the State is a different type of check (earthbound) on society. It should not be expected to act as a Church (spiritual salvation).
~ the state's purpose (i hope) is to promote/manage " co-existence "; ~ NOT to explain the " mysteries of life ".
the right to form organizations for the purpose of worship (or non-worship), as well as for promoting their cause (Freedom "of / from" Association); and
the right to speak to others about their convictions; respecting the audience's position. (Freedom "of / from" Speech).
~By the same token, these very rights exercise a limiting influence on the freedoms " of / from " others. For instance, the right to have one's religious beliefs (or non-belief) presumably includes the right not to be coerced by the government ( &/or evangelicals) into changing these beliefs (or non-belief) by threats, discrimination, or other inducements (ie...food, clothing &/or shelter).
~ comments ~
~ The law(s) of the land we live by: were, are & will be ~ written / managed / interpreted ~ by " humans for humans ",
primarly, for purposes of co-existing on this planet ( i hope ).
~ aka ~ i believe (psychological state) in: separation of church (religious law) & state (civil law) for purposes of co-existence.....( philosophy ).
~ I would like to propose:
Any church / faith that uses their religious status (&/or coalition) to thrust their religious beliefs into politics; then that church / faith "should pay taxes".
~ a democracy or a theocracy ?....i'm thinking that is the root of the matter.......i prefer a democracy.
~ Laws presumed to be created by someone's god (&/or prophet) for their spiritual salvation is a spiritual matter.
Any church / person that uses their religious status (&/or coalition) to thrust their religious beliefs into politics; should NOT have "non-profit" tax status.
Let the god(s) / prophet(s) / evangelicals; fight among themselves for their respective spiritual supremacy ( aka ~ moral righteousness ).
And let those of us, still earthbound (aka ~ subject to judicial & legislative interpretations ~ ),
struggle with the ever evolving laws(s) of the land intended (hopefully) to promote "co-existence"; not to explain the "mysteries of life".
note 1:
The erosion of faith / religion; is perhaps more a consequence of "faith" asking a person (in particular a child) to abandon logic as his/her compass, in favor of, someone else's interpretation of " the mysteries of life " (then later, to be disappointed/disillusioned.....ie...Mother Theresa).
I would suggest "faith", as a tool, allows some to move on with their lives; in spite of adversities....
...but the survival (aka logic) compass within each of us (esp. a child) needs to be " nurtured "; not ignored, over-ruled or abandoned.
note 2:
~ From Jefferson's biography ~
"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'"
note 3:
~ 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights ~ :
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.
~ as an aside ~
in terms of critical mass ~ faith (a contensious issue) & place of birth:
Ain't it curious that:
if i had been born in the middle east; the odds are i'd be islamic.
if i had been born in china: the odds are i'd be buddist / hindu.
if i had been born in russia: the odds are i'd be orthodox christian.
etc........
Conclusion is ~ place of birth (and its governing body) initializes the religious affiliations of many & is not easily discarded ( thus, carrys over to politics).
I'm not certain the word is being used correctly here. My understanding is that to 'evangelize' is to 'spread the word'. This 'word', in most common usage, means Christianity or, more particularly, the Christian gospel but could easily also apply to any group wishing to personally spread or disseminate information. In this meaning, then, I've known a number of people to 'evangelize' extremist Republican or Democratic causes.
All churches (or political organizations for that matter) must 'evangelize'. It is in the changing of minds and hearts (intellect or feeling) that is the point of discourse between people.
I fail to see the connection between communication of one's personal view and tax status. While there may be concerns regarding abuses of the tax code by organizations who are illegitimately claiming tax-free status ... I don't agree that 'evangelizing' is the proper test.
Tax status
yes i have personal views.....but i pay taxes.
thank you for your response
I believe he/she was pointing out that the church now has lobbyist in Washington and that is a violation between church and state. A lobbyist does not have a non-tax status while a church does. Maybe he/she should have used a different word but the meaning came through loud and clear.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
Why restrict this to Christianty? It seems all other religions dabble in politics as well.
Why restrict this to religions? Educational institutions, non-profit medical centers, support groups, feminist groups, gay groups, altheist groups etc etc etc, also have lobbyists in Washington. Indeed some of these get government grants that then fund the lobbyists to get more grants etc. etc.
Either we have lobbyists or not, but if we do, how can we restrict groups from lobbying??
