All Comments (27)

Shearer:
I for one , and I know many others,am not torn
apart by separation of church and state.
Where do you get your info about Christ? The highly suspect "bible" collated in the 4th century, after lots of negotiation?
How do you define religion? As an ongoing, evolutionary process,which it is? It has evolved,just as Darwin proved,into the cult of the wealthy.Jesus wants you to be wealthy!
The same Jesus who in a rage stormed thru the temple ,whipping and up ending the stalls of the
money changers.
And he said;if you want to be saved, give away all your worldly goods and follow me;he also is reported to say, it is as easy as a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle as it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
No one except maybe Mother Theresa, follows Jesus today.

So religion continues to evolve,so that catholics can divorce(wink wink) a worse sin than adultery in biblical times,woman are actually equal to men in some modern religions! Evolution is alive and well, and applies to religion as much as it does to genetics.

Canyon,

I think you are correct in your statement that "to separate religion from government is to tear a person in two." Morality in our country tends to be defined by what a majority in the legislature says that it is. Why for over 200 years have we not had gay marriage? Because a majority in the legislature agreed that it was not the best for our nation. I argue that everyone on both sides of the issue are bringing their religious beliefs/convictions into the equation when they vote. Their religious beliefs may be conservative or liberal Christian, Mormon, Secular Humanist, Muslim, etc. No matter what their belief, it will impact their vote.

And what happens when you don't separate the Bible from the state? Neochristian politicians and so called "Christian leaders" cherry pick scriptures for their own agendas. Capital punishment (an eye-for-an-eye) does not violate the Ten Commandments. Gays are tormented by cherry picking Leviticus and ignoring the gospel of Christ.

Canyon, the Constitution SUPERSEDES the Bible as the law of the land in the US and the First Amendment gives us freedom from your theocratic designs and your Biblical manipulations. If you don't like it, leave it!

MMA PP!

On this: "And this is in a way the best in America. I think the vitriol subsides, when, as America promises, ...we all, for the first time in a long time, ...actually have someone speaking for us."

Agreed, completely. We've seen too long what happens when the cynics take over. They figure that we'll just think that democracy has no meaning anymore and use that as an excuse to use our precious Constitution as toilet paper. The fact that so many people are even willing to give people like Hillary or Obama a shot shows that there is still hope for America yet.

Democracy only works when people believe it does. The past 7 years have shown what happens when we sit back and become passive. I think it has shown to all that our democracy is so fragile, capable of being undermined by fear ripping people apart and denying the other's humanity and inalienable rights simply because they happen to disagree.

I have hope for the first time in years that Americans recognize this and are stepping up to the plate to do better.

I would LOVE to get back to the days where I didn't care so much about politics as long as I could see that we were being taken care of, and not taken advantage of. America is worth it.

Blessed be.

You know, Joet, as much as I'd like to, I suspect it's not my doing.

It *could* be that for many evangelicals, Huckabee being in the race means that they don't have to blindly support with great force of denial and desperate need to blame someone else for Bush's 'Godly' failures, ...things done supposedly while 'Talking to God' that came out *backwards,* for instance, ...people they know are total corporate hypocrites to not feel as threatened as they're taught to.

Supporting Bush in the name of their Bible is a thing I could see making people a little crazy.

Maybe Huckabee can bring a little reality to the situation. Which is an odd thing to say. I think his politics and policies are a lot more theocratic and fascist than his supporters are willing to see, but I welcome his voice in the debate cause at least it isn't coming out sideways in the form of religious aggression to cover for corporate exploitation and intelligence-insulting hypocrisy. (Yet.)

For now, his history and attitudes toward me aside, he at least is comporting himself in a way reasonably reminiscent of republican democracy.

I think a lot of Christians may respond to that cause they're *tired* of being the bad guys. And while it's clear Huckabee will show no such moderation if elected, ...what the evangelical people are saying is they are tired of the conflict inherent to their religion being about *hurting* people.

I think Huckabee will hurt people. But it restores a lot of my faith in my fellow Americans that people *think he won't,* and *chose that* over the Neocons.

Cause the compromises they been making, and the hypocrisies they've been defending, ... can't be comfortable. One thing I know about being someone like me is, something's gotta hurt worse.

I think, Iowa has done a wonderful thing.

This is not Hillary vs Romney. For now.

This is Obama vs Huckabee.

And this is in a way the best in America. I think the vitriol subsides, when, as America promises, ...we all, for the first time in a long time, ...actually have someone speaking for us.

And I think the quiet on these boards has everything to do with that.

I think we may all have actually forgotten what it's like.

I've chilled out my share of rabid 'street preachers' in my time, and I don't think that's my doing.

