posted
Ugh. Disgusting. What the hell happened to the separation of Church and State?? Now even the Democrats are pandering to these fanatics. Not only did both candidates kowtow to this evangelical preacher (Why not a Priest? Why not a Mormon? Why not a Hindu? Why not a Muslim?) but now even the Democrats are pandering to the religious right.
Ick.
Religion has NO place in Government. The mass media is partly to blame. They have a responsibility to public service, and the ratings race of the past decade has shattered that... now they are like politicians... pandering to whatever demagogue comes along.
And of course all the religious leaders and parents are to blame. They have failed this current generation and have raised their kids/flock to think it's ok to openly mix religion and politics.
But the politicians (as usual) are mostly to blame because they really ARE demagogues! They are willing to sacrifice American society and way of life for a short term win. Bush/Rove didn't give a damn about gay marriage...they weren't even Christians I bet. But they and they're people pandered and manipulated the religious fanatics to stay in power.
And now even Obama is doing it! Ugh.
Why has everyone forgotten the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the other things that made the USA free? If one religious movement is given more credit or power then all the others will suffer. So NO ONE should have any special treatment. Keep religion out of Government altogether. The Founders knew this...but we seem to be forgetting it.
The religious right attacks the word "secular" as meaning "godless" or "atheist". IT IS NOT! It means being neutral...it means getting work done and being unbiased.
But religions hate this. Because each religion thinks it has Ultimate Truth of the Universe and religious fanatics cannot stand not being in power to impose their will on the rest of Humanity.
Thus the need to keep religion out of government. Be religious if you want. Don't force it on othes. Let us save secular society.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america to the republic for which it stands one nation under 'god' indivisble with liberty and justice for all"
But seriously I agree with you this nation shouldn't be ruled by someone who falls into the trap previous presidents have. Religion should be considered when making decisions but it should not be brought up in a campaingn or during a debate. It should have no effect on the americans mind, and the reason they vote. But it does and this is because religion has become to powerful in our culture. Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh
*(is that how you spell it?)
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T:man: What are you a Godless commie* "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america to the republic for which it stands one nation under 'god' indivisble with liberty and justice for all"
*(is that how yo spell it?)
Just out of curiosity, did you know that the original pledge didn't contain the words 'under god'?
Given the fact that the people of America aren't 100% any particular religion, doesn't "under god" contradict "indivisible"?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'll go on a ledge and assume you're not joking...You do realize that "under god" is not part of the Pledge right? It was added in the 50's because of the "godless commies" of the Cold War.
...I just like pointing out the obvious, don't mind me...
[you are joking! *phew*]
[ August 25, 2008, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In school they don't teach you this. This proves that religion has become to pwerful in our culture.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait... Tman, are you being sarcastic or not? If you are *big hugs* If you aren't *backs away slowly*
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Hear hear guys... I'll get right on that... It's just so frustrating to see people gleefulling sacrificing our future for ignorance and darkness.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand where Telp's rant is coming from -- is there something specific that brought this on, or was it simply your overarching opinion that had to burst forth at this particular time?
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: What the hell happened to the separation of Church and State?? Now even the Democrats are pandering to these fanatics. Not only did both candidates kowtow to this evangelical preacher (Why not a Priest? Why not a Mormon? Why not a Hindu? Why not a Muslim?) but now even the Democrats are pandering to the religious right.
This doesn't actually violate separation of church and state.
EDIT: I forgot to add that I totally understand your frustration. Discrimination against atheism and minority religions is heavily ingrained in American society.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I don't understand where Telp's rant is coming from -- is there something specific that brought this on, or was it simply your overarching opinion that had to burst forth at this particular time?
posted
Telp, the national parties are private organizations, not government. If they want to demonstrate their faith, fine.
Denying that faith exists, or that people of faith exist, and denying that those who do believe actually do believe, and are not delusional, enslaved, or tricked by their leaders, is the main reason they line up to vote against your preferred candidates.
