, or feel ashamed of, were also provided to us; we neigher purchased them, nor acquired them, nor created them; we just wind up in them. It is the same with our minds.

Do we acuatlly choose our beliefs? Our beliefs come to us, and the collection of these thoughts and beliefs is what makes us who we are. We do not really choose our beliefs, but we are defined by them. In a way, thay choose us.

I have heard Christians say that "God chose them." Although I think they may have meant it in a slightly different way, that is sort of what I believe. Everyone's beliefs have chosen them. We are all the products of endless contengencies of life, and of existence, with only a very tiny little bit of our expereince that we actually get to choose ourselves.

What does all this mean? To quote Linus from the Peanuts comic strip, "The theological implications are staggering."

Yes, they are. But I cannot offer much more, beyond that.

Daniel:

Are you saying in a round-about way that God is choosing us?

Jihadist,

I just caught up with your post of two days ago, recounting how you spend your time in Saudi Arabia. It's very interesting.

Hope you're keeping cool - today in Vermont it's 90+ F with high humidity.

Nothing much new here or with me. I do enjoy travelling vicariously via your posts.

Best to you.

Deb

I am, of course, aware that many people born into Christian homes become atheists, and many people born into atheist homes become Christian. (It wouldn't be much of a philosophy, if I hadn't thought of that, now would it?)

What I was saying, is that, on a fundamental level, regarding how the mind works, and how the neurons that compose our brains function, that we do not "choose" our beliefs, anymore than we choose our noses, or our height, or the oxygen that we breathe, but that all these things are provided for us, ready made, and the origines of all are equally mysterious.

I now that you "feel" that you have chosen, but that is because you have not stopped and thought about the idea of choice, and what you may do to choose. For in making your choice, you have only a few possibilities to choose from, which were laid before you, by some process that you did not control. And then, when you observe, and think about thise choices laid before you, you have no idea how these contemplative and reflective mechanisms work; they just do. And so, what you regard as choosing a belief, is really, the belief that "comes into your head" by processes and mechanisms, which happen to you.

My whole point here, though, is not to unrattle people who think they have chosen their beliefs, but to state that, from my point of view, and from my way of thinking, even though I am a Christian, and even though I am aware that the term "Christian" has been tainted by the intolerance and mean spirit of many Christians, that I am able to accept, even welcome, with ease, a prayer offered in the Congress, or anywhere by a Hindu, or any other relgion that is not my own. It simply, plain, does not bother me.

Daniel,
I agree that people don't choose what they believe. I cannot make myself believe something - either it makes sense to me, in which case, i believe it, or it doesn't, in which case I don't. And sometimes, things that made sense to me in the past no longer do, and things that didn't make sense before become clear.
I can SAY I believe that the grey beast purring in my lap is a Tyrannosaurus rex, but the evidence of my senses tells me that it is my daughter's cat. No matter how many times I SAY that I believe it is a prehistoric reptile, I can't convince myself that it is.
I could recite the Apostle's Creed all day, but no matter how many times I say "I believe in God the father almight, and his only son Jesus Christ...I believe that he died and descended into Hell and rose on the third day..." etc., I don't actually believe it, nor can I make myself do so merely by force of will.
I can choose how I act, based on my beleifs, but not the act of belief itself.

Daniel:

There are so many people who do not fit into your scenario of belief through upbringing and being a product of their surroundings, that you almost invalidate the journey that so many of us have been through to get to our place of faith. Many Christians today were not brought up in Christian homes or surrounded by Christian teaching. For many of us, there were many years of searching, both within and without. Choosing to believe what we know will change our lives and families forever; some of us will never get to speak to family members again because of this choice. So you see, it is a choice, but one that we must make.

E-favorite said:

"Just as people choose what they want to believe, they would choose how to reconcile it with other aspects of their lives."

I do not think people choose their beliefs, nor do they choose what they want to believe.

You don't choose where you are born;

you don't choose the people who raise you, nor the partiicular philosophical or religious heritage that is handed down to you;

you don't choose the look of the landscape or horizon, at any given place that you may find yourself;

you don't choose the acuity of your senses nor the alertnerss of your mind;

you don't choose the quality of your mental appartus;

you don't choose any of these things;

yet all of these things go into the final beliefs that you end up with.

That you have chosen none of the ingredients and mechanisms of your beliefs, then how could you choose the actual beliefs?

Instead, each of our actions, including the passive action of belief, is a reaction to our impressions of order from the world, external to ourselves. Our beliefs appear in our heads, just as clouds appear in the sky, just as the sky appears over the earth, just as mountains appear on the horizon; just as all things appear as they do. From where do all these things come? Answer: ultimately, unknown.

You might say that I must believe in predestination, that all things are pre-ordained, but I do not. I merely "feel" that neither I, nor any one of us, chooses our beliefs, but what makes them appear, I cannot say.

So, even though I am Christian, based upon all the contingencies of my prior experience and existence, I am not bothered that people may have beliefs different than my own. I am not bothered that a person may be an anteist. That most Christians seem to have a great deal of hositlity against atheists is a mystery to me.

Ahh, I see The Jihadist has blessed us again with more "wishy wash" as she continues to avoid the real issues in today's religions, i.e. the foundations of said religions.

For example, lets once again note the flaws in Islam:

Mohammed was an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "pretty thingies" aka angels and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of the infidels.

This agenda continues as shown by 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 Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics where most of this misery was supported by the Third Axis of Evil aka Iran and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

We continue to await The Jihadist's response to these dangerous flaws and/or the response of any Muslim out there.

Jihadist my dear friend,

I've been reading a bit more of On Faith since "Muslims Speak Out". Be safe during Umra at Mecca and Medina. A chap named Tancredo is talking about nuking the two cities. I learn that from a poster in another thread. I want to make you paranoid. Like I can. LOL

Cheers

dave2:

Ah yes, it usually doesn't take too many posts for the names to start flying, does it? No, I'm not ignorant, how about you? We could compare degrees, studies, theses, etc., but I wouldn't want to embarrass you.

The only truth about me that you stated is that I deny that evolution is extremely well-confirmed. Perhaps you need to get your dictionary out; I know the meaning of the word "belief", do you know the meaning of the word "confirmed"?

Regardless of whether or not you agree with my reasons for my beliefs, nothing that anyone has shown me has been able to prove my beliefs to be unfounded. Nothing has shown me that I believe in something that cannot not possibly be. Just because YOU don't believe that something can possibly be is not a good enough reason. Just because someone thinks it's silly or illogical or childish doesn't make it an impossibility.

Once it is proven without a doubt to someone that the Earth is round rather than flat, then it is either insanity or stupidity to continue to believe that it is flat. Without indisputable proof regarding God and the creation of the world, no one can say that they have the one definitive answer, and that all others are ignorant.

WAPO!
Dear sirs and or madam..
Please get a webmaster that can design a site that does not take you around the bush. I spend time writeing a witty and award winning reply, and it disappears. I do get a second rate one posted and its there twice because the first post did not (I thought) post.

If you can not find a webmaster I have one that I am sure would fix this mess.

I love this site...lets make it better...shall we?
thank you,
terra

Globo-Terra Gazelle:
Is the white house stepping outside of its constitutionally defined role by allocating taxpayer dollars to faith-based groups through the "White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives"... ?? I think so. The supreme court said we taxpayers can't challenge it.

Yes.
If they would read the writings of the founders...Jefferson and Madison would not grant any church tax payers funds at all, not even their own churches. They felt that takeing money from the people and giving it to any church was working against the people whose money it was. That why wouold someone want to give their money to what they did not believe in?

Why would I a Wiccan, belittled by Unbelievers and Believers alike, give my money to those who preach against me? I wouldn't..but that is what happens.

The courts have been slowly, over the last 30-40 years filled with conservative judges. We, the people no longer have standing.

terra

....and Mr. Norrie Hoyt

I agree with your observations on Secularist's Corner re its format. It is really quite easy to get in, but, for one, the font is too small. Don't want my eyes to be blurred, vision permanently impaired and needing glasses or contacts from reading it. The posts and responses seem to be like a box within a box. I've stopped reading Secularist's Corner last week. My eyes and head felt better. Have absolutely no idea what's going on in that Corner on form and content and not getting in there anymore. I may need Raybans, a magnifying glass and aspirins if I want to read Secularist's Corner again. Hope WaPo will fix it to make it more reader/user friendly.

All the best
J

Andrea,

Good morning. And already! At a Unitarian Church. Excellent. Hope you get better from those day after cakes.

I'm with you if they turn the Secularist's Corner into a cafe or bistro with live music every Friday night. They can even have a monthy Secularist Cowboy Nite with line dancing.

Norrie Hoyt

You and Maurie Beck don't really want to be in foxholes do you? We really want to drive theocratic and fundies foxes out of their holes into plain sight to shot their bigoted views on sight. Or to push them into holes and bury them there. Some like the small world, the narrow and dark worlds and holes they're in - like a toad under the coconut shell - and can't or won't get out of it.

I'd says most here in this thread are secular ronins (masterless and independent Samurais/warriors who chose their own paths and course of action etc), whether as Buddhist partialists, freethinkers, Christians, Pagans etc.

Yes, have been Saudi Arabia several times per year for many years now - for business and for spiritual reasons. Mostly to Jeddah (the New York of Saudi Arabia) Mecca, Medina and Riyadh.
Jeddah is site for the Organisation of Islamic Conferences (OIC), the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), the International Association of Islamic Banks. It is also site of the World Federation of International Arab-Islamic Scholars.

Have to keep my ears and eyes open what is going on in islamic banking, development assistance and whatever currents of thoughts is coursing through the Muslim and wider world.

Women are not allowed to watch exciting events such as beheadings and to bet if the heads would come off clean at first slice of the blade and to roar acclamation when the deed is done.

So, to no avail, I try to find mud-wrestling arenas and lap dancing clubs. Left with the choice of laptop dancing on my onwn laptop at the risk of wrecking an innocent machine, I made my fingers dance badly on the computer keyboards and murdered the English language.

Thanks for reminding the story on Stein and Toklas re "What is the question?". Most relevant for me as tommorow's the start of my Umra - a less emotionally overwhelming and spiritually transporting experience the annual Hajj. Then, one is just like an atom going with the flow of a mass of humanity of at least some 2.5 million people moving en masse in a spiritual and human journey that is, at once, an individual and communal undertaking for a common destination, a unity of purpose.

Umra gives one more time and space for spiritual reflections and to speak with other Muslims there for the same purpose on what is really going on in their lives and countries over pitas and hummus or McDonalds and KFCs. Whichever food outlet is nearby. Already a Bangladeshi family I met at Jeddah airport is telling me horrific stories about the current flood in their country. Hard to get humanitarian aid to all affected right now.

Maurie Beck

Have yet to finish reading the books on Baruch Spinoza. The classical Muslim writers, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina etc that I've read made it easy for me to understand and appreciate the works by Moses Maimonides and Baruch Spinoza.

Both Maimonides and Spinoza seem to be like a continuation, a complement in their arguments and reasonings to, for, and against the works of the aforementioned Muslim classical writers.

Spinoza's "Ethics" is my personal favorite of his writings. Pagans would certainly love him too as he also argued God and all are one. Very close to some Pagan beliefs of Great Mother Godness of Nature and Sufis too - deus sive natura, an expression of the world as a single substance. God as one with everything.

Reading many posts in On Faith threads reminds me of what Spinoza also said in "Ethics" - Love is nothing but pleasure acompanied by the idea of an external cause : hate is nothing else but pain accompanied by the idea of an external cause.

His premise of "overdetermination" is thought provoking, and what he opined about every being possessing conatus, and life as a constant struggle with ourself and other individuals is valid when he wrote it, and valid now. And the power to persist and to create in all of us. So, he's also for Greater Jihad eh:)

Spinoza's contention that democracy would remain impractical until the mass of humanity attained a level of education and civic responsibility necessary to sustain democratic institutions is disputable. But the experience of many developing third world countries seems to bear him out in many instances.

But then, Spinoza never really go into the totalitarian temptation and authoritarian instincts of men who have a impulse to dominate and cotrol fellow men in politics or religion.

And what was it Immanuel Kant also said about Enlightenment? That we don't live in an Enlightened Age but an age of Enlightenment. Sapere Aude!

As for Umra/Hajj - "Lord, here I am". Very loaded statement, leading to questions on - Who am I? What am I doing here? Why am I here? Who are all these other people here pushing me around and getting shoved aside by me too? Another spiritual, theological, philosophical and scientific quest for discovery of the self, life and death, beginning and end, one's personal universe, the human universe, the universe that is above and beyond, God/s, or no God:)

Best regards as always
J

And my hat's off to Paganplace, Lepidopteryx, Terra, Wiccan and others for coming on here and correcting misperceptions. Hopefully there are others out there who read these threads and may have begun to have an open mind about us, too.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be on here at all if these folks hadn't made it ok to test the waters.

Namaste and blessings!

E Favorite:

It's so good to see that you've been able to see past what is taught in a lot of Sunday schools about paganism.

Truth is, most of us won't talk about it in the way that a lot of the other religions do. We will respond to questions and defend ourselves if necessary, but there's not much shouting about it.

Proselytizing is frowned upon and actively discouraged much of the time. If people need what teachers have to offer, they will seek them out on their own. That's why so many people don't think pagans exist in this day and age.

There are far more modern pagans in America than people think. And the numbers are growing.

The good result of that is often we're just left alone to do what we do. The bad part comes when others don't think we exist at all, ridicule or fear what they don't understand and assume that there's something 'bad' involved and try to trample on our rights as humans and Americans. We just.. try to live it as best we can, educate when needed, and hope that our actions speak for us when words cannot.

For me one of the first things I was taught was that there are not only many paths to enlightenment, but that there are supposed to be, and they are all valid. Nobody has a monopoly on truth.

I'm not sure it would be considered a talent, just experience that can be cultivated over time. It's hard work but the joy is palpable, as Lepi described. Everyone has to start somewhere.

It took years before realizing there were others out there who felt as I do. A lot of people will tell you that for us, it's just a homecoming. No force, nobody talking us into it, just 'home'. For me, when I found the local community in my area, which is growing all the time, was the time when things took off for me.

I wouldn't say a green thumb is necessary, certainly not right away. As someone who has unintentionally killed more plants than not, (at least until I started to try to learn how to care for them better!), it's the idea of making an effort, learning from mistakes and just being a part of the process.

For me it's about recognizing that all life is sacred and not to take any of it for granted. To accept wisdom and teaching wherever it can be found. To never stop learning and work to better things whenever I can.

