In 2012, the religious right has veto power over one of two major political parties in the most powerful nation on earth. No candidate can win the Republican nomination without pledging allegiance to “one nation under [a religious-right] God.” Yet Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater, once said, “I don’t have any respect for the religious right.” How did this happen?
Shortly after the Republican convention in 1980, Ronald Reagan stood before evangelical ministers in Dallas, declaring, “I know that you cannot endorse me, but I endorse you.” This pivotal declaration, the culmination of effective organizing by the religious right, has brought us to the unprecedented moment in American history we face today.
Often unnoticed by the media and public, theocratic laws have already been passed in Congress and legislatures throughout America.
Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase “separation of church and state.” James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, called for “total separation of church and state.” In the early 1960s John Kennedy affirmed American values: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute … where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.”
In the 1970s the religious right got organized, winning seats on school boards, city councils and in legislatures. Religious bias in government is widespread:
• Sex education for our youth replaced by religious propaganda.
• Stem cell research is thwarted by religion.
• The religious right bias holds sway in the military.
• A religious bias can be found in children’s laws (in faith-healing, child care, vaccination, corporal punishment).
• “Faith-based initiatives” discriminate with tax money and vouchers funding schools discriminate with tax money.
• Government funds for Boy Scouts discriminate against gay people and the nonreligious. (Girl Scouts don’t discriminate).
• A religious bias in public schools and textbooks and in impeding end-of-life autonomy.
These laws connect to thousands of real people harmed, both religious and nonreligious. Due to a federal loophole, there’s a separate legal standard in over 35 states for the misnamed “faith-healing” of children. Hundreds of children every year experience torture worse that Abu Ghraib, largely unnoticed.
While many secular activists shake their fist at a Home Depot manger with a plastic baby Jesus in the town square at Christmas time, there remain so many examples of human harm caused by religious bias in government.
Rather than religious bias, government must be guided by evidence and compassion. We must restore Jeffersonian values. We must work to achieve this Ten Point Vision of a Secular America:
1. Our military shall serve all Americans, religious and nonreligious, with no hint of bias or fundamentalist extremism coloring our military decisions at home or abroad.
2. Health care professionals shall fulfill their sworn professional oath to provide service to patients with no religious bias — or they must find another job.
3. Any federal- or state-funded program, whether offering services domestic or foreign relating to reproductive health shall be based on public health, not religious bias or the denigration of women or sexual minorities.
4. There shall be no bias in employment, environmental or land-use law.
5. While marriage can be defined by a religion as that denomination chooses within internal ceremonies, government shall never impose a religious bias on the definition of marriage.
6. When facing end-of-life choices, Americans shall be guaranteed control over their own bodies, not thwarted by religious bias.
7. America’s youth shall never be subjected to religious bias in education. If there’s one penny of government funds, there must not be one iota of religious propaganda.
8. There shall be no political bias against secular candidates for public office.
9. There shall be one consistent standard for the health and welfare of children, no matter the religion of a child’s parents, school or child care center. Religious extremists can do whatever they choose with their own bodies, but children shall be treated as human beings, not pawns to be sacrificed in the name of religion.
10. Medical, technical, and scientific innovation shall be dedicated to the health and advancement of our fellow citizens and must never be impeded by religious bias.
Is America still the Enlightenment nation, the idealistic forward-thinking nation that brought our species to the moon?
Secular Americans are patriotic Americans who share the values of Jefferson and Madison. Americans must no longer timidly avert our eyes from rising theocracy. Secular Americans — people such as Brad Pitt, Warren Buffett, Jodie Foster, Bill Gates and George Clooney — know that this greatest of countries will move forward when we proceed based on Jeffersonian ideals. The ten-point vision offered here is positive, specific and pragmatic. This vision is America at its best.
Sean Faircloth is author of the new book “Attack of the Theocrats, How the Religious Right Harms Us All and What We Can Do About It.” He served ten years in the Maine Legislature.
separation of state and delusional fantasy cults would be more like it.
Wow. That’s a lot of anger. I feel a great amount of empathy for Mr. Faircloth.
Whatever life experience set him upon this path of irrational anger toward
people of faith is unfortunate.
Do you have an actual response to the merits of the argument or are you just going to claim it’s pure anger and move along?
What hate Sean has ! Amazing.
If you want to argue against fairness and equal treatment under the law, go ahead.
To just dismiss the article as somehow “hateful” simply makes you sound hateful yourself.
Hate? Sorry, don’t see it.
Sean’s current gig
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/speakers/faircloth_sean
Seemed like a fair position to take. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Not being a bible scholar but I seem to recall Jesus quoted as saying “render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasers and render unto God that which is Gods”.
Except the Constitution says otherwise.
Does it really? Do tell!
Yep It does.
So according to number 5, Brother Sean, government won’t restrict plural marriage either?
Going back and distorting history is disgusting. Maine’s school choice system was actually created by Jefferson—the State archives have the original letters. The Maine constitution was written in 1820 so that Maine was a Christian state, and people celebrated it.
Secular celebrities like the well known atheist, Jodie Foster shouldn’t be role models for MAINE. Don’t we have enough violent crime as it is, without further destroying the character and moral building nature of organized religion.
Bill Gates is an agnostic; Brad Pitt is a atheist/agnostic; as are Warren Buffet and George Clooney.
Talk about cherry picking celebrities…pity Faircloth, and stay far, far away from his coven.
While the state constitution makes direct reference in it’s preamble to “Sovereign Ruler of the Universe” and “God” there is nothing which implies or states directly or indirectly, that Maine is/was a Christian state.
Article 1, Section 3 uses “Almighty God” …. again nothing that implies or states directly or indirectly that Maine is/was a Christian state.
When Maine separated from Massachusetts in 1820, Maine immediately disestablished the Congregational Church. Previously, Congregational clergy were paid by the communities, and the Meeting House was both the church and the place were town meetings (and sometimes court sessions) were held. Meeting Houses — churches — had previously been erected with municipal funds and located on town land. Maine stopped this practice, although clergy who were hired under the old system were “grandfathered” in until they retired or died.
Massachusetts became the last state to separate church and state, and that was in the 1830s.
Thomas Jefferson said that the Constitution had given us “a wall of separation between church and state,” and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, agreed that the Constitution gave us “a complete separation of all things governmental and ecclesiastical.”
Morality has little, if anything , to do with whether a person calls himself or herself an atheist, a Muslim, a Baptist, a born-again Christian, or a Hindu.
Although I’m a Christian, I’d rather have the Dalai Lama as a next-door neighbor than the Roman Catholic Adolph Hitler. I’d also rather have Jodi Foster as a neighbor than Pat Robertson, and I’d prefer George Clooney to the hater James Dobson.
I’ll stay away from your coven, too.
You’re a Christian huh. How about sharing your testimony.
Sure, I’d be glad to: Do not judge others, and God will not judge you. Do not condemn others, and you will not be condemned. Forgive others, and God will forgive you. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but pay no attention to the log in your own eye? first, take the log out of your own eye, and then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. ~ Jesus of Nazareth, as found in Luke 6:37-42.
You’ve done it again. Why don’t you put Scripture in its context. I’ll tell you why. You use the exact tactic satan does. You have no testimony. Wonder why? I don’t.
That’ll cost you 15 Hail Mary’s from mid-court or whatever it is you do for judging others when you know your storybook tells you not to. Shame-shame everyone knows your name.
The only way to “put Scripture in its exact context” is to cut and past the whole Bible, and it won’t fit on this page. I gave you a translation of the original Koine Greek. If you can read Koine Greek, you can find the “original” (although no one actually has the original copy of any biblical book). Everything in English is a translation, and that’s what I supplied above. It may not be the same translation you are reading from, but your translation is also a translation. If you want my testimony (which I already gave you) you can see an expansion of it in my answer to Brandon Rapp. You probably will disagree with me, but please listen to what I have to say.
That’s a good scripture. It doesn’t say what you’re trying to make it say though. “and then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Did you miss that part? Second, sharing your testimony is telling people about your salvation experience. “Don’t judge others, and God will not judge you ect.” Chapter and verse please? I’m not going to come right out and say you’re not saved but from what I’ve seen in your posts I can say that you are definitely misrepresenting the Gospel of Christ. I just don’t understand how you can call me arrogant for telling you what the Bible says. It’s not my opinion, it’s what the Bible says. Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the word God. No one’s judging you. You claim to be a Christian, a brother is supposed to try and take the speck out of your eye. Salvation is simply spelled out in the Bible, it’s a narrow path not the big wide easy going one you make it out to be. I’m sorry, it’s just not.
Don’t judge others: yes
Don’t condemn others: yes
Forgive others: yes
But if God’s not going to judge, what is judgement day all about?
Hebrews 9:27 “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”
Judgement is coming whether you want to admit it or not.
You asked “Do not judge others — chapter and verse please?” Please look above where I gave chapter and verse (Luke 6:37-42). “Do not judge others, and God will not judge you” (or “Judge not so that you will not be judged” — remember they are all translations) is the first of those verses.
I don’t believe (okay you’ll say you KNOW) — but I don’t believe that Christianity is about the selfishness of individual salvation, getting something for myself from God, a prize for having “TC” or “theological correctness.” Christinity is about Discipleship, following the way and the teachings of Jesus. It is a path, not a personal prize.
Faith is being, it is a way of living, not a belief in things that are scientifically impossible. Faith is about “trust,” trust in God, and not about “belief” in things that are impossible.
Much in the Bible is poetry — and poetry should not be taken literally. The story of Adam and Eve is a Parable, a story with a lesson about our relationship to God. It is a parable, not history. Scripture is a song of wonder and amazement, not a test of our ability to convince ourselves of impossible things. The Bible is an inspired conversation, not an infallible Paper Pope.
Christianity — the Way, the path of Jesus — should be biblically responsible, intellectually honest, emotionally sastifying, and socially significant. Jesus taught compassion; he taught us to love our enemies — to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and our neighbor as ourself. That, he said, was how we gain eternal life (please see Luke 10:25-28, also Mark 10:17-22, also Luke 18:18-23, also Matthew 19:16-22). He had a special preference for the poor and those that “proper” society regarded as outcasts. His good news — in the three Synoptic Gospels, which I consider to be the most authentic, Mark, which was written first, and Matthew and Luke — was about how to live, not what to believe. And eternal life is not something that we wait for until we die, it begins in the here and now; it is a way of living.
Please read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew (chapters 5, 6 and 7 of Matthew) and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke (Luke 6:17-49). That is the heart of the Gospel. Those sermons are all about how to live, not a word at all about what to believe.
I realize that this is not what you expect a Christian to say. You want me to tell you that I BELIEVE exactly the same theology that you believe. If I believe what you believe, then I must be right because you are right, and you are saved because you have TC, theological correctness. I’m not TC. You think you know what the Bible says. I will probably disagree with most of what you think the Bible says. And yet I’m a follower of Jesus, a disciple on the path.
Contray to cp444, I’m a German Sheperd, not a wolf!
Awww…does that mean you don’t really wear sheep’s clothing either?
I wish I had the money it would take to live in the neighborhoods as Faircloth’s heroes, and I wish I had the courage to live in the neighborhoods, my heroe, Mother Theresa lived. I disagree with much of Faircloth’s opinion, but I won’t place a label on him in the way you do on others. I happen to know he is a nice person as is my son-in-law, but I don’t agree much with him either. There is something to be learned from those who “respectfully” put forward their opinion especially if they are are different than our own. I have enjoyed reading your posts.
Thank you for your kind words.
