The Real McCoy said:Not at all. I believe the government of any country should be a secular one, indifferent to all religious beliefs.
I only have a problem when secularism begins to infringe on the rights of citizens. Many seem to think the first amendment advocates a freedom FROM religion and not freedom OF religion.
Caine said:I disagree that secularism in the government infringes on the rights of the citizens.
And I would be willing to hear your opinion on how secularism..... in the government......infringes on the rights of the citizens.
The Real McCoy said:I never said secularism in the government infringing on rights. Please re-read my post.
hiker said:Conservatives have no problem with the government being secular. There do seem to be a lot of people on the anti-religion side that believe conservative government does want to promote Christianity. Only the complete expungement of anything even remotely connected to organized religion from public life will serve to appease these people. Which is not going to happen. Nor should it.
An overwhelming majority of Americans are Christians. To those people, their faith comes before work, friends, even family. The government of this country is remarkable in the restraint shown by its political leaders when it comes to appeasing this majority and actually goes out of its way to avoid endorsing Christianity or any other religion. Despite being one of the most religious nations on Earth, (and the political gains to be had from appealing to the faithful) we are incredibly secular in our approach to politics, government, and freedom of religion. But you wouldn't ever know it, if you listen to those whom believe the slightest whisper of faith in public is like the mightiest roar of an attacking lion.
Simply put, the argument is needless. We are a secular nation. Always have been, always will be. Just because a leader has his faith, and doesn't mind telling people about it, that does not mean he is imposing anything on you. That just means that the government mirrors its citizens, which is how things work in a representative democracy. I am obviously referring to Bush here, but I distinctly remember Pres. Clinton attending services regularly and doing his best to make sure everyone knew he was there. I don't remember anyone asking this type of question way back then, I guess it takes a Republican president to make some folks believe we are now living in a neo-theocracy. Wrong. This is a secular government of a religious nation. Be proud of the founding fathers for looking out for people of other religions and us nonbelievers. And be happy you don't live in Iran, then you would know what a non-secular government really looks like.
hiker said:Conservatives have no problem with the government being secular. There do seem to be a lot of people on the anti-religion side that believe conservative government does want to promote Christianity. Only the complete expungement of anything even remotely connected to organized religion from public life will serve to appease these people. Which is not going to happen. Nor should it.
An overwhelming majority of Americans are Christians. To those people, their faith comes before work, friends, even family. The government of this country is remarkable in the restraint shown by its political leaders when it comes to appeasing this majority and actually goes out of its way to avoid endorsing Christianity or any other religion. Despite being one of the most religious nations on Earth, (and the political gains to be had from appealing to the faithful) we are incredibly secular in our approach to politics, government, and freedom of religion. But you wouldn't ever know it, if you listen to those whom believe the slightest whisper of faith in public is like the mightiest roar of an attacking lion.
Simply put, the argument is needless. We are a secular nation. Always have been, always will be. Just because a leader has his faith, and doesn't mind telling people about it, that does not mean he is imposing anything on you. That just means that the government mirrors its citizens, which is how things work in a representative democracy. I am obviously referring to Bush here, but I distinctly remember Pres. Clinton attending services regularly and doing his best to make sure everyone knew he was there. I don't remember anyone asking this type of question way back then, I guess it takes a Republican president to make some folks believe we are now living in a neo-theocracy. Wrong. This is a secular government of a religious nation. Be proud of the founding fathers for looking out for people of other religions and us nonbelievers. And be happy you don't live in Iran, then you would know what a non-secular government really looks like.
Caine said:I have a few problems with this post, but the major problem I have with this post is the fact that you are attempting to turn this into a partisan debate, which, other than my defense of myself from what others try to call me in different threads (my mention of not being a godless liberal) nobody has really mentioned any partisan issues in this. This should be a completely non-partisan debate. Of course, the Australian mentioned partisan-ship, but I'll get to that in a different post.
Anyhow, you believe that the strong support in government to have schools teach "religious science" is secularism????? Creationism is not based on science, and thus, does not belong in a science class, but, rather, a theology class. One Example.
Two, the government has... god in the pledge....god in the courthouse....trying to put god in the school (in some places has it).....god is all over government property (not to include military bases, which have services for many different religions and denominations).... in most of these cases, specific christian beliefs are emphasized.
Until this is not around... how exactly are we a COMPLETELY secular government?
Deegan said:I have a mission for you my friend, you go ask a man to die for his country, without a tradition, without a God, without a pride in his/her country, you go ask anyone to die for that! The fact is we need some faith, we need some pride, we need a lot of things! The bull***** people like you offer just won't cut it, and we certainly wouldn't be where we are today with this liberal idea of the United States of America. Who would possibly fight for this doomed place you reside, no one, and that is the reason we fight you to the death, you kill hope, you're a f**king diesease that must be eliminated!
I'm sorry, this just really bothers me, I may be over reaching, but this new America really sucks.
Caine said:I have a few problems with this post, but the major problem I have with this post is the fact that you are attempting to turn this into a partisan debate, which, other than my defense of myself from what others try to call me in different threads (my mention of not being a godless liberal) nobody has really mentioned any partisan issues in this. This should be a completely non-partisan debate. Of course, the Australian mentioned partisan-ship, but I'll get to that in a different post.
Caine said:Anyhow, you believe that the strong support in government to have schools teach "religious science" is secularism????? Creationism is not based on science, and thus, does not belong in a science class, but, rather, a theology class. One Example.
Caine said:Two, the government has... god in the pledge....god in the courthouse....trying to put god in the school (in some places has it).....god is all over government property (not to include military bases, which have services for many different religions and denominations).... in most of these cases, specific christian beliefs are emphasized.
