What are you afraid of?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

" which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
"firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence"

Do any of those lines seem familiar to anyone?
I realize this is a little late,but I am wondering exactly what the liberals are afraid
of.
They claim there is a constitutionally mandated "separation of church and state",even though the
constitution says NO SUCH THING.
For those of you unfamiliar with what it says,here is the exact wording..."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."

You notice,it says nothing about any separation of church and state.What it says is that
congress CANNOT establish an official state religion,and they CANNOT stop you from
practicing yours. That is all it says.

If there was a true separation,then why do the liberals not object to the words "in God we
trust" on all US currency? Isnt that promoting a religion?
Why does the US House of Reps have an official chalain (thats a minister)? His name is
Daniel P Coughlin,and he is a Catholic Priest.Here is a quote from him..."The formal
prayer before each legislative session of Congress or even on the days of pro forma
sessions casts a light on the day which awakens faith and calls forth a nation to stand
with its leaders and say in unison: ?In God we Trust.?

Now,why dont the liberals oppose this? Here we have the US House of Reps promoting a
specific religious belief,and being "counseled by one of its adherents.Again,no stink from
the liberals.

Also,why do the liberals not complain about the fact that the Govt is openly hiring
ministers of different faiths to serve in the military?
Isnt that the same as endorsing religion? I thought the libs say the Govt isnt allowed to
do that.Why do they ignore those examples,but go after a judge that wanted to place a
sculpture?

Also,if the libs are serious about removing God from govt,why is the phrase "so help me
GOD" in every swearing in of every elected official in Washington?
Isnt that a violation of that mythical separation the libs speak of?

FYI,the quotes I led off with are fro the Declaration of Independence,a document that is
illegal according to the libs,because it mentions God.

And of course,the Senate also has an official chaplain.That man must be hated by the libs
and dems.He is black,a USN Rear Admiral,and a chaplain.But,that does not change the fact
that the US Senate is promoting and supporting a religion.Isnt that a violation of that
mythical separation?
Why arent the libs saying anything?

So,while I do not claim to be very religious,the libs should be willing to allow people
their own beliefs.I wont force my beliefs on you,and you dont force your lack of beliefs
on me,ok.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 792 • Replies: 11

No top replies

Well that's a pretty one sided version of things. You are right to point out that religion, particularly Christian, dominates law and government.

So then your last sentence rings false. Clearly Christianity is so pervasive that it appears inseperable from our government. It would appear that the dreaded 'libs' who you assume to be nonbelievers, haven't had much impact on our government, so that any of their 'non-beleifs' have been forced on you is a dubious premise at best.

Anyway, just because someone does not hold to YOUR beliefs, that does not mean they themselves are without beliefs. I have mine, apart from Christianity, and I am told by you that I am eternally damned for them, whereas my beliefs do not eternally damn you. Sounds like a seesaw match between a hippo and a rabbit to me.

From your general tone here, I'm wondering if you will grasp any of this, but I wish you well in your pursuit of understanding.

Cheers,
A non lib non christian free man

0 Replies

what excellent fools religion makes of men.
Ben Johnson

0 Replies

Great Quote Dys but it merely points out the contempt held by many intellectuals for religion just as the two previous posts point out the emotion and polarization generated by religion.

Never changing human nature just keeps "messing" with our world.

0 Replies

In Allah we trust.

Well, why not?

0 Replies

Beedle,
You Totally misunderstood my point.I dont care what your religion is,its none of my business.If you want to worship a tomato,go for it.
I was trying to point out that the people that are screaming about the "separation of church and state",which does NOT exist anywhere in our constitution,are being very selective about it.

They will sue a high school football team that wants to have an invocation before the game(Santa Fe ISD vs Doe June 28,2000 Lawsuit brought by the ACLU,that great liberal bastion)...http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20000628_sekulow.html

They will fight a federal judge that wants to put a sculpture up in the courthouse, they will fight a city hall that wants a manger scene as part of their Christmas display.But,they wont fight the other examples I gave.I was pointing out the hypocrisy,not advocating any religion.I am not a religious man,but I wont stop you from your beliefs.As a matter of fact,as long as you dont hurt or abuse children,you can worship however and whenever you want,IMHO.

