I am so glad I logged on. I wouldn't have wanted you to suffer too long through this self-imposed 'deeply offended' state.

For nowhere have I accused you of anything, much less 'intellectual dishonesty'!

If I intend to accuse someone, I use the proper words for such communication: '... I accuse you of ...'

But in the case you seem to be reffering to, I wrote: 'Again, you are inviting me to point out a serious misinterpretation...'.

No accusation there!

An exchange between two parties, where one party (I) points out what he perceives to be a misinterpretation on the part of another party (you).

Nowhere can an accusation of intellectual dishonesty be extracted from those words. Misinterpretation, self-imposed victim status, 'reading into', maybe. But that would be for you to answer.

N.B.: When you repeat your misinterpretation '... Thanks for accusing me of intellectual dishonesty...' with the following statement of mine:

'... Misinterpretation often occurs when some pieces of a whole are taken out of context, in order to suit a particular ideology, dogma, or unilateral point of view...'

You are again on your own. There is no such accusation intended on my part.

The statement is a straigh forward explanation of what I see as the source of the misinterpretation I raise in the post.

So please stop suffering from this 'deeply offended' self-imposed state.

Other point of contention:


Not sure what you are inferring here, but I was addressing the following points made by you:


I addressed YOUR point. If you feel the debate was changed, it would have been YOUR point that changed it.

Which bring us to our third point of contention: the infamous ‘OF’ vs ‘FOR’ face-off!!!



When you say this:


are you, by any chance, refering to this: ??


I APOLOGIZE!

My mother tongue is French, and I sometimes am guilty of prepositional oversight when speaking or writing in English. I meant ‘OF’ and wrote ‘FOR’.

I am confident you wouldn't even think of using this rather weak 'out' to suggest that I might have changed the debate from 'OF' to 'FOR'. I don't know you well, but I wouldn't lend you any intention of such bad faith.

Especially since the prepositional ‘faux-pas’was not committed on the preposition in contention. The ‘FROM’ side prompted my addressing your post in the first place, when you wrote :

‘… Like it or not, Freedom of Religion does not mean, nor imply Freedom from Religion...’

Of course ‘freedom of religion’ does not mean, nor does it imply ‘freedom from’, but this is where you left out the ‘whole’ of the ‘Establishment Clause’ of the ‘First Amendment’, which very much deals concurrently with the ‘OF’ as well as the ‘FROM’ sides of religious freedom.

And, might I add, your constitution strictly PROHIBITS STATE (Government) from establishing or preferring a religion over another.

That a person from the numerous chapters of Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Judaic, or Hare-Krishna faiths, cares to proselytize on a street corner is entirely legitimate, as long as they do not disturb the peace.

It is the ‘State’, all levels of US Government that is in contention here. It cannot in any way, establish a religion of state, nor can it in anyway show a preference for any religion. Quite the opposite of this original statement of yours:

‘… This is a Christian Nation …

(NO! The establishment clause of the First Amendment of your Constitution PROHIBITS the USA from being a christian nation), …

'… founded by Christians...' (not necessarily, a lot of non-christian had a significant part in the founding of the USA),

'… inhabited predominately by Christians…'
(inhabited predominantly by US CITIZENS all equal under the constitutional law of the USA, regardless of their freedom ‘OF’ ANY religion, or freedom ‘from’ any and all religion).

So again, when you claim :

‘… Like it or not, Freedom of Religion does not mean, nor imply Freedom from Religion...’

In light of the whole, rather than its parts, the US Constitution means both, freedom ‘of’ and freedom ‘from’ religion.

It 'created' the citizen, as the French did through their own revolution, and elevated the status of ‘citizen’ above one’s religious, or any other status.

There are only EQUAL U.S. CITIZENS under the law, regardless of religious denomination, or absence thereof.


In closing, and not that I want to make a big deal out of it, I suspect you might not be familiar with french, but the correct spelling is 'Voileazur'.

Isn't that funny! I guess we're even on the misspelling front !

