Legislating Sin
Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.) said this week that God did not intend for the United States to be a “nation of secular laws” and that the separation of church and state is a “lie we have been told” to keep religious people out of politics.
“If you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin“
Because religious people currently sitting in elected office are without ’sin’ – right? Don’t even get me started on that one – I’d be here all year.
If the separation of church and state is a complete fabrication with the explicit intent to keep religious people out of politics, then I ask when, and who?
Who was the last religious person to be kept out of politics under the pretense of such a separation?
How easy would it be, for example, for an atheist to get elected into the White House? If a candidate declares him/herself an atheist – what would the ensuing debate about their candidacy be about?
Would he/she have an easier time getting elected.. harder time — or roughly the same? What if a candidate just simply said “The question of my faith in a higher power is not available for public record” – would it be simply left at that, no questions asked?
Personally, I think an atheist would have a far more difficult time in this country getting elected than a religious candidate. I’m not seeing any oncoming shortage of theists in office in the name of said separation.
Who is trying to keep religious people out of politics… and where is it happening? Perhaps Ms. Harris is feeling her own slip in the polls and needs religion as the scapegoat?
Harris told the journalists “we have to have the faithful in government” because that is God’s will. Separating religion and politics is “so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers,” she said.
Really, money and campaign fundraising has nothing to do with it. Seriously, the very idea of being chosen or annointed into office has to be offensive to the religious and non-religious, alike. Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Senator Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi – - all chosen by god, were they? Must be a whole good balancing out evil thing. Because good Republicans like Giulliani, Dole, Hyde and Gingrich would never do something sinful like..for example .. cheat on their wives.
“And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women,” then “we’re going to have a nation of secular laws. That’s not what our Founding Fathers intended, and that certainly isn’t what God intended.”
Oh really.
Like Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson? : “A professorship of theology should have no place in our institution.“– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Cooper, October 7, 1814
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
Or, perhaps, John Adams: “The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation..[]..As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; : no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries” — Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul)
Or, maybe, Benjamin Franklin: “I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absented myself from Christian assemblies.” – Benjamin Franklin, Toward The Mystery.
Are those the Founding Fathers Ms. Harris speaks of? Maybe she had a different group of men in mind when she made her statements?
Katherine Harris is running for US Senate for the state of Florida. Once the GOP darling fter the 2000 presidential election, in which Florida’s disputed vote for Bush was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, Harris parlayed her notoriety into two successful House campaigns, in 2002 and 2004 – She’s not so popular with the GOP these days.
Gee. I wonder why?
Does Katherine Harris wish the United States of America be governed by a theocracy?
Allow me to take a moment to introduce our new RV Poll started today – the question asks:
Assuming all qualifications were met to your satisfaction – would you vote this politician into office if he/she were an atheist?
Your options are: Yes or No
August 29, 2006 - 06:56 AM on August 29th, 2006
Amen to that for too many years the leftist ACLU and other including the secular Humanists movment have been trying to bar chirtiaity from the public and tuern our nation into a secular socialists nation and the infamous 1963 secision by the supreum court should be overturned along with ROE vs WADE:mad:
August 29, 2006 - 07:11 AM on August 29th, 2006
I have found that historically, one can quote the Founding Fathers to support either side of this issue. That’s is not what’s important.
What is important is to protect our individual right to freedom of religion in an honest manner. “Seperaion of chuch and state” is highly debatable in it’s context and meaning, and doesn’t appear in the Constitution at all. This is one of the most abused ideas in modern law, next to gun owner’s rights.
That said, Ms. Harris does seem to go overboard. It is true that our laws are largley based on those of Christian laws, but it does not mean that those laws are exclusively Christian. This is meant to be a religious nation, but not necesarily Christian. It is intended for us, the people, to practice whatever religion we feel free to practice (or, none if we choose)with out fear of persecution.
August 29, 2006 - 07:13 AM on August 29th, 2006
1.
I disagree. Secularism in it’s intented form is fine. What the ACLU and the Humanist movement consist of is anti-theism, which is often confused with secularism.