To join the U08 Delegate Council Online Community send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
There not in the constitution as being separated like religion. And to keep the ability to practice religion without government interference they must remain separated.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
Betty you're the best delegate, maybe you should be our VP choice.
I think its important language to clarify that Separation of church and state is NOT in the US Constitution.
(It is in some of the constitutions of the original 13 colonies and other states and some, mostly Liberal activist, judges have written and spoken the phrase.)
But I dont think thats a technical or subtle difference, I think its just plain tricky that people say this without thinking about it. There are good people like you who may think its part of the US Constitution.
The "Separation" is just one interpretation of the Second Amendment or whatever amendment that is. The constitution says that the US cant have an official religion.
This is the kind of thing that gets lost when people just yell at each other. These issues could be discussed in Congress and voted on, instead of being hammered out by 9 lawyers in robes.
The constitution did only prohibit congress for installing a national religion. Supreme Court rulings throught the 20th century installed the "separation" interpretation. It is neccessary to prohibit a violation by the neglect of congress as well. Congress has the effect of law by what they do and what they do not do. In a slightly over generalized way, and historically, republican led legislature effect law by neglect it and democrats effect law by passing it. Both actions are true to the traditional roots of thier parties. Today we approach paralysis because both parties are neglecting us to satisfy the special interest behind both.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Are there to interpret and review constitutional law. Legislators exist to make laws.
Separation between church and state is an issue that highlights the need for an independent judiciary to interpret the law (the dreaded "judicial activism" that so many fear)...
There are clear limits to the power of the legislative (and federal)branch to impose a religious standard on the citizenry, and there is also a guarantee of religious rights in the constitution. These guaranteed rights are "self-contained" and self-limiting, so you may have freedom to practice your faith, while I am just as free to practice my faith next door without persecution from anyone. And nobody can practice any religion that is detrimental to anybody; this is covered under the same interpretation that disallows anyone from yelling "fire!" at a crowded theatre - free speech cannot endanger, and you can't perform ritual sacrifices in your double-wide just because you have "freedom" of religion.
The "separation" term is derived by the language in Article Six of the constitution (which states [in effect] that no religious "litmus test" can be demanded of anyone seeking or holding public office), and also by a mountain of case-law dealing with 1st amendment issues since the ratification of the constitution in 1789.
If we have no right to qualify candidates for public office via any kind of religious test, and we have no national right to favor one religion over another, then by default there must be a separation between personal religious expression and our government. The "separation between church and state" is implied by the clear intent of the existing language in the constitution.
Since religious expression is defined differently by people, depending on their personal standards, there promises to be steady fodder for the courts on this issue in the coming years.
This issue is a perfect example of why the strict constructionist approach is flawed; there is no way to use the constitution to paint a dividing line between the public practice of religion, and the carefully spelled out right to protection against government sponsered religion. Somewhere between the public nativity scene, and the word "God" inscribed on the courthouse fascia, is where the line probably will be drawn.
And somebody will be displeased, and they will claim that judicial activism robbed them of their rights...
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
Its my opinion that we should have a secular government, but thats so everyone can practice their own religion privately. (Thats not what we have now.)
You seem to know the facts of the case, but take a step back, its more than a little deceptive when people say that lack of Separation is unconstitional. Separation comes from the Judicial branch, hence is an interpretation.
This is an example of liberals and conservatives not coming to reasonable compromises, this sort of thing should be debated in Congress and voted on.
Judicial activism robs us of that right, to vote on the people who are making these key decisions. It robs us of democracy.
The lawyers in robes need to do less, the Congress needs to do more. That gives voters a say in government.
What is clear however is that the christian religion is being ruled against by the judiciary while the other religions are getting preferential treatment by the judiciary. So if we want equality, then let's have equality. No crosses in chapels = no foot washing basins in airports.
To join the U08 Delegate Council Online Community send an email to
u08delegatecouncil-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
The "Hate Crimes" bill sneaked into the defense bill will cripple the Freedom Of Religion as the state will be sitting in the pews. If passed when your pastor or priest delivers a message on the immorality of homosexuality they could be charged with a crime under hate crimes legislation.
You have to hand it to the Democrats, they were elected overwhelmingly to put a stop to the Iraq war and shut down the insane neocon agenda, they could have done what they were elected to do and by this time had Bush and Cheney and various other treasonous co-conspirators in the slammer. But NO!, their leadership bowed to same intersts that supports the neocons and impeachment was "off the table". The People voted for one thing and got another.