Sure, money is nice. I wish I had the kind of money James Dobson and Pat Robertson have, or the kind of money Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have. But I’m glad they don’t live near me. I’m far from perfect, but I hope that I’m not mean-spirited like those guys.
Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, is all right by me. I like Huckabee (just as I always liked Billy Graham) — Huckabee understands what compassion is. Christianity could use more compassion, the kind that Jesus taught. (“Be compassionate just as your Father is compassionate,” Luke 6:36).
Again, thank you for your kindness.
Sean Faircloth came to Maine years ago hoping he would the Kennedy of Maine. He attended St John’s, Bangor, with the Notre Dame credentials thinking he was the smartest man to come to Maine. He has done much for his community, but his arrogance never ceases to amaze me.
Adolph Hitler was no more a Catholic than Sean Faircloth who pretends he is when it’s convenient for him. They both were baptized into the faith, but abandon it for the religion of secular humanism.
Adolph Hitler was a baptized Roman Catholic, was always in communion with the Roman Church, and was a Roman Catholic by the standards of the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope could have excommunicated Hitler, but he signed a treaty with Hitler instead. Hitler and the Pope got along very well with one another when they got together, and not a harsh word was spoken between them as far as we know.
Maybe you think that the Pope doesn’t know what a Roman Catholic is, but I kind of think of him as an authority on Roman Catholicism.
Of course, there are some on these pages who claim that Catholics are not Christians. I disagree. Catholics are indeed Christians — there are many different Christian denominations, and Catholics are one of them.
Though Adolph Hitler was baptized Catholic as an infant, he did not practice the Faith later in life. In fact, he completely rejected Christianity as an adult, since he thought it was a “weak” religion because of its emphasis on peace and forgiveness. Instead, Hitler favored a militaristic and racist mishmash of neo-paganism and occultism, which he considered more suitable for the so-called “Aryan supermen” whom he thought would take over the world.
Here are some quotes which show what Hitler thought of Christianity:
“Christianity is an invention of sick brains,” — Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.”So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death,” — Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.
Definitely not the words of a good Catholic!
I’ll agree that Hitler was not a “good” Catholic. He was Catholic as far as the Catholic Church and the Pope were concerned — they count everyone who was ever baptized Catholic. But yes it’s true he wasn’t a “good” Catholic. I never said he was a good anything. Yes, his Catholicism was only nominal. And I agree that he liked Germanic mythology and Aryan super-man baloney. That’s all true.
Still the Pope could have excommunicated him, but signed a treaty with him instead. In the eyes of the Church, Hitler was always Roman Catholic.
I agree he wasn’t a “good” anything.
I find nothing in that 1820 version that says Maine was and should be a Christian state. There is no reference to Christianity in the document. I does say that people have the right to worship and believe, but that people who don’t claim to be religious or to worship God should not be discriminated against. It gives us freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Had the Maine constitution included the declaration that it was a christian state, it would not have been admitted as so. It would have been in clear violation of the US Constitution, which trumps all.
That was an excellent article, and if more people thought like this the world would not be such a terrible place to live in. You can chose whatever set of beliefs you wish, but as soon as you impose your ideals on others, and brainwash children it becomes unacceptable. The hate spewed by the most vocal religious individuals is disgusting, I am sick of reading about little kids killing themselves because other children were brainwashed into being filled with hate. I only hope our constitution is fully restored and those who do not believe in separation of church in state do a lot of American history research before thy begin spewing misinformation.
Thank you. Yes, I agree with the basic ideas of Faircloth’s article, although he worded it a bit more strongly than I would. James Madison, by the way, said that the Constitution gave us “a complete separation of all things governmental and ecclesiastical.” Faircloth was in the right neighborhood with his quote from Madison.
I’m wondering about his point #8, and how we eliminate bias in the minds of voters. Religion never seemed to be an issue as long as we all agreed that all candidates would be Protestant Christians — although Thomas Jefferson was accused of atheism during his presidential campaign.
Then along came Democratic nominee Al Smith, a Roman Catholic, in 1928 (he lost, people said, because of his Catholicism), and John F. Kennedy in 1960. We all know Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and some people are already judging him on the basis of his religion. Joe Lieberman is Jewish, although today that doesn’t seem to matter. Pete Stark, a Representative from California, is the only person I know of who is willing to let it be known that he is an atheist. Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota is a Muslim.
So we know about the religion on candidates, and some people will think a Mormon or an atheist or a Muslim is too “different” from them.
I agree with Faircloth — and the Constitution — that there should be no religious test for holding office. The minds of voters — well that’s another thing.
You mean like you have here?
The religion of secular humanism says it is acceptable to kill a baby, but calls for reproductive health freedom. For who, Mr. Faircloth? Women get rights, but babies don’t get to choose to live? When your heart stops beating you are dead, so when it starts beating you are [fill in the blank]. We see the theory espoused here that when children are really young it is acceptable to kill them. Pick a side, any side, but pick one and stick to it.
I find it odd that the author seems to advocate forced immunization and public secular school, as he thinks those to be absolutely necessary, yet puts parents out of the picture in making decisions. Of course, the parents would be blamed if anything went wrong. What if a kid doesn’t want to be immunized, learn sex education or evolution? He assumes that kids all want to be secular humanists, and that those of any faith would be weeded out if only the religious crazies would stop talking about God.
Let us not forget that those awful religious people are the ones who made it illegal to kill, steal, rape, etc. Those are Biblical concepts adapted by human governments, so is he advocating legalization of murder and theft or just the things he wishes to not be judged for. We all impose our beliefs on others, that is what society does and it is not wrong. If we don’t like the society we live in, we can leave it or we can work to change it. To blame the religious and not accept responsibility is irrational and judgmental. Why is it acceptable for humanists to judge and make rules that others must follow, yet it is not the same for religious people?
It seems to me that Mr. Faircloth would have done well in Nazi Germany. A history lesson from 180movie.com might be good for those considering the effects of humanist mindset for society. Christians do wish to have people follow what they believe, because we believe it to be profitable for society, but it is not some conspiracy to ruin other people’s lives.
If one wants to deny God’s existence and the principles that come with knowledge of God, they are welcome to. I personally would pray that no one would ever do such a thing as the Bible proclaims eternal punishment for those who die without repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. That is not judgment or hatred by any means, but a loving plea from one who sees danger ahead for his fellow human beings. I wish to help people avoid condemnation, and in love and humility ask that anyone reading this consider whether there is a God, and if there is what you must do to make peace with Him.
Philosophy asks unanswerable questions.
Your religion provides unquestionable answers.
Your choice.
Christianity provides absolute answers. They can be questioned, but truth is not relative. Truth is absolute and not up for change due to the whims of mortal humans, but is rather derived from the perfect and righteous nature of God the Creator.
What about Thor the Thunderer, he is a pretty good guy, think we should listen to him? What about Buddha, he is so easy going and always seems so happy, think he has something important to say?
“Christianity provides absolute answers”
There are half a million people, according to census data, who would say in response to that statement: “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”
Your “truth” is anything but, for truth requires proof, of which you have none.
Christianity does not provide absolute answers. It provides a path to follow, a path of discipleship. Before the term “Christianity” was used, it was called “the way.” Jesus is not a “god” to be worshipped but is a teacher to be followed. We are called to discipleship, not theological correctness (TC). The Bible is not a Paper Pope, it is an inspired conversation.
You are trying to argue against something Sean Faircloth didn’t say.
He didn’t attack religion, or any religion in particular. He said that, as the Constitution tells us, the government must be neutral on the issue of religion — since our nation is founded on the principle of religious liberty. The United States contains people of many different religions and of no religion at all. All religious points of view must be protected as best as possible, and that requires that we adhere to the Constitutional principles that Jefferson called “a wall of separation between church and state” and Madison called “a complete separation of all things governmental and ecclesiastical.”
Faircloth said nothing at all about whether or not there is a God. He said nothing about reproductive choices. He said nothing for or against Jesus or Christianity, or Buddhism for that matter. You have missed the point entirely.
He blamed religion for many things. Quoting from the article; • Sex education for our youth replaced by religious propaganda.
• Stem cell research is thwarted by religion.
• The religious right bias holds sway in the military.
• A religious bias can be found in children’s laws (in faith-healing, child care, vaccination, corporal punishment).
• “Faith-based initiatives” discriminate with tax money and vouchers funding schools discriminate with tax money.
• Government funds for Boy Scouts discriminate against gay people and the nonreligious. (Girl Scouts don’t discriminate).
• A religious bias in public schools and textbooks and in impeding end-of-life autonomy.
How can you say he did not blame religion when this is the whole point of the article? A government that is by the people and for the people will inherently follow the precepts of those people’s beliefs. So this IS the point.
Religion is independent of whether God exists. Religion is a general term that refers to a belief system.
As I re-read Faircloth’s op-ed piece, you are at least partly correct. He was very critical of such points-of-view, which are often expressed in terms of someone’s understanding of what they think Christianity is about.
I agree with Faircloth’s general point that the government must be neutral in terms of religion. I would not have said some of the things he said in the way that he said them.
Secular humanism is not a religion any more than science is a religion.
Religion requires that there can be no learning or new knowledge beyond the sacred texts. It shrouds itself in circular references so that once inside the beast, all evidence reinforces it.
Secular humanism merely relies on observation and science to allow for progress and new understanding. That is precisely the opposite of what religion is.
To start your comment with such twisted logic makes it clear you are attempting to confuse not illuminate on the issue at hand. Your playing on the fears of people is repulsive to me. Why are you right about God and the billion Hindus are wrong? If religion is universal truth, why does where you are born have so much to do with which one you believe?
I am glad you derive comfort or bliss or whatever you get from the ancients. Do not mischaracterize atheism or humanism as religions. They are not and yours is a nasty linguistic game. Truly critical thinkers can see right through your not so clever device.
“We all impose our beliefs on others, that is what society does and it is not wrong”.
No. we don’t and, yes, it is wrong. The only “things” a democratic society imposes are laws promulgated by representative government. Beliefs are not and should not ever be imposed.
Secular humanism is not a “religion”. It isn’t a set of beliefs based on dogma of one kind or another but instead relies on reason as a means for the betterment of human life in general.
I follow the spiritual path observed by the people who have been on this continent for more than 10,000 years. It is offensive to imply that I will be eternally punished for observing my ancestor’s spiritual legacy.
I am not trying to be offensive, but according to the Bible the Earth has only been here for about 6,000 years anyway. God judged the early Earth with a flood and will judge it by fire in the future. Those are the statements of the Bible, so I am sorry if it is offensive.
Your statement proves the point that the Bible is a flawed document and one not based on fact and evidence. Scientific evidence dismisses your Biblical claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old. To ignore that evidence is a pity.
The Creator does not purposely damage Mother Earth to punish human beings. We are to care for Mother Earth and all its inhabitants. Those are the statements of my ancestors that have been passed down for more than 10,000 years.
Nowhere in the Bible is it said the Earth is only 6,000 years old. That’s a figment of some guy’s imagination after he supposedly studied the lineage of characters in the Bible.
The first chapter of Genesis, which is a hymn, not a history, says only that “In the beginning God created…” or as is sometimes translated, “When God began to create the heavens and the earth…” It is a song of joy, not a history. It was never meant to be taken literally. Taking poetry literally destroys the meaning that was intended.
At any rate, the Bible never says when that beginning was.
In 1635 James Ussher, a bishop in the Church of Ireland, counted how long all of the people in the Old Testament were supposed to have lived, and he decided that meant the world was created on Sunday Oct. 23, 4004 B.C.
But that’s his calculation, not the Bible’s.