August 29, 2006 - 08:51 AM on August 29th, 2006
Wow, Ms. Harris knows what God wants…
She should be proposed to be the next pope!!!
…after she convinced the catholic church that God also allows women to do that job…
August 29, 2006 - 08:59 AM on August 29th, 2006
Great point, Ted… and for exhibit A, see post #4.
August 29, 2006 - 09:16 AM on August 29th, 2006
5- Indeed.
August 29, 2006 - 09:48 AM on August 29th, 2006
Mike Kilo, this is the kind of politician we’d get (for starters) if we let Wyoming, Kentucy and Utah decide what’s best for us, like you mentioned in another topic yesterday.
You and me are Atheists; and yet you honestly wouldn’t mind Ms. Harris being the status quo in your government?
August 29, 2006 - 09:53 AM on August 29th, 2006
I wouldn’t BAR her based on her believing in God.. you see, that’s the difference between you and I.. I’m an atheist, but I believe in diversity.. true diversity, and having evangelicals in government to counterbalance the secular nihilists is not a bad thing.
August 29, 2006 - 09:56 AM on August 29th, 2006
you don’t seem to mind Ted Friggin’ Kennedy being the status quo in your government.. a thought that wakes me in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.
August 29, 2006 - 09:56 AM on August 29th, 2006
I also wouldn’t “bar” anyone based on their religiousness, but I would expect them to keep their personal religious to themselves and their families, and NOT legislate their beliefs in my government.
A secular government is the best government for EVERYONE involved.
August 29, 2006 - 10:02 AM on August 29th, 2006
yeah??? And what do you call what those baby butcher proponents do? Are THEY legislating THEIR beliefs?
goes both ways, my friend.
August 29, 2006 - 10:04 AM on August 29th, 2006
you seem to think that only beliefs based on religion are to be discarded, discounted, ridiculed, scorned and banned.
I can see why, they have such horrifying beliefs as:
thou shall not kill
thou shall not steal
I can see why they frighten you so.
August 29, 2006 - 10:06 AM on August 29th, 2006
I guess when your goal is a society where anything goes, babies are killed at millions a clip, gays are married and treated as man and wife, 8 year olds are given condoms, yes, those beliefs may scare you.
You should be careful going down this road, you are one step away from advocating the burning of books……maybe the bible????
August 29, 2006 - 10:25 AM on August 29th, 2006
“And what do you call what those baby butcher proponents do? Are THEY legislating THEIR beliefs?”
Reproductive freedom isn’t a religious belief, it is a civil right.
A womans decision of what to do with her own body and anything inside of it is her own choice, not to be made by men or government.
Forcing anti-abortion beliefs onto the masses is wrong. If your wife opposes abortion, good for her, she won’t have one. But don’t for one second think you tell MY wife what choices she can or can’t make for her own body…
———————–
We should probably steer clear of talking about abortion…it’s kind of a lightning rod for some people.
August 29, 2006 - 10:31 AM on August 29th, 2006
“thou shall not kill
thou shall not steal
I can see why they frighten you so.”
No Mike, those are just fine by me, but I find serious problems with “Thou shalt not have no other gods before me” and the like…
August 29, 2006 - 10:32 AM on August 29th, 2006
Oh please, civil right.. and what of the baby’s civil rights? Out with the dumpster, right?
Forcing sick, gruesome, murderous beliefs on the masses is wrong.
August 29, 2006 - 10:37 AM on August 29th, 2006
No Mike, those are just fine by me, but I find serious problems with “Thou shalt not have no other gods before me”and the like:
and how exactly does that affect you? Jacob Miller from the Tupelo Mississippi first Evangelical Church of Christ is gonna behead you if you put a god before his?
I think not.
August 29, 2006 - 10:38 AM on August 29th, 2006
Reproductive freedom isn’t a religious belief, it is a civil right.
That isn’t the case at all- this is a perfect example of how Roe v. Wade is twisted to meet agendas. Roe v. Wade did not establish abortion as a civil right. Roe V. Wade was a compromise.
SFL, perhaps you should read up a bit on the decision.