The fix was in. The fix started with Rahm Immanuel controlling the Dem Party purse strings in their pirmaries where he would only support pro-war candidates. So when the People voted out one war monger they replaced him with another in many instances.
The "Hate Crimes" bill is a prime example of where the Dem leadership priorities lie and who they truly represent. Americans overwhelmingly want our troops home and a stop to this illegal war and the Dems cave in. Americans are concerned about their loss of liberties and freedom and the Dems lead the fight for passage of the "Hate Crimes" bill, surrepetitously of course like they do everything else, that will further erode our freedom.
Actions such as these can only erode the Democrat Party base as they pander to the fringes of their party that believe that gov't legislation can somehow make the immoral be moral.
The entire gov't head to heel is unsound, unrepresenative of the People, disrespectful of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and oblivious to our responsibility to international treaties.
The good news, if there is any, is the natives are getting restless, the People are past the sensing something is wrong stage and are starting to take names in preparation to kick butts come election time. The jig is up for the DNC, RNC and the MSM to ordain the candidates of the powerfull elite to succeed to the Presidency. The People are going to ordain their own candidate this time around. I just hope there is a country left to govern by the time the election rolls around.
Quote - "Actions such as these can only erode the Democrat Party base as they pander to the fringes of their party that believe that gov't legislation can somehow make the immoral be moral."
Are we laying off the Jews for an hour or two, and focusing now on homosexuals?
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
Hey Monzo, just think if this legislation passes you can have me charged with a "Hate Crime". I wonder what the penatly for calling a spade a spade will be? I will bet it will be hefty, since I offended the sensabilities of such a powerfull group of people. I know what my defense will be already. "I am so sorry that my Christian religion has misled me into believing that homosexuality is immoral. I now see the error of my ways and throw myself on the mercy of the court and if you will set me free I will help you in any way I can to destroy this hate mongering, evil bunch of Christians and their Churches."
In a way I would like for this immoral, unconstitutional piece of crap legislation to pass. Christians have been kicked around by both parties just about long enough, especially by the "liberals". Passage and attempted enforcement of this heinous legislation will bring the government and the vast majoity of the People to the boiling point. When it happens we will then see where the power lies! And ALL power lies with the King of the Christians!
Since lobbyists are not a part of the gov't, merely attempting to influence it, there is no 1st amendment conflict. In fact, their efforts are protected under the free speech aspect of the 1st amendment.
The basic reason for separation of Church and State is to eliminate any power struggle between the two. It is intended as a "peace treaty". Politicians get to take your money through taxes. Religion takes your money through donations. Both can have their way with you as well, and satisfy their megalomania too, as long as they don't conflict.
Personally, I approve of the separation. It allows me more freedom to live as I please, not that I have much choice left anyway. But, what little choice I have, I do appreciate and enjoy. I don't like people telling me what to do, and how to live my life, and if we allow religion into politics, it would only get 100 times worse.
Richard H. Clark
Independent Presidential Candidate
www.MiddleClass2008.com
You are right... religion has NO place in politics. Because everything in the media is politicized, the media must also never have religion. It is an insult that cable viewers PAY for cable TV, yet cannot get a discount by refusing religious programming that they eschew. Religion is a private matter and should never be advertised.
Religion can be a powerful tool, and here in America certain groups have turned religion (Christianity) into the lightning rod from which all other issues converge. America seems to be Christian Nation more than a Nation with Christians. Early in our history, the Government signed treaties with foreign powers specifically saying we were not a Christian power. Certain issues: evolution,war, social issues, have divided the public on policy because religion has already told them that things are a certain way. America is a country founded on freedoms,and I think that the gov. should step back and think about how the entire populous feels about issues and then make a choice that can look forward to what good can come from it . It does not seem like that happens much any more.
enough said. yet so much more to be understood by the majority of the public and the seperation between religion and gov is the only way we can grow as a diverse soceity. "stop caring about your self and think of others."
REASON WITH EVERYTHING!
Peace, but war if we must
I'm thinking this issue is kinda being eroded:
~ separation of church & state....
The laws we live by were, are & will be created by man for man; for purposes of co-existing on this planet (so I believe).
Laws presumed to be created by someone's god (&/or prophet) for their spiritual salvation should remain personal.
Any church/person that uses their religious status (&/or coalition) to promote their religious beliefs should NOT have "non-profit" tax status.
Let the god(s)/prophet(s) fight among themselves for their supremacy;
and let the human species (of this planet) struggle with our difficult issue(s) of co-existence.