“Let us not forget that those awful religious people are the ones who made it illegal to kill, steal, rape, etc.”
If you need to believe in God before you can know that stealing, murdering, raping, lying, etc. are wrong, you need more than God to help you.
By the way, in Deuteronomy, we’re told that God says that if a single woman is raped and doesn’t scream, she must marry her rapist. How twisted is that?
I found Sean Faircloth’s column today scary, scary that he thinks he is the teacher along with Brad Pitt, George Clooney,Jodie Foster, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates on how we as Christian’s should think and behave. Sean is ready to shut up anyone with any religious beliefs to have a say so in public policy.
Huh that is funny so according to you Jefferson decided to change and become a Christian at the rip old age of 77. He did die after all in 1826 at the age of 83. Also for your education some quotes from Jefferson himself:
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782, Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813., Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,
It’s unfortunate that you didn’t understand that the “millions of innocent men, women and children” who were “burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned” since “the introduction of Christianity” WERE CHRISTIANS!!!! You must understand that Catholicism is not Christianity. You should try doing more than just one sided research before you go running off at the mouth with such belligerent aggression. Not all religions are the same and you would do well to learn some of the differences between them. Any one that says that Christians are hateful, has never met a real one! “Hate spewed” vocalization? Maybe you should take another look at your previous post. And one last thing. Atheism is a religion just like all the rest.
You must be of the one true church. Which one is it, so that I know which one not to offend.
“You must understand that Catholicism is not Christianity. “
Yeah, I never quite understood the pure arrogance of some Christian sects who say that Catholicism isn’t Christianity. But it is exactly that kind of arrogance that is so dangerous and puts America ever so much closer to becoming like Middle East countries which are run according to the extremist religious beliefs of whoever happens to be in power.
In all fairness, you may be misinterpreting what Brandon Rapp meant by “You must understand that Catholicism is not Christianity.” I read that as, “You must understand that, by itself, Roman Catholicism is not all that Christianity is. The Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on Christianity, and the Catholic hierarchy is not the only voice of Christianity.”
At least I hope Rapp meant something like that. Of course Catholics are one kind of Christian, and there are many other kinds, too many different kinds to try to list.
Actually your wrong once again. You’re either a Christian or you aren’t.
True, and so I let God judge that. But you set yourself up as judge, so you must think you are God and you worship yourself. It’s called idolatry. Idolatry is the mother and father of all sins.
Actually pride is the mother of all sins. You claim to know better than the inspired Word of God. You’re a fraud.
Actually blasphemy is the single most unforgivable sin.
I thought it was farting in church…
True!
Since these are the greatest commandments, I would assume that when we fail to do these things our creator would be the most upset.
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind”, before also referring to a second commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”.
I believe that the inability to love thy neighbor is the most unforgivable sin.
You claim to know the Word of God. You’re a fraud. The Bible is not a Paper Pope.
Actually God tells us to use discernment. You’re no Christian.
Of course the simple answer would be to repeat your childishness, “You’re no Christian.” But then I remembered, “Judge not, so that God will not judge you.”
By making that statement you are sinning. A sin is a sin is a sin.
No, I don’t think I misinterpreted Brandon Rapp at all. I spent enough time in the south and other parts of the country to have had this conversation many times. The Evangelicals and Southern Babtist beleive that Catholics worship idols. Not true, but you can’t speak common sense and facts when dealing with religious zealots. If some redneck fire and brimstone preacher tells them something, there is no way to discuss it with them. I might try and explain to either side but Catholics have their own hangups too. Been there and done that. It’s a waste of time.
Yes, I figured it out, you were right. He is a bigot after all. Too bad, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
The difference is salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” The Bible teaches that salvation comes from repentance and faith in the finished work of Christ. The Catholic church teaches salvation threw works and deeds based on doctrines and traditions of men, not God. Not to mention the pope exalts himself as God on earth. Like I said, not all religions are the same, if you are going to have an opinion on the subject you should probably do some real research. And since every one seems to want to comment on Christianity, reading the new testament for yourself would be the best place to start.
There is a real heaven and a real hell, don’t take men’s word for it, especially mine, take the time to seriously search out the truth for yourself. The TRUTH, not your already prejudiced, preconceived idea of the truth. If you truly look, you will find it, and it will change your life. I know I’m not the best witness out there, but fortunately it’s not about my witness, it’s about Jesus. Please take a look at what he said for himself before you go judging him.
You kind of shot yourself in the foot with your argument. If your argument is that because Catholics do the work of man not god for salvation, they aren’t true christians, and the evidence of that argument is based upon a quotation from the bible, which is a work of man, then your argument is invalid. But look at me trying to have a rational conversation with someone who thinks there is an Invisible Sky Wizard floating around above the Earth just watching all this with passionless indifference.
If you liked the bible, there is plenty of other fiction out there you should read too. Like The Gospels According to Luke, where in Ep. IV ANH the prophet Obi-wan says, “The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.”
See..now that is some logic I can agree with!
“If your argument is that because Catholics do the work of man not god for salvation, they aren’t true christians, and the evidence of that argument is based upon a quotation from the bible, which is a work of man, then your argument is invalid “
Star Wars? Flinstones? What are you twelve? You’re right about one thing, there doesn’t seem to be any point in trying to have a rational conversation. You are a sinner in need of a savior. Jesus is the savior and you need him. You have been told the truth, the rest is up to you. Good luck.
Ok, how about this then, what does Oden the All Father have to say about it, or Vishnu, or Zues, or any of the myriad of other gods out there that came long before a jewish middle eastern carpenter that somehow everyone depicts as a white guy? That was kind of my point, the ridiculousness of The Invisible Sky Wizard and his water walking son are on par with the ridiculousness of saying “The Force” is real. All though since we know, through science, that all life requires energy, The Force actually makes more sense than The Invisible Sky Wizard crossed his arms and “blinked” and poof! Life! Oh sorry, did i get that wrong? Are you one of those Christian sects that believe he wiggled his nose and “Poofed” life? You haven’t told the truth, you have said things the way you see them, and there is nothing to back it up other than you agree with it for whatever illogical reason.
Well you sound like the perfect person to ask. Would you kindly bring us up to speed starting at lets say, 5 billion years ago. Go ahead, give us the quick version.
Its based in logic, you wouldn’t understand.
Go ahead, give it a whirl. I’ll let you know if it gets too “complicated”. You wouldn’t by chance be too embarrassed? Lets start with the big bang… BOOOOOM. Okay bring us up to speed. You’re a typical brain dead evolutionist. All mouth when bashing the Christian faith but too embarrassed to give your unbelievable version that has the same odds of a tornado going through a junkyard and coming out with a fully functioning jumbo jet.
Um, no big bang theorists don’t believe that. The Big Bang didn’t spit out planets, it spit out matter. So your already behind the rest of the class, perhaps a Special Ed teacher would be better for you so we don’t hold the rest of the class back.
I think you are correct, but I tried (see above).
Although, some may view my post as more evidence of my misspent adulthood :)
I think Dane is saying (this is not what I believe, I’m trying to figure out where he is coming from) that the Bible is full of fairy-tales and is no more believable than the idea that the universe was created by, let’s say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Again, this is not what I believe, it is my interpretation of what Dane is getting at.
But I do find it disturbing that Brandon Rapp thinks he knows the mind of God well enough to proclaim that Catholics are not Christians. That seems to me to be a very un-Christian thing to say.
At 5 billion years ago, the universe was already 9 billion years old (+/-).
The first life on Earth arose 4.5 billion years ago (+/-). These early life forms simply conformed to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. No magic, no mystery.
Over time, this life diversified under selective (and other) pressure(s).
One result of this evolution was the arising of hominid species. About the time of .1 million to .25 million years ago, Homo Sapiens arose. Modern humans, genetically identical to us, as far as the arrangemnt of genes on chromosomes is concerned.
About 15,000 years ago, climate change/deglaciation led to the domestication of plants (agriculture), and, subsequently the domestication of (some) animals.
The human conquest of science at the expense of superstition ended the dark ages, and world-wide navigation and trade ensued.
The advent of Imperialism led to world-wide war, which somehow the species endured.
Leaving us with 15 billion years of universe evolution that has culminated in Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh.
You asked for the “quick version.” That’s the best I can do, without editing my own post.
You forgot the part where we get out Immune system not from God, but from Neanderthal, that really sticks in their craws, but otherwise, nicely done.
I think you did edit it about 5 hours ago.
Well, I hope Jesus runs for and wins the Presidency. Then we would have the first Jewish President.
Bad Joke Alert!!!
It certainly would cut out the “pork” in Washington!
Now let me get this straight…your god will grant me salvation from the very thing which with he threatens me?
Yes, that’s what they are saying. Here is their theology in a nutshell:
1) God was so angry because Adam and Eve ate a piece of fruit that he condemned us all to be tortured forever in hell.
2) But he was so happy because we killed his only son, that he forgave us.
3) God created hell because he loves us, and he created us so flawed that he has to send us there forever because — well, because he loves us.
4) If we hold the correct theological opinion about Jesus, Jesus will save us from God.
5) Jesus and God are the same person.
6) The Bible is a Paper Pope, perfect in all respects, literally true historically and scientifically, and free of any self-contradiction. When it contradicts itself, or tells us to do things that are clearly immoral, we’ll just ignore those parts.
7) We should ignore Jesus’ teachings about love and compassion, and his preference for the poor, and focus instead this line from 1 Charlatans 13: “God helps those who help themselves” (actually from Poor Richard’s Almanac).
— To me, that’s not what Jesus taught, and it’s not what I call Christianity, but it is what modern fundamentalists believe.
Your post reminds me of when I was younger, and was dating a contortionist.
It was great, but she broke it off. :)
OW!!
I guess I was wrong. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you weren’t prejudiced against Catholics, but I was wrong. You are prejudiced, not to mention full of yourself. There’s nothing scarier — and nuttier — than the person who thinks he knows The TRUTH. the person who thinks he has The TRUTH is really worshipping himself, and that’s idolatry, the mother and father of all sins.
Everything you post is contrary to the Bible. The very one Jesus taught and quoted from. The idolater is you.
Uh, no.
Yeah but Jesus “taught” from the old testament, right? I mean, the new teastatement hadn’t even been written then.
Correct. Jesus never read the New Testament, he never said the Nicene Creed, he never mentioned the Doctrine of the Trinity or Original Sin (or even heard of them), he never so much as met a Christian, and never wrote anything down that we know of, not even a grocery list. He probably did not speak Greek, the language the New Testament was written in, so his original words are lost forever. The Four Gospels are not by eyewitnesses, and they are testimonies of faith, not literal history. The books of the Bible were written by humans, and the humans (Roman Catholics and Roman Emperors) who won the struggle to control the Church are the people who decided which books would be included in the Bible. If another group of early Christians has won (the Ebionites, the Gnostics, the Adoptionists, the Montanists, the Marcionites, the Donatists, etc.) then we would have had a far different Bible. Some books — like Revelation– barely made it in, and others, like 1 Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas, were nearly included, even under Roman Catholic hands. Jews, Samaritans, Catholics, Protestants, and Ethiopian Coptics still don’t completely agree on which books are in and which are out.
Christianity is a path, not a test of theological correctness (TC). Jesus should be followed, not worshipped. We are called to discipleship, not blind obedience. We are called to compassion, not self-righteousness. The Bible is an inspired conversation, not a Paper Pope.
shhh!!not so loud. that’s supposed to be a secret.
OK. You missed my little joke (spelling), but I like your response anyway.
Actually, I’m slow sometimes. So I still don’t get it. Sorry!