Anonymous wrote (August 1, 2007 5:16 PM):

"The infiltration of the government by members and sympathizers, the coordinated role of the organizations in pursuing specific objectives, the recruitment of the best and the brightest into the movement, and other objectives are far advanced, perhaps further than the author could have imagined in so short a time."

You were writing about the 'Ikhwan vision of the future'. You might just as well have been writing about the Christian 'dominionist' scheme to transform the USA into a theocracy... that paragraph is just as accurate in that context.

Anonymous wrote (August 1, 2007 5:16 PM):

"The infiltration of the government by members and sympathizers, the coordinated role of the organizations in pursuing specific objectives, the recruitment of the best and the brightest into the movement, and other objectives are far advanced, perhaps further than the author could have imagined in so short a time."

You were writing about the 'Ikhwan vision of the future'. You might just as well have been writing about the Christian 'dominionist' scheme to transform the USA into a theocracy... that paragraph is just as accurate in that context.

E fave:
"You may make a pagan out of me -- but I think it's something one is called to - an innate talent, a knowing.

And I think I don't have it -- I just appreciate it. Maybe my role is to be in the audience, applauding with gusto, blowing kisses and throwing bouquets."

I dont' see it as a talent - for me, it's just how I percieve my little corner of the Universe. But I thank you for the applause, the kisses, and the bouquets - it's always nice to be appreciated.

"Of course, I didn't know there were modern pagans and the only ones I heard about growing up were those awful, primitive pre-christian, hedonistic, worshippers of craven images that we learned about in Sunday school."

I didn't know ther were modern pagans either until I realized I was one. Like you, I had been taught that the word "Pagan" was synonymous with "evil."

"Being pagan almost seems like having a green thumb. Most everyone appreciates flowers, but only a few people have a real knack for making them grow."

Growing things is part of it, and looking back, my grandmother's vegetable garden and frose bushes, and my grandfather's fig tree were probably where the seeds of my paganism were planted, but it's much more just a green thumb. For me, it's not just recognizing that flowers are pretty, it's recognizing that those flowers are living beings with their own agenda and not simply inanimate objects placed here for us to do with as we please. It's recognizing that my life is inextricably tied to theirs.

thanks, Paganplace -- One of the tings I've enjoyed the most about this forum is getting to know pagans. Of course, I didn't know there were modern pagans and the only ones I heard about growing up were those awful, primitive pre-christian, hedonistic, worshippers of craven images that we learned about in Sunday school.

Being pagan almost seems like having a green thumb. Most everyone appreciates flowers, but only a few people have a real knack for making them grow.

Well, E Favorite, I think I speak for a lot of Pagans by saying we consider those experiences Lepi describes as everyone's *birthright.* Just so happens that's where we often meet our Gods. :)

You don't have to start by believing anything, ...in fact, often beliefs can be *in the way.*

I mean, hey, plenty of Christians and 'Spiritual not Religious' and atheist types find this kind of experience to be the presence of God or the true joy in their lives.

Sometimes, when people try to impose 'One Right Ways' to *try and contain or control* that experience, (or to attach conditions and social and political power to the very idea there *is* meaning to life,) then they become a tool of alienation, not of connectedness.

It's a common presumption, (often projection, in the case of some) that other religions must inherently be about fearing and trying to appease or control things that are not understood...

It's about the love. And paying attention. :)

Lepidopteryx - xoxoxo.

You may make a pagan out of me -- but I think it's something one is called to - an innate talent, a knowing.

And I think I don't have it -- I just appreciate it. Maybe my role is to be in the audience, applauding with gusto, blowing kisses and throwing bouquets.

Ryan:
"Yes, God very much wants your love, and not for His sake (he's fine on his own) but for your sakes."

And I'm doing just fine without him. Jesus strikes me as a guy I could enjoy a beer and a joint with, but the whole "worship me or perish" bit from his dad doesn't strike me as love.

"It is the only thing that will give you real peace and happiness - peace that doesn't come and go with the seasons or tides, and a happiness that intensifies and lasts forever."

I have somehting better than happiness - I have joy. Happiness is dependent on circumstaces, and yes, sometimes things happen that make me unhappy. But nothing can takea way my joy at being a part of the living Universe.

"Everybody's life is organized around something: work, family, friends, self. But the thing is, there is nothing on earth that is both permanent enough and strong enough to support the weight of a human heart. Everything, in the end, will leave us still wanting more, or heartbroken, or both. We're like black holes: so small, yet so heavy, and with a virtually unlimited capacity to desire. Only God, who is infinite, can fulfill that yearning."

I feel quite fulfilled, thanks. No abyss of unsatisfied yearning in my soul.

"At least, He's the only thing I've found. If shopping or horsebacking has done it for you, please, let me know. Those things are a lot easier."

I find that striving to live so that, by the time I die, the world will have become a better place than it was before I was born is a pretty demanding but worthwhile way of life. I hate to shop, and although I love to ride, it's hardly what my life revolves around.

"And the thing is that when we make something like that the center of our lives, those things tend to consume everything else, take up all our time and money. Not so with God: he wants ever so little, and if we give it, he organizes and perfects the rest, brings it into focus and high definition."

Funny, I find that the same thing happens the way I live. The more effort I make to help others, the more help comes my way when I need it, often without my asking for it. A little thing called karma. And no one asks me to write a check.

"God won't send you to hell if you reject His love. Rejecting His love IS hell, or at least, it is the beginnings of it, just as living in His love is the beginnings of heaven."

How is saying "no thanks" to something I neither need nor want living in hell? And how can I accept the love of a being that 1) I don't believe exists as described in your scriptures, and 2)If he does exist as described in your scriptures, quite frankly isn't worthy of my love.

"That's the whole point of something being real - it exists whether recognized or not. You are presumably sitting at a computer reading this, and that computer continues to exist even when you are not thinking about it, forget about it, doubt or even its existence. The computer is real and its reality is independent of your consciousness. God is much, much more so."

I have concrete, undeniable proof of my computer's existence. I can see it, I can touch it. I know that every time I push the power switch to ON, a certain sequence of events will take place - always the same sequence. When I double-click a certain icon, another specific sequence of events takes place. I know that these events will take place every time.
I have no proof of the existence of your god as you say he exists. There is no evidence presented to my senses, no predictable outcomes when trying to interact with one. I see my deities as simply aspects of the world aroun me, not as its masters. They are present in the food I eat, the kitchen scraps I compost, in my lovemaking with my husband, in my daughter's kiss, and in the half-eaten birds, squirrels, and lizards my cats bring into the house and drop at my feet. They and I are interwoven, not superior being and inferior creature, not ruler and subject. In that relationship, I find true joy.

Jim J.,

Apparently you're just ignorant. You think scientists just make stuff up for fun. You deny that evolution is extremely well-confirmed, so you're about one step away from thinking the sun goes around the earth, or that demons cause epilepsy, or that special dances can cause rain.

As for your distinction between a belief and a fact, it doesn't work. Here's a grade school primer for you: A belief, like a pain or a thought or a hope or a want, is a mental state. A belief is when a person thinks something is true. Some beliefs are true. Other beliefs are false. A belief is true when it matches the facts. Sometimes people believe things for good strong reasons. Sometimes people believe things for no good reason. Not all beliefs are equally reasonable.

Jim J. - Let's not forget, there are scientists who are also Christians. How do you suppose they reconcile that?

Your logic escapes me. There is nothing to reconcile. There have been and are many Christians who are firmly rooted in a rational scientific approach and understanding of the natural world.

Christianity has a checkered history with regards to science and the pursuit of knowledge. However, for every Giordano Bruno (burned at the stake) or Galileo (under house arrest for the last nine years of his life) who was threatened or punished by one denomination of Christianity or another, there have been many many other scientists who used their Christianity to understand their God's creation. In fact, there is a long tradition of Christian philosophers of the natural world who made the great scientific discoveries from Renaissance Europe (Copernicus, Galileo) through Newton, Leibniz, Linnaeus, Mendel, Faraday, Maxwell, and others.

It is only with the rise of biblical literalism in the U.S. that some branches of Christianity cannot reconcile the existence of God with science. Traditional Christianity (non literalism), especially throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, has generally acknowledged all scientific discoveries, including evolution. It might surprise you to know that shortly after Darwin and Wallace first proposed their theory of evolution, aside from a few initial skirmishes between the scientific community and Christianity, evolution was promptly accepted as a "scientific theory" with empirical support.

Jim J - you say, "Let's not forget, there are scientists who are also Christians. How do you suppose they reconcile that?"

I imagine it depends on their particular brand of Christianity. Just as people choose what they want to believe, they would choose how to reconcile it with other aspects of their lives.

I know a scientist who went to christian churches for years (UCC and Episcopalian). He liked the routine of the sabbath and liked the music and community. Recently, though, as he's learned about Christian history, he no longer wanted to participate in the rituals or hear the bible verses. So he quit. He's thinking of joining a unitarian church - to get the community, sabbath and music, without God.

Jim J - Ditto what Dave2 said, plus just because a lot of people believe something, doesn't make it true. A lot of people believed that Iraq was involved in Sept 11 - it wasn't. Some people still believe it and probably always will, no matter what the evidence.

Before meteorology, people used to think God was responsible for bad weather.

Before they knew any better, Doctors used to think bleeding people was a cure for some diseases – and before they understood about sanitation and germs, they didn’t even bother to wash their hands.

In terms of religion, even though many people believe in the same supernatural God, they can have very different ideas about that God's interaction with humans, what that God thinks is sinful and what is the “true” and complete story of that God. Where do people get these ideas? Many of them are reading the same book - the bible, written centuries ago and they are coming up with quite different conclusions based on what they want to be true. That's a very human thing to do.

Meanwhile, they can’t all be right. Logically, many, if not all, of the conflicting beliefs would have to be in error. But religion isn’t logical. It’s about faith. So people can believe whatever they like.

Let's not forget, there are scientists who are also Christians. How do you suppose they reconcile that?

Jim J. - ... or a woman, for 20 years, and they come up with all kinds of freaky theories. And everyone believes them to be true. Why? Because they came from scientists!

First of all, there are many women scientists and not only do they have beautiful minds, but many are also tasty babes.

The fact that everyone "believes" scientists is their problem. Scientists don't believe anything. They need the bloody meat of evidence. As far as why scientific knowledge is so highly valued; the proof is in the pudding. In 2004, the average lifespan in the U.S. for men was 77.5 and 80.4 for women, whereas in 1900 the averages were 46.3 and 48.3 respectively. The average lifespan around the time of Christ was substantially less. Of course, this is just one of many practical outcomes. Then there are the outcomes that have no practical value, such as just learning about the universe we live in. Again, science trumps other ways of acquiring knowledge, though it is not the only valid method.

dave2:

Cats needing food is a fact, not a belief. It cannot compare to an unproven belief in wormholes or extra-terrestrial life. And the theory of evolution is a well-studied theory, not a well-confirmed theory. It truly is most vexing that we don't have THE answer to evolution versus creation; until we do it is left to theories and beliefs.

And I never said they make stuff up because they need a woman, but if they lock themselves up too long with their equations and computers too long, who knows what they'll come up with! (sheesh, do you have a funny bone at all dave?)

Ryan - If there is really a God, and He is what I claim Him to be, then it stands to reason that He is MUCH more important than my (or any other) nation.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your persuasion, we live in a country where the laws are made by women and men for men and women. If you were a senator, would you “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”?

As you surely understand, there are many of us citizens who get a little twitchy when religious people seek to impose their beliefs on others, or when politicians use religion in furtherance of their power, whether they believe or not.

As for the number of denominations of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, it generally follows descent with modification (the evolutionary process) with the caveat of horizontal transmission (reticulate evolution) as well as vertical transmission between generations. In addition, new religions can appear de novo (e.g. Scientology, the Cargo Cults of the South Pacific, etc.). Although you may believe in the restoration of Christian Unity, evidence suggests otherwise. Most likely there will be proliferation and extinction of denominations, which may reach an equilibrium.

"Take wormholes for example. You get a few scientists together who haven't seen the light of day, or a woman, for 20 years, and they come up with all kinds of freaky theories. And everyone believes them to be true. Why? Because they came from scientists! Oh, or how about extra-terrestrials? Is there any tangible proof, anywhere? And yet, people everywhere believe in them. Why, because they choose to. Anything you believe in is a choice, even if it's a belief in God."

Jim J., first of all, there's a big difference between ungrounded wishful thinking belief, on the one hand, and belief based on solid evidence, on the other. If a teenage Wiccan somehow gets herself to believe that her spells are influencing the weather, that's a lot different from when you or I believe that grass is green, or that cats need food to live, or that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon. I don't make a choice to believe that there's a table in front of me, the belief comes naturally from the evidence available.

As for ETs, if you're talking about them visiting Earth, then that's a pretty stupid belief. If you're talking about the claim that there is some life somewhere out in all the universe, then that can be reasonable depending on what you think about the conditions needed for life and how common they are in the universe.

As for scientists, you are quite wrong to say that "everyone" believes what they say. Evolutionary biology is among the most well-confirmed theories in the history of science, and it commands something like unanimous support from scientists, and yet some 45% of Americans reject its basic findings. And if you think scientists just make stuff up because they need a woman, then you're out of your mind (also you're a sexist).

Andrea:

I think anyone, Christian or not, who acts that way is simply trying to promote a false sense of control over their lives. Christians might act that way because they think the church expects it of them, and non-Christians because they think their own religion, or society, expects it of them.

My own church makes a point of talking about people's imperfections in general, so that people don't think they are expected to be perfect. While we're here we should do good things, help others, be nice rather than mean, be caring. In Christianity, that is honoring God.

In the immortal words from "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" - "Be excellent to each other!"

"I'm only human is no longer my excuse- it is my goal." Joan Malerba-Foran

Thanks to Wiccan for posting that back in March.

I think a lot of Christians are unable to admit that they are human and they will mess up, bicker, and in other words, look like a "boob." Do they feel that by admitting to this that they weren't really being guided by God?

e favorite wrote:

"I don’t know if God is a fairy tale, but I have no evidence that he isn’t – and you don’t either. You feel strongly that he exists. You assert that he exists, and that makes him real to you. Think of other things a person could assert without evidence: “I’m the smartest guy in the world. I own a private island. I have weapons of mass destruction. I’m incredibly talented and just need a break to be famous. I could control gravity if I wanted to, but I don’t feel like it right now.” Someone may know all of those things to be true, but that doesn’t mean others must accept them as truth."

Of course not everyone will believe. However, your examples here are singular beliefs that one person could have about themselves. We're talking about something that millions of people all over the world already do believe.