It's led to elimination of Religion from too many lives - to the detriment of the Nation.
Pete (popo) Evans
ps to : JM/Betty/HC/GEA/Quicksilver/Kacz - Jake Jacobson and I Just started making Group Presentations throughout Palm Beach County, we're trying to develop a format for use by other delegates ..
Wont be on the web that much - you can always email me popopete@hotmail.com
about ~ It's led to elimination of Religion from too many lives - to the detriment of the Nation.
i'm thinking,
The erosion of faith / religion; is perhaps more a consequence of "faith" asking a person (in particular a child) to abandon logic as his/her compass, in favor of, someone else's interpretation of " the mysteries of life " (then later, to be disappointed/disillusioned.....ie...Mother Theresa).
I would suggest "faith" allows us to move on with our lives; in spite of adversities....
...but the survival (aka logic) compass within each of us (esp. a child) needs to be " nurtured "; not ignored, over-ruled or abandoned.
Why do those that always clamoring for expression never give doodly sqwat for those that should be free not to hear it, stop for it, bow to it, and shutdown other expression for their favor? If you put religious vestments in public instituions then why not crossdressers or skinheads or weapons or whatever that may qualify as expression that is not threatening life or property? Should we be deciding elections on which slope is slippier?
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
I don't like it when the KKK can put their name on "Adopt a Highway" signs along the road. Whether I like it or not, the fact is that they have been able to do it - and I think it stinks!
The only solace I get is knowing that we must be a VERY free country to allow a Hate Group to publically display their name alongside a road.
I personally am against putting "religious vestments" in public institutions (government offices in particular), and I don't advocate putting a bust of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse. But even as I say that, there is some degree of equivocation to my position; I don't want to see the reference to God sandblasted off the courthouse fascia, either.
It also irritates the living crap out of me when an idiot can post incessantly on this forum proclaiming his love for Ron Paul (now you know who I am talking about?), while he spreads baseless conspiracy theories about 9/11, and also publically defends a Neo-Nazi while he rails against Jews, AIPAC, and Zionism. It may gripe me (and it certainly keeps me from visiting this site as often as I did before), but I have to allow him the right to free speech - even as I abhor his stunted mental process, and his willingness to spread lies on this forum. The sad fact is that a balanced, rational discussion about AIPAC, (and about our degree of support for Israel)would be perfectly appropriate for this forum. I could get behind that, but I can't condone blatant fear-mongering, lying, and racist talk about any group of people.
But the 1st amendment gives people tremendous freedom to say what they wish - even if it is racist and unbalanced.
In a way, the entire process of governing boils down to a nuanced choice between two less-than-perfect extremes. This is usually why people will invariably vote for a democrat or a republican when they are less than satisfied with either choice. If Unity08 can realize that, then there is hope for the movement - but only if the organization positions itself away from traditional knee-jerk third-party thinking.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
I like that statement you said Jeff - "...the entire process of governing boils down to a nuanced choice between two less-than-perfect extremes." That is what we need to focus on precisely here is the nuanced approach on issues where we need to delineate not necessarily laid in cement platforms saying we will do this we will do that (sorry popo), but providing a range of various options/trade-offs on issues that has a specific goal in mind.
But what we would be different at here in Unity land (more nuanced) is to lay out the various options and the various costs. Because when these elected to get down to eventually governing they will have to wrastle with these options anyway. Why not us at the git go provide our input into those options DURING the campaign and BEFORE the electon. America is the land of options (many ways to get to many goals - one size does not fit all - many strokes for many folks, etc). The more the better - as long as they are doable! We should not tie a politician we elect to one option as K Street Special interests and the 2 party activist bases are wont to do. Rather we need to tie a politician to a goal and provide various options (costed out as much as possible thru unbiased third parties) to get to that goal.
So say on health care what ever we decide to do as a goal (let's focus in on about 5 to 7 issues tops per betty), lay out the various costed out options/tradeoffs to get to that goal. This will give us something to really gauge our potential candidates on and give the ones we select something to build on himself to legitimately take to the nation. Plus whene they actually get down to the business of governing and doing the deals (there will always be dealmaking) it will done above board and will be us the voter who will have prime feed in to the issues rather than the KStreet special interst lobby group. Make the voter direct stakeholders in this whole governing process that is dictated by the doaable options.