Thank you for backing me up, it’s encouraging to see that there are at least three Bible believing Christians on here. Keep earnestly contending for the faith brother.
I would prefer to pray to my Labrador retriever. He brings comfort to the sick and grieving. (I swear he is really a therapy dog like that). He gives generously of his love. Just seeing that tail wag tells me I am loved and okay just the way I am. Kinda like Jesus, huh?
I think the world would be a much better place if we regarded dogs as gods. They love you no matter who you are or what you look like. Unconditional love. The kernel of christian faith.
In fact, I think I shall name my next dog Jesus and demand that he be treated as a God not a dog. Since this is my religion, I trust you will argue just as intensely for my faith in dogs as yours in ancient wizards. What makes my faith work for me is that there is no attempt to shame me into giving away the money I work hard to earn. Just a few scraps and my god is happy!
Bzzzzzt!
That would be the letter N for “No True Scotsman” argument Brandon.
And one more point.
If I said that I could fly, you would presumably ask me to prove it. Perhaps by climbing up a ladder, jumping off, and soaring through the sky. Of course, what would really happen is Id fall and break my legs.
Now…..you insist that there is proof out there that God, Heaven and Hell all exist.
Prove it! Go on… show us. What is this evidence. Where is it? Y see apparently after 2000 years of Christianity that proof is still missing. Come on Mr…. show us the money!
I wont hold my breath waiting.
Atheism is my religion inasmuch as not collecting stamps is my hobby.
You are awesome.
:-)
The thing is, when a person exalts himself into the final authority on what is right and wrong, what happens when you die and things like that. What he has done is exalt himself as God thereby becoming a religion that worships self. Clever though.
I feel more like I do now than I did before…
Thank you for clearing this whole thing up for me.
Some would say a person is the final authority on what is right and wrong for them. Religions all over the world make that claim for others. They claim to be “The Authority” over how people should think and act. I am the god of myself, minus the awesome cosmic powers, just as you are the god of yourself. If you choose to surrender your god-like power of choice to a religion, thats up to you, but do not try and take my god-like power of choice from me.
I believe Lucifer said the exact same thing, and he wants you to believe that exact same thing.
And I believe Fred Flinstone said, “Yabba Dabba Doo”… so what. Fred and Lucifer do have something in common though, they are both fictional characters and therefore can do no harm to anyone.
You see, Dane, you and I agree even though you would like to argue with me. “Yabba Dabba Doo.”
:) I am sure there is some Yiddish translation that we are both missing and someone will post “Yabba Dabba Doo” actually means “Hail to Hitler” or something messed up like that, and I’ll be sad cause another piece of my childhood will have been irrevocably destroyed. Like when you found out Bugs Bunny cartoons were less for kids and more for political wartime propaganda.
And Sinatra said “Dooby Dooby Doo.”
And he got all the girls… yea lets go with what he said!
Actually mate, if you watch Fred shout “Yabba Dabba Doo!!!” with the video running backwards you can hear Satan telling you to kill your parents and burn down a church.
It is blasphemy to speak for Lucifer.
The thing is, everyone decides what he or she thinks best — some people think their brand of Christianity is the best. Some people think Buddism is the best. Some people think there is no God, some think there is, and none of it can be proved.
We are all responsible for our own beliefs, and more importantly, our own actions.
By deciding that atheists are going to your hell, you, too, have set yourself up as God thereby becoming a religion that worships self. Clever thought.
The Bible is the infallible, inerrant, preserved words of God. Men were simply the pens used to write it. Therefore, God is the author, not men. The Bible says that you are going to one of two places when you die, heaven or hell. There is only one way to get to heaven; threw Jesus Christ. The only way to get to Jesus is to be born again of the spirit. The only way to be born of the spirit is to acknowledge your sin and repent. To trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior, through the finished work of Christ on the cross whearin he paid the penalty for our sin with his sinless blood. How was his blood sinless…? He was God manifest in the flesh. If you deny any of that then Biblically speaking you are not going to heaven and further more are not a Christian. And if you’re not going to heaven…. This is not my opinion it’s God’s. It is your choice to believe it or not. All I have tried to do is tell you the truth, nothing more. I’m not telling you that you have to believe me, ask that you think about it. The Bible tells me to earnestly contend for the faith, I’m not trying to be offensive, I’m just trying to do my reasonable service to him who did and does so much for me.
That’s your opinion. You don’t know the mind of God, unless you think you are God, in which case you worship yourslef — and that’s idolatry.
Here’s my understanding:
The Bible is the great religious classic of Western religion, the cornerstone of Judaism and Christianity. It is an inspired conversation. It is authoratative for those religious communities that consider it to be authoratative.
Its 5 books (Samaritan Bible) or 24 books (Jewish Bible), or 66 books (Protestant Bible) or 73 books (Roman Catholic Bible) or 81 books (Ethiopian Orthodox Bible) have many different authors — the Bible is inspired, yet covered with human fingerprints.
It is not an infallible book, a Paper Pope, and never claims to be (and even if it somehow did, what would that prove?). It does not have to be perfect in order for it to be “The Good Book.” Those who think it is a perfect Paper Pope really worship the Bible — they are idolaters.
Scripture is not a test. The Scriptures are songs of wonder and amazement over the birth of a new relationship to God, but you would turn them into a test for “true believers” — as if you can give lovers an exam and then assign a grade to the accuracy of their passion.
You worded it well and truthfully. Trust me, penzance has a whole different agenda that is completely contrary to Scripture. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
You are entitled to your opinion. I think I’m more of a German Shepherd.
Rapp’s last sentence, “The Bible tells me to earnestly contend for the faith, I’m not trying to be offensive, I’m just trying to do my reasonable service to him who did and does so much for me,” sounds as though it comes from the heart.
The rest sounds like the rote recitation of dogma. Scripture is a song of wonder and amazement, not a test of theological correctness.
Thank you for the encouragement, I was really hoping the scripture would speak for itself. But if a person has already decided it isn’t true, what can you do? I also think you’re right about penzance being a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Which scripture?, which scripture? How can they all be right? and how will your god decide which is the real scripture? How will he let you know? Will he let everyone else know at the same time, including me? I personally would be delighted to hear from god.
He only reads the King James Version, a beautiful but sometimes inaccurate translation from 1611. Better translations are available today, but some fundamentalists are stuck in 1611.
There is zero evidence that “God” inspired a select few men to write the Bible. A council of men decided which books “inspired by God” would be included in the Bible. That should tell you something.
I find it odd that with all of the messages God supposedly sent to (very few) men more than 2,000 years ago, God has not said a peep since.
In fact, people who profess to be prophets these days usually end up in a mental hospital.
What a mess of mumbo jumbo. No wonder this religion is dying.
Tell me, which of the thousands of official bibles are you talking about. You do realize that there are thousands of different holy bibles, do you not? Which of them is the true word of your god? they can’t all be.
Thousands? That might be a bit of a stretch, however, you ask a valid question. The short answer from me would be in English, the Authorized Version is the only truly inspired version. I mean no offence to my brothers and sisters who may disagree with me, but that is what my research into the differences between the Bibles has shown me. Lets just say that when I got saved I was reading the NIV but I happened to go to a church that preached from the King James. I started to notice very early on that they sounded very different. At first I didn’t really think anything of it, but as I started to grow in my understanding of scripture it started to grate at me. So, I started asking some questions. An older brother at the church started showing me scripture side by side from the different versions that I found troubling. At this point I really started to study the history of the preservation of the Bible, the translators and the evidence for and against different versions. But more importantly I looked into why anyone would want to corrupt the word of God. The fact of the matter is that Satan has been trying to plant the seed of doubt as to what God said since Gen. 3. And man has always been left with the same all important choice that we have today,, Do you believe what God said or not. There are only two voices in the world today, God’s and Satan’s. Which one are you listening to? I’m not criticizing any who doesn’t agree with me on that and no where does it say that you can’t be saved if you’re not reading a specific version of the Bible. We’re all still sinners in need of a savior, and that’s still Jesus. It just happens to be a subject I’m passionate about. Please brothers and sisters don’t be offended.
Your god or your satan is the choice?
I’ll pass.
You are trying to reason with a person who believes in some cloven hoofed boogeyman who lives down below and speaks through people.
You are trying to reason with a person who believes the Bible is the infallble literal word of some divine being who somehow couldnt get any of the actual facts right, and who contradicts himself constantly despite being omnipotent. Talking snakes, burning talking bushes, 600 year old sailors with a boat come zoo, women turned into condiments, a flat earth with four corners held up by pillars, the Sun going around the Earth, the Sun stopping in its supposed orbit around the Earth, and on and on and on.
As I said above….trying to reason with a fundy is as painful and pointless as sticking your hand in a garbage disposal and hitting the on switch…and just as dumb.
It is not dumb if one views it as a sport.
I mean, some people bowl.
I enjoy the conversation. I know that fundamentalists are, generally speaking, a brick wall. They believe that everyone who does not agree with their theology will be roasted forever in hell for using their God-given reason. Of course that’s nonsense. But I keep hoping that at some point they may begin to have some small glimmer of understanding.
Woe, get that checked out. Two voices in your head doesn’t sound good.
Interesting response. The King James Version is beautifully done, and has the highest literary standards. It was also done to the best textual standards available in 1611, although better and older texts have been discovered since 1611, and so the NIV, CEV, REB, and NRSV, etc., are translated from older texts that are closer to the originals.
The KJV was authorized by the king and his church, the Church of England (the Episcopal Church in the U.S.), and so it uses some terms that the king preferred — “king” rather than “tyrant” (the Geneva Bible said “tyrant”) and “church” rather than “assembly” or “congregation.”
The Puritans — the fundamentalists and evangelicals of the day — preferred “congregation” because that word fit their style of governance, “congregational polity” — but the king liked “church” because to him it reflected his sense of grandeur and the importance of the king’s bishops. So the KJV reflects the tastes of King James I, rather than his Puritan opponents.
It also reflects the less accurate texts that were the only ones available in 1611, making it a less accurate translation than the NIV or the NRSV. But there is no doubt that the Shakespearean language of the KJV is grand and beautiful.
I’ve always wondered why some fundamentalists prefer the king’s and bishops’ Bible (King James Version) to the Bible that was preferred by the Puritans (the Geneva Bible), or to the more accurate translations that are available today.
By the way, were you aware that King James I was gay?
If there is a creator, I really, really hope it isn’t Biblegod. Biblegod acts like a nasty, hateful, petulant child, and if you compare OT and NT versions of Biblegod, he/she/it is bipolar. He/she/it certainly isn’t deserving of worship that is demanded under duress and coercion. Forcing people to profess to”love” you out of fear of what you will do to them if they don’t is not love. It’s abuse. Sociopaths do the same to their spouses before they back them into the corner and beat the hell out of them.
The Bible condones slavery, condones inducing miscarriage by way of “bitter water” if a woman’s husband is jealous and thinks it may not be his (if she cheated it aborts, if she’s innocent it doesn’t), and fails miserably at basic science. If it really were the inerrant, infallible, inspired word of God, I would expect him to have a better basic understanding of how the cosmos work, to know that it’s impossible to take anyone up a high enough mountain to see the whole earth (unless the earth is flat it cannot be done), or to know you can’t burn gold down into ashes to mix with water to make people drink, since gold is a metal, and is insoluble in water. I would expect him to know that the earth orbits the sun, that pi is equal to 3.1412…and not 3, and that germs cause disease. Yeah, I know…with God all things are possible so he allowed gold to burn to ash for Moses, flattened out and re-curved the earth for Jesus while he was on the mount with Satan (without anyone noticing), and did silly things like create plants who need sunlight for photosynthesis first, and then create sun afterwards, and then tweaked mathematics since it wasn’t right the first time. That sounds like really poor planning (or more realistically, something made up by bronze-age sheepherders without a clue).