August 29, 2006 - 10:39 AM on August 29th, 2006
Freedom to practice ones religion is a civil right as well.
August 29, 2006 - 10:48 AM on August 29th, 2006
“…and how exactly does that affect you?”
We’re talking about evangelicals beliefs being put into government, not regular people holding religious beliefs.
Are we still talking about the same thing here?
August 29, 2006 - 10:53 AM on August 29th, 2006
“SFL, perhaps you should read up a bit on the decision.”
30+ years of women having the right of reproductive freedom…
“Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that protect the individual from government. Civil liberties set limits for government so that it would not abuse its power and interfere with the lives of its citizens.”
—————————
“Freedom to practice ones religion is a civil right as well.”
Of course it is. And?
August 29, 2006 - 10:55 AM on August 29th, 2006
So, in other words, you are saying that evangelicals should be excluded from public office on the basis of your fear that they will become a sort of Jesus Mullah, issuing fatwas and otherwise putting a damper on your Starbucks-soaked giddy existence?
yeah, I see that.
August 29, 2006 - 11:58 AM on August 29th, 2006
The Left generally long ago accepted Satan as it’s Lord and Master.
August 29, 2006 - 12:46 PM on August 29th, 2006
Anyone who says that Christianity is irrelevant should take a good look at all our historical documents and speeches.
August 29, 2006 - 12:59 PM on August 29th, 2006
30+ years of women having the right of reproductive freedom:
You still have no idea what I am talking about, do you? Please read Roe v. Wade. I will not do your homework for you.
August 29, 2006 - 01:01 PM on August 29th, 2006
Rocky Lore – no one is arguing that christianity is irrelevant.
Ms. Harris said “If you’re not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin”
I would think that statement, alone, would be offensive to anyone who believes in freedom of religion…and religious tolerance.
August 29, 2006 - 01:02 PM on August 29th, 2006
“So, in other words, you are saying that evangelicals should be excluded from public office on the basis of your fear…”
NO, that’s NOT what I’m saying AT ALL.
Jesus Christ, I’ll repeat it one more time: All I’m saying is that I would not vote for an evangelical. NEVER said they should be banned from office.
August 29, 2006 - 01:05 PM on August 29th, 2006
“You still have no idea what I am talking about, do you?”
Actually, I DO know what you’re saying. You think that Roe V. Wade does not grant a “civil right” of reproductive freedom on American women.
right?
August 29, 2006 - 01:06 PM on August 29th, 2006
Lisa #26 – Right on.
August 29, 2006 - 01:07 PM on August 29th, 2006
SF, for someone who is such a big backer of the “popular vote” determining elections, I HARDLY think you would want matters of baby murder put to a popular vote…if you did…
partial birth abortion – banned
parental notification – mandated (sorry Justice, 12 is old enough Ginsberg)…
Adoption and alternative counseling – mandated
then you’d see the murders start to decline.
August 29, 2006 - 01:08 PM on August 29th, 2006
28.
Just read the decision, and study it thouroughly
August 29, 2006 - 01:09 PM on August 29th, 2006
but no….you just go to the courts and your liberal activist judges on this one, and THEY IMPOSE THEIR FUCKING BELIEFS ON THE REST OF US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 29, 2006 - 01:14 PM on August 29th, 2006
Holy crap (pun intended) this has got to be the best rightvoices post I’ve seen in ages. Nice job Lisa! That was really good stuff.
My takeaway message (which I happen to agree with) is that Government won’t work unless we have a balance. That’s interesting because I heard the *EXACT* same thing from the Democrats booth at our local county fair last weekend. They very astutely pointed out that the most damage to this country is done when only one group is in power. Contrary to what Rush Limbaugh says, I believe that the majority of people in this country prefer it that way too.
..Chuck..
August 29, 2006 - 01:41 PM on August 29th, 2006
Thanks, Chuck.
Now that we’ve debated the abortion thing in this thread – I’m interested to see feedback on some of the questions asked in the post, itself.
Would you vote for an atheist, if all other qualifications were met.. yay or nay?