This way i do think we once again can start the process of building with our politicinas a bond, a trust, and a relationship. And THAT above all is what this nation desperately needs to resolve in a nonpartisan way the big nation-buster issues (foreign and domestic) facing this blessed Republic. in the past 30 years the elctorate has punted that civic responsibility to the K special interests. Time to change all that!!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
The Consitution often balances one right or priveledge with another. Thats where politicos have messed us up, unravelling the balances to get what they want.
Religion needs to stay out of government and Government needs to stay out of religion. Both those things.
Thats what's consitutional no matter what the lawyers say...
~ personal intrepretation ~
the right to have religious beliefs (or not) (Freedom of Religion);
the right to form organizations for the purpose of worship, as well as for promoting their cause (Freedom of Association); and
the right to speak to others about their convictions, with the purpose of influencing the others. (Freedom of Speech).
By the same token, these very rights exercise a limiting influence on the freedoms of others. For instance, the right to have one's religious beliefs presumably includes the right not to be coerced by the government ( &/or evangelicals) into changing these beliefs by threats, discrimination, or similar inducements.
~ note2:
in terms of critical mass:
Ain't it curious about ~ Faith ( an issue of much contention & divisiveness ) & place of birth:
if i had been born in the middle east; the odds are i'd be islamic.
if i had been born in china: the odds are i'd be buddist / hindu.
if i had been born in russia: the odds are i'd be orthodox christian.
etc........
...But your comment on Friday the 13th is bad news.
No one should be coerced or threatened by our government. Any person or group doing so is going too far.
Even though I dont like the tactics of the religious right (I blame their leadership) I am enjoying how they are almost flushing out a bigger deeper threat; which is the making of Humanism the national religion.
Your 7/13 post makes me think you may be a Humanist or have Humanist people who you admire. Each one of you are entitled to worship as you please.
But the splitting of the movement into Secular & Sacred branches and having the secular branch subsidized by the government is shameful at least.
At worst thats clearly unconstitutional and does not require a clever judiciary interpretation.
response to note 2
if you were born in the US or Europe the odds are you'd be a Humanist
K...
i'd like to think (hope) i don't worship anyone / anything.
i admire & respect many of "secular, sacred &/or (if you like) humanist" orientation.
worship is a word/concept i ain't comfortable with....
worship , to me, implies abandoning my survival compass ~ to someone/something else.....about the mysteries of life.
and yes, while i am earthbound; my humanity plays a significant part in my survival & behavior towards others..
G...
Sorry that you're uncomfortable. I'll drop the word worship if you like, how about believe.
Still, its not right that my taxes go to fund your beliefs, whether or not you're in the sacred or secular wing of your orientation.
I would like to work toward a culture that lets people decide what to believe without government interference. To get there we have to back off the religious conservatives and the humanists and all others.
Lets practice our beliefs in private instead of fight for government resources in public.
(Have you read the Humanists Manifesto 1,2 & 3? It all started off as a better religion, many of the early leaders were Communists.
My favorite, no sarcasm implied, is Erich Fromm, who wrote "Man for Himself". Fromm was a great thinker but overshadowed perhaps by Freud.)
compromise is good..........
does the below help or make things worse....
perhaps, i should re-state: i "believe" (psychological state) in separation of church (religious law) & state (civil law) for purposes of co-existence.....(humanist ~ ethical philosphy).
ref: wiki
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationality.
Yes, if you believe in separation thats great, that separation is a fundamental principal of the Constitution is not accurate. Its one interpretation.
If Congress believes in Separation, I can live with that, but stop funding all religions not just the traditional 3 or 4.
Humanism is the most funded religion. If that superficial defn. at the end of your comment were true, I can work with that.
You are an active participant in the Unity Shoutbox forum; keep up the good work. So tell me this..
Do you believe that people who post to the Unity shoutbox can detemine right & wrong by appealing to rationality and other human qualitites?
Yes? you have a deep and abiding faith in something that I dont have.
We're an irrational group with little in common except a common frustration. We cant get to consensus and if we were in a room together there would be a lot of yelling.
Good leadership may get us going, but our own rationality is an obstacle.
you ask...........
"Do you believe that people who post to the Unity shoutbox can detemine right & wrong by appealing to rationality and other human qualitites?
Yes? you have a deep and abiding faith in something that I dont have."
i'm thinking "faith" has two general implications which can be implied either exclusively or mutually:
ref: wiki
To trust: (aka ~ hope)
Believing a certain variable will act or has the potential to act a specific way despite the potential influence and probability of known or unknown change.