The Bible also says that God cannot abide sin in his presence which is why he will send people to hell, yet he was more than ok with having Satan come up TO HIS THRONE to chat several times about screwing with a certain man named Job. Which is it, can he or not?
Paul is the inventor of Christianity, and he never met the guy. Paul is the one who gives instructions on the treatment of women, what the “proper” way to heaven is, and all manner of things he coughed up that have nothing to do with the writings of non-Pauline books. Also remember our canon was hand-picked at the council of Nicea and put up for a vote. It hurts, I know, but it will be ok.If basic info can’t be trusted, then why trust any of it? “Just in case” isn’t good enough. The Q’uran also says that kafir will go to hell, and frankly, their version of hell is worse than yours. What if you’re wrong and the Muslims are right??? See how that works?
You raise several good points.
Yes, Paul was the founder of Christianity, and he never met Jesus. Paul’s Christianity is a religion about Jesus, not the religion of Jesus. Jesus, who was always Jewish, never so much as met a Christian.
Actually, the Qur’an says that those who behave wickedly and immorally will go to hell — that leaves room for good Christians and Jews in the Islamic version of heaven. The Qur’an is much more genrous toward Christians and Jews than fundamentalist Christians are toward Islam, and the Qur’an is much less violent than the Bible.
Have you really been baptized if you weren’t fully immersed in water?
“Atheism is a religion, just like all the rest”.
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard uttered. Evahhhhh!
Said the REXICAN? that’s funny.
Actually it’s true. Atheism places its faith that there is no God. They can’t prove it, so they assume it based on faith.
Atheism is my religion inasmuch as bald is my hair color.
Being a ginger I don’t have a soul to worry about anyway…
I don’t believe in atheism.
What does that make me?
:-)
Atheism is an absence of belief. So you have an absence of belief in an absence of belief.
In other words, you don’t believe that I don’t believe.
That would be denial.
Just playing along…I appreciate your comment.
I don’t believe you wrote that.
You cannot not believe anything until you don’t.
Yes, you can’t prove it and neither can they.
My favorite bumper sticker is, “Militant Agnostic: I Don’t Know And Neither Do You.”
My favorite bumper sticker is “Jesus is Lord”. Quite different from yours wouldn’t you say?
Mine is “Hooters – Delightfully Tacky, Yet Unrefined”
I didn’t say that is my bumper sticker, I said it is my favorite (on someone else’s car), because it makes me smile. I’ve never had that one.
I did have one for a long time that said “Jesus Is A Liberal,” but I sold that car.
Now my only bumper sticker says “Obama 2012.”
I’ll wave (politely) if I see your car! :-)
I have heard that for every bump sticker put on a vehicle it reduces its resale value by $200. My understanding is that a Obama bumper sticker reduces its value by $400.00
Cash for Clunkers ya know. :)
Well, I always drive my car until it dies a natural death anyway. I appreciate the joke — just remember that “cash for clunkers” helped save our economy.
And drove up the price of used cars so far that poor had to pay more if they wanted to upgrade their old heaps to less old heaps.
Actually, the poor got subsidies and better cars, the auto companies sold cars, and auto workers, and workers for auto parts companies, got jobs — and now the economy is beginning to recover, which is good for all of us. Not bad all around. And the stock market is up, good for my retirement IRA account.
Interestingly, the one family I do know who got a cash for clunker new car is: middle or upper middle (in Maine) income, two liberal college grads both employed in education, relatively new large home (assessed circa $200k ) , etc etc –
Definitely not considered poor !
Cash for Clunkers Results Finally In: Taxpayers Paid $24,000 per Vehicle Sold, Reports Edmunds.com
Stick to theological discusion.
I was answering the person who answered my post — so yes, while I’ve been largely sticking to the theological discussion, we all get off on tangents sometimes.
By the way, your numbers are most certainly wrong, and I saw nothing on that web site related to cash for clunkers.
What site did you look at or are you just blinded by your bias.
Out of a zillion articles I picked edmunds.com which would have the least reason to manipulate the results.
Edmunds.com, the premier resource for online automotive information, has determined that Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold.
To conduct the analysis, the Edmunds.com team of PhDs and statisticians examined the sales trend for luxury vehicles and others not included in Cash for Clunkers, and applied the historic relationship of those vehicles to total SAAR to make informed estimates. These estimates were independently verified through careful examination of sales patterns reflected by transaction data. Once the numbers were determined, Edmunds.com’s analysts divided three billion dollars by 125,000 vehicles to arrive at the average $24,000 per vehicle.
http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/cash-for-clunkers-results-finally-in-taxpayers-paid-24000-per-vehicle-sold-reports-edmundscom.html?articleid=159446&
Real difficult to find..
Certainly !!! LOL
Ah, now you’re willing to give the exact site, not just a general one. I followed the general link you had given before, and didn’t want to spend 20 minutes searching around. Thanks for a more specific link.
Edmunds says that on the plus side, customers got better vehicles that used less gas, states got tax revenue, and dealers (and the auto companies) were happy to sell 690,000 vehicles.
On the down side, Edmunds claims that the average expense to the taxpayer was $24,000 per vehicle, although it spurred “desperately needed economic activity.”
But Edmunds based their $24,000 per vehicle on the idea that of the 690,000 vehicles sold under the program, only 125,000 of them were vehicles that would not have been purchased if it was not for the cash for clunkers program. That’s their calculation, which cannot be proved. If you include all 690,000 vehicles sold under the program, the actual cost to the taxpayer was $4,347 per vehicle.
So I would say, all things considered, that it was a program that, as Edmunds said, generated desperately needed economic activity, got people driving better vehicles that got better mileage, helped save the auto dealers, auto parts suppliers, and auto manufacturers (and their employees nationwide), and actually cost a little over $4,000 per vehicle.
And do you know any POOR folk who got a cash for clunker ? The only ones that I know and heard of where NOwhere “Poor”
And of course you realize that it is you (or your progeny) that pays that “$4,347 per vehicle”. I even thought about it, but just knew that it was so unethical.
BTW – edmunds googled to the top .. So hard..
My favorite bumper sticker is Make Tea Not War. That’s even more different.
Mine is Obama 2012.
Mine would be; “I’m a militant atheist; I know you think you know, but you don’t.”
Your bumper sticker is a way of bragging that you know the truth and that the other guy doesn’t. It’s fundamentalism of the left. A little humility is a good thing. That’s why I prefer, “I don’t know and you don’t either.” It’s funnier and more truthful.
It is not faith that there is no god, it is called rationality that there is no evidence of God.
If you cannot see that you are damaged goods.
The evidence in the arbitrary nature of religion and God abounds. Religion is a scheme in which knowledge is discredited in order to keep people believing in that which is not true, verifiable or universal. Science is all of those things. Science is not faith, it is evidence based. Atheism is simply freedom from faith as defined by religion.
They are not the same, they are opposites.
It has been said that an atheist cannot find God for the same reason a criminal cannot find a police officer. One runs around claiming there is no authority so they can disobey that authority. Fortunately, God already knows the guilty party and never neglects to catch the criminal. What is so wonderful about that is that God also will forgive any who will come to Him in humility and repentance through faith. Jesus paid for all the sin of the world, and forgiveness is offered so no one would have to pay for their sin. Why does that sound bad to so many, this gift of life and forgiveness?
God is Santa?
Is the Easter Bunny related to Jesus?
Somewhat.
The easter bunny proves evolution is “false”, by laying eggs.
I like that. It means I can do like the rest of the “christians”, lie, cheat, steal, maybe kill a few nonbelievers, and then on my deathbed confess, and I’ll go to heaven? Great. I’ll start today. I’m a believer, now.
Mark you are an atheist, you just believe in one more god than I do. In regard to all other gods you are just as much of an atheist as I.
Everyone is an atheist to some extent since there are several thousands of other gods neither you nor they believe in. People who call themselves atheist just add one more to it than you do. Nothing more. How can you prove Thor, Vishnu, or pink unicorns don’t exist? You can’t. You just have no reason to think that they do, so you don’t. It’s the same idea and nothing more. An absence of a belief is not the same as having a belief. To rip off a popular saying: “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”
Religion is defined as the belief in Supernatural Forces,
So “absence” of belief isin’t a religion.
They can’t prove a negative, that there is no god. It has been proven that you cannot prove a negative.
Sorry, wrong again. They assume it based on the evidence, like every thing else.
Religion is the faithful belief in Supernatural Forces,
Absence of faith isin’t a religion.
“It’s unfortunate that you didn’t understand that the “millions of
innocent men, women and children” who were “burnt, tortured, fined and
imprisoned” since “the introduction of Christianity” WERE
CHRISTIANS!!!!”
And it is unfortunate Brandon that you either were alseep in History class or got your History education off the back of a Cornflakes box…or maybe care of the Ancient Aliens raddled History Channel.
Ever hear of the Crusades? As the Crusaders cried “God Wills It” they were busy slaughtering Muslims, Jews and Semitic Christians. Or how about the Spanish Inquisition? Those Converso Christians they burned in the 1400s were ex-Jews forced to convert to stay in Spain….not that that saved them. Thats after they had finished with the rest of the non-Christians. Or the earlier French Christian genocide campaigns against the non Christian gnostics? In the country of my birth (the UK) we have a long history of anti-Jewish pogroms reaching back to Richard IIs time…..including the infamous York Massacre. We Brits were the ones who first made Jews wear little yellow badges. Then there is the ant-Jewish pogroms of the Italian City States, Poland, the Holy Roman Empire…..shall I keep going? How about all the way to the start? Y see when Constantine I of Rome declared that Christianity was the official religion of the Roman Empire the rider to the decree also included a little side clause – all non Christian temples were to be converted to churches or burned, and all non Christans were to be persecuted or converted. That policy accellerated in the Eastern Empire / Byzantium.
Christians have been persecuting and murdering non-Christians since day 1.
Y see, unlike you, Jefferson DID have a good grasp of History, particularly in respect of the “Church”. Thats why he is still a respected voice.
You, on the other hand, are just plain old ignorant, as is evidenced by your stupid statement about atheism being a religion.
No it isnt. Is “OFF” a TV channel? Is “BALD” a hair colour?
Atheism is the answer NO to the question “do supernatural deties exist”.
And that is all it is.
It is the total lack of a belief in God/Gods. No faith involved, no dogma, no worship, no ritual…… just logic and reason.
Still….why do we bother? Trying to get someone like you to see that point is like trying to persuade an IDiotic creationist that maybe their particular brand of foundation myth has no factual basis. Its like sticking your hand in the waste disposal and hitting the on switch….. painful, pointless and just plain dumb.
So tell us what a “real Christian” is.
You are forgetting the billions of the poor and the sick and the homeless who were fed, clothed, healed and sheltered by the millions of Christians throughout history. The burning, torturing, fining and imprisoning seem to carry on with or without religious belief. The atheism of the Soviet Union is a good example of that.
Yes, although many Christians have burnt, killed, tortured, and waged war, etc., in the name of Christianity — and often with the endorsement with their churches — I agree with you that does not mean that the religion of Jesus is a bad thing. Far from it. “Be compassionate just as your Father is compassionate,” Luke 6:36. Just because some Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus, etc., do not live up to the best of their religion’s teachings, does not make their religion bad. And I agree that Soviet atheism was just as evil as anything the Inquisition, the Catholic vs. Protestant Thirty Years’ War, or the Crusaders ever did. The problem is human self-centeredness, selfishness, and self-righteousness, not religion. Religion has done much good.