With thanks to a grey-eyed Goddess, I think this is America's doing.

I think we can work it out.

And that ain't trivial.

The scent of hope on the wind can be an unfamiliar one after a dark time, but I think it's democracy. It's been dark before. But I think these results represent an affirmation of the possibility that we can be the Americans we are *supposed* to be.

I will likely go to great lengths to say why I think Huckabee is a theocrat unsuited to the Presidency, but at least he's apparently able to bring some sense of humanity to the Fundies, instead of just aping the schoolyard bullying and pretending to be a competent CIC, while screwing everyone.

But there'll be time for that later.

I would hope that Rev. Huckabee, in the course of his run, might just be big enough to not need to bash minorities to give the Fundies a voice.

This is probably not what's gonna happen.

But the fact it's still possible is pretty precious.

For my part, the corporate media totally failed to marginalize Obama, ...failed to appoint Hillary, who, while competent and capable, is no darling of liberals...

The Iowa returns seem to have blown the media frame-up out of the water for both sides of the 'debates' we see here, and actualy expressed something.

And you know what?

I'm less pissed-off, too.

Blessed be. Let's do this thing. And do it well.

Paganplace: not only have you managed to get Canyon to act relatively mellow (no mean feat), you have identified the silver lining to Huck. He's not a big business neocon by any stretch. I don't think his young earth beliefs are likely to hurt me, he can't do anything about abortion rights in the end (overturning Roe just returns the battle to the states, many of which would permit abortion - and would actually remove an issue for evangelicals at the national level - talk about silver linings), and anything else he can do is less harmful to me than another big business neocon. so on balance, I'm starting the new year feeling allright.

Well, Canyon, I suppose this enters into it, too:

""I think it's funny how Huckabee is straddling the fence; you think he's got something up his sleeve, I think he's too squishy and trying to deceive Christians into thinking he is more theologically grounded. Neither of us trust him, which is ironic because it seems like he's trying to gain the trust of both of us simultaneously."

Actually, there's another point against mixing religion and government: You start introducing a 'religious test' for office through the media and electorate and evangelical churches... Nothing is going to be *enough* for those types, even if they did dismantle our secular government and institute an overt theocracy: it never ends.

While Huckabee's trying to gain the 'trust' of non-*evangelicals* ...or at least downplay the scarier bits, I'm sure that to him I'm a non-entity. There's no way I'll vote for a guy who wants to write discrimination against me into the Constitution.

The fact is he's totally-beholden to a 'base' which howls with outrage if anyone does anything that doesn't repress people they don't like.

And his foreign policy is a nightmare.

At least he seems to represent a rejection of the *corporate* part of the Neocon agenda, ...in the final analysis, I think he should be unacceptable, but at least he's changing the debate with the 'populist' angle. Too long, I think, have the big-business interests been in lockstep with the religious fundamentalist ones.

Of course, he had some middle-aged anti-war Christians hauled away from his campaign office by the police before he went in, so I wouldn't expect too much better out of the guy.

Good Ridence! Ya ya!

Happy Every Day SHEARER.

Paganplace, I'm going out of town, so I thought I'd leave you with a compliment.

Your last post, sans religious jabs, was thought provoking and the best argument I've heard from the separation-side. Especially the first three and the last paragraph.

I think it's funny how Huckabee is straddling the fence; you think he's got something up his sleeve, I think he's too squishy and trying to deceive Christians into thinking he is more theologically grounded. Neither of us trust him, which is ironic because it seems like he's trying to gain the trust of both of us simultaneously.

Perhaps he is gaining those who hang out a little closer to the fence?

I wouldn't say, Canyon, that the fact we can't remove our religious beliefs from ourselves as political creatures, doesn't mean that we should abandon reason in decision-making... or embrace theocracy or religious authoritarianism, or pandering, or any of the other corruptions of both politics and religion.

If one gets to the point where one's religion makes one incapable of acknowledging scientific fact or our real American history and legal obligations, then, I think that's time to admit one's unsuited to making political decisions for the whole of America.

I think when one gets to the point of being unable to get along with anyone not of one's own political version of one's own religions, then it's time to admit one can't represent all Americans as certain jobs demand.

Religion, particularly 'revealed' 'book' religion, can lead people to feel compelled to believe things contrary to knowable fact, and to any degree and at any cost, even if the cost is to innocent others. If you believe you can't accept findings based on evolutionary science, then you can't make competent decisions about everything from health care to food crops to land management to epidemiology, etc.

It also constitutes a *very* poor standard by which to judge a candidate, as it's very easy to feign: all you have to do in one is be a liar: and religious authority is a liar's dream, ...lie all you want and by implication tell pre-conditioned people their souls will be tormented if they question you.