Do folks think an atheist would have a harder time getting elected over a christian?
Can a politician these days refuse to disclose his or her religious beliefs and get away with it in a court of public opinion?
Just how important is religion when it comes to our elected officials?
August 29, 2006 - 01:48 PM on August 29th, 2006
“Just read the decision, and study it thouroughly”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Abortion is the law of the land. It has made reproductive freedom a right for millions of American women.
What are you trying to say?
August 29, 2006 - 01:50 PM on August 29th, 2006
Would you vote for an atheist, if all other qualifications were met.. yay or nay? Why not? I’m an atheist.
Do folks think an atheist would have a harder time getting elected over a christian? No, they would have an EASIER time..due to the paranoia and fear perpetrated by libs like SF (except of course for black churches, where democrats pander for votes, that’s completely acceptable).
Can a politician these days refuse to disclose his or her religious beliefs and get away with it in a court of public opinion? Why not?
Just how important is religion when it comes to our elected officials? I don’t think it’s any more or less important than any other factor. Unlike liberals, I like a diverse legislature, I want christians and Jews, Buddhists and atheists, Doctors and house painters, teachers and laborers all serving in a citizen legislature..instead we have 500 lawyers.
August 29, 2006 - 02:01 PM on August 29th, 2006
I have no problem with atheists. Yes I do think they would have a hard time getting elected, but it would not prohibit me from voting for one.
I think an atheist has a better chance of becoming POTUS over a Jew in this country.
August 29, 2006 - 02:55 PM on August 29th, 2006
37. I think Peejz hit it pretty well, though I’m not sure about the Jew bit. I’d sooner vote for a Jew than an Atheist…AND I’M A FRIGGIN’ ATHEIST!!!!
Why does this threaten liberals so much? If there are 300 pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, socialist heathens in congress…is it so bad to have a couple christians to provide a different perspective? Come on folks, this IS diversity, not that racism that the democrats call “diversity”.
Liberals HATE diversity, and LOVE racism.. how many times do I have to say it! Look what they did to Bob Casey in 1992.. he is pro-life…. at the Democratic Convention he was literally BARRED FROM THE STAGE.
yikes….it’s like a child dismemberment gustapo.
August 29, 2006 - 03:37 PM on August 29th, 2006
Liberalism is fascism, enforced using political correctness.
August 29, 2006 - 04:00 PM on August 29th, 2006
“Abortion is the law of the land.”
No abortion is not the law of the land. As I said, please read the decision.
34.
Religion is of little relevance when I vote for a candidate as long as the cabdidtae has no history of antitheism or wanting to break the Establsimsnt Clause’s original meaning.
August 29, 2006 - 04:13 PM on August 29th, 2006
Woodshed, what is your point?
August 29, 2006 - 04:16 PM on August 29th, 2006
39. no doubt! They run it like the SS… if you are not about baby murder on demand, gay marriage, pacifying terrorists…forget it, buddy! YOu are out!
August 29, 2006 - 04:19 PM on August 29th, 2006
41.
The point is that you should propably educate yourself on this topic before making baseless claims. As I said, I won’t do your home work for you. Read the decision. findlaw.com is an excellent source.
August 29, 2006 - 04:20 PM on August 29th, 2006
42.
Yep. Just ask Joe Lieberman.
August 29, 2006 - 04:22 PM on August 29th, 2006
lieberman… casey….the corpses of those detroyed by liberal facism are strewn throughout the land…
August 29, 2006 - 04:24 PM on August 29th, 2006
Would you vote for an atheist, if all other qualifications were met.. yay or nay?
Yay.
Do folks think an atheist would have a harder time getting elected over a christian?
Probably.
Can a politician these days refuse to disclose his or her religious beliefs and get away with it in a court of public opinion?
Probably not.
Just how important is religion when it comes to our elected officials?
Depends. On One hand, a politician who is a fundamentalist of ANY religion is a dangerous person if they cannot separate their beliefs from their actions in the service of the public.
On the other, being a religious person and running for office really shouldn’t matter. Again, as long as they keep that shit to themselves while at work.