There are proposals with many less studies, history, and writings behind them that some people seem to have no problem supporting, even though they are intangible and there is no proof they exist. Take wormholes for example. You get a few scientists together who haven't seen the light of day, or a woman, for 20 years, and they come up with all kinds of freaky theories. And everyone believes them to be true. Why? Because they came from scientists! Oh, or how about extra-terrestrials? Is there any tangible proof, anywhere? And yet, people everywhere believe in them. Why, because they choose to. Anything you believe in is a choice, even if it's a belief in God. My hope is that He will do a work in others' hearts, as He did in mine, so that they will come to know what I believe to be the right choice.

regarding the many kinds of Christianity, you say, " Being divided is bad enough, but bickering and fighting each other only aggravates things and makes us look, out and out, like a bunch of boobs."

I don't think so. I think it makes Christians look HUMAN. That's what they are and that's how humans act. Civil laws keep us in order, but nothing will make us all act the same - except oppression.

Ryan Haber

Thanks for that piece of info. I doubt that chrisianity will ever come together as one. With end times preachers like John Hagee, who by the way is trying to convince our government to nuke Iran, hateful ministers like Anne and Franklin Graham who preach hate and distrust against muslims, and a whole host of money driven preachers and televangelists, I can't see how they can all get together as one to preach the word. If they don't obey Jesus anyway what will make them see the light?
I think christianity will die out first.

Hello again Ryan – it sounds like, according you, assuming I’ve lived a good life (by the way, as both a Christian and an atheist) I’d go to heaven. Is that right? I’m sure that’s not the teaching of the Catholic church- having been raised in it – but maybe they’re teaching something different these days. Still, that’s not the impression I get from other people on this blog or the priests when I occasionally attend a wedding or funeral mass.

In answer to your question, of course I’d be unhappy if I lost various elements of my pleasant life – I think that goes for anyone – irrespective of religious belief. I’m not as happy now as I was a few months ago, knowing that a beloved uncle is near death. Will I still have peace? Based on experience, I’ll be restless for a while, sad always when I think of him, but able to bounce back. Maybe someday something so catastrophic will happen that will be difficult to bounce back from. I hope not, but I’m not going to dwell on it or presume that an supernatural being will give me strength. I’ll count on my strength coming from within – where it’s always come from – even when I was a believer. Are you suggesting that I’ll eventually be miserable because I’ve rejected God?

Regarding gravity. It may be intangible, but it can be measured. If one of us stops believing in it, we’ll both still have our feet planted on the floor. If one of us stops believing in God, you think that eventually the non-believer will be unhappy – but I see no evidence for it and no reason why I should take your word for it.

You say my Santa Claus argument misses the point, but it was you who compared God – an intangible, with computers – a tangible. Of course I realize some “real” things are intangible, like love, etc. But love doesn’t have a holy book telling me exactly how I should love and what to expect if I don’t love. Love hasn’t been made into an invisible being that sits in judgment or watches over me personally.

I don’t know if God is a fairy tale, but I have no evidence that he isn’t – and you don’t either. You feel strongly that he exists. You assert that he exists, and that makes him real to you. Think of other things a person could assert without evidence: “I’m the smartest guy in the world. I own a private island. I have weapons of mass destruction. I’m incredibly talented and just need a break to be famous. I could control gravity if I wanted to, but I don’t feel like it right now.” Someone may know all of those things to be true, but that doesn’t mean others must accept them as truth.

I've heard 10,000, and 20,000, and 30,000. I think estimates depend on the day of the week and the purpose of the estimation. I don't give any of them too much credit except what all estimates agree on: there are a LOT of divisions within Christianity.

It really is a pity because it makes us look incoherent. Being divided is bad enough, but bickering and fighting each other only aggravates things and makes us look, out and out, like a bunch of boobs.

Jesus (well knowing human nature) anticipated as much in John 17:20-23, "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me."

Personally, I am confident that there will be a restoration of Church unity. In the meantime, I try to dedicate myself to working and praying that I grow in:

Faith (trust that God has a good plan for us)
Hope (prayer for its actualization)
Charity (its final fulfillment)

If Jesus IS God, then He can bring it about, and will, when the time is right.

Does anybody have any idea of how may brands of christianity there are. I read somewhere (can't back it up) that there are more then 10,000. I'd be interested to know.

IN WHICH THE POSTER UNDERTAKES TO CORRECT HIMSELF:

It takes the votes (or non-votes) of 13 states (not 12) to block a Constitutional Amendment.

IN WHICH THE POSTER UNDERTAKES TO MAKE PICKY CORRECTIONS TO THE POSTS OF OTHERS, AND TO MAKE OTHER COMMENTS:

GLOBO-MOJO: Fortunately an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires ratification by three-quarters of the states (not two-thirds) or our liberties would be in even greater danger than they already are.

New England should supply six of the twelve sane votes required to block a bad amendment. Hopefully the other six votes could be found in the rest of the Northeast, on the West Cost, and perhaps from the upper Midwest.

ISLAMIST: You advised Jihadist to drink cokes to avoid dehydration in Saudi Arabia. My nutritionist advises, however, that caffeine-containing beverages promote excretion and so aggravate dehydration. Diet cokes might work, though.

MAURIE BECK: I enjoy your comments. Thanks for your post about Jihadist, me, and conversation. You're welcome to join me in my foxhole anytime, and I'm sure J feels the same way.

RYAN HABER: I enjoy your posts, too. I think and believe very differently from you, but I haven't found anything to argue with you about. We just think differently.

JIHADIST: I hope you enjoy your trip to Saudi Arabia - Have you been there before?

As for me, I'd as soon lose my head (literally) as go there, where I'd probably lose it anyway because of my beliefs.

Will you be taking in the Friday noon beheadings in Riyadh's central square? [Sorry, I couldn't resist that!]

WAPO: Is the job market for geeks so tight that you can't find one to efficiently design and manage the On Faith website?

Not only can you not get into the Secularists' Corner, but since the latest site redo a couple of days ago you have to follow an unmarked, circuitous route to get from the Panelist's essay to the readers' posts and vice-versa.

A suggestion: hire that savvy website geek to set things up rationally, and also hire an average internet user to see if s/he can easily navigate (or navigate at all!) your site.

BEST TO ALL!

Jihadist,

Speaking of Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas, I'm sure you know the story of Gertrude's last words:

"While on vacation in 1946 Stein became seriously ill and was advised to see a specialist immediately; within days she entered the American Hospital at Neuilly to undergo surgery.

"Gertrude Stein died firmly in character on July 27, 1946, having delivered from her hospital bed a final illustration of her searching wit. 'What is the answer?' she inquired of Alice, and getting no answer said, laughing, 'In that case, what is the question?'"

From The Modern Library's website:
http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/library/author.pperl?authorid=29635

Wonderfully appropriate words for On Faith. Whatever a person's last words or thoughts, such as a prayer to Jesus, Gertrude Stein's last words have to be in the back of that person's mind, even if unspoken or not consciously thought.

E Favorite,

You're welcome. Thanks for your responses as well. They've been quite thoughtful.

As you know, we Christians have become so fragmented in thinking and in organization that it is hardly possible to speak of a single "Christian faith" with regards to many topics. I wouldn't presume to speak on behalf of others; I can only speak my own understanding of the Catholic Faith, held by the Catholic Church to be the original and authentic faith taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, preserved intact for 20 centuries by their successors, and formulated from age to age in a language suitable to the needs of the age. On principle, I believe what the Church teaches - not because I have been brainwashed, but because every time I disagreed in the past, I found myself by hard experience to be flat wrong. Having found her to be a truth-teaching thing, I have come to give her the benefit of the doubt, rather than testing each and every thing she says. That's the method of learning that everyone uses - nobody tests for themselves everything they learn in science class, and there is little one can do to test what one learns in history class; but having found the teacher to be basically correct about everything she has taught so far, we come to lend her not only credit on this teaching or that, but in general. It is perfectly reasonable to do so, and that is the position I stand in with regard to the Catholic Church.

The Catholic concept of heaven and hell are, in their primary sense, realities experienced after death, though not simply as a consequence of belief in God. In the Catholic understanding, Christianity is not primarily an intellectual thing, a matter of having the right test answers, any more than life is. Of course, knowing about reality and life makes it a good deal easier to live life in reality with some modicum of success (happiness). The same goes for Christianity, in the Catholic understanding: knowing more about it can make it easier to live, but LIVING Christianity is much more important than knowing about it. Someone who, using the natural lights provided them, in good faith, is doing his sincere best to live a good life - well, he is already on the right path, and God surely provides for him. Someone who, for motivations of selfishness unknown perhaps even to himself, lives his life attempting to accomodate himself even at other's expense and who has no real or abiding interest in being good, but only of feeling happy or well thought of, even if he never does anything really, really wicked, is on the wrong path, and has excluded goodness from his pursuits, including the ultimate goods - God and the life of heaven.

We're NOT, emphatically NOT, talking about a big, white-haired old man sitting behind a bench with a gavel, banging it at people who missed a question somewhere on the test. Especially a legalistic understanding latent in Protestant theology and in much Catholic "spirituality" can give that impression. But that is not the Catholic understanding of what heaven and hell are about - they aren't rewards and punishments (although they are, kind of) as much as they are natural outgrowths, natural consequences of the way we have lived before death.

"Since I rejected the idea of god, my life has been fine – better, actually than before, because I feel exhilarated by having increased understanding of my own existence and the world around me. But in terms of my everyday life, it’s going along pretty much as before – same great family and friends, same interesting work, same routine (except for going to church). I also have a whole new group of atheist friends and have found that some of my old friends are long-term non-believers."

Ah, I am glad that you are happy. I didn't say that your life would become immediately and obviously miserable. And I certainly hope that it doesn't become miserable. You said that in many respects your life has continued on as before, and that you are still happy. I am not looking for an answer, or a public confession of your private self, but I do want to ask you: If you were to lose your family, friends, interesting work, and pleasant routine, would you still be happy? Would you still have peace? A clue rests in our response to smaller 'crises' when they pop up.

"However, God and my computer are quite different – comparable to the difference between Santa Claus and my computer. My computer is tangible."

The whole contention about God between believers and atheists, really the whole contention between philosophical materialists in general and philosophical realists in general is just that: whether only the tangible is real.

If you believe that only the tangible is really real, then you do not believe that things like love and friendship are real, but perhaps only impressions on our consciousness. But then, one has to ask, is even our consciousness real? If it is not, then how do I explain myself conscious of being a self?

Those things are all intangibles, yet I have experience of them, and they make sense logically. The Santa Claus Argument against the existence of God (really, against Thomas' Cosmological Argument for the existence of God) misses the point: it sets up a strawman or a red-herring (I can't remember the difference). I wrote a paper about it a few years ago for grad school - I have it on my computer at home. If you like, I can email it to you. My email address is "withouthavingseen" at gmail.

"Ryan, God may be real to you and others who believe in him (in his many forms and according to the many, sometimes conflicting stories about him), but I don’t see how you can say that your interpretive, supernatural- based reality can definitely apply to others who do not believe."

That's our whole point. God is not "my God" nor is he real "to me". He is God and he is real, or to heck with him. I am about as interested in living by fairytales as you are, believe it or not. It's just we happen to disagree about whether he exists in his own right or is actually a fairytale. But if I had reason to believe that he were a fairytale, I'd close the book on him in my life, too.

But I can say that the reality of God bears on the lives of those who deny it, just as I can say that the reality of gravity (another intangible) bears on the lives of those who deny it.

amen Susan.

http://blaneconklin.blogspot.com/2007/07/prayer-in-us-senate.html

Ryan Haber - Hi. thanks for the response. I'm a little confused, especially about your concept of hell. I understand the idea of earthly life feeling like hell (or heaven), but according to the Christian faith, heaven and hell are also place one goes to after death, depending on one’s belief in god, right? So it seems you haven’t answered that part of the question. As to the rejecting god’s love being the beginnings of hell, since I rejected the idea of god, my life has been fine – better, actually than before, because I feel exhilarated by having increased understanding of my own existence and the world around me. But in terms of my everyday life, it’s going along pretty much as before – same great family and friends, same interesting work, same routine (except for going to church). I also have a whole new group of atheist friends and have found that some of my old friends are long-term non-believers.

Then, regarding God’s existence, you say, “That's the whole point of something being real - it exists whether recognized or not” and then compare it to the reality of my computer. However, God and my computer are quite different – comparable to the difference between Santa Claus and my computer. My computer is tangible. I’m touching it right now. I can see it right now, and you can see the results of my touching it, because you know through experience and logic (even if you don’t completely understand the entire process) that the only way you could be reading this if someone, somewhere has operated a computer in a certain way. Now I could say that Santa Claus gave me the computer, or that God taught me how to use it, but that would be interpretive and based on belief in the supernatural. For instance, it appeared under the Christmas tree on Christmas morning, in keeping with Santa’s gift-giving practice, for those who believe in him; or I was able to operate it without taking a class because God gave me the ability to do it, in keeping with how God imparts knowledge, for those who believe in him.

Ryan, God may be real to you and others who believe in him (in his many forms and according to the many, sometimes conflicting stories about him), but I don’t see how you can say that your interpretive, supernatural- based reality can definitely apply to others who do not believe.

Jihadist,

Thank you for your well-wishes! Sadly, as an ex-Lutheran and ex-Methodist, we will not be having a Jewish wedding ;) The Ceremony is being held in a Unitarian Church, with a ski-lodge dance-party reception to follow. We had our first cake-tasting last night. I had the rest of one of the rejected flavors for breakfast this morning...and I'm regretting that decision!

I do hope they turn the Secularist's Corner into a cafe...or even a bistro...maybe with live music every Friday night...

E Fav,

It's a pitty that habit has gone unchecked.

Dear Congress,

I will never accept religious instruction from anyone other than those of my own choosing and I would never, ever choose Congress as my religious instructor. I also resent my tax dollars and government being used to advance purely religious opinions that I abhor.

Congress should quit interfering in matters of religious opinion. End the chaplains, quit preaching to me on my dime, and quit wasting valuable time on matters in which you have no constitutional or religious authority. Please respect my religious liberty and get back to the business of governing the country.

Your loyal subject,

Free Stinker

Maurie Beck,

When I asked as to why the government shouldn’t side with the majority, I was not making an argument about my own opinions. I was responding to Globo-mojo’s posts of August 2 that the government’s purpose is simply and only to enact the will of the majority, and in a manner as expeditious as possible. I disagree with his proposition and asked my question only to highlight problems with it.

By “religion” (here used loosely), I think we seem to mean “a set of viewpoints concerning the world that takes into account transcendent realities.” By denying such realities exist, atheism qualifies, in a weird and unexpected way, as a religion of sorts, which is how it is possible for some to become religiously fanatical regarding it.