To have faith in ones spouse that he/she will keep a promise of commitment
To have faith that the world will someday be peaceful
To have faith in a person to pay you back
To believe without reason:
Believing impulsively, or believing based upon divine inspiration
In either case, Faith is based upon the interpretation of the intangible (feelings, emotions, etc.) instead of the physically tangible and is primarily associated with religion in modern times.
i'm thinking i'm more into the "to trust" ((hope) definition.....
and yes, i even disappoint myself....ugh...........
I've been trying to explain why the public debate about religion in government and society needs more work.
I would like to see more tolerance of religion because I've meet many religious people who cant explain very well why they do things, but they do a lot of good.
Its a long line of reasoning, but if we can agree to show more tolerance of religion, and citizens think they can trust the government not to be anti-religion, then we can move toward having a secular society.
Practice your religion in private, but in public bring your secular vocabulary and show some rationality.
The whole Separation discussion gets in the way of good conversation on the issue. If we can move past it, I think there is room for agreements on both sides.
Compromise is Good.
I have always chuckled when the religious elitists throw out the HUMANISM buzz-word. The last time I looked in the mirror - I closely resembled a HUMAN, as do other people.
The christian ayatollahs in the US use SECULAR HUMANISM as a label for those who do not submit to their dogma. Which is why the founders of this nation, after witnessing first-hand the abuses of religion in Europe, set up our country as a secular nation. Those who want a religious nation should look at the Muslim world.
I would imagine that other people, when they find out they need surgery, look for the best educated and qualified Surgeon, rather than someones religiosity. We need to use that same rational decision making process for those we elect. The alternative is a repetition of what we have endured the past 6+ years, or worse.
If you watch the TV news enough, Christian evenagelicals debating secular humanist is an interesting controversy for us to get worked up over. And take sides.
Dont take sides. Humanism started as a religion in Europe, read about it. (Try the American Humanist Association website.) Their secular wing gets a lot of government funding.
Humanists should not be funded and Christians should not be funded by governments.
Lets have freedom of religion, instead, to worship in private.
Many Americans dont think of Humanism as a religion, but they also dont take seriously Paganism. But if you lived in England lets say, these people are open, public, and energetic in their religious expression.
Here in Michigan, we are mourining the passing of the founder of Humanistic Judaism. I'm not much of a humanist but who wouldn't like a guy named Rabbi Wine?
There is not one single shred of empirical evidence for the existence of the judeo-christian God or Allah or Zeus or any of the countless other gods that man has invented during his brief tenure on this planet. Not one, after centuries of desperate attempts to find such evidence. (it's called theodocy)For those of you who "believe" in God, let me ask you a few questions.
1) Have you ever even read the bible? (My experience has been that those who profess such belief invariably have not read it, and have not the slightest idea of it's contents)
2) If you have read it, and do believe it to be the word of God, then why do you not adhere to it's instructions? To whit:
a) kill all blasphemers; Leviticus 24:16
b) kill those who work on the Sabbath; Exodus 31:15
c) kill adulterers; Leviticus 20:10
d) kill those who curse their mother or father; Exodus 21:17
(simply following rule c would reduce the American population by roughly one half, according to the most reliable polls)
3) If the bible is the true word of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being, then:
a) why is Shakespeare, to take but one example, such a vastly superior writer?
b) why is it chock full of inconsistencies and inaccuracies? (there are far too many examples to enumerate here)
4) If I told you that milky way bars could make you fly, why would you demand evidence for that statement?
5) Why doesn't our Congress open each session with a prayer to Apollo? (since there is just as much evidence for his existence as for that of God)
I could easily go on all day, but if you're not getting the idea by now, you probably do not possess the brain power necessary to ever rid yourself of this dangerous delusion. (yes, when an individual believes the most outlandish, far-fetched, unfalsifiable propositions without any evidence, it's called delusional; when large numbers of people believe the same propositions it's called religion)
Wake up! The enlightenment happened a few centuries ago and you have been "left behind". Religion has been without any doubt the largest force in humanity's existence for evil, and if we are to survive as a species it must end.
The "enlightenment" is merely an attempt to place credit for our moral values out side their actual religious sources. Man, left to his own devices, is a bloodthirsty, cruel, thoughtles, animal that would just as soon eat a strangers children as nurture them. Without religion, there would be no civilization, and no "enlightenment". While not being a religious person myself, I am thankful for their contribution, and think they are due a great deal of respect for it.