Caine said:Until this is not around... how exactly are we a COMPLETELY secular government?
hiker said:I get carried away. Regardless, everything here ends up being a partisan debate anyway. I was getting an early start
I know creationism is junk science. I also know that all attempts to put any mention of creationism in textbooks will fail. It does give ammunition to "some people" to use against "some other people" as a smear while the issue is still being kicked around by left-wing media sources. (Oops, there I go being partisan again. I tried to avoid it.)
You forgot to mention money as well. So what? I've never even tried to be anything other than an athiest, but I have never gotten upset over every mention of god, or Jesus, the bible, etc. Yes, there are mentions of religion ingrained into many parts of our society. But putting "in God we trust" on a dollar bill, offering religious services to the military, swearing in with a hand on a bible...all these mentions of religion are part of the society we live in, not an endorsement of or enforcement for any religion. 35 years as an athiest, and I have yet to have one single politician or official tell me what I should be doing with my spiritual life, much less forcing me to worship any deity. It is just a part of the society we live in, and the cultural mores that this society was formed from. Again, I say, try telling an Iranian how inescapable and oppressive Christians are here in America.
Because your founding fathers said so. Just because every reference to a Christian god was not totally expunged from all civic documents and proceedings does not mean that the government has ever endorsed any one belief over another or enforced any belief. It has not happened, it won't happen in the future. And I am okay with that, because I can still do whatever I please, same as you.
hiker said:The mentions of god on money, in court, on documents, etc. were made to lend a certain legitimacy to the government. Nobody had a problem with that until very recently in our history. It would seem the arguments began when our society began pulling even further away from any mentions of organized religion in public. If the people are mostly Christian and the government they create reflects none of the beliefs of the people, that is not a good thing. This country has had a remarkable balance on this for over 200 years now. Why has this become a bad thing only very recently? For the people to be represented by their government, their government needs to in some ways resemble them.
Anyway, I believe the ammendment in question here goes something like "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion", or words to that effect. Nothing in there about not displaying commandments in a court or swearing on the bible, or any other display of faith. Things that have gone unnoticed and unchallenged for a couple hundred years. I don't understand how we can be heading so far away from religion in public as a society and yet we keep finding more and more displays of religion to be offended by. After we abolish Christmas and have people swearing "So help me...whomever" on an old phone book, I guess we'll just have to go after porn actresses for screaming "Oh my God" on DVDs :roll:
:mrgreen: Just a joke...I guess.
galenrox said:I added a poll, and accidentally voted for the wrong answer, because I'm stupid. So keep in mind that from here on out that "Yes" will have one more vote than it actually has, and "no" is one short.
And here I thought I was incoherently rambling and stumbling through posts like Ted Kennedy on a roadside sobriety test. :dohDeegan said:I really like this guy, why can't I express myself this way?
hiker said:And here I thought I was incoherently rambling and stumbling through posts like Ted Kennedy on a roadside sobriety test. :doh
hiker said:The mentions of god on money, in court, on documents, etc. were made to lend a certain legitimacy to the government. Nobody had a problem with that until very recently in our history. It would seem the arguments began when our society began pulling even further away from any mentions of organized religion in public. If the people are mostly Christian and the government they create reflects none of the beliefs of the people, that is not a good thing. This country has had a remarkable balance on this for over 200 years now. Why has this become a bad thing only very recently? For the people to be represented by their government, their government needs to in some ways resemble them.
Anyway, I believe the ammendment in question here goes something like "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion", or words to that effect. Nothing in there about not displaying commandments in a court or swearing on the bible, or any other display of faith. Things that have gone unnoticed and unchallenged for a couple hundred years. I don't understand how we can be heading so far away from religion in public as a society and yet we keep finding more and more displays of religion to be offended by. After we abolish Christmas and have people swearing "So help me...whomever" on an old phone book, I guess we'll just have to go after porn actresses for screaming "Oh my God" on DVDs :roll:
:mrgreen: Just a joke...I guess.
If you're going to equate abolishing slavery with removing mentions of God, some people around here aren't going to like you very muchCaine said:Your missing the point.
I already addressed the issue of the "offended"
Im saying that the legislation passed to put god on things.. ex.. The U.S. Flag Code putting God in our Pledge in the 1950s..... Was Unconstitutional to begin with, and thus now that we are smart enough to know its wrong, we should do away with the things that do not belong.
We eventually discovered that slavery is wrong, and did away with it after so many years of people enjoying thier slaves, so I think people can deal with the removal of god from thier pledge/court/etc.....
hiker said:If you're going to equate abolishing slavery with removing mentions of God, some people around here aren't going to like you very much
I am not so sure that the people of this country want every mention of god in the public square consigned to the dustbin of history. Ours is a Constitution of, by, and for the people. If you want to put it that way, I guess we aren't smart enough yet after all :roll:
I'm going to bed now. I guess you're on your own. I have faith in you. :2wave:Deegan said:I'm just going to let this man speak for me.....sorry, continue.:3oops:
hiker said:If you're going to equate abolishing slavery with removing mentions of God, some people around here aren't going to like you very much
I am not so sure that the people of this country want every mention of god in the public square consigned to the dustbin of history. Ours is a Constitution of, by, and for the people. If you want to put it that way, I guess we aren't smart enough yet after all :roll:
You appear to procede from the false assumption that our government dictates religion to the masses. Our government has made no law that forces anyone to embrace religion. That would certainly go against the first amendment. However, it does appear that you would condone our government prohibiting the free exercise thereof.Caine said:Don't care about it in the public square.... just as long as its not in the "government square" if you will.....Thats obviously against the constitution.
Jews have no problem with religion being a private part of your own life... why do so many christians seem to have a problem with practicing thier religion without shoving it in everyone's faces????
If your Religion is truly good, it does not need government support to stand on its own feet......
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?