I thought the founding fathers were deists and an invocation is supposed to be religious.I had no problem with any of the ceremony as it is all part of the pomp and circumstance.People need to get real and instead of running around worrying about who's talking about Jesus,start worrying about putting his teachings into action.Lots of people preaching the message that don't get it themselves nor practice it.
Sorry I'm just sick of the petty bull**** people use to dislike each other.I think I digressed from the topic.What was the question?

What politicians and preachers say and don't say is of particular interest to both Christians and non-Christians often for very different reasons. If there is a deliberate effort of one side or the other to interfere or prevent the rights of one side or the other, each group will listen for very different words used in speeches such as this.

It's our duty as Americans to pay attention, I would think.

I don't care who is talking about Jesus, but I do care if someone is using Christianity to prevent others from having equal rights.
That may not matter to those who take those rights for granted, but it certainly matters to those that do not have them. Some might very well call that silly, but I call it paying attention to the concerns of my community.

This thread was simply to point out the contradictions in speeches. Again that may matter very little to the majority that barely notices what is said because it frankly doesn't concern them or whatever. Not being one of the privileged, I would naturally take notice of what you may not. In this instance the original poster brought up things that had slipped my notice.

didn't mean to let this drop. been busy..

I'll take you at your word that the 'for/from' fiasco was just a typo. Being that you say French isn't your native language, I gather you're not from the US originally. Not that it's a big deal; everyone came here from somewhere else, even the Indians. Further I gather that your understanding of the constitution didn't occur in a vacuum. someone taught you what it was all about. what you call the 'accepted interpretation' is just one school of thought, one that many Americans whole-heartedly disagree with. It's the idea that it puts forthe a set of obligations that the government must provide to or for the people.

the opposing viewpoint, however, sees the constitution as an acknowledgement of natural rights endowed to man by the creator. It protects the citizen from the encroachment of government, indeed protection from an oppressive goverment. protecting the freedom of movement, speech, religion, the freedom to defend oneself against transgressors of all kinds, the freedom from unlawful imprisonment, illegal search and seizure and so on. It's a charter that provides a sets of restrictions on government, not a set of obligations for government to provide to the people.

Many hold that the latter, and not the former, is the Framers' Intent. This is my view.

With respect to freedom of religion, this essentially means that the state is obligated to refrain from interference in the peoples' religious practices. It does not obligate the goverment to protect people from what could be deemed objectionable religious content. To do so would violate the obligation of the state not to interfere with peoples' religious practices..

it's just that simple.

Read the federalist papers please and the letters of the founders. It is abundantly clear this nation was not founded as a Christian nation.

Additionally look at the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

As telling as what is there what isn't there speaks volumes as well.

Had the founders intended this to be a Christian nation certainly they would have inserted clear references to that in these documents.

God is mentioned true but what God?

Since the founders had diverse religious beliefs can you say with certainty that it is the Christian God they refer too.

Besides, I dare say the founders who were Christians might find themselves quite uncomfortable with todays brand of Christianity, some of it's present day practitioners and their involvement in civil matters.

I write this know that in all likelihood none of you that should read these documents will read them. It's much easier to buy the myths spouted from the pulpit than to think for yourself.

When it comes to our government, yes it does. As an individual, you can push the Jesus agenda all you wish. You can babble about Jesus, hang "I'm a Jesus freak" banners across your lawn, or put a bumper sticker on your car. If you own a business, you can put all the Jesus propaganda out you'd like. Our government can't. And it isn't that our government buildings have to completely void of any and all religious symbols. It's just that all religions must be equally represented; otherwise our government would be showing a preference for one religion.

It escapes me as to why Christians are convinced that this god of theirs is dependent upon the US government. Maybe you could shed some light and offer me a little insight?

Triple posting (backwards)

double posting

'raiderfan',

You are having this exchange with me against a background of 'PERSONNAL VIEWPOINTS', and I am not.

While I would agree that your's is a personal viewpoint, I took great care to offer the speficic articles of your Constitution, together with the interpretive clauses which guide your Supreme Court in their judments!!!

That constitutes as much as one can, the objective and effective LAW OF THE LAND. Hardly MY personnal viewpoint.