As far as "Religion has been without any doubt the largest force in humanity's existence for evil", neither of the world wars had a significant religious aspect, and are by far the most heinous examples of evil in human history, outstripping all other incidents combined.
Being a Libertarian, I strongly oppose religion as a governing force, and conversely see no reason to lock it away in a closet.
There ARE examples of evidence, that COULD claim to be empirical, supporting a devine entity. There are many events that currently have no other explaination.
sammythedog wrote quote:
"There is not one single shred of empirical evidence for the existence of the judeo-christian God..."
_____________________________________________________________________________
Sammy if you go to the back of The Book there are many references and writings regarding a Jewish man named Jesus. Although he was NOT a Christian his teachings are widely recognized by that faith and He is believed to be the manifestation of God in human form.
Also, if you do the mathematical calculations you'll find the probability of something just blowing up way, way, way back in the day and becoming life on Earth are EXACTLY the same as IF an F5 tornado ripped through a junkyard and left a perfectly assembled 747 in its wake.
I'm not sure who is more Stuck On Stupid?
Militant Atheist who believe Mankind is the SUPREME POWER over the Earth?
or
Radical Militant Islam who is on a mission from their God to rid the world of Militant Atheist?
My vote goes to the Militant Atheists being more Stuck On Stupid.
I mean really think about it, as misguided as Radical Militant Islam may be even they don't believe the world revolves around Mankind.
Regarding reading the Bible....when one reads the Bible it requires the use of common sense....if a person has become so open minded that their brains have fallen out, then they do not have the required common sense to even grasp the simplest of natural law Biblical concepts....such as MARRIAGE, its between, One (1) MAN and One (1) WOMAN.
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
And all freedoms you enjoy now grew from Christian Fundamentalism.
Do you want me to prove it?
Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
As you see, Founding Fathers
1. Considered God and Devine Design to be a foundation of this country, so men can secure rights of people (including minorities), but men can not throw these rights away even if 99% of the population will vote to crash minorities, because it would be against the Creator's plan.
2. Did not trust man's logic and reasoning to be used as basis for liberty and equality and declared the self-evidence of such truth taken from particular religious books.
the founders of this nation, after witnessing first-hand the abuses of religion in Europe, set up our country as a secular nation.
Yep, because Jesus Christ specifically demanded to separate Church from State ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." and he had never seek governing position himself).
Those who decided that men does not need God in establishing just society, first, gave the world guillotine, and then gave the world GULAG.
These French and Russian revolutions were the truly works of surgeons from your allegory. Millions of people were surgically removed by the good card carrying atheists.
Separation of church and state as an issue is simply devisive and useless and would be Unity08 shooting itself in the foot.
Besides, we have bigger chickens to fry.
A Democrat seeks complex solution to simple problems
A Republican seeks simple solutions to complex problems
A reasonable person seeks simple solutions for solvable problems
Why don't we just eliminate all lobbyists?
You never will nor should we - it's called Free speech. They represent you and me BTW. The best we can do is contain. We just need Full Real-Time Disclosure, clearer campaign finance reform, AND about 100 Inspector Generals tough as junkyard dogs doing the due diligence on Cap Hill, Exec Branches. That and a conscious American electorate as to all our complicity in Lobbyists power and influence and how that defrays from the overall national interests and favors narrow particular interests.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
a darn good question........
unfortunately there are huge sums of money to be made in working the "system" from within (politicans) and outside (lobbyists & business')...........all to the players advantage.
a huge dose of "transparency" would help.
but since congress is self-policing (aka writes its own ethics rules) the only place we have to influence things is
1) in the ballot box
2) finding a coalition that shares your views
3) get LouDobbs on your side....:)
note: i see you are pushing Lou........
i agree with your choice....but i'd hate to see him leave his chosen field of work.......since he is bring much needed transparency to issues politicians prefer we didn't know........
Obama has a good proposal for an fully empowered Inspector General system on Cap Hill that would not be beholden to the Ethics Rule Charades. and Transparency/Full disclosure (real-time) is THE Key. And we do not need Lou Dobbs. We just above ALL an activated and caring and non apathetic electorate - without that we are not going to contain the monied interests in DC and their influence in politics. Full accounting starts with us the electorate. "The problem Dear Brutus is NOT the Stars, it is us"
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
the State is a different type of check (earthbound) on society. It should not be expected to act as a Church (spiritual salvation).