Remember, just as you have the freedom not to believe in God, Allah, Buddha, or the great Spaghetti Monster, they have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to believe in it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I don't understand where Telp's rant is coming from -- is there something specific that brought this on, or was it simply your overarching opinion that had to burst forth at this particular time?
Maybe the fact that the DNC convention is opening (has opened?) with an "Inter-faith" thingy. Which is great, I suppose, if you have some sort of faith, but is a bit off-putting to the atheists and feels a bit like "Well, we don't need or want your votes, so why not purposefully exclude you?"
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Denying that faith exists, or that people of faith exist, and denying that those who do believe actually do believe, and are not delusional, enslaved, or tricked by their leaders, is the main reason they line up to vote against your preferred candidates.
This is just plain false. Neither of the presidential candidates has done any of the actions you have listed nor, really, have any congressmen. Who exactly are the "preferred candidates that you are referring too"? AFAIK there is one atheist congressman and he certainly did not include any of the junk you listed as part of his platform.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind a rant about seperation of church and state because on the whole I agree with you. However you should also remember that one of the primary reasons that America was founded was as a haven of religious freedom, and that all of the founding fathers, (with the possible exception of dear Tom Paine) were deeply religious men.
I strongly disagree, and am slightly disgusted at your lack or respect, (and understanding of human nature) when you start saying that having a religion is "sacrificing our future for ignorance and darkness"
Get off your high atheist horse. I don't believe that you're going to hell, so please don't tell my that my IQ is the equivalent of the chimpanzee I might have evolved from.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: I don't mind a rant about separation of church and state because on the whole I agree with you. However you should also remember that one of the primary reasons that America was founded was as a haven of religious freedom, and that all of the founding fathers, (with the possible exception of dear Tom Paine) were deeply religious men.
I strongly disagree, and am slightly disgusted at your lack or respect, (and understanding of human nature) when you start saying that having a religion is "sacrificing our future for ignorance and darkness"
Get off your high atheist horse. I don't believe that you're going to hell, so please don't tell my that my IQ is the equivalent of the chimpanzee I might have evolved from.
Define "deeply religious" for the founding fathers. I'm behind you if you mean that most of them had Christian backgrounds. But to say that they were all 'deeply religious' is stretching it.
Oh, and you didn't evolve from a chimpanzee. You and a chimpanzee have a common ancestor. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Threads, I never said that either of the main candidates have done such a thing.
Then again, neither of those people are Telp's preferred candidate.
Telp is the one who has said those things. He is the Atheist Evangelist on this thread so far. It seems that Secular Evangelism is on the decline, which is what Telp is complaining about.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: He is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Honestly. Now get it right or suffer His noodly wrath.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Atheists are being excluded from the interfaith gathering at the DNC.
As an atheist, I have to say I don't really have a problem with atheists not being part of an interfaith gathering, at least not on face value. Interfaith gatherings are for religious people to talk about their religious traditions. Atheism isn't a religious tradition.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read that article. Apparently, they need to be there because they don't want to miss a party, no matter what the party is about. I don't find that to be a compelling argument.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I read that article. Apparently, they need to be there because they don't want to miss a party, no matter what the party is about. I don't find that to be a compelling argument.
I don't think politics and religion should mix, which is obviously what is happening here.
By even having the 'interfaith' event they are saying that faith is much more important to them and those without it and their views are unimportant. Including atheists, I think, would at the least be an attempt to say they care about our support.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the objection to the exclusion is quite so simple, kat. At least not from those with a brain.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree. If they had a "farming concerns" meeting, would it mean that they don't care about people who don't farm?
---
edit: Actually, framing it that way, I start to see the rationale for the complaints. "Religious concerns" at a national political convention should include people representing a secular viewpoint.
I think it matters what the purpose of the Interfaith conference is. If they are recognizing that faith is something that is important to many of their members, that's one thing. If they are doing any sort of policy discussion, it's a much different thing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
1. We hate Bush. Bush loves religion. Therefore, if you support religion, you love Bush. HOW DARE YOU.
2. You are being bad Democrats if you discuss anything unless it is important to EVERYONE. The agenda for the convention will consist of Oxygen: Good or Bad and, of course, We Hate Bush.