A few things, Luke 6:36 has no more relevance than Luke Ep. 6 ROTJ where he says, “You have failed your Highness, I am a Jedi, like my father before me.” Fiction is fiction plain and simple. Second, the Soviet Union was not Atheist, their religion was the religion of State. The Politburo was the all powerful rather than The Invisible Sky Wizard. Not believing in a higher power does not make one bad, simply being bad and exerting power over others makes you bad. Christianity is no different, they use their power to do harm to those who do not believe. Evidenced by the thousands of people who could have been helped through stem cell research, but because of “Christian values” and the power it has, those thousands have had to suffer and die.
We seem to be having a problem discussing different genres of literature.
“Be compassionate” might be called philosophy or religion or even poetry, but it is not fiction. If I say to you, “Stop at the stop sign,” or “brush your teeth,” and you say, “that’s fiction,” you are answering with a non sequitur.
My point was that Jesus taught compassion, but many Christians do not practice compassion. As Gandhi said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.”
And second, yes of course Communism as practiced in the Soviet bloc was officially atheist and in practice anti-religious. Some people do terrible things in the name of religion. Some other people do terrible things in the name of anti-religion. You’re not a good guy just because you call yourself a Christian, and likewise you’re not a good guy just because you call yourself an atheist (or fill-in-the-blank). It’s what you do that counts, not what you call yourself.
Not all skeptics are bad people, and not all skeptics are good people, either. Get over yourself, please.
I’m for stem cell research, I’m pro-choice, I’m for marriage equality, I’m for the separation of church and state, I have great respect for atheism as a consistent philosophy (although I generally get along better with agnostics because they are less full of themselves), and I think Darwin and Galileo were right, by the way — and I’m a Christian.
You’re a Unitarian, that is not Christian.
May I impose my religion on you? Or, in the spirit of the topic, let’s not impose our religious beliefs on others, shall we?
She is free to impose her beliefs on you, not very neighborly, but not prohibited. I deal with it depending on circumstance. It could be anywhere from a simple no thank you …all the way to a “get off my porch”
This is what they mean by “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” If one of their religious tenents is they must go knock on someones door ….they have the right. I, of course, have the right to close it. After all its my door. That is why there is no law prohibiting door-to-door religious search for converts.
You and I have a different understanding of the word impose. Plus I don’t think you have a right to knock on my door if I don’t want you to. Once, maybe, but if I tell you not to knock on my door again, then the next time you would be trespassing.
Actually you impose your worldview on here on a daily basis. I am free to do the same.
You’ve decided I’m something that I haven’t said I am or claimed to be — I’ve merely identified myself as a Christian.
And you’ve made a judgement about Unitarians, which shows your bias. You may think that Catholics or Mormons or Quakers or others are not Christians. But if they say they are Christians, I accept that. My understanding is that the Unitarians have no creed about what they believe in common, but gather around a covenant that tells how they will treat one another on the religious journey. So some Unitarians insist they are NOT Christian — they agree with you on that point — while other Unitarians say they are Christians. I respect that, and that’s up to them. Judge not, so that you will not be judged.
Oh, come on…
You don’t have to “think” Galileo was right. He was right because it has been proven. Same with many of Darwin’s theories, we have seen evolution and adaptation in our lifetimes. Science tends to do that, you know disprove many of the Christian theories.
You want to argue with me about Galileo, when we both agree that he was right. I think you just want to argue with someone.
Funny how we keep seeing that science proved evolution, yet not a shred of evidence is offered for anything but adaptation in the short term. Saying something is true doesn’t prove it, for religion or science. Nobody alive today saw the Earth formed, knew the first people, we have to trust that those who document history are doing so accurately. I believe God inspired history through the Bible and so it is accurate in my estimation. We can’t even get 2 reporters today to agree on basic details, and much of science is filtered through the lens of worldview.
We all know that fossils are dated dependent on what strata layer it was found in. Also well known is that layers of strata are defined by what fossils we find inside. That is circular reasoning, so the argument that the Bible confines its theories to its own contents is no different. One must choose by faith to believe one or the other, or something else entirely. We cannot both be right, but if I am right I have eternal life. If the evolutionist is right, I die and go into the ground, no harm done. Worth a look, isn’t it?
It is, until because of those who believe in the bible, I may very well get put into the ground sooner than I should. If I am genetically predisposed to say… Parkinsons, should I have to suffer and die because the “believers” prevent stem cell research that could save and prolong my life? And after they have prevented the research, they further say that I am required to suffer before I die, because after all Death with Dignity is suicide in their eyes and that’s a sin so therefore it has to be illegal. Thankfully there are some places where logic has prevailed over superstition, like Oregon.
You mention “believing” in the Bible.
“Do I believe in the Bible? Heck, I’ve even seen one.” — homeowner to the door-to-door evangelist.
Seriously, for my thoughts on Scripture, see my reply to Brandon Rapp some distance below. He says it is “the infallible, inerrant, preserved words of God.”
I say it is an “inspired conversation” covered with human fingerprints, authoritative to those religious communities that consider it to be authoratative; it contains songs of wonder and amazement. It is not an infallible Paper Pope, and it should not be worshiped by those who mistake it for “the infallible, inerrant, preserved words of God.” Those who worship the Bible are idolaters.
I love that Paper Pope thing
You have to admit though, the Pope does have some pretty cool hats.
Yea, the are pretty pimp
Even when you and I disagree, you make rational and civil arguments. NOW CUT IT OUT!!!
Thanks!
:-)
Carbon dating, anyone?
Hey how ’bout that 32,000 year-old plant they just revived which is flowering and setting seed!
32,000 years…. Come on..
Yeah, that’s an exact science… Please. Carbon dating is junk science based on many, many assumptions.
Carbon dating is not junk science. It is widely accepted — and proven — in the scientific community. Anyone who says otherwise is plain ignorant.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-14.htm
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio302/pages/carbondatingback.html
No where as many assumptions as all this Bible stuff.
I had my Gutenburg Bible carbon dated.
Next, science will “prove” gravity.
Got any tall buildings nearby?
Your circular reasoning argument for fossil dating shows you didn’t pay attention at all in basic high school biology. It shows you are ignorant on the subject and it confirms the axiom that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” when you try to use your very limited knowledge of rock layers to affirm a religious myth over scientific inquiry. Shame on you. Before you continue your nonsensical blather you should first go read some science textbooks and learn about fossil dating techniques. Any first-year biology student who paid attention in class could show you the error of your argument. So I won’t wast my time trying. If you’re really interested in the truth you’ll go do a little research yourself.
I am not sure about that evolution thing. After all, some people still believe Rush Limbaugh tells the truth.
and Dan Rather !
“As Gandhi said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.”
As Gandhi said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians.”_ I don’t think Gandhi would have had the same views about Christ if he had access to the Internet.
I’m not sure what you mean. Postings on the internet reflect the views of many different kinds of Christians, but to my knowledge Christ himself has never posted on the internet. So I may have one opinion of certain people who call themselves “Christians,” and a very different opinion of Christ.
Hi Becca, I don’t see the post you are replying to, but as for Thomas Jefferson, he was raised Anglican (Episcopalian), is regarded as a Deist (briefly, God created the universe and then left it alone, and the “book of Nature” is sufficient — the Bible is generally unnecessary), and was accused of atheism when he ran for president.
When he was in the White House he literally took scissors and paste to his Bibles and cut out the miracles from the Four Gospels, pasting back together what he called “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” without the virgin birth, miracles, or resurrection. It was for his own private use and was not meant for publication, but is in print today as The Jefferson Bible.
When Thomas Paine wrote The Age of Reason, a book that criticized the Bible as a bloodthirsty book full of lies, Jefferson is said to be Paine’s only remaining friend in America.
In the last year of his life, Jefferson declared himself to be a Unitarian (Unitarians see Jesus as a human teacher to be followed, not a divine being to be worshiped). He said in a letter that since there was no Unitarian Church close enough to join, and not enough Unitarians in the neighborhood to form a church, he would call himself “a Unitarian by myself.”
Your quotes from Jefferson look accurate to me. This is my understanding as a former high school history teacher.
People should notice that with all his disdain for religious belief, Mr. Faircloth goes on to establish his own religious tenets. He would have us all act according to what he considers moral and acceptable. Jefferson would be appalled. He would say: I will not live under the religious tyranny of an established state church, whether it be established by Chrisitians, Jews, Muslims or you, Mr. Faircloth.
Mr. Faircloth says some things more strongly and starkly than I would phrase things, and I agree with you that we must be respectful of people’s religious beliefs. I’m a Christian, and will defend the teachings of Jesus — while I acknowledge that some terrible things have been done by people who call themselves Christians.
But Faircloth is correct in his basic thesis, that the government must remain neutral on religion. That means that in some cases children must be protected from parents who would mistreat a child (like denying the child a blood transfusion) based on certain religious beliefs.
Jefferson (a slave-owner and an imperfect person) said he wanted on his tombstone to be known for three things, establishing the University of Virginia, writing the Declaration of Independence, and writing the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom. Religious liberty — for Christians and non-Christians — was of the greatest importance in Jefferson’s estimation. Jefferson also defended the right of Thomas Paine to publish a book that criticized the Bible for being bloodthirsty and full of lies.
You seem to think Faircloth wants to establish non-religion as the religion of this nation. That’s not how I read what he said. I understand him to be saying that the government must remain neutral so that all Americans can practice their religion — or not — as they see fit.
I do think Mr. Faircloth wants to go beyond neutrality to the imposition of his atheism. I think government should be neutral, but it just can’t be avoided that moral judgments will influence policy decisions, and much of the time those moral judgments are based on religious theology.
For instance, the obligation of government to provide for the poor. Some atheists may contend that that is just a much a part of their moral code, and I can accept that. But many atheists or agnostics would not agree that they must feed the poor. Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and Social Darwinism would contend that it is better for those poor people to die and “decrease the surplus population” for the betterment of all mankind. But most religious faiths speak of a religious obligation for the faithful to care for the needy–and that is where the US social welfare system has its foundation.
You and I apprently agree that the government should be neutral. The question, I think, is where we draw the line. All human institutions, including the government of the U.S.A., are imperfect.
I agree with you that religious people have the same right to speak up that non-religious people have. A priest or a pastor does not give up the right to vote — or to express an opinion — when that person gets ordained. A person does not give up the right to have a political opinion what that person gets baptized or takes communion.
Your example of the atheistic Objectivism of Ayn Rand and the urging of Jesus to show compassion for the poor and the weak is an example I agree with. Both sides, and many other ideas, have a right to contend in the free marketplace of ideas.
thegreatwandini, I don’t see where Mr. Faircloth is trying to impose his atheism. Also, Social Darwinism isn’t atheism. Likewise, I think you’d find few – not many – atheists who would dream of advocating the idea that we should not feed the poor.
You also mention that the religious have an obligation to care for the needy, yet dismiss the fact that MANY Christians in the US oppose a health care(and that’s ignoring those who rely on faith-healing) .
Mr. Faircloth is not acknowledging that issues such as sexual morality, the raising of children, health care, end of life decisions all have religious ramifications. He would have his standard apply. The truth is that how we live our lives is intertwined with our ideas of morality which come from some spiritual sense of right versus wrong. You cannot reach morality through intellect alone. I would challenge most atheists to examine how they came to adopt the moral standard they have. They may find that they are more influenced by religious thought than they would care to admit.