In posting the 'Establishment Clause' of the First Amendment of your Constitution in an earlier post, I expected you to understand that this wasn't my personal viewpoint, and was looking forward to you replying with your personal understing and interpretation of the Establishment Clause, whose Supreme Court Interpretation ...

... PROHIBITS the Establishment of a National religion (By! BY! Christian Nation)

and further

... PROHIBITS the State from showing any preference for one religion over another. That would be, let's say totally randomly, christianity over any other religion.

That is how for example the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional, the imposition of the Christian prayer on 'all' students, in public schools (no problem with a personal prayer, but no public prayers).

a) because it is not the public school's business to handle matters of religion (the State is non-religious)

b) because public schools, extensions of State, cannot be seen to 'prefer' a religion over another within its public school jurisdiction.

As for the rest, any preferences shown for the christian religion in matters of State, there are still lots, including the choice of christian speakers whom obviously legitimately speak their faith, those are simply tolerated by THE PEOPLE!

That's right, tolerated. Unless there is a judicial process to challenge it, you get to enjoy inside the limits of 'civil tolerance and social grace', all excesses of the State in teasing the 'first amendment'.

Ironically though, if you were to push your confusion of personal viewpoints against the constitutional law 'viewpoint', the Supreme Court holding the ultimate viewpoint for the State, you'd find that all tolerance and social grace would quickly disappear, and would be left with only the 'LAW OF YOUR NON-RELIGIOUS LAND' !!! Exit christian speakers at State rallies!!! If I were you, I wouldn't push your 'personnal viewpoint's luck!!!

Your personnal viewpoint and mine,may differ from that of the Law of the Land's, but unless you democratically participate to change the 'first amendment' of the Constitution through Congress, IT IS THE LAND OF YOUR LAND that stands, and it stands in disagreement with your personnal viewpoint as of now!!!

Since I feel you might hold on to your viewpoint, I'll wish you good luck with your mission in Congressional land.

Fine, we can argue establishment clause. I wish you'd quit yelling, though.

Let me start by clarifying something that seems to be a sticking point with you. When I say "Chrsitian Nation" I mean a nation of Christians, one that is predominated by followers of the Judaeo-Christian faith and/or those brought up in its traditions. AS loud and vocal as the minority of atheists and secularists might be, there is still an overwhelming majority of folk who acknowledge God as their Creator, at least make an attempt to worship and who do not wish to see their nation transformed into a God-less, atheist cesspool. That's the Chritian Nation of which I speak. I didn't mean to suggest that the Federal Government has, by rule or default, declared itself a Christian entity in the way many middle eastern countries declare themselves as Islamic States, for example.
That's one.

Two, if the grounds of objection are that the proceedings of the innauguration was an attempt to establish a state religion, it fell far short of doing so. Even since the Warren Court, there have been a number of innaugural ceremonies, and unless I've missed my mark, every one of them has had a Christian Minister give an invocation and yet, No Christian tyrrany in government, no state-established religion, no paddy wagons collecting up drunks on Sunday morning and herding them to church..

The two examples you give above as the Court Mandated meanings of the "Establishment Clause" are only general interpretations, far from written in stone. Indeed, the issue is still in question. What you say is decided is nothing of the sort. It may be "decided" in minds of the secularists, but it is not "Law". These are two competing interpretations in a culture war that is still ongoing. Secularists want to see all references to 'God' erased en toto from all government monuments, buildings, and so on. They'd like to see government deny even the existence of religion, much like the Communist Soviets.

Call me old fashioned but I fnd that not only unacceptable but indeed, truely objectionable.

When the state begins anew mandating prayer in school and shutting down mosques, you'll find me on your side of this arguement. But until then, I say it's ok to show a little deference to God, even in the public square.

btw, the phrase is "bye-bye", not 'by by'

if it were me, and Obama had a Buddhist monk give the invocation, I wouldn't have a fear that Obama was trying to force Buddhism on me

very well said. that's a great counter example.