This is why, too, religion *thrives* under secular government, and becomes a nightmare under religious-driven government.

Now, Huckabee at least isn't an *idiot,* but I do question his judgement because he's a religious extremist with Dominionist ties... I also question if he really sees me and people I love as the real human beings, and the real Americans, that we are.

Does he believe the world's going to end real soon and it's more important to fulfill prophecy than honor his obligations to the future? Yes, that's a real concern. He's a Baptist preacher.

I'm sure you just love the guy.

Dubya will make near anyone look like a great statesman, but I would tend to doubt Huckabee's qualifications as a leader of a pluralistic nation, ...not because of his *religion* but out of doubt whether he knows where the boundaries are. The fact that while crediting his God and his God only for our social contract, he couldn't even *get out* our most basic statement of human rights, ...to life, liberty, and *the pursuit of happiness,* (he had to stumble and rephrase this: after all, he opposes this right for some,)

Then, frankly, while he's a respectable man, I think he's entirely unsuited to represent the united States of America.

He simply has something else in mind.

While I have my own deeply-held faith that serves to guide my ethics and worldview, our government is meant to run on facts and reason, not religious pronouncements that could really come from anywhere. Even if they supposedly are all based in the same book.

So, while you can't (and shouldn't) remove religion from *people,* it's our duty as Americans to show *restraint* about how much direct political power we give these religions.

Paganplace, in her roundabout way, proved my point. You cannot remove religion from politics.

Paganplace, please see:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/leith_anderson/2007/12/post_1/all_comments.html

Thor's Child,

How do you plan on getting to Heaven? Do you think you're good enough?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GxKjpqnDZSg

The Constitution also states explicitly that there shall be no religious tests for office. In a way, though, this has been worked around by using the media and right-wing churches to create de facto religious tests in the electorate, where actually, professing a belief in the Christian God is pretty much *mandatory* for office.

Science and the study of evolution are not a rival 'religion,' Canyon, even if *your* religious beliefs say otherwise.

Since you don't know when you mentioned science, I need not point it out to you.

I read that thread, your posts there were full of the same as your posts here:
1)Direct or implied belittling of other posters.
2)Statements with little or no backing, repeated often.
3)Demonstrated refusal to answer rebuttal questions.
4)Attempts at redirection or distraction off topic in lieu of real responses.

p.s. If we both died and went to a place I consider Heaven, you would have to stay on topic and stop dissembling. ;) How 'bout creating a little bit of that heaven right to earth on these threads this year?

Incidentally, until you can cite the Constitution on your assertion that religion is inseparable from government, I'm done trying to discuss it with you.

When did I mention science? You'd be interested in this thread:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/leith_anderson/2007/12/post_1/all_comments.html

P.S. If you died tonight, would you go to Heaven?

http://www.needGod.com

You'll have to be more specific. Exactly what do you think I've changed the definition of?

Since public schools are part of the government, religious teachings in them would violate the establishment clause. Preventing such protects students from being coerced into any religion. Science is not a religion.

It is imperative that religion be kept out of the acts of Congress, which is why there is a Constitutional Amendment mandating it.

Ah...now you're changing the definiton.

So the government can ban Christianity from schools yet force an unproven and unprovable religion (quoted-Arthur Keith) down our childrens throats?

It is impossible to keep religion out of Congress, which is why there is no law saying to do so. If it were possible (I can't imagine how) I would be all for it.

Canyon, its simple:

No one, including any member of Congress, is prohibited from practicing their religion. On this we agree.

No one is allowed to make their (or any other) religion the law of the land. You continue to ignore this part.

The important distinction is in what government workers can do:

a) as individuals (be religious or not), vs
b) on behalf of the government (religion not allowed)

capice?

Thor's Child,

What a stange reading of an disambiguous Ammendment. I've made my argument clearly and concisely above. Congress is in no-wise forbidden from religion. If religion were forbidden, no-one would be allowed in, because everyone is faithful to their worldview.

More importantly, my agenda is always towards Heaven; do you consider yourself to be a good person?

If you died tonight, assuming the Bible is true, would you go to Heaven?

Find out:
www.thegoodpersontest.com

Canyon,

First, please refrain from any assertions on the status of my studies or 'open mindedness'. You know naught of either.

Second, the establishment clause is clearly a two way street.

"Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" protects religion from the government.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" protects the government from religion.

The US Government is defined in its structure and actions by the Constitution and by laws passed by Congress. Since religions of all stripes are absent from the Constitution, and are specifically prohibited from the laws, not only is it possible to exclude religion from government, it has already been done.