It is not self-evident that we should feed the poor, nor that we should treat all human beings with dignity. These ideals have come about through a spiritual sense of compassion. There have been many people who claim to be religious who have not practiced this compassion. There have also been many people who claim no religion who have not practiced compassion.
And none of that is about imposing his atheism.
“The truth is that how we live our lives is intertwined with our ideas of morality which come from some spiritual sense of right versus wrong. You cannot reach morality through intellect alone.”
Well, I wouldn’t use the word spiritual. I would, however, use the word empathic. So, unlike you, I would think our sense of right and wrong stems from empathy, life experience, the experiences of others, and our intellectual abilities.
It is “Freedom of Religion” not “Freedom From Religion”.
Mr. Faircloth, your moral relativist, ends-justify-the-means attitude is, frankly, repulsive.
Support the Conscience Clause!
The people have the right to have freedom from religion; I don’t appreciate having anachronistic superstitions imposed on me by others. Consider moving into the 21st century.
There is no right to freedom FROM religion. Not in the US Constitution anyway. There is a freedom OF religion which means the government stays out. That does not preclude religion from having influence on government as any group of citizens has.
I disagree wholeheartedly – I don’t have to have religion forced on me, while it may influence government (my position is it should not at all) that means inequality for others. Its outright feudal – like the dark ages. The citizenry can only rise to its full potential when constraining archaic superstitions go by the wayside.
Yes, there OBVIOUSLY is a freedom from religion. If you get to choose your own, you inherently have a right to not have the religious beliefs of another imposed on you.
You may not be forced to attend a church, but you are not free from contact with religious beliefs and their impact on our laws and public behavior. “From” and “of” a not interchangeable prepositions in all cases. They suggest different connotations. The Constitution says people retain the freedom to practice their religion free from state interference. It does not say citizens have the right to be free from the influence or even interference of religion.
I can respect a lot of where you are coming from. I have always maintained to my religious friends that it is not a good idea to attempt to impose prayer in school, that court procedures can be carried out just as well without a crucifix on the wall or a posting of the Ten Commandments. And we do not need to have laws banning the act of an artist putting a crucifix upside down in urine–unless, of course, the Public Health department wants to step in on it.
What I don’t believe, and neither did our Founders, is that politicians have no right to vote and act according to their faith. I don’t believe the American Democratic experiment could have been made without the influence of religion, particularly the Judeo-Christian faith, but not solely. If people want to renounce all religion for themselves personally, I say great. If they want to point out the shortcomings or the irrationality of religion I say great. But when they want to restrict the rights of religious people to participate in government, to speak based on their religious morality, to live their lives and structure their families based on their faith–I cannot support that.
One person may say there is no god, another person may say with equal conviction that there is a god. I say, thank god I don’t have to judge who is right.
I didn’t say what you’re claiming I did.
No The first amendment is quite clear. I simply close the door when a religious person appears on my porch f I am not in the mood. If they are adamant. I kick em off.
The other day at my office I received a hand written letter from a person who wanted to meet me and had a “message from God” they wanted to hand deliver. Do you know what I did? .. Recycle bin. :)
They have as much right to approach you to discuss their religion as you do in rejecting them. Those annoying advertising pop-ups are in my face all day long when I visit certain news sites. I simply click the X in the corner and I am out.
btw I do the same thing when those pesky MPA folks show up.
Dude, that is a freedom from religion. Government doesn’t impose religion on you and you are free to choose your own beliefs. That is the freedom to be free from religion.
If what you say is true then I declare my self free of Democrats….. stay off my porch. Do not call asking for donations….Stay out of my public buildings and voting booths please.
Of course I am tongue in cheek, but only to illustrate that what you ask for does not exist.
Religion is a part of life as much as we try to ignore it.
We need to be careful how you unwind protections of Religions rights to be part of our society. Could your rights be as easily unwound as well?
Well that pretty much identifies the source of your information. LOL
Yes, and freedom OF religion means the government can’t impose a religion you, so you are also free FROM the government’s imposition of a religion.
You are absolutely dead wrong on that. The founders were almost all deists. They did not believe in a God with supernatural power. They believed in the God of Nature and Science. They believed in proof and progress not in maintaining a basis of understanding that never changes and ignores any learning that will ever take place. This is what religion is and the founders had no use for any of that. They were intentional in not putting God, Jesus or the Bible in the constitution.
The constitution only refers to religion in exclusionary terms, i.e.: Freedom from religion.
The most you can get out of the founders actual words is to suggest they were “tolerant of” religion. They believed that the universe was created by some great power but that power does not involve itself in earthly matters. Jesus was a man but had no miraculous powers. Science and its laws govern the cosmos, not God and his laws. This is what they believed.
There has been a movement in this country for a hundred years to revise history to include a christian foundation for the nation. It is not true. It is easily disputed with even a cursory reading of the words the founders wrote. Your message appeals only to those who do not read for themselves.
You have been lied to and now wish to carry your misunderstanding to others. Sorry to take such strong exception to your comment, but it typifies the language of christian revisionism. This kind of lie is particularly disgusting to me and I will speak truth to it every chance I get. I love what America’s founding ideals are. I am a sappy patriotic type like that. You are trying to erase that beautiful and powerful foundation and replace it with the language that has held the world captive and oppressed for centuries. We are free most of all because we are free to believe or not believe as we ourselves see fit. That is freedom FROM religion.
It doesn’t matter what religion or non -religion the founders were referring to. Their religion doesn’t matter. What does matter was how they chose to view all religions in the first amendment.
“The constitution only refers to religion in exclusionary terms, i.e.: Freedom from religion. ”
This is not at all true, because the Constitution describes what the government can do and cannot do.
The First amendment.
“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.”
No where does it say you have any right to freedom from religion… No where.
It describes what the GOVERNMENT can NOT do in regards to making laws establishing a state religion but that is all.
There is no reference whatsoever about freedom from religion….none.
Show me your viewpoint in language as clear as the first amendment.
The first amendment makes the point I was referring to precisely. Establishment clause: exclusion of state religion. People are allowed to practice as they see fit. The government was designed to to exclude religion. NO religious test….more exclusionary language. Like I said, the constitution only speaks of religion in exclusionary terms. That means government is to be free of religion.
Revisionists like yourself do a disservice to America’s crowning achievement: the first government free from religion.
I love the constitution and would fight to protect it from zealots who seek to misrepresent it and turn it into what it is not.
Read the words the founders wrote. They wanted freedom FROM religion. Don’t trust me, do the homework. It is obvious once you dig in.
Please don’t call me a revisionist.
You just rewrote the text to include the previously word “Exclusion” which does not appear anywhere in the first amendment text.
What is so hard here? CONGRESS …..Again I say CONGRESS shall make no law establishing a religion ie STATE Religion. The first amendment relates to what CONGRESS can do not anything else.
The term is iNOT exclusion it is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
The prohibition is on the Congress and not religion, nor the people. Fairly clear and established law.
If what you say is true….Then freedom of the Press would also be Exclusionary… could be prohibited from printing exactly what they believe is the truth..as example? Under your example it might be.
I am really saddened that authoritarian like you really believe what you do. This country is heading for a cliff and and you call me the revisionist….
A little bit scary that you have adopted the term. Usually that term is used against political opponents before they haul out the Gulags.
This is sloppy thinking on so many levels it defies rebuttal
The first ten Amendments to the Constitution define the limitations of the government in relation to the people.
1) Congress may not establish a religion or interfere or prohibit its exercise. (why is this first?)
Congress may not interfere with free speech.
Congress may not interfere with the free press.
Congress may not interfere with the people right to assemble and petition the government.
2) The government may not infringe on the peoples right to own and and bear arms.
3) The government may not force homeowners to give up their quarters to the military except under certain circumstances. .
4) The government may not unlawfully perform search and seizures without probable cause.
5) The government cannot arrest and hold a person without an indictment.
6) The government shall provide for a speedy trial.
7) The trial shall be by a jury of his peers.
8) The government may not ask excessive bail nor perform cruel and unusual punishment.
9) The facts that rights are not enumerated in these amendments does not mean they don’t exist.
10) The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
These 10 amendments lets us know what the GOVERNMENT may not do.
Nowhere does it say a religion or a group of people may not engage in lawful activityin fact in Amendment 9 it says so.
Yes, Cheesecake, you and I agree sometimes! The point of the First Amendment is to protect the people from any governmental infringement on their rights, and your reference to the rest of the Bill of Rights also protecting the people from the government puts it in context. Good job!
I think what some others are trying to get at is that they — non-religious people — also want their non-religious position to be protected. The First Amendment does this as well by not establishing a religion. They are mistaken if they think that religious people should not express political opinions.
Both the “Religious Right” and the non-religious seem to feel they are being persecuted, that they are under attack. The Religious Right talks about a threat from what they call “secular humanism.” The non-religious people think the Religious Right has great power, wealth, and influence (probably true).
Because the non-religious feel threatened by the power, wealth and influence of the Religious Right, they are frightened by the loud volume of the political voices on the Religious Right.
When politicians like George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum are very vocal about how strongly they are influenced by their religious faith, and those people represent the power of government, the non-religious people believe their First Amendment rights are under attack. They think that people like Santorum want to establish a certain kind of Christianity as the de facto religion of the government. Such an outcome would violate their First Amendment rights.
Does that make sense?
In the early years of our nation, it was common for states to have religious “blue” laws and for the state to support a church. It was mentioned somewhere on this thread that Massachusetts had an established church–the state paid the salaries of ministers. There was no Constitutional challenge to this because the Constitution read that Congress shall make no law etc….It said nothing about the individual states. This changed with the passage of the fourteenth amendment, which the Supreme Court used to establish that what Congress could not do was also binding on States in terms of providing due process and guaranteeing rights for all citizens.
Supreme court decisions have never held that an individual cannot express their religious belief, even if that belief offends another. There has also never been a constitutional problem with candidates espousing religion, or using religion as a basis for their votes.
Yes, exactly.
Cheesecake, I agree with you here. You are part right and TheRexican is part right.
Yes, We have freedom of religion which means the government must do its best (no human institution is perfect) to remain neutral. Religious people have the same right to participate in the political process that non-religious people have — and vice versa.
For there to be real freedom OF religion, the government must not impose any religion ON us. Therefore we must be free FROM the government’s imposition of any religion on us. By separating the church from the state, our freedoms are protected. Religious people can still express their opinions — you don’t give up the right to vote when you get ordained as a priest or pastor for instance. You don’t give up your right to have an opinion, either.
TheRexican gets some of it right and some wrong. Yes, most of the Founding Fathers were Deists (although a few, like Patrick Henry, were what we would call “evangelical” today). But Deists did indeed believe in a supernatural God who created the universe — but then that God stepped away and ceased to interfere, allowing the laws of Nature (which were created by God) to work. Furthermore, although most were Deists, at the same time most also regarded themselves as Christians. We would call them liberal Christians.
George Washington, for instance, would not take communion, and when a preacher admonished him for this he stopped attending church altogether. He would pray, but he would not kneel to pray (despite an oil painting that incorrectly shows him kneeling — that’s artistic license).
TheRexican is correct that they intentionally left God, Jesus, the Bible and Christianity out of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson mentioned “Nature and Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence, a Deist phrase, not a biblical or Christian phrase.
You are right to cite the First Amendment, as it contains PART of our Constitutional guarantee of what Jefferson called “the wall of separation between church and state.”
Other parts are found in the fact that “We the people,” not God, established the Constitution; that the oath of office for the president is religion-neutral; and that the Constitution says that there shall be no religious test for holding office. Madison called this “a complete separation of all things governmental and ecclesiastical.