If there is really a God, and He is what I claim Him to be, then it stands to reason that He is MUCH more important than my (or any other) nation. Nations come and go, and we owe them a finite amount, which it also owes us. God, if He exists, has given us everything including our nation. He must have precedence. What is really disquieting, weird even, is to meet people (they abound) who believe in God as I do, and yet give Him little place in their life.

Maurie, I know about the seventeenth amendment and about Weimar parliamentary procedures. You are either missing my points, or looking to pick fights, or something else - I can’t figure out. My point about the Senate was that it is not meant to be a big polling organization and that the Constitution as originally framed and as now amended goes to ample lengths to provide the Senate’s politic with some stability against the winds of public opinion. And if you want to pick a fight, fine. In the January 1933 elections, the NSDAP (Nazionalsocialistische Deutsche Arbeiterspartei) received 32% of the votes, and in the March 1933 elections, it received 44% of the vote. Both times it had the largest single bloc of votes, and in the March elections it coupled with the DNVP (Deutschenazionale Volkspartei) and its 8% bloc to form a coalition-majority government. Fanning fears of an immanent communist insurrection, the NSDAP-DNVP bloc was able easily to gain more than the 14% of the votes that it needed to pass the “emergency powers” Enabling Act, which Hitler used as his basis of dictatorial governance.

Hitler was popularly given his powers. If it were really that pertinent to my point.

Each post is part of a series, and its point becomes more clear in the context of that series.

E Favorite,

"Do you think that God wants my love and Lepidopteryx's love - an atheist and a pagan?"

Yes, God very much wants your love, and not for His sake (he's fine on his own) but for your sakes. It is the only thing that will give you real peace and happiness - peace that doesn't come and go with the seasons or tides, and a happiness that intensifies and lasts forever. Everybody's life is organized around something: work, family, friends, self. But the thing is, there is nothing on earth that is both permanent enough and strong enough to support the weight of a human heart. Everything, in the end, will leave us still wanting more, or heartbroken, or both. We're like black holes: so small, yet so heavy, and with a virtually unlimited capacity to desire. Only God, who is infinite, can fulfill that yearning. At least, He's the only thing I've found. If shopping or horsebacking has done it for you, please, let me know. Those things are a lot easier. And the thing is that when we make something like that the center of our lives, those things tend to consume everything else, take up all our time and money. Not so with God: he wants ever so little, and if we give it, he organizes and perfects the rest, brings it into focus and high definition.

"Do you think your God send us to hell if we reject that love?"

Ah, there's the misunderstanding. God won't send you to hell if you reject His love. Rejecting His love IS hell, or at least, it is the beginnings of it, just as living in His love is the beginnings of heaven. He won't make you love Him, even if He knows it's the only thing that will make you really happy. He CAN'T make you love Him, because love has to be freely given and received, or else it is not love.

"Or does that God not apply to us because we don't believe he exists?"

That's the whole point of something being real - it exists whether recognized or not. You are presumably sitting at a computer reading this, and that computer continues to exist even when you are not thinking about it, forget about it, doubt or even its existence. The computer is real and its reality is independent of your consciousness. God is much, much more so.

God bless.

Maurie Beck, I agree that atheism is not a religion. That much is pretty clear. But atheism still counts as a religious viewpoint -- thus it's subject to all the protections and prohibitions attendant to the 1st Amendment. Perhaps you'd prefer the phrase 'viewpoint concerning matters of central religious significance'? I don't think it matters much. The point is that we don't want governments endorsing atheism any more than we want them endorsing the Westminster Confession.

Ryan Haber - If the State hasn't any religion, then it has sided with non-religion, vs. religion ... So, in a democracy, if we are going to have a government that sides either with religion or nonreligion, and with either Utilitarianism or Traditional Morals (as found in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, even Buddhism and Hinduism), why shouldn't the government side with the majority?

Ryan, I think you misunderstand the establishment clause. The establishment clause does not side with non-religion. It is neutral with respect to religion. I believe Dave2 referred to “impartially refusing to endorse any religious viewpoint”. Nor do I think Dave2 was endorsing an “anti-religious or atheistic religious (this is an oxymoron, though some atheists border on ‘religious’ fanaticism) viewpoint”. In fact, if an atheist president was elected (unfortunately not in my lifetime) and proceeded to expound the benefits of atheism and establish a “White House Office of Atheist Initiatives" that favored atheism over religion, I believe he would have violated (though I don’t know if he would have technically violated the EC) the establishment clause. Regardless, he certainly would have violated the spirit of the law.

When you say, “why shouldn’t the government side with the majority?”, you forget that many of the amendments (especially the first and subsequently the fourteenth) were added to protect minority rights (i.e. small religious factions, ethnic and religious minorities, unpopular ideas) against the “tyranny of the majority”. You might then complain that the minority is infringing on the rights of the majority. Perhaps, but if the majority wanted slavery or segregation, such majority rights would clearly infringe and disenfranchise those subject to slavery or segregation. Majorities may enact any law they wish, but those laws must be neutral and apply equally to all citizens. You may then say, “But how does school prayer infringe on anybody’s rights and if there is no school prayer, then aren’t believers being discriminated against? As to the first part of the question, at the least school prayer might offend non-religious children and at the worst would single them out for ridicule and possibly worse. Secondly, believers would only be discriminated against if someone came over the school loud speaker and extolled the virtues of atheism. I’m sure you would find that incredibly rude. I can assure you that nonbelievers feel the same way. No one is stopping anyone from praying before school.

You said, “If I were a Senator, I would owe my seat to my constituents. But before I owe anything to anybody else, I owe everything to God.”

And if what your constituents wanted was not congruent with your interpretation of god’s will, then what? Of course, that is what elections are for. Hopefully they would vote you out of office. Still, the fact that you would put god before your country is disquieting.

Ryan - The US Constitution does not anywhere specify that elected officials are to be responsive to the demands of their constituents. In fact, the hope articulated in debates surrounding the creation of a bicameral legislature was that one of the houses (the Senate) would be MARKEDLY LESS responsive to the will of the people than the other.

The constitution did not have to specify that elected officials had to be responsive; those that weren’t would be voted out of office. In regards to the senate, you are absolutely correct. In fact, senators were initially appointed by the governors of the states and were only later (1914) subject to election following passage of the seventeenth amendment. Actually, though, it was not that senators would be lest subject to the will of the people, but the will of their constituents. The framers saw that senators would instead pass or not pass laws that might reflect the will of all the people, not just their constituents in their home state. Whether that is the actual outcome is another matter. More importantly, there are procedural hurdles in the senate that make it difficult to pass any legislation, thus requiring a general consensus.

Ryan, you said, “… freely elected (like Hitler's).”

Hitler was never elected, though he was appointed chancellor of Germany by President Paul von Hindenburg on 30 January 1933. The Nazis received the most popular votes in elections in 1932 but it was not a majority and they could not form a government. In fact, in the second election to form a government they received fewer votes than in the first. Shortly after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazi party quickly destroyed all vestiges of democracy and began their cultural revolution by consolidating all power in the totalitarian Third Reich.

You wrote, “Moreover, the US Supreme Court decided (not under Bush, but in a series of decisions throughout the 20th century) that the First Amendment applies only to Congress and to the legislative branches of the various state governments.”

As Terra Gazelle mentioned, the Roberts, Alito Supreme Court just ruled that the establishment clause does not apply to the executive branch in allocating tax dollars through it’s Office of Faith Based Initiatives. This is a very disturbing ruling and one that would not have passed muster with previous courts. Although only congress has the power of the purse, once the Executive is funded, this ruling means that the Executive can essentially use the money any way they see fit, including the funding of religious institutions “for the public good”. Unfortunately, the Bush White House has a very biased record towards funding predominantly evangelical churches or institutions at the expense of others. Not only that, those institutions can then hire their own believers to the exclusion of all others, even though tax dollars cannot be used to further one group over another. This is essentially legalized patronage.

Ryan - If you argue that the government should not (carry out the will of the people) for another reason, then you are being very undemocratic - even less democratic then demogogues who want less pervasive measures with a smaller majority.

Again this fails to distinguish between majority and minority rights and would invariably lead to infringement of the latter.

Islamist, you wanker you!:)

I'm still at the blinking Bangkok airport in a seven hour transit to Jeddah. Tokyo's as fab as always. Will show you photos of me in a full hijab in Saudi Arabia. How will you know its really me underneath? Hey, I love being chauffeured around on official business like Betty Windsor. Keep your antenna up on those new blog slander cases and keep pushing back while I climb up walls in Saudi Arabia.

Maurie Beck

Thanks for that correction on Gertrude Stein. Still have not finished the books on Baruch Spinoza you recommended. I knew some of his works but not his life. A most remarkable man. I am seeing his ideas in new ways too in understanding his background and life. Will be reading them in Mecca and Medina too. Spinoza and God would love that. :)

Best regards and bye.
J

Maurie Beck

I am having some difficulties getting into the Secularist's Corner too. A technical problem? It is truly opened to secularists who happened to be believers? Is being both a practicing believer and a secularist (for seperation of church and state and minimising religion's role in public affairs) too much of a contradictory concept for some to grasp? No wonder Jihadist is incenced.

As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, after 9/11, which idiot on earth would not recognise the realities of Islam and Muslim societies? The Bush Administration of course. Bloody fools everywhere.

Cheers

Hello Maurie Beck

I don't think Jihadist will be reading On Faith in the next few days. She's actualy going off to Jeddah for a meeting. Muslims always do the Umrah (small Hajj) when in Saudi Arabia for business. No one goes there for pleasure, even Muslims. I can't wait to hear her new stories on how the Saudi Arabian authorities and Salafist Muslims drives her crazy. She'll be really driven there. Driven around as women are not allowed to drive. Imagine J wearing and chafing under the full hijab as she don't wear the headscarf. This really irritates her as we all know that Saudi women, when overseas for work or study, do take driving lessons and drive on their own. Some Saudi women do remove their hijabs when overseas. Salafist Islam is making hypocrites out of some Saudis on unnecessary stritures and rulings that contradicts even many Suras in the Qur'an. The most oppressive literalist-fundamentalist Muslim state in the world and one of the closest ally of the US in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, the originator and exporter of the Salafist strain of Islam in the world. Fortunately, Indonesian and Malaysian mosques don't rely on Saudi aid for mosques, religious reading materials and imams schooled in Salafist Islam.

I going off to read the thread on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's article. Running to nearly 400 posts now.

Cheers

My, my, Jihadist my dear friend!

So many posts here. Too many cups of expressos? Aren't you on the plane and gone yet? Cut these chaps some slack. Did you not tell me as we are believers of one of the top five religions in the world in number of adherents we have to protect and defend the rights of all minorities and beliefs? That include having a room or a corner of their own if they want to.

Have a good Umrah. Don't understand why you have to go there now at this time of year with high summer heat. Don't get dehydrated, drink lots of Cokes and halal Big Macs, okay Mecca Cola if you want to be religiously correct on drinks, stay off the Internet connected computers at Mecca Sheraton, and switch of the cellphone during prayers.

Stop your gleeful harassments of some posters in On Faith. Like you said, there are a few dim bulbs even among the heirs of the Enlightenment. Focus on the bright bulbs. More worthwhile to read their posts. Looking forward to see you back home again for more arguments.

Get on that plane and go now, now, now.

Salam.

PS - Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote "My View of Islam" in another post here. She started, "The western world would be wise to recognise the realities of Islam...." LOL

Yes, Jacoby and Dawkins is better, smarter and more intellectually honest in what they wrote. I now see why you are a fan of Susan Jacoby above all other non-Muslim On Faith panelists.

To all those strident atheists out there, you could do worse than to occupy a foxhole with Jihadist or Norrie Hoyt. The conversation would be most excellent and they are fellow secularist allies whom we will need to defeat the fanatique horde.

Jihadist - Asked by Alice B Toklas after her visit to Sacramento, "What's there?", Stein responded, "There's no there, there." This can be said for many other places and for people too.

Sorry Jihadist, although Sausalito is closer, it is still not Oakland. There are even places that are impossible to stumble into unless one is on a vision quest or dranged (or both?), where there really is no there there. Veritable existential nightmares, bleak and cold out on the borderlands where the fierce wind howls, tearing meat from bone, blowing you and your little fire into the abyss.

How's that for no there there?

As for exams and Dawkins, I think he would grade you more fairly than the pope, provided your arguments were well reasoned and could be used in a logical fashion to refute his counter-arguments on the unlikelihood of a god or gods.

For some reason I've been unable to enter the Secularist Corner website. Because I am an atheist, one would think I would be forced bodily to participate.

As you well know, secularists and atheists are not equivalent. Atheists might be a subset of secularists, though that might be a questionable assertion.

Concerning strident atheists and their ability to turn allies into enemies, you also know that most are just scared and unnerved at the recent religious resurgence in America. We grew up thinking hillbilly revivalists were quaint, uneducated folk playing with their poisonous snakes, but that fundamentlist religion, and all religion for that matter, was moving inexorably towards extinction, obviating the need to further beat that dead horse from which anti-snake venom is made.

Russell D and Andrea!

Good to see you both again here.

Finally, the discussion in this thread is getting really interesting.

While you were away, I have been having too much fun here.

I did tell you both to get a room once. Want to get into a corner of the Secularist's Corner? A corner within a corner. Or, preferably, a Secularist's Lounge and Bar too. Or a disco.

Andrea, in case I forget, my very best wishes again on your upcoming wedding. Hope it's Jewish. The most fun weddings I ever attended with Hava Nagila and all. Even if it's not Jewish, play Hava Nagila for all that exuberant dancing. Actually, Sikhs' weedings are fun too, with bangra.

Dave2

As for the exams analogy, it is very simple. Being called idiotic is not only subjective, but can be found among believers and atheists too.

I am sceptical of anyone who asserted that all believers are stupid just for believing in God. That is an all too easy and lazy generalisation.

I remember reading Jacques Berlinerblau's "Secularism is boring" posts and the reactions. He's right. Secularists have no political savvy. The Secularist Set may need a corner, a room, a forum, a lounge of their own, but the focus remain on what needs to be done.

As you rightly said : "Leaving out any such endorsement is neutral and impartial and agreeable to everyone."

"The Roman Catholic Church is the one true church" is not really an endorsement of Roman Catholicism, but rather a claim of supremacy on "truth" as it see it.

"There is only one God and Muhammed is his messenger" is not an endorsement of Islam but an article of faith for Muslims.

"There is no God" is not an endorsement of atheism, but rather a statement made by atheists in light of scietific inquiry, discovery and reasoning.