Suggesting that anyone that doesn't worship god is part of an atheist cesspool? I've got big news for you. There millions of people who do not believe in what you do. Because you think atheists and seculars are a minority.. add them to the millions that don't believe in the Christian bible and you have plenty of people that ARE NOT contributing to a cesspool as you put it.

As a side note: I could just hear the screaming from the religious right had Obama chosen a Buddhist to get the invocation.

Personally, I think it would be pretty cool to see the dhali lama invited to give the invocation at an innauguration, except that I don't think it would be within the tenents of buddhism to call upon God for his blessings. my understanding of buddhism is that one acheives salvation through enlightenment of the soul and has little to do with the existence of any particular deity. someone else might be able to speak more comletely on the subject than I.

what I meant about a god-less nation is the idea that most Americans are probably not too keen on the notion of the US declining to the point that it negates the role of spirituality, best exemplified by the Soviet Union before its eventual collapse and dissolution. Perhaps 'atheists cesspool' was a little strong.

Overall though, getting to the head of the issue, Obama won the presidency and the democrats a majority in both chambers of congress in no small part because a good many moderate Christians decided to vote Democrat. Many mistake this recent electoral victory as a mandate against all things right-leaning or conservative. Take it too far, as is the wish of many on the left, and you'll see a conservative backlash such as hasn't been seen since Reagan.

And I thought let us prey was about hunting,

not praying, guess I will leave now.

Sparsely using capitals for emphasis could hardly constitute any form of a higher 'written' voice pitch, much less YELLING (emphasis you see!!!)

It is rather uncivilized, and a tad bit moralizing to accuse someone in such bad faith. Not conducive for a healthy and forwarding debate.



As generalizing shortcut go, no one would have picked apart the use of 'nation of christians', as in mostly familiar with the judeo-christian culture. But you wrote a 'christian nation'! Not the same in the contrext of the OP. And all this acrobatic act from a person whom made a big dish out of an 'of' - for' oversight earlier.



With all due respect, this paragraph above is presented in a downright condescending and bad faith spirit. You don't come across at all as someone whom could be capable of such ignorance.

I don't beleive that one could support that there is a majority of folks whom acknowledge god as THEIR creator. That there might a majority which acknowledges the story of god as a creator maybe, but THEIR creator?!?!?! No pass.

And to push this delusional claim that this inexistant 'god-creator' majority would be afraid of a god-less 'atheist' cesspool!!! Come on! This is like the pyromaniac warning people about dangerous upcoming 'infernos'!!!

If one keeps adopting such a divisive and condescending attiude, one will end up in a bsrbaric warring cesspool!!! 'Athiest' is just used as a decoy!!!



You definitely could have fooled me!!!



Dealt with those 2 points in an earlier post as objectively as I could.

1) your constitution PROHIBITS your state form showing preference!!!

however,

2) the average and civilized non-christian, cultural but non practicing christian, and atheist
are morally and ethically enlightened enough to show tolerance and wisdom in the name of peacefull and harmonious co-habitation in a judeo-christian cultural environment.

You might have overlooked that earlier post of mine.



No one could accuse the average citizen to be unfamiliar with the 'ins' and 'outs' of constitutional law. But legal interpretive clauses are harldly '... only general interpretations', and much closer to 'writen in stone' as the expression goes, than the 'up-in-the-air' state you seem to suggest!!! Interpretive clauses rest on a couple of hundred years of jurisprudence, and are the founding of the Supreme Court judments.

Some secularists, atheists, christians, etc, may have personnal wish list about it all, but I fail to see how that should be pertinent in this debate.



'... much like the communist soviet'
'... god-less atheist cess-pool'
'... god as our creator'
'... christian nation'

All this demagoguery in one single post!

This is a much too shifty a style for a healthy debate.

As I said in my earlier post,

'Since I feel you might hold on to your demagogical viewpoint, I'll wish you good luck with your mission in Congressional land'




I was surprised the first time you pulled the 'of' - 'for' bickering.

But since I took the care of pointing out that English was a second language for me, your insistence in pointing out insignificant errors of ortograph, is rather telling of a most 'inelegant' style which you seem to favor in addressing 'some' posters.