If my history is correct many countries either had an offical religion and those who wanted to practice another had to do so in private, behind closed doors. Our founding fathers wanted all to be able to practice their choice of religion freely(in public). Look at what has happened. Now everyone is expected to practice it behind closed doors.
I see many posting about Christian lobbist, do any of you believe that muslims don't have lobbist's also. Of course they do.
I think lobbists are fine but they should be prohibited from giving money to any governement offical or gonvernment entity period. No campaign contributions period. Then they would get legislation based on merit.
the State is a different type of check (earthbound) on society. It should not be expected to act as a Church (spiritual salvation).
~ the state's purpose (i hope) is to promote " co-existence "; ~ NOT to explain the " mysteries of life ".
~ I would like to propose:
Any church / faith that uses their religious status (&/or coalition) to thrust their religious beliefs into politics; then that church / faith "should pay taxes".
Congratulations! You are about to tax a religion, which has a stated goal to re-shape any country its followers happen to live in into a theocracy according to the pretty elaborate constitution and legislative code written in 7-9 centuries.
And it is not a matter of choice of some unscrupulous religious leaders. Those are the pillars of their faith.
You are about to tax Islamwith their Koran, Sharia and conqueror Prophet as an ultimate role model. LOLwell, anywhere we can get money.....is a good thing.......isn't it - :)
as to fundamentalist islamic moslems....i'm thinking we have many competitive fundamentalists of other faiths, lurking around in the good ole'usa...
and they will be trying to influence gov politics whether they pay taxes or not...........
essentially, let all the gods/prophets/faiths & "gods warriors" fight among themselves for their spiritual supremacy - aka moral rightousness...........
and yes, democracy by definiton could result in "one" majority/ultimate/annointed faith.......ugh !
hopefully, that day never comes.........
1) assuming free speech continues to be alive & well.
2) & separation of church & state is still viable....(i hope)
i'm thinking we have many competitive fundamentalists of other faiths, lurking around in the good ole'usa
That statement is factually incorrect. Nothing
among religionscomes even close. No other religions demand to reshape the US political system by all means, including the force. And for a simple reason – non-Muslim religions do not have their own Constitution suitable to replace ours. They need civic government as a shell.Even more, Christianity specifically demands Church it to stay away from governing. This is what Christ did and Protestants particularly serious about following the text of the Bible.
You may find couple rotten apples, of course, but they will loose support of their base as soon as they go too much against the core religious principal.
It makes Christian Fundamentalists your natural allies in the battle to protect separation of Church and State principals.
In Islam, however, moderate Muslims, who argue for tolerance and even equal civic rights for Muslims and non-Muslims, are swimming against the current of their religion. And Muslim Fundamentalists are outright threat to the US Constitution.
Here is a hard prove of Christian Fundamentalists being a healthy thing for US Constitution and US political system. Think of 1776-1789 historical period, when country consisted of 100% Protestant Christian Fundamentalists. Nothing, but their religious convictions, had prevented them from demanding and installing theocracy we are so rightfully afraid of now. And what did they do with their power? They wrote Declaration of Independence, US Constitution and Bill of Rights with its separation of Church and State, freedom of religious and rights to minority groups to be protected by government.
let all the gods/prophets/faiths & "gods warriors" fight among themselves for their spiritual supremacy
And they are already fighting this battle. Only victory for Christian Fundamentalism will lead to strengthening freedoms all non-Christians enjoying in US now, while victory for Muslim Fundamentalism will lead to Sharia law mandatory for non-Muslims. Read about Sharia (particularly status of Zimmi, polytheists, atheists, gays in the “proper” Muslim society) and you will feel the difference.
People with moral relativism are incapable of fighting this battle – just look at Islamic fundamentalism swallowing atheistic Europe as we speak.
yes, democracy by definition could result in "one" majority/ultimate/anointed faith
Exactly. And this is why “democracy” was a swearing word for Founding Fathers. They were a good student of history and consciously avoided this dirty word, popular among French liberals at that time, in all basic documents of new Constitutional Republic. As for those, who fell into that trap of French liberals… They had their bloody revolution and their guillotine on a matter of years after implementing these democratic principals.
And on more silly note, remark to your first post
if i had been born in russia: the odds are i'd be orthodox christian.
Not at all. Chance that I am a Russian Jew is bigger. Russian Russians are not so visible in the stream of immigrants from Russia. Believe me – I am one of such immigrants. ;)