"All religions are foolish" is not an endorsement of an anti-religion viewpoint, but a generalised statements that also result from from rites, dogmas, practices, actions and behaviors of believers.

Ever heard of the some other believer's cliches on atheists?

"Atheists know there is no God, but don't know anything else."

"Atheists can proof that there is no God, but they can't prove God does not really exist"

"Atheists pray to themselves"

"Atheists are lost souls in search of lost causes"

"Atheists are in limbo between old delusions and new ones"

Stay focussed. It is not what believers believe as article or faith or creed that should really bother you solely, but what they are doing and will do to further their agenda forward. What do you want? What do you want to do about it?

Do anyone have any Plan of Action beyond mere slogans and mantras such as "Believers are delusionals", "Believers are moronic"?

As Eric Hoffer one said, "Any philosophy that can be put in a nutshell belongs there". So, any notions that can be put into a bumper sticker belongs there.

And really good to see JWest, E Favorite, Lepidopteryx, Glob-Mojo, Ryan Haber here too. Now the discussion here is getting really interesting.

All the best.
J

Ryan Haber:
I was going to mention the possibility of further constitutional amendment but passed on the opportuntiy in order to keep things brief. You're absolutely right, 2/3 of each house and the states could ratify the obliteration of the first amendment. Then the only choice, to quote the Clash, is "should I stay or should I go!"

When you talk about the words of the amendment having legal definitions which are clear, I disagree. Clarity may come from precedent, but precedent is non-binding. "Stare decisis" has weight, but is ultimately non-binding. My rejection of the prevalent interpretation involves not disregard of law, but a desire to re-examine the unembellished text of the constitution.

Btw, what I call the "prevalent interpretation" is this religious-right view that we can have religion fully permeate government without it establishing an official state church. That's a narrow, protectionist interpretation which I see as neither the spirit nor letter of the amendment. However, our separation of church and state is still quite thorough right now thanks to those old liberal judges of yesteryear. What I reject then, is not the current state of affairs, but the direction where I fear the new court will take us.

Ryan Haber, you say, "The Living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who created all that exists, that has a plan for the eternal happiness of all who exist, and who has plunged into his own creation in order to ensure that plan can work despite our best efforts to wreck it - that God wants our love."

Do you think that God wants my love and Lepidopteryx's love - an atheist and a pagan?

Do you think your God send us to hell if we reject that love? Or does that God not apply to us because we don't believe he exists?

Susan,

As usual, you are well-informed and right on target with your latest essay.

The fact that no one has posted any objections to your points leads me to conclude that people either agree with you (as I do) or cannot muster a sufficient rebuttal to your well-reasoned points.

Bravo and keep 'em coming!

Globo-mojo,

Ok, provided we have government that is, in your sense, one of simple utility, only carrying out as expeditiously as possible the expressed (or rightly understood, let's say) will of the people.

What if the will of the people, the overwhelming majority, say 85% or 90% (much higher than almost any category of any poll) insist on a given measure? Should it then be carried out by the government? Even if the measure were that each public school should begin each day with a prayer?

You musn't say, "No, that wouldn't be constitutional," because in a sense that is what we are talking about - that is only a procedural question of whether Congress passes a law or whether 2/3 of the various states ratify a constitutional amendment approved by 2/3 of each house of Congress. Presumably, in your simple utility government, only doing the will of its people, with 90% of the people (or even 2/3, if they are well distributed geographically) behind a measure, it should be carried by either procedure.

If you argue that the government should not for another reason, then you are being very undemocratic - even less democratic then demogogues who want less pervasive measures with with a smaller majority.

"I understand the prevalent interpretation of the establishment clause, but I reject it."

That's your prerogative I suppose, but it's not the law. But that's not an interpretation of the Establishment clause - it's its meaning. Each of its words has a legal definition that is clear. The Constitution's words are clear, and are subject to interpretation by those responsible to do so, but they must not be rejected - that's a different thing altogether.

"Look at the supreme court of the 60s/70s versus the supreme court of today: lots of lawyers (judges, etc.) then, lots of lawyers now... wildly differing philosophies and results."

Exactly. There was a broad consensus about the general meaning of the clauses until the late 1950s and the 1960s. What was under debate was a sort of fine-tuning of the meaning and its implementation. In the 1960s, we started seeing an influx of cases that were essentially political to courts incompetent to deal with them. The courts still happily heard cases previously considered legislative questions, in hope of settling political issues definitively (this was the stated aim of Roe v. Wade, 1973, for instance). What happened instead was that large blocs of the populace, who previously could democratically debate the issue, were essentially told that the case was closed. Understandably, they felt disenfranchised though they had (often) been the majority.

This dynamic breeds anger. Lots of it. That's what has conservative-evangelical and fundamentalist types so angry at the courts, by the way: not that they interpret laws in unpopular ways, but that since the 1960s they have rejected laws they don't like and replaced them on their own authority.

You can reject the Establishment clause if you like, but upon what basis IN LAW? This isn't a Globo-mojocracy ;-) There must be a basis in law for acts of law - that's the fundamental principle of Common Law. If you do not like the Establishment clause and want a new one to replace it, well, we have a procedure for doing so. We are a society of laws, or we are no society.

Lepidopteryx,

You've kinda put your finger on my criterion of involvement in ceremonies of other denominations or religions. I will participate to the extent that I can do so without betraying my own beliefs or giving the appearance of doing so. I never, ever, ever said that I would severe ties with my sister, or that I had severed ties with any family member. I only wrote that I would accept alienation if it came (and it has) from friend or family member, rather than accept alienation from God.

Your "gods" may or may not require you to put them first and foremost in their life. That's their prerogative, I suppose.

The Living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who created all that exists, that has a plan for the eternal happiness of all who exist, and who has plunged into his own creation in order to ensure that plan can work despite our best efforts to wreck it - that God wants our love. I didn't pick him any more than I picked my parents or my country, so I don't have the privilege of saying "my god" in quiet same sense that you do. That's the whole point: in justice I owe Him a great deal, everything even; in love I WANT to give Him my very first and best of everything, and am working to arrange my life (slowly but surely) accordingly.

My sister (and her husband) are very much of the same mind - Christ is the center and most important thing for each of us. That does not decrease our love for each other, but intensifies it. That might not make sense to some - I can explain if anyone is interested.

If I were elected to office (unlikely, since I wouldn't run to save my life) I would owe all my constituents the same thing: integrity, honesty, and my best judgment about the issues that come before me. About things of which I know little, I would seek advice, as wise person does. About things that affect others, I would listen to their concerns, as compassion dictates. And then I would do my best to make the best possible decision, and explain it to my constituents without hemming, hawing, or duplicity. Presumably some would agree with the decision (if not the reasoning) and others would not. So be it.

The alternative is a party of polls, where leaders constantly look to polls for guidance - which isn't leadership, but followership.

Ryan Haber:
Good reply. The simple "utility role" of govt is exactly what I meant... I did not want to tread on philosophy (and i hate sometimes that words get usurped by philosophies and endowed with unnecessary baggage.) I understand the prevalent interpretation of the establishment clause, but I reject it. Congress shall make no law "with regard to" an "institutionalization" of religion... to me that still means government should wash it hands of all religion... no support, no money, no prayers, no tax breaks. Other people read the exact same words and argue that congress can do anything short of establishing an offician government religion. Lawyers make the exact same arguments on the exact same sides of the coin. Look at the supreme court of the 60s/70s versus the supreme court of today: lots of lawyers (judges, etc.) then, lots of lawyers now... wildly differing philosophies and results.

Does free exercise of religion pertain to public servants? I think not! Not, at least, in their capacity as a public servant. A grade school teacher can post the ten commandments in her home, but not at school. Posting the ten commandments at school respects an institutionalization of religion. Posting Koranic passages alongside does not solve the problem, it merely respects another institutionalization of religion. Religious pluralism in schools is not at all the same as "no respect, no regard for, no reference to" religion. (We can make an obvious exception for a comparitive religion class taught as a strictly academic subject.)

Andrea - I don't even think the Judge was using a tactic to shock us into silence. I think he was acting automatically and thoughtlessly. He's an old guy and I'm sure he's been including prayers in his civil weddings for decades. Probably a lot of people like it or don't mind - and the rest are not about to interupt a wedding to complain.

As a result, he has no idea he's being offensive to some people - and that what he's doing shouldn't be a part of a civil, non-religious ceremony.

Ryan: "It's not that I believe in only one god out of many; rather, it's that I believe there IS only one God. Do you see the distinction?"

Yes, I do. I was brought up Baptist.

"To love her does not mean to do what she might like, nor does it mean to make her feel good, nor does it mean to give the impression that I agree with her on any particular point."

Trust me, she knows that I am not Christian and that I will not pretend to be.
She knew that when she asked me to be her matron of honor - and not for a second did I consider refusing.
She wanted my presence at a watershed event in her children's lives, and I came out of love for my sister, my brother-in-law, my niece, and my nephew. I can convey that love without pretending to believe the particulars of what they believe.The way I see it, the underlying foundation of all religions is love, and that is why I can attend religious services that are not of my faith without violating my spiritual integrity and without turning my presence into a protest.

"If I were a Senator, I would owe my seat to my constituents. But before I owe anything to anybody else, I owe everything to God."

And what then, would you owe to your non-Christian constituents?

"I would understood if my sister could not understand that. It might cause alienation between us; but if God will help me, I will accept alienation from whoever rather than from Him."

I'm glad my family doens't feel that way. I could never refuse to be present at their imprtant life events simply because they don't worship as I do, nor do my gods require me to.

""Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me," Matthew 10:34-37."

My gods respect familial love and don't require that it take second place. Service to my family and my fellow man IS an act of worship.
And I have no desire to be worthy of a god who would require me to put my love for him above my love for my child.

For those that think the state is supporting non-religion over religion are failing to see that the non-religious are merely agreeing with the government on this particular issue.

Ryan: "It's not that I believe in only one god out of many; rather, it's that I believe there IS only one God. Do you see the distinction?"

Yes, I do. I was brought up Baptist.

"To love her does not mean to do what she might like, nor does it mean to make her feel good, nor does it mean to give the impression that I agree with her on any particular point."

Trust me, she knows that I am not Christian. She simply wanted my presence at a watershed event in her children's lives, and I came out of love for my sister, my niece, and my nephew. I can convey that love without pretending to believe the particulars of wha they believe.The way I see it, the underlying foundation of all religions is love, and that is why I can attend religious services that are not of my faith without violating my spiritual integrity and without turning my presence into a protest.

"If I were a Senator, I would owe my seat to my constituents. But before I owe anything to anybody else, I owe everything to God."

And what then, would you owe to your non-Christian constituents?

"I would understood if my sister could not understand that. It might cause alienation between us; but if God will help me, I will accept alienation from whoever rather than from Him."

I'm glad you're not my brother. I could never sever ties with my family simply because they don't worship as I do, nor do my gods require me to. My gods prefer harmony to discord.

"If the State hasn't any religion, then it has sided with non-religion, vs. religion. That isn't impartial - it is non-religiousness."

Ryan, surely you see the difference between impartially refusing to endorse any religious viewpoint, on the one hand, and endorsing an anti-religion or atheistic religious viewpoint, on the other.

We're discussing official government ceremonies featuring an endorsement of some religious viewpoint. "The Roman Catholic Church is the one true church" would be an endorsement of Roman Catholicism. "There is only one God and Muhammed is his messenger" endorses Islam. "There is no God" endorses atheism. "All religions are foolish" endorses an anti-religion viewpoint. Leaving out any such endorsement is neutral and impartial and agreeable to everyone.

Globo-mojo,

The US Constitution does not anywhere specify that elected officials are to be responsive to the demands of their constituents. In fact, the hope articulated in debates surrounding the creation of a bicameral legislature was that one of the houses (the Senate) would be MARKEDLY LESS responsive to the will of the people than the other. Jefferson wrote that a representative who denied his constituents his own conscience really denied them their representative. Representative government is government by representatives, not by polls.

I am not sure what you mean by a "utility role" except perhaps that the government serves as a mere mechanism for carrying out the will of the people. That, coincidentally, has nothing to do with any philosophy I've ever heard of relating to utilitarianism. Nor is it the opposite of totalitarian. Let me make my point:

What if the will of the people is that the government do a very great deal: build roads and a military, settle almost every dispute, regulate where one can build what, protect a wide range of rights both real and legally invented, run universities, subsidize farms, provide electric power or regulate others who do so, and so on... Couldn't such a government gradually creep into more and more aspects of life until it eventually claims and tries to exercise total control? Couldn't the people in fact vote for and will that?

More to the point, aren't we so doing, bit by bit, special issue by special issue?

A totalitarian government might be very unpopular and unelected (like Stalin's) or very popular and freely elected (like Hitler's). It might have a very charismatic leader promising to save the nation (like Mussolini), or just a bungling group of bureaucrats bungling (but never quite managing) to fulfill promises "of a better future".

"The first amendment clearly states that government must not respect an establishment of religion,"

Ah, that's the problem right there. Let's quote the amendment exactly to work it out:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The first two clauses are called the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, respectively. The law does not mean that Congress shouldn't treat Establishments of Religion (churches, etc.) with respect. Those are all legal terms. "Respecting" means "with regard to" and "establishment" does not mean organization (in legal terms) but institutionalization, usually by means of favors, especially subsidies and stipends. What the Establishment clause means (though later interpretations and interpolations may also be valid) is simply that Congress will not regulate religion, nor pick one religion as an official one that receives government support.

That's all.

But see, people of religious inclination, as well as people uninclined toward religion, are still entirely free to exercise not only their religion, but also their (non)religiously-informed conscience. That part is covered in the second clause, the Free Exercise one.

Moreover, the US Supreme Court decided (not under Bush, but in a series of decisions throughout the 20th century) that the First Amendment applies only to Congress and to the legislative branches of the various state governments.

Jihadist, I don't get your exam analogy. In any case, I don't think religious believers are necessarily stupid. Some are amazingly brilliant. But they tie their wagon to religions that are stupid. It happens all the time. Smart people go in for stupid political ideologies too. And there's nothing bigoted about thinking something is stupid when it is in fact stupid.

As for protecting people's political rights, I don't have a plan for utopia available. Sorry. But that doesn't make religions any less stupid.

Lepidopteryx,

It's not that I believe in only one god out of many; rather, it's that I believe there IS only one God. Do you see the distinction? Many of the ancient semitic groups were monolatrous - they each worshipped one god (Moloch for the Philistines, Ba'al for the Canaanites, etc.), and were very happy to let the other tribes worship their own. Christians are not (supposed to be) monolatrous. We are monotheistic. It's not a "I have my god and you have your god," sort of thing for us. That's (one of the places) where we can come across as intolerant of other religions, especially to members of other religions like Hindu groups that are generally very happy each to have their own god.