I will keep that in mind should we have the pleasure of exchanging in the future.

You insist that this interpretation upon which you lean so heavily is written in stone. What no of us knows is what case may come down the pike next that overturns the rulings upon which that interpretation is based. That's kind of the beauty of the system. Cases come and go and no scotus rulings are written that cannot be overturned.

If this were the 18th century and "sinners in the hands of an angry God" was being preached from the pulpit or if we were in the middle of the spanish inquisition, or if King James was establishing the church of england, you'd easily find me on your side of the arguement.. or did you miss that the first time I said it??

The state of things today is that people want to see Religion quashed in its entirety, the public arena scrubbed clean of any mention of the Spiritual. Men now seek to replace God with Science. the pendulum has swung far enough to the left on this matter. The second ammendment does not provide for people to be protected from religion.

Tell you what.. try having this conversation in Downtown Islamabad or Riyad and see how long you keep your head.. literally..

Shifty some more!!!

1) You wrote:

I wrote 'CLOSER TO written in stone' than the 'up-in-the-air' tone you wishfully throw around. Please stop 'shifting' the words I write to your capricious preferences. I might get the impression you are trying to manipulate the debate.

2) You wrote further:

Shifty some more, confusion 'public arena' and 'state' proper. Do you not distinguish the two???
Are there not enough 'public' accessible churches, public parks, street corners, etcetera, to exercise your freedom to preach and proselytize????
It appears most dishonest to me to suggest that some (whomever the ghost 'some' is) dedicate their lives to ridding the PUBLIC place of religion. Some are vigilant to ensuring that the CONSTITUTION OF THE USA is upheld for all citizens of this religious-neutral Nation.
Public space is fair game. State space and functions are a different matter. Those are the spaces which the First Amendment deals with.

In closing, not that I would ever care to make a big deal of it, or rub your nose in it, but it is the FIRST AMENDMENT we are talking about, not the SECOND as you wrote in the final paragraph of your post!!! I trust you might have read at least once, the F.A. of your Constitution. And would recommend that if you revisited it, you would make amends, and conclude that the state will ultimately protect any citizen of the USA FROM any religion USA!!! I thought we had covered that one a while back.



The only reason I mention it, is such that you might appreciate how silly this 'picking in bad faith' can be when people of good faith intend to reach out for a respectful and open minded exchange.

Countercurrents.org

As an atheist and a skeptic, I try to limit my magical thinking to occasional moments of vanity and revenge. But lately I’ve found myself wishing that if the Rapture is on the level, it would happen soon . . . I mean real soon.

The Rapture is the name given to a future event in which Jesus descends from heaven and gathers up all Christian fundamentalists [a.k.a. Christian Right] and swooshes them up bodily to heaven, but not before they’ve jettisoned their clothes and jewelry and all forms of prostheses, including pompadour hairpieces and inflatable bouffant support bladders.

Before I get too far into this, I want it understood that I’m not wishing these folks ill. On the contrary, I’m wishing them what they’ve always wanted—an eternity of enjoying the unchallenged moral certitude they were never quite able to fully enjoy here on Earth, but which nonetheless caused the rest of us no end of misery.

The signs for finally seeing the backside of the Christian Right are encouraging. According to raptureready.com, the Rapture Index (omens portending the Rapture) stands at 163, the highest it’s been since September 11, 2001 when it peaked at its all-time high of 182. I don’t know what the numbers mean either. But I’m not making this up.

It appears Jesus is getting his transition team in place, what with the recent raptures—albeit by conventional means—of the Rev. D. James Kennedy, godfather of the American Dominionist [a.k.a. theofascist] movement and hater of our secular constitution, and the Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority and hater of all people he could think of to hate.

I do wish the Lord would get his jesters assembled and move on this. Think what the Rapture will mean to those of us left behind.