August 29, 2006 - 04:26 PM on August 29th, 2006
Woodshed, I’ve read the decision.
Now what?
August 29, 2006 - 04:29 PM on August 29th, 2006
If you’ve read it, then tell me what the decision says about “right to privacy”.
August 29, 2006 - 04:32 PM on August 29th, 2006
Abortion is not the law of the land. In 1973, the SCOTUS gave us a decision on Roe V Wade. State laws are supreme. A state can pass laws restricting abortion. Until it is challened in the SCOTUS, we are bound by the abortion laws of the individual states!
August 29, 2006 - 04:33 PM on August 29th, 2006
“State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”
Ok, and?
August 29, 2006 - 04:34 PM on August 29th, 2006
my link.
August 29, 2006 - 04:41 PM on August 29th, 2006
Keep going.
I would use findlaw, as your link is very unorganizewd in its presentation.
August 29, 2006 - 04:45 PM on August 29th, 2006
Mike Kilo – I see where you’re coming from, but you have to remember that abortion is the religious right’s marijuana. Once they get their “high” they move on to the hard stuff like birth control and federally funded abstinence programs. After that the really hard luck cases wake up under a pile of picket signs with no job, no family, and no idea how they got there. There’s treatment for them, but it’s hard to come by. The current system just doesn’t have the capacity for all of them.
To answer Lisa’s excellent questions:
Would you vote for an atheist, if all other qualifications were met.. yay or nay? Being an atheist wouldn’t sway me either way. It depends on how I felt about their ability to represent me.
Do folks think an atheist would have a harder time getting elected over a christian? I haven’t looked recently so I don’t know how many have been elected. I think it wouldn’t be too hard to determine this scientifically. My gut feeling is that it really depends on their opponent. I don’t think being an Atheist would marginalize any politician.
Can a politician these days refuse to disclose his or her religious beliefs and get away with it in a court of public opinion? I think the public belives that if you’re going to serve them, they have a right to know what you believe in. Certain things, like how much you and your wife/husband have sex, is off limits but for some reason religion isn’t. Personally, I’d be more comfortable voting for a politician knowing that they have a satisfying and expressive love life than I would with disengenious displays of religiousity (images of a lone white politician clapping off beat in a predominantly black church come to mind).
Just how important is religion when it comes to our elected officials? Without balance, this country falls off the deep end. Both sides need to be equally cranky that they aren’t getting their way. I believe that in the future, this will be measurable by taking the “temperatue” of the political blogosphere scientifically (it’s called text analysis). So what does that have to do with how important religion is when it comes to our elected officials? Religion has a titration effect on the direction of the government. If it becomes too liberal, the electorate opens the stopper and lets some conservatism flow in. If it becomes too conservative, the electorate turns the stopper off.
..Chuck..
August 29, 2006 - 05:01 PM on August 29th, 2006
For christs sake, Woodshed, what the hell is your point? I’ve read the damn decision already!
August 29, 2006 - 06:59 PM on August 29th, 2006
She’s pandering, Lisa. I liken it to Gore and his “You (black people) will go back to being 3/5 of a person” and “more black churches will burn.”
Considering I know some atheists who are more Christlike than some Christians I know, I could vote for an atheist if one met my qualifications. Having said that, I would be less inclined to vote for Harris given what she’s said.
(BTW, no real Christian would ever say they are without sin, but I gather the point you were trying to make.)
I’m a Christian myself; a rather conservative one at that. I would challenge K. Harris to show me where in the Bible something can be found to justify those statements.
August 29, 2006 - 10:14 PM on August 29th, 2006
English Common Law on which our system of law is based predates Christianity in England, so to claim that Christianity is its base is historically inaccurate.