When I say that I believe there is only ONE God, I do not mean that my god and different pagan gods and so on are all different faces of the same being. I do not mean that at all. Christians, traditionally speaking, never have meant that. We have always meant that there is One God that is actual and really God entitled to worship, and that all other beings labeled god are either (1) imaginary, or (2) other beings not entitled to worship.

"We believe in One God, the Father the Almighty, the Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is visible and invisible..." That's what we say, and Christians who haven't slipped into post-modern agnosticism still believe very much that. That one God, a rational and thinking being that acts, is entitled to worship because that one God alone is Creator and Sustainer and Provider. To give any other being what is His alone is, to say the least, a grave injustice since everything we have has been given to us by Him.

That is the beginning of faith for Christians, Muslims, and Jews. From a Christian perspective, we might believe that Jews have missed the fullness of his self-revelation, and that Muslims have misunderstood it (what they believe about us is for someone else to write), but we believe that we are all speaking about the same being, and could all stand by the above quotation from the Nicene Creed.

It is very good that did not recite creeds and prayers that you don't believe. I wouldn't want you to do that to save my life. It was also very generous of you to support your family like that.

If my sister were to leave the Church, of course I would still love her and be as much a part of her life as possible - whether she became Methodist, Muslim, or Manichee. She is my sister and I will always love her. For me, because I do not believe "I have my god and you have yours" accurately reflects the actual facts of the universe, I cannot act as you did. To love her does not mean to do what she might like, nor does it mean to make her feel good, nor does it mean to give the impression that I agree with her on any particular point. I will not, so long as God helps me, ever participate in a religious ceremony in any way that does any homage to any god beside Him, whether that god is imaginary or a real being of some sort. There is One God. I would understood if my sister could not understand that. It might cause alienation between us; but if God will help me, I will accept alienation from whoever rather than from Him.

That One God, who became human in the person of Jesus Christ, is the love of my life. Everything else I do, I try to organize around Him. I have had to sacrifice other things - this would be the most painful family severance, but it would not be the first.

If I were a Senator, I would owe my seat to my constituents. But before I owe anything to anybody else, I owe everything to God. I would not stay for the prayer, and to avoid any confusion about what I believe, and to avoid any sign of disrespect to my countrymen, I would simply step out of the room - no fanfare, no to-do, no explanation (unless asked).

But I will not worship, I will not even let there be the appearance that I will worship, any god beside Him. That is why I could attend a Muslim ceremony, and to varying degrees participate in Jewish, Protestant, or Orthodox ceremonies. It might seem mean and hard, but I stand in company with the likes of Mother Teresa and many, many others. These difficult situations are new for modern generations, but they are not new for those who have gone before us in faith:

"And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me," Matthew 10:34-37.

"And the high priest questioned them, saying, "'We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.' But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men,' Acts 5:27-29."

Ryan Haber:
I will clarify that I don't think government needs to subscribe to any formalized doctrine of utilitarianism. You are right, that would be a moral doctrine. Subscribing to any doctrine is unnecessary because government only needs to follow the will of the people via the mechanisms stipulated in the constitution. (I used the term utilitarian in the sense that government is strictly limited to a utility role providing only that which the people require and demand. This is opposed to "totalitarian" in which government is unrestricted in its ability to control the totality of life.) The first act of the will of the people was to ratify the constitution and its first ten amendments. The first amendment clearly states that government must not respect an establishment of religion, so the will of the people requires that religion cannot be voted into the government with any simple majority. The smallest, most trivial piece of religion in government must require a constitutional amendment.

Terra Gazelle:
Is the white house stepping outside of its constitutionally defined role by allocating taxpayer dollars to faith-based groups through the "White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives"... ?? I think so. The supreme court said we taxpayers can't challenge it.

Ryan:
"If I were a Senator, I probably would not have stayed for the prayer. Because of the understanding of deity contained in the prayer, it is not compatible with Christian, Jewish, or Islamic faith, which means that he was (as far as I can tell) praying to someone different than I pray to. I'd almost certainly stayed for a prayer by a member of one of those religions though I myself am a practicing Catholic."

I'm curious, then, as to how you would react in a different situation.
Say your best friend was Wiccan, and he invited you to his hand-fasting (Pagan wedding). Would you refuse to attend because the prayers offered would not be to the god you worship?
I'm Pagan, but when my Catholic sister had my niece and nephew baptized, you had better believe I was at the mass. The prayers were not to any god that I worship, and I didn't hypocritically recite the Our Father or the Apostles' Creed, but I was there to show my love and support for my sister and her family.
If I were a Senator, and the ionvocation was being given by a cleric of a different faith, I would make damn sure I did attend, to make it clear that I was there to represent ALL my constituents, not just those that practiced my religion.

Ryan,

I don't think the Senators were forced to pray along. When I'm at a gathering where a prayer is offered up, I sit in respectful silence. I don't fold my hands or bow my head, but I also don't get up and leave, or shout that it's wrong. I agree with you. Nobody wins when order breaks down.

E Fav,

I think you're right about the "shock them into silence" tactic. Our ceremony will be in a Unitarian Church. Our first meeting to discuss our concerns and expectations with our officiant is next week . I'll be perfectly happy with no mention of the G-word.

Russell,

I like your idea of starting sessions of the Senate with Doonsbury. Seriously. Dilbert could work too. Both are really, really fitting.

Luke,

I agree with you that I would not want in office somebody that believes I deserve to die, burn in hell, etc. He clearly would not be representing me. So I wouldn't vote for him. But his job is not to represent just me, and he might be quite representative of most of my neighbors, who in which case would vote for and elect him. I would then have to make do as best I can by writing letters, talking to my neighbors, attending demonstrations, and so on, when I felt the need to make my voice heard. This situation isn't theoretical for me. As a more-or-less traditional, pro-life, more-often-than-not-Republican-voter, I am almost entirely unrepresented in my state (Maryland). I am reduced to supporting the campaigns of candidates I can't even vote for in other counties, knowing that there is no chance my preference will win in my county. Such is democracy.

If we are going to exclude people from public governance in a democracy, it has to happen in the polling booth. If our neighbors elect him anyway, sour grapes doesn't help much, and it only begs the question if we complain that he has a different set of principles than we do. Of course he does - that's why we didn't vote for him. But our neighbors did.

And we have to expect elected officials to vote in a way that (1) will get them re-elected; and (2) represents their principles. That's what they do. It's their job. They cannot possibly represent the view of every single constituent. Nor are they bound to go against their conscience because some constituent wants them to do so.

Andrea,

If I were a Senator, I probably would not have stayed for the prayer. Because of the understanding of deity contained in the prayer, it is not compatible with Christian, Jewish, or Islamic faith, which means that he was (as far as I can tell) praying to someone different than I pray to. I'd almost certainly stayed for a prayer by a member of one of those religions though I myself am a practicing Catholic.

I don't think I would have disrupted Mr. Zed's prayer, though. Nobody wins when order breaks down. As chaotic as life is starting to become in the US, there is still some order and we must not violate it where it exists even for some presumed purpose of somehow restoring it. That doesn't work.

I definitely would have stayed for a reading from Doonsbury or Dilbert.

Or is it Doonsberry? Dang! I always mess that up.

Can't they just start a session of Congress by reading the latest Dunesberry comic strip? More truth there than in anything else lately. I'll say Amen to that.

Andrea - read my above comments on the civil wedding I just attended and consider making it very clear to your officiant ahead of time, exactly what you'll tolerate regarding religious references during your wedding ceremony.

While it is quite rediculous that this story garnered so much attention while bigger news was bumped to page 2, it is telling of an underlying problem in this country. People such as these hecklers have perverted Christianity to such a point that their behavior and is what everyone else associates as "normal" for Christians. Normal Christians will interrupt another religion's prayer by shouting from a balcony, normal Christians will push past a child waiting for the bus in the rain (as in Anon's story), normal Christians will insist upon an elected Muslim official swearing his oath on the Christian Bible. Are real "normal" Christians okay with this? When the world looks at "Christian" America, this is what they see.

I'm not planning on swearing any oaths in the near future (do wedding vows count?), but if the day comes where I am in that position, I'll choose the candy bar...

I understand that people can't just turn off their religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to it, nor should I be forced to. If I am at work and you want to preach a sermon, so be it - but I better have the right to do the same. Human law comes first, and divine law second. Don't confuse the two. Why should I have to pay money to people with this "convert or be destroyed" mentality? How is it discrimination against you when another religion is in town, but it's not when you are pushing others to convert? Do I not have the right to ignore you? Can I be at peace without you knocking on my door, preaching at a ceremony, or the like? If the government doesn't represent me, then I shouldn't have to pay federal taxes, plain and simple.

Luke - trust me, I see you point and agree with it.

I think, however, that some religious people may not perceive the issue as we do. It would be more a matter of the landlord taking the initiative to fix your defective fire escape or seeing that you had flammable materials scattered about your apartment and ordering you to clean up or get out.

I don't think that religious folk aren't qualified for office - but if they think that I deserve to burn in hell, I wouldn't want them passing legislation. You people complain about how horrible it is that we push the church out of the government, but can you see why? We don't want anyone in power over us who feels we deserve eternal torment. Why is that so hard to understand? Would you want to live in an apartment with a landlord that wanted you to die?

I recently was called for jury duty and noticed that when we were sworn in, the last words we were instructed to utter (with right hands already raised) were, “So help me.” I was greatly relieved, and somewhat surprised, as my memory is that in the past, it was “So help me, God.” But maybe I just remember that from the movies.

Then yesterday, I attended a civil wedding ceremony, held in a judge’s office. The judge had not previously met the couple and had just talked with the groom briefly to schedule the event. He didn’t even know if either of them had been married before or what their full names were, and asked them in front of the assembled guests, as he was filling out his paperwork. I know that the bride and groom are non-believers, as were most of the other family present there.

At some point, once the actual ceremony was underway, the judge said something like, “Now if you don’t mind, I’ll offer a prayer.” Then, without a pause, he went on about God. He did it again at the end of the ceremony, without asking permission this time. Obviously no one wanted to make a fuss. It came as such a shock to all concerned (we discussed it later – raised by the sister of the groom), that even if I had been one of the people getting married, instead of being an onlooker, I wouldn’t have had the presence of mind or courage to say, “Yes, I mind. This is a civil ceremony held by a government official in a government building. Please, no religious references.”

I realize that being shocked or intimidated into silence is one of the ways these unwanted, inappropriate religious comments are perpetuated. Who’s going to mess with a judge in the middle of a wedding ceremony? Besides, he was otherwise a good guy, friendly and jovial with the young couple and the guests.

So, what do you think? Should I write him a letter?

Mike K.,

If Congress can make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor the free exercise thereof, then propagating one's faith by legal means IS legal, and thus, one may use the public roads to do so.

Globo-mojo,

If the State hasn't any religion, then it has sided with non-religion, vs. religion. That isn't impartial - it is non-religiousness. Moreover, you think that utilitarianism isn't a moral system, when you say that the State should have morals, but govern in a utilitarian way. But utilitarianism is precisely that: a moral system, and it is one that flatly contradicts Christianity, Judaism, and almost all religions' moral system(s). So for a government to be utilitarian isn't neutral or amoral either - it is just a different moral system.

So, in a democracy, if we are going to have a government that sides either with religion or nonreligion, and with either Utilitarianism or Traditional Morals (as found in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, even Buddhism and Hinduism), why shouldn't the government side with the majority?

Atheist utilitarians are, after all, a small minority in this country, which is why they fight their battles in the courts, rather than in the elected legislatures.

Religiosity becomes entertainment when "people want more religion", but really want more public endorsement of only their own practices.

Thank you for a well rounded perspective.

Dave2

Continuing my role here as a believer:)

When I was in university, some of my college mates said almost the same thing about religion as you and then some - that religion is stupid and destructive and religious rites are hilarious. Of course, they never said out out and to the faces of believers that those who believe in religion are stupid, but only that belief in God is illogical and irrational.

By the end of first year, I realise that those who don't believe in God or religion don't always get better grades in their papers or better scores in their exams.

Certainly, if an exam question is posed, "Is there a God?" and it is marked by, say, Dawkins, a person who answered yes will fail. But if the paper is marked by say, the Pope, the person who said yes will pass. But then, the grade will be different as practicing Muslim or Jew will give a slightly different variation on God from a Catholic/Christian in answering. Definately Cs for Muslims and Jews, but As for Catholics/Christians.

That aside, can atheists ever discuss seperation of church and state, and the importance of it in light of increasing ethnic diversity and religious pluralism in our societies without ever starting on the premise that all believers are not to be trusted as they are idiotic delusionists for believing in God/s and in being member of organised religion who want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone by force?

Frankly, I was indiffent of atheists as a group of non-believers, nor do I care for what they personally believe in or don't, and work with them too on issues we are mutually concerned about - from human rights to the environment.

Only since reading On Faith threads did I realise the personal venom of some atheists on believers.
Are these threads a form of release for some atheists to say what they really think of believers that they would never say to the faces of their still believing family members, friends and colleagues?

As a strategy to get more believers on board to ensure seperation of church and state, and the importance of secularism in state affairs to counter and contain the rise and domination of specific religious entities, is it really wise to start by saying - you are an idiot for believing in god/s or religion, but we need your support to hold back this other religious group trying to impose their religious views on us.

Can atheists ever reconsider calling all believers moronic or idiots, or that religion is stupid and to focus on behavior regardless of beliefs (as called for by Ms. Susan Jacoby)? Or to focus on plainly ridiculous ideas and views on politics, the economy, environment, foreign policy etc?

Yeah well, I am really bored today. What I am seeing here in these On Faith threads is that, some atheists, in calling believers bigoted, are ironically being bigoted themselves on believers.

Taking on some of the characterics of believers that you fought so hard against for their irrationality and yet calling thyself secular humanists? Like Ms. Susan Jacoby reminded somewhere, by their fruits we shall know them, or something like that. I don't remember quotes from western writers or the Bible easily.

Can't wait to get out to another place tonight. Work is easy, life is good, but believers and atheists can be ....... (fill in the blank as you deem). I would fill it as "equally idiotic".

Be careful. Believers are their own worst enemies by their actions. Non-believers are in danger of going that way too. Want to create enemies where there is none? Believers really have nothing to lose and there is still more of them. And they have more political and economic clout.

The undertone of this post is still a rant about that Secularist's Corner if you don't know but must as it is really nothing personal and your post provide me with an opportunity to state why some believers are adverse of the same old same old contention by atheists.