If you are unable to grasp the most basic concepts contained in the constitution, cheesy I suggest you refrain from exposing your defects.
So, to be consistent, you would need to argue that television and radio broadcasts that you find offensive must be banned, whereas most reasonable people simply say, “switch the channel”.
Religion in the public discourse is here to stay, “appreciate” it or not.
Switch the channel is hardly the same as switch your country of origin. Please look up the definition of “critical thinking”, you are not very good at it.
WRONG ANSWER. It is in fact freedom from religions every bit as much.
So long as church and state remain separate, they both shall flourish. This nation was founded largely to protect believers from a church-state like the Church of England.
Read your history, neighbor. Read the letters the founders wrote on this topic. Their intentions were not mysterious and unknowable. They were very clear and articulate on these matters.
John Adams said “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it”. Jefferson has even more adamant. The founders were considerably more enlightened than we give them credit for. In fact, they may have been more enliughtened than we are as a culture today on matters such as the role of science and religion in society.
Sean is really showing his liberal, anti-religious bent, for certain. If the liberals promote a lie often enough, it seems to be perceived as the truth. Do you reall believe that Thomas Jefferson would have said that conservative Christians should not participate in politics?
“If the liberals promote a lie often enough….” Wow! Is that whats going on here? Just because someone is not religious does not make them anti-religious. That is the classic playing of the victim card.
Thomas Jefferson would not have suggested conservative Christians stay out of politics. He would have insisted that they check that baggage at the door of the peoples house, that being congress, the White House or the courts. Jefferson so despised the indoctrination of the church he spent years rewriting the bible without any references to extra-human powers: no miracles, no divinity, no heaven. It is unfathomable that this man would stand by and watch what the conservative right has done to the nation in the name of religion. He would be leading the rebellion against them!
Nobody is suggesting that. What is being suggested is that Jefferson would have said we should not impose our moral beliefs on others when we make laws.
No one believes that. That is what we call a straw man, but politics is not religion, as I am sure you are aware. Also,too, religion must be kept out of politics since I do not wish to live under sharia law. Are you beginning to see the light? What is the difference between the Taliban and our own talibangelicals?
How refreshing, someone with the idea of not shoving religion down the throats of others. It is heartening and refreshing to hear someone applying 21st century ideas in place of antiquated superstitions on the populace.
Ha Ha Ha ha. Because you have suffered such hardship from those religious people always forcing themselves upon you! What happened–did those violent Jehovah Witnesses come to your door and assault you? Oh, yes, let us all hurl the disdain upon those poor bozos who believe in all those hokey, silly superstitions. Because you, oh so rational you, are far above them.
Something else to notice: The whole concept of “equality” that Mr. Faircloth is using i.e no bias in the military, no bias in employment, the notion that all people have the right to fair and equal treatment under the law–all of that extends from the religious foundation that all men are “created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”–If I remember my history right, those are also words attributed to Jefferson.
Without the underpinning of a belief in a Creator who makes each person as valuable as the next, there is no guiding morality that says I must respect the rights of my neighbor.
I harbor no superstition about any creator.
Consequently, am I inherently immoral?
Of course not, but I would suggest a re-consideration of the value of humility. People do not come to religious convictions because they are irrational, superstitious and silly.
If I had just a tad more humility, I’d be perfect.
I know, me too.
Your statement is at variance with the facts.
the creator doesn’t mean The Invisible Sky Wizard, to some it may, but to others it means matter and anti-matter coming together and launching a galaxy creating explosion. Don’t get hung up on a single word, look at the meaning which is we are all born free to make own own decisions about the destiny of our lives.
What is relevant is who or what Jefferson and his contemporaries meant by the word Creator, not what you want to make it mean today. The very idea that we are all born free is based on the religious precept of being equal because we are all made by the same creator. Until that belief existed, mankind did not consider that all people were born free and equal.
Christianity had been around for about 1860 years before Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. Christianity and its belief in their version of the creator held that slavery was ok. It took a government, not a religion to bring about equality, and even then we still don’t have it in 2012 . We will be a step closer this fall when gay marriage passes, remind me again who it is fighting against that form of equality? Had Jefferson’s “Creator” meant the Christian God, then you wouldn’t have to worry about shoveling your driveway because you would most likely own someone who would do it for you.
IT took a very militant Christian organization to abolish slavery. And it was those Christian abolitionists who were trying to impose their belief in the evil of slavery who influenced the government to abolish slavery. I never said Jefferson’s Creator was the Christian god. But he did believe in a Creator–one that had the power to “endow” its creation with rights…not just some accidental coincidence of matter and energy.
That is not a Christian idea. In fact many Christian religions insist that we are born in sin and not free. The idea we are born free comes from the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment. We are not a nation built upon a Christian document.
Yes, in the Declaration of Independence, you are correct that Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”
He also wrote of “Nature and Nature’s God” in the same Declaration. That is clearly a Deist phrase, and it is absolutely not a biblical phrase.
His understanding of God was Deist, that God had created the universe and the Laws of Nature, and then stepped back and let the Laws of Nature do their work. Jefferson’s God was one who deserved our praise, and yet was also a God who was absent from today’s world — a God who does NOT act in history.
Yes, Jefferson was religious. Could he be considered a Christian by today’s standards? I think most people, when given the facts, would say no.
The idea of the rights of man come not from religion but from the philosophies explored in the Age of Enlightenment of the 1700s. It was an anti-religious, intellectual movement starting in France and carried to the US by the likes of Jefferson and Franklin. When the word creator is used it does not mean a Christian God. The Bill of Rights evolved from the ethics of the Enlightenment and not from Christianity.
It is quite possible to live a moral and ethical life without religion and without a God.
The philosophers of the 1700s were heavily influenced by Christian dogma in addition to the ancient ideas of Greek democracy, and the influence of Eastern traditions. I agree that when they use the word Creator they are not speaking of the Christian god necessarily. But they do recognize a divine force that endows all men with rights.
The Judeo-Christian concept of a divine soul in each human that lives beyond death underpins much of philosophy. Sure, philosophy has many other trains of thought, but one cannot deny the influence that the Judeo-Christian religion has had on the world of thought.
I do believe it is certainly possible to live a moral and ethical life without a god or religion. Having religion is no guarantee of morality.
Ah, no. there is no religious foundation that all are created equal. The bible demands slavery, the submission of women, the wholesale slaughter of innocents. All of these atrocities have been declared illegal by SECULAR governments all over the civilized world. Perhaps if you spent half the time that a secular person such as myself does studying the bible you would know these facts.
I don’t equate the bible with all of religious doctrine, not even all of Christian doctrine.
What is it with atheists that makes them so arrogant? Sheeeesh–this is why I would be leery of handing power over to people who are so sure they are right and everyone else is a numbnut–whether they are religious or not. The bible “demands” none of the things you mentioned. I don’t know how much time you have spent studying the bible, but I can assure you I am not bible challenged.
You conflate the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution, a typical stance for a right wing (pseudo)religionist to take.
While each is dear to our history – and remarkable documents even today – they cannot be interchanged. The Constitution establishes our government. The Declaration does not.
I wasn’t conflating. I was just adding one other writing attributable to Jefferson to add to the other quotes offered by the author. His quote of there being a “separation of church and state” is also not found in the Constitution.
Right. The Declaration is only a historical document with no legal consequences. Independence was not legally determined until the Paris Treaty of 1783. For some reason most people know about the Declaration but few know about the treaty which actually established the US as an independent country.
This just in: every employer in the US has just announced that they are morally opposed to paying minimum wage, providing meal and rest periods, complying with OSHA safety standards, and permitting maternity leave.
When asked for comment, a spokesperson defended the employers’ actions saying, “I believe that we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So government shouldn’t be telling employers, Catholic organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something that’s against their moral beliefs. “
That would be relevant if you could point to that religion’s history of teaching that minimum wage, meal and rest periods, maternity leave, and OSHA standards are against their morality. But you can’t.
Why are you attempting to muddy the waters? Is it March Muddy Madness?
Very, very well stated. I agree wholeheartedly.
I think everyone should have a pet rock to worship.
It is laughable but sad that those who are against
any religion are so intent on doing their best to
ridicule those who do believe and worship a religion.
It is one thing to say a government should govern
based on the laws set forth by the Constitution but
these people who say that people are idiots for their
beliefs are as biased and even more vicious than the
same people they condemn.
Rejection of the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin. Are you guilty?
Do you seriously mean to assert that Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot would be forgiven their genocidal rampages were each to have professed the Holy Spirit a nanosecond before their deaths, but Mohandis K. Ghandi would suffer throughout eternity?
It appears that cp444 has bought into the idea that what you do, how you live your life, makes no difference. To people like cp444 the only thing that is important is that you hold the same theological opinion that they hold. Since they KNOW THE TRUTH and everyone else is wrong, you have to agree with them or else God will torture you forever in hell. It’s a nutty theology, but they have convinced themselves of this stuff. They really believe it!
As I said to Skeletonman: “It appears that cp444 has bought into the idea that what you do, how you live your life, makes no difference. To people like cp444 the only
thing that is important is that you hold the same theological opinion that they hold. Since they KNOW THE TRUTH and everyone else is wrong, you have to agree with them or else God will torture you forever in hell. It’s a nutty theology, but they have convinced themselves of this stuff. They really believe it!”
According to the Bible you most certainly are.
The bible post-dates jesus by some 400 years.
“The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the earth.”
Chief Seattle, I believe.
I reject the Spook.
George Carlin weighs in ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Sean spoke at Randolph University and stated Richard Dawkins US has ambitious plans; “to take over the United States.”. His extreme views scare me just as much as extreme Religious views. There is room for all of us, and we don’t need his condemnation of those who’s views differ than his.
“Idolatry is the mother and father of all sins.”
AND THERE WE HAVE IT! TAAAH DAHHHH!
There, my pedigree chums, is the difference between the faith deluded and the humanists/secularists/atheists.
When a presidential candidate of the LDS faith, who is known to have
sworn an oath of loyalty and allegiance, consecrating all that he has (his
time, talent and resources) to the Mormon church – and has done so as a
covenant made with God in the holiest of places, the temple – shouldn’t this
person’s worldview merit further scrutiny?
Even with his following quote, “Let me assure you that
no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever
exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within
the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation
begin”, he could, and would, as a devout Mormon, attends to his duties in
their temples and, while in there, he could be associating with members of his
church leadership – away from any other public or media witnesses – and easily
be given political advice. He’d still be consistent with his qoute for the
simple reason the church leadership won’t be “exerting” any influence
on him because he’ll be willingly accepting and implementing their advice of
his own free will and accord – without any exertion from the LDS leadership.
And there would be no other witnesses outside the Mormon circle to know what
was said between them.
This is very plausible possibility. Yet, no non-Mormon in
the electorate seems too interested. Oh yes, there is plenty of religious talk
being thrown around, but no one in the media seems to be asking the right
questions.
It appears Romney relies on the “Blind Trust” to mask
his ever increasing privileged wealth, as well as to mask his
very-different-JFK religion issue.
It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered. The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person. Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK. If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself. Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven: “For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” (Matthew 19:12 ASV) I don’t know why anyone would follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off their privates. The God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice and animal sacrifice. And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read where Jesus makes it perfectly clear: “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)
Source: http://www.EvilBible.com
Burn Nonbelievers: “Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors.
“The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” ~ Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT
So the next time some Christian tells you about the “love of God”, show them this page: http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm and ask them “Why does God want me to burn animals and humans?”