There is no requirement for balance in this country. What is sorely missing isn’t “Balance” it’s a sense of doing what is right for the country versus what is most politically expedient. The Democratic party has become the party of opposition without regard to what is actually best for this country. Tax cuts have repeatedly resulted in economic growth. They have continually opposed them despite this historical fact. Instead they continually insist on raising taxes which have repeatedly caused the economy to take a down turn. They themselves have said that Social Security is bound for bankruptcy. When President Bush put forth a plan that would save it and provide the potential for substantially higher benefits for most future recipients, the Democrats banded together to kill the planned overhaul and telling lies about it, all the while enrolled in a comparable plan themselves. They have fought tooth and nail to defeat the Patriot Act while proclaiming themselves to be strong on defense, two positions that are mutually exclusive. Also while they have worked to present an image of being strong on defense, they have repeatedly voted to cut military spending. Exactly how is any of this “opposing balance” good for the people of this country? Harry Reid ( the Senate Minority leader) was bragging about killing the Patriot Act. Nancy Pelosi (The House Minority Leader) has decreed that while the party must not put forth any positions because they will lose in a direct debate with the Republicans, they are to oppose any Republican plan at all costs. How does the opposition of good legislation benefit anyone but those who stand on their soapboxes making up lies to deride it? Aren’t these SOBs supposed to be looking out for the best interests of their constituents instead of their own?
I’m beginning to think that Paul Verhoeven had a good idea in his movie, “Starship Troopers” wherein only vets were allowed to serve as politicians or vote. The whole pretense is that since only vets have been willing to put their lives on the line to support the government, they’re the only ones who should be allowed to say how it’s run. Anyone unwilling to take the risk, wouldn’t be allowed to vote. Sort of run the country like a corporation. People with little or no investment in a corporation have little or no say in how it’s run. Basically they had a representative republic that was run by the military.
August 30, 2006 - 08:13 AM on August 30th, 2006
FAO good points. That’s why I have repeatedly been saying that the Democrite Party has become an organized crime syndicate and should be prosecuted and shut down. All parties have their problems with corruption, as does every human enterprise. But the Democrite Party has shown that it is not interested whatsoever in what is best for the nation.
A comparison could be the way the California Teacher’s Association thinks about their role in education. A number of years ago their President, or Guru, or whatever they call that position was being interviewed and was talking about the Association’s position. The interviewer said something like “Don’t you care about the children?” to which the CTA leader responded “We’ll care about the children when they become dues-paying members”.
It seems the Democrites feel that if they get enough money, enough privilege for themselves, it doesn’t matter what happens to the country, because they’ll have theirs, so what?
August 30, 2006 - 07:01 PM on August 30th, 2006
Lisa Sabin…
Please! Please post more. The site you helped make is overrun with weeds.
August 30, 2006 - 07:08 PM on August 30th, 2006
Peejz
“I have no problem with atheists. Yes I do think they would have a hard time getting elected, but it would not prohibit me from voting for one.â€
HELLO!!! Did it ever occur to you that politicians lie? Yes; ever Republicans. Do you think an atheist politician is above lying about religion? Read my lips: Most politicians lie about religion and everything else.
August 30, 2006 - 07:22 PM on August 30th, 2006
“Read my lips: Most politicians lie about religion and everything else.”
August 30, 2006 - 08:09 PM on August 30th, 2006
59? What are you talking about. The question asked was Do folks think an atheist would have a harder time getting elected over a christian? , and I answered the way I did. Call me crazy, but I believe that Lisa was referring to a politician declaring themselves an atheist during an election. Are you suggesting that the person is lying and just saYing they are atheist?
August 31, 2006 - 04:04 PM on August 31st, 2006
I’m saying that many of our “Christian”politicians are atheists. They just lie about it.
August 31, 2006 - 04:17 PM on August 31st, 2006
I can buy that Zelda.
I’m sure there’s a Republican politician out there who says he/she’s religious ONLY to get elected…
Why not?
August 31, 2006 - 04:29 PM on August 31st, 2006
62- I agree with your statement. But Lisa didn’t ask that. As I said, she was setting up a scenario in which a candidate fully discloses they are an atheist. Hence my answer. Had she asked it like you presented it…”Do you think there are atheists in the closet that feel they need to lie about it in order to get elected?” I would say..hell yes!