Now, is it possible to stop making generic and cliched complaining about the stupid beliefs of believers all the time (only some atheists here actually) and to clearly tell everyone what atheists has in mind for all to work together to ensure no one is oppressed or deprived of rights due to his or her personal belief/non-belief, race or gender. A black or Hispanic male atheist may discriminated or faced situations a Caucasian athiest may not experience in the US.

Best regards
J

Ryan, I'm irreligious. I think religion is stupid and destructive and hilarious. But as long as people are religious (roughly forever), I don't think religious views should be excluded from public life. If the abolitionists or the prohibitionists or the pro-lifers are driven by religion, that's their business. My only concern is that the government not endorse certain religious viewpoints above others -- not Protestantism over Catholicism, Sunni Islam over Shia Islam, or theism over atheism. Isn't this a pretty widespread and normal position I hold?

....and I am not quite done ranting and venting as yet on Secularist's Corner, open to both believers and non-believers who want to ensure seperation of church and state, as well as less faith or religion-dictated public or state policies.

Granted, the dialogue is to be civil in the Secularist's Corner, but the blog or site already seems to be a gathering of those who are already secularists or secular humanists mostly.

The real battle, for or against; how much, how little religion and personal beliefs particular to one's faith should inform, influence and dictate public policies, is obviously to be in the open, in the public and not limited to the musings of some secularists or secular humanists in some corner. After all, there are many secularist specific sites and blogs promoting seperation of church and state in the US.

The topic on the personal faith of Supreme Court judges as found in Secularist's Corner may or may not be important depending on how they actually let their faith influenced their judgements or decisions, but it should not be limited to debate among secularists or secular humanists in a particular corner.

Granted, the Secularist's Corner has more freedom in the sense that its topics is not necessarily limited to the topics posed by WaPo in On Faith for all of its panelists.

But to what end is Secularist's Corner if it should remain somewhat limited to the converted, judging by the "registered" members (so to speak) that I saw, many whose names and handles I recognise as staunch secularists in the On Faith blogs.

Thank you and best regards

J

There is this new blog in WaPo - "Secularist Corner". Why call it a Corner like a Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park? Why not call it Securalist Room or Secularist Forum? Calling it a Corner invokes visions of a small space that one is cornered into, or being cornered to, or deliberately chose to find a quiet space for discussion among like minded people.

Will there be a Catholic Corner, a Buddhist Corner, a Bahai Corner, a Pagan Corner, a Sikh Corner, a Scientologist Corner soon too in Wapo blogs?

I am on a one day leave between travels for necessary rest and recuperation, and have nothing better to do but to hair-split, gripe and whine for equal opportunity and rights for others here who may want to have their own special corners, including an Anti-Secular Corner too for those who want a theocratic state.

Equal access and opportunity for all in line with the spirit and intenty of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights! There it is.

Thank you and best regards
J

Ryan Haber asked "Why shouldn't we use public buildings, like public schools, if they are not under public use (as typically the case on Sundays)?"

Because that would constitute public funds for religious use. If religious organizations wish to rent such places for religious purposes, fine, but public funds for private, religous use would constitute the government promoting religion.

"Are we not to use public roads either? - or perhaps we may use the roads, only not to travel to and from our religious gatherings."

Of course you can. You can use them for any legal reason, but you just cant use them to promote your particular religion.

Ummm Norrie, pardon me, I meant Sausalito, not Sacramento, in reference to Stein. The spelling could be wrong too. I don't know which city it is really, anymore. They are all beginning to look the same to me with their skyscrapers and signboards promoting Nokia cellphones, Toyota Lexus, Gap, etc.

J

Norrie Hoyt

Thanks for that explanation on oaths in the US. I still remember you patient guidance on what "there are no atheists in foxholes" really means. Daahh! Should have remembered - in vota miseros ultimus cogit timor.

Yes, we are in different time zones. I look in On Faith usually before breakfast in my time zone, meaning night-time for you. Most of the time, I never look into a blog/essay and its thread after I've read it.

My favourite quote on travel and places is by Gertrude Stein. Asked by Alice B Toklas after her visit to Sacramento, "What's there?", Stein responded, "There's no there, there." This can be said for many other places and for people too. Including moi sometimes.

Yes, yes, I do love travelling and being in new places and among other people. We are depressingly and yet comforting, in being boringly similar underneath in spite of all our different clothes and national costumes, manners and mores, skin colour and myriad cultural heritage that we piled up onto physical self and in our mind. Everybody love Cokes and Big Macs and wear jeans! Even under hijabs, burqas and chadors. Hmmmmpppphhhhh......... :)

Best regards as always and good night
J

Globo-Mojo,
Congress makes the laws..not the Executive branch. Bush might think he is the decider..but he has not yet read the Constitution. The Executive branch is to see that the laws are carried out.

terra

Jihadist,

I loved your post of 6:12 PM addressed to me (and your other posts as well).

Yes, we've been like the proverbial two ships that pass in the night. We must be on different schedules or something.

As a Buddhist sympathizer, I consider a toad to be a fellow sentient being, on the same path to enlightenment as me. So by taking my oath on a toad I'm affirming that we're all in this together, a manifestation of Vermont's motto, "Freedom and Unity".

Even though Vermont's a rural state, I'm not sure the Sergeant-at-Arms would have appreciated my fellow-traveler hopping around the House chamber, so it's just as well I hadn't read Susan's as-yet-unwritten essay back then.

Another point: as you undoubtedly know, in this country, oaths are not required to enter upon an office. If you like, instead of swearing an oath, you can simply affirm that you will do what the oath requires you to do. I understand that this option came from the Quakers' objection to swearing oaths. And, although many choose to recite "So help me God" at the end of their oath, that's their choice and nobody's required to do that either.

You seem to be traveling more than ever, and, I gather, still enjoying it. Good for you. I'm content to stay home and survey the world from my Vermont perch. I'm like Thoreau, who, asked if he was doing a lot of traveling, replied, "I am much traveled in the town of Concord." That suits me, too.

Actually Thoreau was well travelled and wrote about his journeys. I've always liked this report on his visiting New York City:

"Walked the streets of Manhattan this morning and saw no real and living person."

All the best to you!

great article!! Absolutely hit the nail on the head: Much ado about nothing!!

Anonymous

Let us play our expected roles here then, me as a believer and you as one that is not:)

Good thing the religious mob did not crush or hack you to death in getting on the bus. Perhaps the mob either forget their umbrellas; or in stepping out from church, saw the bus and rushed for it. I know how unreliable and never on time London buses are - either too many in between their actual stipulated time, or too far in between. Like you said, you waited some 25 minutes for the bus.

So, are religious people generally more fired up in getting what they want and in acting up to get what they want as individuals and organised group effort - to get ahead in life, to get on the bus, to push their beliefs as the one and only etc.?

I'm happy that you are now happy as an atheist, but what do you think of the religious mob protesting about a religious prayer in Congress by another who is not of the same religious faith as them? Is this not a manifestation of one religous group trying to muffle the voices of another religious group in the public square and state affairs?

Now to tease you:

Are atheists also a newly energised and politicised group muffling up all voices and expressions of beliefs in the public square and state affairs as alleged by some believers?

Whatever happened to the expression - I don't agree with you said, but will defend to the death you right to say it?

Can we take that further and say:

I don't agree with your religion or beliefs, but will defend to the death you right to express in words and practice?

I don't agree with your insults of me for my beliefs as a believer or non-believer but will defend your right say and do so to my death?

Can we assume if atheists despised being despised for not believeing, that they would see that they are also despising believers for believing?

Now on another matter, one that is more related to the fuss of prayers in Congress:

Was the US Founding Fathers really clear by what they mean on seperation of church and state, or was it due to various decisions by US Supreme Courts and down to lower courts?

Frankly, it looks to me like prayers in Congress is just a tradition that was practiced since when I don't know, but assume that Americans would.

Many countries in the world, even Fiji before the coup of December 2006, have multifaith prayers when officiating official functions. Not now. But that would depend on official function tradition, if one can call it that, or the government of the day too.

Multifaith prayers by representatives of various religious denominations are so very, very long that even believers got listless and wish it to be over. Imagine the feelings of non-believers.

For Commonwealth countries, most followed the British Parliamentary system. Some do precede the opening of their Parliamentary sessions with Christian or Muslim prayers. That depends on whether they are Muslim or Christian majority countries and practices more in line with tradition rather than stated in the Constitutions of the countries.

As for the Indian Congress, I don't know. Perhaps other posters, especially those from India, can share their knowledge and information on this.

And lastly on atheists and oaths:

As for atheists who want to take an oath on something, and by what they believe in, is the Bill of Rights a good one to take the oath on? Or the US Constitution? Or just to put their hands up to swear they will do their best for the nation and all its people regardless of race, religion/belief and gender?

How does it really work? As a foreigner, all I ever really saw and remember is that, all US Presidents were being sworn by the Chief Justice on a Bible and the Predident to be saying "So help me God" at the end of his oath or something like that.

If an atheist becomes President of the US, how would it be then for him or her when sworn into office? To follow tradition, to adapt accordingly, to have a new and religiously neutral way, or a non-religion inflected one at all?

Thank you and best regards
J

Many years ago I remember standing in the rain waiting for a bus.I waited about 25 minutes alone at the bus stop.It was a Sunday,and this was London.
When the bus arrived,a mob burst from a catholic church behind me,and fought like animals to get on the bus. I refused to fight and was one of 3 or 4 left standing in the rain as the overloaded bus pulled away.
I was a kid,and what impressed me was the realization that going to church means nothing,because religious people are no nicer,no more virtuous than anyone else.
Just a stupid mob who go to church because they've been brainwashed into thinking it'll get them into heaven when they die.In other words it's all about
me,me,me,me,me,me.
Oh yeah, I'm an atheist,and loving it.

I will amend my previous post by adding that the first amendment makes no mention of the executive branch. :-(

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (portion of first amendment)

I read this as absolutely *requiring* complete separation of church and state. The critical word is "respect."

Respect (verb):
1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with
2 : to have reference to : CONCERN

Any law that allows prayer in a government institution, or allows religious displays on government property, or allocates funds to relgious organizations is absolutely *respecting* those establishments of religion.

Strange that the churches themselves would want to use secular tax-payer monies to build their facilities. I guess all that matters is that they are making money, regardless of where or who it comes from. Either way, I am giving money to people who bask in the idea of my eternal suffering, so do I really have to hear about it all day long? Just take my money and shut up.

Ryan Haber writes:
"irreligious people want to see the exclusion of religious-based views because that is the only way they can win in the marketplace of ideas"

They want the exclusion of these views because it eliminates descrimination. They want the separation of church and state PRECISELY because it is a source of morality, and can steer policy makers away from decisions based solely on the needs of the people. Government needs to be impartial and utilitarian. Serve God on your own time, and serve THE PEOPLE when you are in the senate or house chambers!

Lyn: 'Would it really be unconstitutional, if all the constitution says about it is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?'

Yes, because the funding for the school is provided under a budget (ie, a law) passed by Congress. So if the school is used for religious purposes, that represents de facto support for the religion by Congress.

At least, that's the current view of the courts, and I agree with it.

I myself worship Aphrodite.(mpbuh).I know she lives.I feel it in my heart.You would know it too if you could only open up your heart to her.
I will want my religion represented in the senate.
Likewise my Wiccan friends and Paganists.

Susan - you're on the money as usual.

All religions in or all religions out - take it or leave it. The concept of equality for all should take precedence here. Fact is, no religion at all would be perfectly acceptable as an alternative rule of thumb in government affairs, and probably preferrable. But since folks just won't live without their religion, so be it. The right-wing evangelists in the Senate will just have to bite down on their bibles and prepare to endure a little sermonette from the Bhagavad Gita - might do them some good!!

The Hindu prayer was an appropriate and timely slap in the face to Christian fundamentalists who were beginning to believe they were truly seizing the reins of government. I'm thrilled it was a front page story. I'm not so sure about taking the chaplains and prayers out of congress. If these people are scared by their weird version of "God," then by all means put the fear of God in them, and remind them of it every day!

Never fails to amaze me how lacking in Christian tolerance the self-righteous can be...

Hello Norrie Hoyt

Have not seen you around for a while.

You said : "I wish I'd have been able to read your essay back then: I'd have taken my oath on a toad."

What a fuss on Hindu prayers. Ms. Jacoby is right about this non-issue issue distracting us from real issues.

But this question and issue makes my head go into a different direction - variations of Hinduism practiced by its adherents.

Hindus from India who has visited Bali (in my other country, Indonesia) informed me they cannot recognise Hinduism as practiced by the Balinese.

As for oaths, I would not take my oath on a toad though. The toad won't know, and can't be held responsible for my breaking the oath.

One can always be a toady and take the oath on a toad as a pre-condition for assuming office, and be called a toad afterwards. Toadish behavior is expected in public office after all.

Lastly, avoid eating toad-in-the-hole when visiting England, but do take heed of a Malay saying -"Don't be a like a toad under a coconut shell".

Best regards as always
J

Oh Susan, you are just what I needed to hear today! You are right on every curve, and frankly I'm tired of hearing the namby-pambiness of the newspapers today as they complain and moan about things are just NOT important right now--who cares about religion when our entire country and world is falling down aroudn our ears?! So what if this persona nd that person don't agree on "customs" that we've established over the past 50 years or so--I want to know about the real issues that are NOT being discussed--that should be discussed as your last paragraph briefly dawned some light on.

Way to go!

Adrienne Dery
Baltimore, MD

>Irreligious people want to see the exclusion of
>religious-based views and convictions from public
> life, ostensibly because they represent an
>irrational approach to understanding the rational >phenomena of the natural world.

The usual song and dance where people who never sought political office (like televangelists and cult leaders) seek money money money from the government and political power over the VOTERS, which in a nutshell is the overthrow of the country itself. These groups increasingly urge domestic terrorism and armed rebellion, with the apparent goal of making America looking like Iraq, not vice versa.

It was not secularists who interrupted the Hindu prayer, it was North Carolina evangelicals.

And that's the problem - once a religion gains political power it sets about suppressing all other faiths.

Hey Cleve-

Ever see a church sell any kind of product or service for a compulsory fee or invoice people for their so called "product" ?

"To allow them to use secular tax dollar funded facilities" Huh?

It is the people that GIVE to those churches out of AFTER TAXED monies that build those facilities.

Get a grip.

NORRIE HOYt-

I doubt seriously that the Lions and Kiwanis are taxpayers, at least in the material sense(minimal at best)

However, the PEOPLE in those groups , and religious groups, ARE taxpayers.

It's time for people that don't believe to take the chip off their shoulders and not be so offended when people that happen to believe in God get involved in politics.