For an interesting perspective on the issue,may I suggest you read "separation of church and state" by Philip Hamburger pub by Harvard University Press 2002
I am including a link to a review,but in it he lays out the case that the idea of separation of church and state,as defined today,was NOT the idea of the founding fathers.It is a modern perversion of their idea.
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020920_hamilton.html

0 Replies

I would, in all fairness, push for the separation of State and Church.

On one hand, religion should be free of politcal context.
On the other, if Churches want to meddle in politics, they should pay taxes.

0 Replies

Mysteryman, I carefully reread. I think you are equally missing my point. You conclude with:

"But,that does not change the fact
that the US Senate is promoting and supporting a religion.Isnt that a violation of that
mythical separation?
Why arent the libs saying anything?

So,while I do not claim to be very religious,the libs should be willing to allow people
their own beliefs.I wont force my beliefs on you,and you dont force your lack of beliefs
on me,ok."

My point is that the libs seem to be willing, as in all the examples you cite, to allow for entrenched customs of belief. Yes, sometimes a fuss is made about a manger or a phrase in a pledge, and perhaps this is because they wish that tide to come in no further than it already has. Which I can appreciate. I would love to see some of the a priori christianity questioned. If I should ever in court be asked to swear upon the Bible, I intend to make an aside to the judge that perhaps in my case they should use the Tao Te Ching. We all do what we must. Some customs are deeply etched in our society. That is no reason to let that etching get so deep it cuts right through the fabric of society.

The Christian religious have abundant power in America. Others would wish to hold their own ground.

I still take major issue with your last sentence as it implies that the only believers in anything are religious.

If this seems semantic, I beg to differ. I think it's intrinsic in the debate.

Respectfully

0 Replies

Naturally Christian thought is ingrained into our constitution, since most framers of it did not doubt there was a Christian God. But, these framers also knew that they could not know everything and so could not make a document to cover what they did not know. In other words, they have allowed for the Constitution to grow. Sometimes it grows according to conservatives' thought, sometimes according to liberals' thought. It grows most often by inference and altered interpretation. It is thought in these times that Christian thought should not be enforced over other religious or non religious thought. This is wholly consistent with what the framers had in mind. Let people grow. Let the Constitution grow. It is a manmade document, subject to the whims of men. One may not approve of every change, but change it will.

0 Replies

The framers did not believe the Constitution they had written was etched in stone. They expected it to changed with the times.

The question at hand could easily be reversed, "What are you afraid of?" Religion, Christian or otherwise, will survive on it's own momentum dependant on its believers -- it doesn't have to depend on any government sponsorship.

0 Replies

Beedle,
The point I was making about the house and Senate is really quite simple.
They both have OFFICIAL chaplains,and they both open EVERY session with a prayer.That seems to be ok,but let a school propose a moment of silence for students,or let a High school want a team prayer before a game,and the ACLU and other groups go ballistic.That,to me,seems a little hypocritical.Why is one bad,but the other good?

0 Replies

The assumption that someone might think one good and the other bad is yours. I think that the Congressional situation arises because of historical precedent. It might be very hard for any voice in Congress to criticise the existence of the chaplain, entirely because of perceived majoritarian politics. But these are, presumably, adults submitting to this Chaplain. If a member of Congress should be an atheist, a Jane, a Moslem, and should they submit to the prayer, I would think they submit as any adult would, keeping their own council, out of respect for this perceived Christian Majority.

As to the moment of silent meditation in school; this seems like the right approach. Then in the child's mind they may in that moment embrace whatever religion or philosophy as they might, or simply daydream about whatever, without harm. But the minute this becomes a moment of Christian Prayer, powerful forces go to work. The child who may not be a Christian is in that moment being coerced. Should they not mumble the prayer with the rest, then the forces of unreasoning childhood peer pressure may be brought to bear on them, and some overly zealous children may then bully them. The child does not have the defenses of an adult. So I have always stood with the wonderfully neutral 'moment of silent meditation.' This is what we had in my school days, and so far as I know, continues in many schools across the nation.

This is not black and white, good versus bad, on any level. One would hope our supposedly inclusive society will ultimately find a way to respect all in this.

Does the current situation reflect hypocrisy? Most certainly.
But I do not think that is so remarkable. Hypocrisy is indemic in our society. Getting beyond it takes some artful communication and a laying aside of divisive rhetoric.

Perhaps we are not disagreeing so much as seeing the same subject in different lights.

0 Replies

What are you afraid of?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know