September 2, 2006 - 12:33 AM on September 2nd, 2006
I have only one problem with Atheists and that’s the same problem that I have with most liberals. They stand around and scream that they are being discriminated against and everyone else is being intolerant of them. The problem is that while most people are simply exercising their right to exercise their religion, the atheists are in fact trying to suppress the religious person’s Constitutional rights.
The Constitution says “CONGRESS shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, (note it doesn’t say anyone but Congress is thus restricted from establishing a religion. Considering that at the time Pennsylvania had been founded by Quakers, Maryland by Catholics, Massachusetts by Puritans (an Anglican sect), etc etc. This was put there to prevent Congress from legislating a national religion.) or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. While the atheists are so damn offended by the appearance of a religious symbol on public property, isn’t their insistence on it being removed actually suppressing a Constitutionally protected right? There is nothing in the Constitution that says someone exercising their religion may only do so as long as it doesn’t offend someone else. Why is it that those who scream for tolerance are the least tolerant ones of the lot?
September 2, 2006 - 08:42 AM on September 2nd, 2006
FAO- The owner of this site, Lisa Sabin, is an atheist and she is neither a liberal, nor one to scream about inequality. She has stated her reasons and they seemed very clear to me. In no way did she put down anyone that does belong to another religion!
That being said, I don’t think that many that claim to be an atheist, really understand the meaning. In other words, I think that many just jump on the bandwagon just to be a part of the crowd. Kinda like the gays say today..”I was gay when it meant something.” The ACLU claims to represent atheists..yet I think that those being represented are really just people that have a problem with life. I think that the ACLU is standing firm to it’s original mission statement which was to erase all religion from America. (except for islam)
September 2, 2006 - 09:46 AM on September 2nd, 2006
Perhaps I should’ve made myself more clear in saying that my only problem is with “Vocal” atheists and liberals. I have no problem with those who allow others to live their lives without interference, only with those who don’t. And that goes with any religion. I’d take up arms against any government that tried to force people to observe one religion over another. I just think that everyone should allow everyone else to practice as they see fit as long as it doesn’t involve physically injuring anyone. That being said, I feel that placing a Cross, Mennorrah or any other symbol of faith on public grounds does not impede on the atheists’ rights to not believe, nor does it constitute establishing a religion. Suing to have one removed on the other hand does infringe on the rights of the people who put it there to exercise their religion. As long as Congress isn’t passing a law to force it, it isn’t unconstitutional. The Constitution does not limit the authority of the States in this regard, only of Congress. BTW, I don’t particularly practice any religion. I’ve seen the effects of man’s hand in using faith to enrich themselves at others’ expense. Ask the Feds about Thomas Kincaid’s current situation for a recent example. When a preacher in a $2000 suit is asking an out of work coal miner for 10% of his welfare check PLUS an additional offering for a new AC for the packed church, I have to wonder why the preacher can’t buy an off the shelf $200 suit and pay for the new AC out of his pocket. Likewise when a parishioner asks the church to find a home for some used furniture and the church takes it and sells it instead, I find that a little hypocritical as well. I’ve seen both of these happen personally.
September 2, 2006 - 10:03 AM on September 2nd, 2006
67-is with “Vocal”atheists and liberals. That sounds more like you. Thanks for clarifying FAO.
September 2, 2006 - 11:01 AM on September 2nd, 2006
Good points FAO. Those nicely sum up how I feel on the subject as well. I think a corollary argument to your point is that it’s important to be vocal when someone is being hurt (”do what ye will, hurt none”). Or as Patrick Swayze put it in the movie Road House, “Be nice, until it’s time to not be nice…”.
..Chuck..
September 2, 2006 - 11:47 AM on September 2nd, 2006
Peejz has got my back… thanks
FAO – personally, I refer to them as “Atheists with an agenda”, of which I am not one of. I have my own beliefs (or non-beliefs) and others have theirs. There is a certain balance in this world that I enjoy and I am very happy that faith and religion are present in the lives of those who need it and find comfort in it.