By the way, it was the founding fathers that started the chaplain tradition in Congress. It is part and parcel of what we are and were to have spiritual advisors in Congress. Susan needs to get some education on our history .....

NORRIE HOYt-

I doubt seriously that the Lions and Kiwanis are taxpayers, at least in the material sense(minimal at best)

However, the PEOPLE in those groups , and religious groups, ARE taxpayers.

It's time for people that don't believe to take the chip off their shoulders and not be so offended when people that happen to believe in God get involved in politics.

By the way, it was the founding fathers that started the chaplain tradition in Congress. It is part and parcel of what we are and were to have spiritual advisors in Congress. Susan needs to get some education on our history .....

Norrie wrote:

"The religious organization pays rent for its use of the public building. If it doesn't pay rent or a fee, then the overhead and amortized capital costs attributable to the church's use constitute public financial support of a sectarian religion, exactly as if the same amount had been deposited in a collection plate. It would be unconstitutional."

Would it really be unconstitutional, if all the constitution says about it is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

Aug 1, 08:53
Finally, The Smoking Gun

One of the most fascinating exhibits presented by the prosecution in the Holy Land Foundation case (provided by researchers for the NEFA Foundation) is a memorandum on the Muslim Brotherhood’s multifaceted plan to convert the United States to an Islamic nation. It is the smoking gun of the Ikhwan’s long-standing efforts to destroy the Western world as we know it.

The most interesting exhibit is a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum by Mohamed Akram, dated May 22, 1991, where he outlines the Ikhwan vision of the future. He leaves no ambiguity as to the nature of the Ikhwan calling. (The exhibits will be posted and written about more completely in the NEFA website in coming days).

Under the heading “Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America,” he writes:

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated ad God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

But wait, there is more:

“Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.”

Akram then spells out in some detail the role of the Brotherhood in moving the project forward: “As for the role of the Ikhwan, it is the initiative, pioneering, leadership, raising the banner and pushing people in that direction (the Jihadist process). They are then able to employ, direct, and unify Muslims’ efforts and powers for this process. In order to do that, we must possess a master of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’”

The document then gives rationale for setting up Ikhwan organizations across the country: “We must say that we are in a country which understands no language other than the language of the organizations, and one which does not respect or give weight to any group without effective, functional and strong organizations.”

The document also deals with the criticism among the Brothers that the focus on the United States will drain support for the establishment of the global caliphate. The response is two-fold:
1) “The success of the Movement in America in establishing an observant Islamic base with power and effectiveness will be the the best support and aid to the global Movement project.”
2) The global (Ikhwan) movement has not “succeeded yet in distributing roles to is branches, stating that what is needed from them as one of the participants or contributors to the project to establish the global Islamic state. The day this happens, the children of the American Ikhwani branch will have a far-reaching impact and positions that make the ancestors proud.”

The document ends with a list of Ikhwan groups trying to coordinate, including all the usual (ISNA, ICNA, IIIT etc.)

What is so interesting about the document is the breadth of ambition, the conviction of ultimate success and the care with which the campaign we see today was being thought about 16 years ago. So is the the clarity of the ultimate objective of ending our years as a functioning democracy, built on the rule of secular law, minority rights and freedom of religion, press etc.

The infiltration of the government by members and sympathizers, the coordinated role of the organizations in pursuing specific objectives, the recruitment of the best and the brightest into the movement, and other objectives are far advanced, perhaps further than the author could have imagined in so short a time.

The rationale, for those like Lieken et al who want play footsie with these groups bent on our destruction, is truly mindboggling. I don’t think the Brothers who have been on the cusp of the new PR campaign, from Ramadan to Akef, have bothered to spell this out like the Brothers do for themselves.

But here we have it, in their own words, written by their own hands. There is much more to say, and I will revisit the topic as more information comes in.

Will anyone pay attention?

posted by Douglas Farah

Someone has to quietly and calmly present the evidance you have shown, without name calling where ever Ikhwan forces choose to speak in the US.

Ikhwan spokesman then have 3 choices:

-deny and call you names

-change the subject abruptly

-question your integrity

But either way this information is

Ryan Haber said:
-Why shouldn't we use public buildings, like public schools-
Well, for one, some of us irreligiouscists... irreligiousers...irreligiousians... come on Ryan if your gonna make up words, can't you pick something a little easier for us simple folks to use?? Anyway those of us who dabble or dwell in radical atheism see churches, especially the modern American variety as nothing more than businesses. To allow them to use secular tax dollar funded facilities to conduct business puts them at an unfair economic and biased advantage over other private enterprises.

Ryan Haber,

You wrote:

"Why shouldn't we use public buildings, like public schools, if they are not under public use (as typically the case on Sundays)?

"If the Kiwanis and the Lions can use the local high school for a meeting, on the premise that they are taxpayers, why shouldn't the local Presbyterian start-up church?"

That's fine, provided that:

(1) The school board or other controlling authority authorizes it, and

(2) The religious organization pays rent for its use of the public building. If it doesn't pay rent or a fee, then the overhead and amortized capital costs attributable to the church's use constitute public financial support of a sectarian religion, exactly as if the same amount had been deposited in a collection plate. It would be unconstitutional.

BTW, the Kiwanis and the Lions may be taxpayers, but the Presbyterian Church isn't.

Regards.

Mike K.

"I don't think that's accurate. Nonreligious (which is the proper word) people simply do not want our secular government promoting either one religion nor religion in general."

No, Mike K. Irreligious is a different word than Nonreligious, with a different meaning, and I am aware of the difference. I chose the word I chose because it is what I meant. People who don't practice any particular religion are nonreligious; they might yet be very sympathetic to religion in general, however. Irreligious are people who have an antipathy toward religion in general, however they might phrase or disguise it.

"If the religious wish to worship in whatever way they wish, provided it doesn't require public funds, buildings, etc., nor is seen as government promoting or supporting religion, I have no problem with it."

Why shouldn't we use public buildings, like public schools, if they are not under public use (as typically the case on Sundays)? If the Kiwanis and the Lions can use the local high school for a meeting, on the premise that they are taxpayers, why shouldn't the local Presbyterian start-up church? Are we not to use public roads either? - or perhaps we may use the roads, only not to travel to and from our religious gatherings.

Joe Harbin,

"Knuckledraggers" is cute. When we run out of arguments, we mock. That is the surest way that Christians have of knowing that we are in the ascendency - because our opponents have resorted to mockery again.

Sorry about that double post. Is anyone else having trouble with this new configuration of On Faith?

Since they agreed in the Senate that they still wanted to have a prayer to start things out, I think rotating religions was a great idea. I can't believe that anyone of any religion would have a problem with this; it is not as if the Senate was adopting any particular religion. The prayer that was spoken that day seemed heartfelt and inspiring, and as a Christian I certainly find nothing to be offended by. There is so much good in all of the religions of the world, but so many people refuse to even look at them. Those who had a problem with a Hindu man praying at the Senate showed nothing but prejudice, plain and simple.

It's government of ALL of the people, for ALL Of the people - not just the Christian ones. I'm tired of being treated like a second-class citizen in my own country because I'm not a Christian. When are these Christianists going to get a clue and realize that they're not the only game in town? All they have to do is take a drive up New Hampshire Avenue (the "Highway to Heaven") to see various Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, Temples, etc. all along one four-lane highway.

Since they agreed in the Senate that they still wanted to have a prayer to start things out, I think rotating religions was a great idea. I can't believe that anyone of any religion would have a problem with this; it is not as if the Senate was adopting any particular religion. The prayer that was spoken that day seemed heartfelt and inspiring, and as a Christian I certainly find nothing to be offended by. There is so much good in all of the religions of the world, but so many people refuse to even look at them. Those who had a problem with a Hindu man praying at the Senate showed nothing but prejudice, plain and simple.

Amen!

Amen, Ms. Jacoby!

The level of sophistication of the American public never fails to amaze or amuse. God, (whoops) how Mencken would have cackled over this!

Several knuckle-draggers I know have argued that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but I wonder if they know that "God" doesn't appear there either.

Thanks again for your comments.

"Irreligious people want to see the exclusion of religious-based views and convictions from public life"

I don't think that's accurate. Nonreligious (which is the proper word) people simply do not want our secular government promoting either one religion nor religion in general.

If the religious wish to worship in whatever way they wish, provided it doesn't require public funds, buildings, etc., nor is seen as government promoting or supporting religion, I have no problem with it.

"That a Hindu prayer in the Senate is worth a story, much less a front-page story, attests only to our level of national stupidity."

Couldn't agree more.

I think the protesters were offended by this line from the prayer: "May He stimulate and illuminate our minds."

"Irreligious people want to see the exclusion of religious-based views and convictions from public life"

Whereas many religious people want to see the exclusion of all religious-based views and convictions that aren't their own. Witness the protest at a Hindu chaplain, or the uproar that would occur did a Wiccan valedictorian thank the Goddess publicly at her graduation.

Like it or not, we all have to share this country, and no one religion should be given preference over all others, nor should those who are religious get special treatment over those who have no religion. And the right to hold religiously-based convictions does not override the right of others to object to those convictions if they find them immoral or invalid.

Being a Hindu, I am always thankful to this country for allowing freedom of religion.

I agree with Danny B. above that perhaps the protesters could have let the Hindu priest finish his prayers first.

But again this country has a better record than any other country in the world in allowing people to practise their faith, no matter how different it may be from the mainstream.

Susan

The more religions the better.
This prevents any one religion from insisting
that it is the one true religion.
Let them squabble amongst each other,
and maybe Mark Twain's observation will apply
to more of us;
"The quiet confidence with which I know
another man's religion to be folly.makes
me suspect that mine is also."

I would fear the power of any religion that
was unopposed.Divided,each becomes weaker
and less influential.And that has to be good.

"the idea that anyone would object to any sort of prayer (except, perhaps, a plea to Satan)"

Correct, ridiculous. Speaking of ridiculous...

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul tells us what the three great faiths pray to. That's not Satan, a much maligned servant of God. It's Lucifer the leader of the fallen angels, the one that would be God, ya know, like all those that would be president.

With the above in mind, perhaps a Hindu prayer is a step in the right direction. Do Hindus worship Lucifer too or do they have a Devil of their very own?

Note: when the ministry has led enough people to hell Lucifer can raise a large enough army, (if he can get them to stop fighting among themselves long enough) to attack heaven again. This time He's gonna win. Will Hindus be in on it? There's a fire extinguisher in heaven and it really will put out the fire that burns but does not consume. Trust me.

Susan,
You rock! I like the hershy bar suggestion, if I ever have to take an oath I will remember your column.
thanks

Even as a Christian, I do not understand the reason for the prayer in the first place.

That being said, I was appalled by the behavior of the activists who had to be removed. Not only were they irrational, it was rude not to at least let the man have his say before going on a tyrade.

I heard the prayer in question, and have to commend the Hindu chaplain for his thoughtfully chosen words. Following the first rule of writing, he knew his audience. Furthermore, he is an affirmnation of the diversity that makes this country so great.

The prayer:

"Let us pray. We meditate on the transcendental Glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky, and inside the soul of the Heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.

Lead us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening. May no obstacle arise between us.

May the Senators strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world, performing their duties with the welfare of others always in mind, because by devotion to selfless work one attains the supreme goal of life. May they work carefully and wisely, guided by compassion and without thought for themselves.

United your resolve, united your hearts, may your spirits be as one, that you may long dwell in unity and concord.

Peace, peace, peace be unto all. Lord, we ask You to comfort the family of former First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson. Amen."

As a Christian, not only do I see this as much ado about nothing, I find nothing in that prayer that would prevent me from praying along with him...or at least affording him due respect as a fellow countryman, and human being.

As Susan comments on our level of national stupidity, I find myself thinking it more and more myself.

Susan,

P.S.:

I used to be a member of Vermont's legislature.

I wish I'd have been able to read your essay back then: I'd have taken my oath on a toad.

A brilliant conception - thanks!

I certainly don't mind if people pray, worship, or the like or if they are in office. However, I don't think someone who believes I deserve to burn in hell for eternity has any right to power over me. Also, I hardly think that religious people have a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas, but I do think that since it is part of most faiths to push your beliefs on others, it is hard to separate the two, is it not? I would love to believe that religious folks could practice their faith without implementing it into law, but that NEVER, EVER happens. So why should I trust them now?

Susan,

As is very frequently the case, you are

absolutely, 100% right, and your

language was to the point and flawless.

Susan,

While you are fuming and calling people ignoramuses, and pointing out what is and what is not in the US Constitution, you might make a note yourself.

"Separation of Church and State" is not in our Constitution, but is rather a particular interpretation given by some of the Founding Fathers to the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. And the modern interpretation of that extra-constitutional phrase did not appear until 1947-1949 in the jurisprudence of Justice Hugo Black.

Furthermore, I'ld like to point out that "Church" and "religious convictions" are not the same thing, nor are "State" and "political affairs." Thus, the separation of Church and State does not at all entail the exclusion of religious convictions (among all the sorts of convictions - these are the most deeply held by the most people) from political affairs (which increasingly includes almost everything, it seems).

Irreligious people want to see the exclusion of religious-based views and convictions from public life, ostensibly because they represent an irrational approach to understanding the rational phenomena of the natural world. That argument is disingenuous, though. In reality, irreligious people want to see the exclusion of religious-based views because that is the only way they can win in the marketplace of ideas. They are a small but very vocal minority, and know that they can only win if their competitors are excluded from the onset. In reality, there is no basis upon which religious views should be excluded that does not also apply to unreligious views.

Right on, Susan

There is an interesting story at this link about this subject. Hindus took note of the none reaction by christian senators.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259304.htm

I followed the story of the Hindu chaplain with interest. It was not very well taken by many people including right wing Senators. It just goes to show religion must stay out of politics. It will just cause problems.

Susan, I agree wholeheartedly. America is supposed to be the melting pot of the world, so why are we so damn ethno-centric? My friend Audiel was sitting with some of his Mexican co-workers at the restaurant where he works and someone asked "Do all of you guys have your green cards?" Audiel replied "I don't need one, I was born in New York (in flawless English)." He got his Associate's Degree in Culinary Arts by using government money that goes to waste every year from those who choose to skip college and instead complain when an immigrant gets the job they themselves aren't nearly qualified for. Another story - my friend Dasha is from the Ukraine and speaks fluent Russian. Someone at her work if things were hard in Russia (she's never even been to Russia) because of "godless communist governments". A Cuban lady she worked with replied "And what is godless about communism? You put money in an offering plate and call it community service but you HAVE to serve in Cuba. That is called patriotism - you should try it."