Twenty-three percent of the 208 million adults in America identify themselves as either Pentecostal or Charismatic Christians [a.k.a. Rapture-ready]. In the event of the Rapture up to 50 million workers will be leaving their jobs without clocking out. The number of positions vacated will be five times as many needed to wipe out the country’s unemployment, leaving the rest of us in a workers’ paradise. Affirmative action be damned! It’s “trickle up” economics at work here.

Not only will our career paths be enhanced, but we’ll have a chance at longer, healthier lives by taking the untold billons of dollars President Bush is currently funneling into the Christian Right’s faith-based coffers to save “Americans one soul at a time" and reallocating them to stem cell research and universal health care, which will save considerably more of an American than just his or her ethereal soul.

Along with vocational upgrades and improved health, we’ll no longer have to wonder, “is our kids learning?” High school grads having trouble gaining admission to one of our over-crowded universities will have immediate access to the vacant desks—and possibly iPods—left by the tens of thousands of Rapture-ready students attending America’s 102 “Christ-centered” colleges, which will be under new management and begging for warm bodies.

And guys, speaking of warm bodies, the universities will be flush with coeds since far fewer teenage girls will be home taking care of their babies—there were 435,000 teen mothers last year. The hundreds of millions of federal dollars spent annually on abstinence-only sex education [a.k.a. religious dogma] in our public high schools will now fund comprehensive sex education programs that promote safe and effective birth control methods. Let’s face it. It was only the Christian Right who thought hormone-pumped primates would ever stop “doing it.”

By the way, do I even need to mention that with the Rapture-ready blissfully ensconced behind the pearly gates the rest of us will be left in peace to enjoy our bedrooms and our most personal intimate relationships on our own terms?

Unarguably though, the highlight of the Rapture will be finding out which of the “born-again” politicians are left on the ground. Unless someone has been lying to the American people—perish the thought—we stand to lose 48 Senators, 186 Representatives, four Supreme Court justices, seven presidential hopefuls, and one hopeless president.

If it turns out—highly unlikely though it is— that the 2008 presidential frontrunners of both parties are missing on Rapture-plus-one, we’ll enjoy the remaining election season with candidates who’ve always been willing to talk about more substantive issues than their most recent meet and greet with the Lord. The God-talk will be in heaven where it belongs.

Consider this . . . with a smile. If the Democrats with Dennis Kucinich and Al Gore—we can talk him into it—or the Greens with Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader can’t defeat the unraptured and unrepentant Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani on their own merits, we’ll now own the Supreme Court.

There is a downside. We know damn-good-and-well who’ll be sitting at his Oval Office desk with a “fooled you again” smirk on his mug on Rapture-plus-one. But keep in mind, we’ll still have Section 4 of Article II of the Constitution and we’ll have the votes and we’ll have the prison. Keep in mind also, gods mostly help those who help themselves.

Having imagined all the above, my thinking is not so magical as to believe there won’t be a few post-Rapture problems. After all, according to Revelations this will be the time of the Great Tribulation and we’ll still have Satan [a.k.a. your choice] to wrestle with. But with the Christian Right enjoying eternity . . . well . . . who cares where, we’ll have only one Devil in the ring at a time. And he’ll be the one carrying a pitchfork not a Bible.

Author’s note: Hopefully Jesus is a not a strict sectarian and swooshes up Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists as well. WHAT? I have the right to hope.

Robert Weitzel is a freelance writer and contributing editor to Media With a Conscience. His essays regularly appear in The Capital Times in Madison, WI. He has been published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Skeptic Magazine, Freethought Today, and on popular liberal websites. He can be contacted at: robertweitzel@mac.com
http://www.countercurrents.org/weitzel220108.htm

Dishonest or right on the mark??



If he had said, "won't ever happen because the Bill of rights protects religious freedoms", we're not having this conversation. but this respondent's notion of the future is an America where Religious freedoms are restricted by the state.

all it will take is enough people who think that way to get into high office or on the courts, and it;ll happen so fast your head will spin..

the fear is that it already happened. and we've got at least four years to stand against that way of thinking.

where will you stand when peoples of faith are driven underground to worship? standing by, feeding them to lions with those that drove them there?

if you don't want the president to have a minister speak at his innaguration, take your complaint to him...