3. Some people don't like non-religious people. I'm not saying that's you, just some people. You look like those people. You don't want to be like those people, do you? How dare you discuss something that excludes us? By the way, all the other sub-topics are okay. Just not this one. If you have a party where I am not relevant, you are just like that girl in high school who rejected me when she overheard me calling all religious people ignorant and dark. YOU'RE SO MEAN.
4. You should have a different party instead - one that is about us.
5. Why do you want to talk about ideaology and what people have in common? Politics isn't about who you are, it's what you do! By the way, isn't great the nominee is black?
6. You want to talk about a subject that we have rejected as nonsense? YOU DON'T LOVE US. HOW DARE YOU.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Posted by Javert originally: Define "deeply religious" for the founding fathers. I'm behind you if you mean that most of them had Christian backgrounds. But to say that they were all 'deeply religious' is stretching it.
Well, it's hard to talk about them as a single entity since they were wildly divergent on a lot of points of personal philosophy and faith. But in general I don't think deeply religious is that far out of bounds.
I wonder though how much of it comes down to the use of language. If American political figures talked about "divine providence" as often as they did back then, I think you'd be hearing a lot more rants like Telps. The country has changed, and we're far less inviting or demanding of open professions of faith. But more so than that, I can candidates and officials are less desirous and comfortable with making them as well. Whether or not the founding fathers and the generation that followed were deeply religious or not isn't necessarily the issue, because we'll never know what was in their heart of hearts, and we'll never know what is in today's officials' heart of hearts, so we look at what they say, and there has been a precipitous drop off in the religious language from generation to generation starting in the 18th century.
Part of that might be our attitudes towards open displays of faith, and how dramatically they have changed over the years, and part of it just might be the way American speech has changed.
Telp -
I have to echo others who've said it: What has changed? When Jefferson was running against Adams he basically engaged in underhanded guerilla political warfare against Adams to try and paint him as a Godless monarchist. The irony there was that Adams was probably twice as religious as Jefferson by any real measure of faith, but that's immaterial. But come on, where is this shining past that you're alluding to? It's ALWAYS been like this, and if anything, things have gotten a LOT better.
Like my favorite history prof always says: "The good old days weren't all that good." (not particularly catchy, but certainly correct) We like to think that things always used to be better, but in many ways, things have only gotten better.
Personally I have no problems with professions of faith from presidents. I have no problem with them using their faith values as a tool in decision making. So long as they don't attempt to legislate a faith that we can't all agree on into law, it has to do with the personal realms of their lives, and I think that falls outside of separation of church and state, which was designed initially far more to protect churches than the state, but I do think it should go both ways, and I think it's hanging in there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Lyrhawn is right - what, exactly, is different now? What age are you lamenting where everything was secular and people held hands and made sure that what they thought was right never interfered with what they did?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I didn't mean the characterization specifically. I meant with the broader thing, the idea that Democrats by this action must not care about atheists' votes. Presumably Katharina agrees with that.
But I'ma drop it now, because I think chances of getting the two of you to agree on anything on purpose is highly unlikely at best:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Even the one about how, if they are dicussing faith and religion related policy issues, then secular voices should be included in the conversation? That doesn't seem that lame to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What age are you lamenting where everything was secular...
I've never been under the illusion that atheists were anything but second-class citizens since the Senate voted unanimously to censure a California district court for finding "under God" to be unconstitutional. We're talking about a Senate that didn't censure the Dred Scott decision.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: I don't understand where Telp's rant is coming from -- is there something specific that brought this on, or was it simply your overarching opinion that had to burst forth at this particular time?
posted
Exaggerated? Maybe. Intellectually dishonest? Nope. With anybody? Clearly no - not Squicky and after your uncharitable and accusatory question, not you. Somebody else, maybe.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is disturbing, Stray. I can't believe a law like that was needed - I can't imagine the horror of being forced out of a healing profession because you refuse to commit murder.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