The Pledge of Allegiance, our federal currency, the 10 commandments in a courthouse, a cross at a veterans memorial – - none of that discriminates against me or my beliefs. None of it gets in the way of me just living my life – - nor do I feel inferior in the face of it. Maybe those Atheists with an agenda who are so vocal and fight against such things are doing it BECAUSE they feel inferior when faced with symbols of religious sentiment? At that point, I say a person needs to look inside – rather than outside – for their answers.
Now, on the flip side – if I DID feel that I was directly being discriminated against because of my (lack of) faith… I would surely step up and say so.
For example, I worked for 15 years as a Hospice nurse. Most hospice organizations are faith based… it really comes with the territory, ya know? Anyways – they used to start every single staff meeting out with a prayer. I didn’t try to change their ways . . I just simply sat during those first 10 minutes and read through my notes, or something that allowed me to sit quietly. I didn’t participate in the prayer sessions – - but I also respected my peers need to.
When my boss noticed and one day pulled me aside and suggested that I participate in the prayer because she found it disrespectful for me to just sit there – not participating…. I suggested that, perhaps, I show up at these meetings 10 minutes late. We agreed – and I worked an additional 5 more years at the place before leaving for self-employment.
I did not have a problem with their prayer. But they had a problem with my non participation in it. However, they could not make it a condition of my employment that I pray before meetings – so we struck a compromise.
September 3, 2006 - 10:04 PM on September 3rd, 2006
Look people the system is falling apart and if you can’t see that its going to be a bad day at black rock for millions of people.:sad:
September 28, 2006 - 12:16 PM on September 28th, 2006
Peejz, the above post is a spam. Please delete it asap.
..Chuck..
October 19, 2006 - 02:59 AM on October 19th, 2006
keracare http://keracare-m1bi.blogspot.com keracare lipstick
November 2, 2006 - 02:25 PM on November 2nd, 2006
cheap tramadol
[url= http://cheap-tramadolru.blogspot.com ]cheap tramadol[/url]
November 2, 2006 - 05:30 PM on November 2nd, 2006
cheap international airplane ticket
[url=http://cheapinternationalairplaneticket.blogspot.com]cheap international airplane ticket[/url]
November 4, 2006 - 12:42 PM on November 4th, 2006
life insurance
[url=http://lifeeinsurance.blogspot.com]life insurance[/url]
November 20, 2006 - 03:23 PM on November 20th, 2006
phetermine
November 28, 2006 - 12:26 PM on November 28th, 2006
http://www.xa-board.com/cgi-bin/foren/foren/F_5324/cutecast.pl mosquito ringtone
December 2, 2006 - 10:55 AM on December 2nd, 2006
free nokia ringtones
[url=http://myblogma.com/free1nokia1ringtones/]free nokia ringtones[/url]
December 3, 2006 - 12:06 PM on December 3rd, 2006
cheap airfares [url=http://cheapairfaresfor.blogspot.com]cheap airfares[/url] http://cheapairfaresfor.blogspot.com
December 3, 2006 - 04:51 PM on December 3rd, 2006
nextel ringtones
[url=http://myblogma.com/nextel1ringtones/]nextel ringtones[/url]
December 4, 2006 - 09:16 AM on December 4th, 2006
free sprint ringtones [url=http://freesprint1ringtones.blogspot.com]free sprint ringtones[/url] http://freesprint1ringtones.blogspot.com
December 6, 2006 - 04:07 PM on December 6th, 2006
air fares [url=http://air1fares.blogspot.com]air fares[/url] http://air1fares.blogspot.com
December 8, 2006 - 02:34 AM on December 8th, 2006
http://bigwetbutt.infogami.com
Big Wet Butt
[url=http://bigwetbutt.infogami.com]Big Wet Butt[/url]
December 8, 2006 - 04:09 AM on December 8th, 2006
Rolex Replica
[url=http://rolexreplicaxz.blogspot.com]Rolex Replica[/url]
December 8, 2006 - 04:38 AM on December 8th, 2006
coach handbags
January 31, 2007 - 06:29 PM on January 31st, 2007
free roulette free slot games
April 30, 2007 - 08:27 PM on April 30th, 2007
[url=][/url]