The fact that there are religious symbols in locations where laws are created is irrelevant, as is the fact that many lawmakers are religious people. If you are accused of a crime, your actions are compared against the laws of the land, and not against the artifacts which happen to adorn the walls of Washington buildings, nor against the beliefs of legislators.

Again, cite an example from the Constitution which makes any religion part of the government.

I think it is important to know a politician's spiritual beliefs, because if it includes a belief that the occupation of Israel will bring on the end times than that candidate should be ostracized. It is true that you cannot separate faith from politics when Presidents (as Bush has shown) will let their faith guide their foreign policy. As we have seen the outcome of letting faith guide foreign policy can be disastrous. For us voters we have to let faith bleed into the candidate selection process because there are too many candidates who will let their faith bleed into their policy decision.

Thor's child,

You miss the point completely. I never argued that we are a christian nation, I argued that it is impossible to separate religion from the state.

If you've ever studied the establishment clause, you know it is a one-way document, the state cannot regulate religion. There is no opposite which says religion is not allowed in Congress. Otherwise we wouldn't have Chaplains, Bibles, or Christian paintings all over Capitol Hill.

Please read Ammendment 1 with an open mind. It is impossible to exclude religion from government, even if you keep Christianity out, you make way to our Hindu friend to pray, or invite secular humanism to take over. These religions are as religious as Christianity.

Please read my first post again without the presupposition "Canyon wants to take over." I suspect it will make more sense to you if you have an open-mind.

Canyon,
The framers of the US Constitution had the opportunity to make the US Government a religious organization. You have argued on other threads that they were all religious Christians. Whether you are correct on that point or not doesn't really matter when it comes to separation of church and state.

If some were non-Christian as their writings suggest, then it makes perfect sense that they would craft a Constitution where Church and State are separate.

If they all were Christian, then the evidence of the 'wall of separation' is even stronger. They had the opportunity to write their beliefs right into the founding document for the country, and yet the only mention they made of religion in the Constitution was to specifically exclude it from government. The intent is clear: keep government and religion separate.

The only example you need is the Constitution itself. If you still think that the US Government is supposed to be a Christian organization, please provide an example from the Constitution that states it.

Canyon Shearer wrote:

"When this is finally separated from the government of the United States, and the dark religions inherit the country, it will indeed be a very sad day."

"Dark" Religions, eh? I didn't think racist comments were allowed here. And right to Chaplain Zed's face, too.

Sri (is that the correct hnorific?) Zed,

Thank you yet again.

Rajan Zed,

Short, sweet and inarguable. That is, until Canyon Shearer shows up with his wall of ignorant arrogance. It's like being PUNKED by someone that doesn't know he's a punk.

Rajan Zed, The lucid wisdom of your response is only made clearer by the foolishness of the first poster.

Rajan,

I need to set you straight on a very weird statement you made. "The United States of America has a long tradition of church-state separation." Please provide an example.

The United States, more than any other nation, is terrible at separating church and state. Our official religion today is human-secularism mixed with evolution. Even if the vast majority of our nation claims allegience to a deity, our official state-sponsored religion is naturalism.

Any person who gives this honest thought realizes that to separate religion from government is to tear a person in two.

Abraham Lincoln said without the Bible, we could not know right from wrong.

What happens when you separate the Bible from the state? You end up with people doing what is right in their own eyes. Babies get murdered, [perceived] lesser races get exterminated, children become concubines, living breathing widows are burned on the altar with their deceased husbands. No, if we love goodness, we cannot remove the Bible from government.

Religion is the basis of our moral compass, whether that religion is evolution, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, or Buddhism, you cannot separate morals from beliefs.

For that reason, it is vital to voting that we know the morals AND the religion of the nominee. The Christian is not better because of his actions, but because he is forgiven.

Whosoever is forgiven much, loves much. The Christian is no different than any other nominee in terms of transgression against the law. The Christian has told lies (hopefully not in office), has stolen things no matter the cost (hopefully not in office), has taken God's name in vain, and at some point felt hatred in his heart, and lusted after someone who wasn't his spouse. Each of these is damning before God, the Christian deserves Hell as much as anyone else.

But because God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son, so that whoever will believe in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

Christ had no fine of His own to pay, but willingly paid for the liars, the thieves, the blasphemers, and the murderers and adulterers at heart. He demands that you repent and place your trust in Him, and you will be saved. You will be forgiven, not because you're a good person, but because you're a bad person who has been forgiven by a good God.

The Christian is not better in action, but because he has been forgiven much, he loves much and you shall know him by his love.

When this is finally separated from the government of the United States, and the dark religions inherit the country, it will indeed be a very sad day.