They don't hate us, they love their God

Well, let's see....I wish we still had the political power to legislate our morals into law, but I fear that is now only a nostalgic memory of days long gone, Steve. Evangelical christians and their secular conservative allies only comprise, at the very most, perhaps only a third of the US electorate.

A half-century ago, we commanded a huge voting majority and pretty much had things our way over here in the colonies. In fact, I would go so far as to say that we had, in practical reality, successfully legislated most of the mosaic law into the civil code on both a national and local level. We prayed in public schools and nearly everything we objected to was illegal (porn, sodomy, abortion, cohabitation and on and on - even doing business on the sabbath, in southern counties, was a punishable offense).

In any case, most (if not all) of these laws were struck-down by the courts over the years and our hold on the reins of power has continued to decline decade by decade. Oh indeed, we fought each battle as though our lives depended on it, to be sure, but we lost them all.

The Bible has remained frozen in time as civilization has moved forward.

Public officials shall never have to pass a religous test to hold office, etc.

Y'all would be surprised how many of my friends and neighbors see the humanist left in just that light - satan-loving, God-hating, baby-killing ogres who hate everything we hold dear and can't wait to put us in an insane asylum and throw our children to the clamoring crowd in the street. This is a refreshing experience - actually seeing a human face on the "other side."

there are plenty of people who hold what are called liberal political values in the United States who are religious, and who are "liberal" precisely because of their belief in christianity.

Squeaky wheel, Boss . . . out of 300,000,000 Americans, how many can you realistically describe as anti-religious?

United Nations to ban religion

Ah, a consumation devoutly to be desired.

Alas, they lack the power to implement such a salutary measure . . .

ET earlier made a series of snotty assumptions about those with whom he disagrees. One was that people who don't hold his theistic beliefs do not use deductive reasoning, but that he had learned here that in fact they do. Wonder of wonders, someone might disagree with him, and still be capable of constructing a syllogistic argument. Implicit but not stated in that silliness was an assumption that deductive reasoning is sufficient to establish theistic beliefs--which ignores that no syllogism is valid if the premises are flawed. The theist who argues from premises which are un-demonstrated or un-demonstrable is engaged in begging the questions entailed in discussions of theism, beginning with whether or not there is a god, and in the case of fundamentalist christians, whether or not the Bobble is inerrant, literal truth.

Another apparent assumption was that people who don't have his religious beliefs think that all Baptists are literally holy rollers. This member apparently doesn't understand that most people who are not believers were raised in one church or another, but rejected the beliefs which others had unsuccessfully attempted to inculcate in them. The contrast is striking, in that "non-believers" (a silly term, in that it seeks to define someone by what they are not, rather than what they are) do not necessarily see all theists as wild-eyed holy rollers, precisely because they are familiar with theistic communities from their own childhoods. It is revealing that this member writes: . . . satan-loving, God-hating, baby-killing ogres who hate everything we hold dear and can't wait to put us in an insane asylum and throw our children to the clamoring crowd in the street--in reference to those who don't hold his beliefs. It is rather ironically amusing, too, given that so many christians are quick to point out that the majority of the population identify themselves as christians--so who would form the "clamoring crowd in the street" to whom he refers?

Of course, it is self-evident that this member assumes two other things. One is that because there are people who don't hold his beliefs, they will attempt to prevent him from holding those beliefs, or at least from expressing the belief. This is understandable, though, because there are so many theists who, if they were able, would prohibit agnosticism and atheism, or at least its public expression. For the devotedly religious, not simply the belief that one holds a superior, the only correct belief, is implicit, but that one must extirpate the heterodox and heresy. It is difficult for someone with such a mind-set to understand that those who don't hold their beliefs might not give a hairy rat's ass what he and his fellows believe, and have no interest in changing what he and his fellow believe. Of course, it is useful propaganda for religious manipulators to convince their respective flocks that they are under siege, and the sense of being a martyr for one's faith (as long as one does not actually, physically suffer) is attractive to the christian mind.

Finally, having long gone on and one about "secular liberals" this member is now speaking of "secular conservatives" as allies of christian militants. This is an implicit assumption that those who may be divided into "believers" and "non-believers" may also be as quickly and handily labeled politically. This assumes that no person whose political beliefs can be reasonably labeled as liberal (in the odd definitions in use in the United States) could ever be religious. It also assumes that no one who could be labeled conservative would ever oppose the imposition of "christian values." Both assumptions are unwarranted--there are plenty of people who hold what are called liberal political values in the United States who are religious, and who are "liberal" precisely because of their belief in christianity. There are plenty of people who hold what are considered conservative political values who are opposed to the imposition of religious values on society--the most virulently anti-religious person i know is sufficiently conservative as to be almost worthy of the label reactionary.

Your boy Jack here needs to get out more.

fundamentalist claim that this is a christian nation,

--but i am on record at this site consistently saying that it would be foolish to attempt to outlaw religion, and counterproductive given that theists love nothing better than to see themselves as martyrs to their faith.

Hi TKO - that's consistent with what little I know about yoga. I'll try to find a better example....let's see..

What branch of the military were you in? Air Force, Ill bet - Barksdale AFB at Bossier City, right? I served 4 years in the Coast Guard in the late fifties or, as it was known in those days, the Draft Dodgers Yacht Club.

Bossier City in the early 60's - You were prime for Viet Nam. I bet you have some stories to tell.

Jack