Secularism is not the solution

[ScreamingEagle]

Those opposed to a secular government are. Those are the fundamentalist of which I speak.

Who exactly wants to establish a state religion and how? And please don't say GWB.

Look into GWB's faith based initiatives.

You don't like charitable choice? Why shouldn't there be a level playing field when it comes to spreading around the money? Why shouldn't FBOs receive funds just like other NGOs? Religious people pay taxes too.

Name one. And your little example from France doesn't count, since the law cited is patently anti-secular.

Little example? You really like to minimize what the secular left is doing, don't you? Want some examples in America? I'll name more than one. Here's a whole list of incidents. All you need to look at is what the secular ACLU is doing:

When it comes to the Christian faith, the spokesmen, policy-makers, and attorneys for the ACLU have made their position painfully clear: they're against it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Although they have fought for the free speech and expression "rights" of pornographers, witches, abortionists, homosexuals, convicted criminals, child molesters, occultists, Communists, lesbians, Nazis, illegal aliens, AIDS patients, and Satanists, they have resolutely attempted to deny those same privileges to Christians. As a result, according to Richard and Susan Vigilante, they have effectively reduced "the place of religion in American life" and have restricted religious speech "in a way they would never allow other forms of speech to be restricted."

Their discriminatory intolerance is a matter of record. Recently, they have sought to:

 Halt the singing of Christmas carols like "Silent Night" and "Away in a Manger" in public facilities;
 Deny the tax-exempt status of all churches--yet maintaining it for themselves as well as for various occult groups;
 Disallow prayer--not just in the public school classrooms, but in locker rooms, sports arenas, graduation exercises, and legislative assemblies;
 Terminate all military and prison chaplains;
 Deny Christian school children access to publicly funded services;
 Eliminate nativity scenes, crosses, and other Christian symbols from public property;
 Repeal all blue law statutes;
 Prohibit voluntary Bible reading in public schools--even during free time or after classes;
 Remove the words In God We Trust from our coins;
 Deny accreditation to science departments at Bible-believing Christian Universities;
 Prevent the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms;
 Terminate all voucher programs and tuition tax credits;
 Prohibit census questions about religious affiliation;
 Purge the words under God from the Pledge of Allegiance.

As Patrick Buchanan has all too obviously pointed out, "That is not a record of tolerance."
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9402/aclu.html

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yet another fundementalist retard that cannot parse the difference between secular and athiest. Amusing, in that if he could, he would see that his very own arguments indicate fundementalist retards are still fully, and solely, responsible for this war on terror.

The subtle difference is irrelevant in this context. Whether one is atheistic or seuclaristic, the same results will occur. They are trying to create a society devoid of religious values, or at least remove some of them.

 

[LOki]

Who exactly wants to establish a state religion and how? And please don't say GWB.

Ok. Pat Robertson then--and the rest of those politically active TV evangelists can probably be thrown in too. I admit it's stretching some to say GWB want's to establish a state religion, but it's not stretching to say that GWB's findamentalist, anti-separation of church and state supporters do. Provided, of course, that the religion that is introduced and caused to grow and multiply in the government; that is made firm or stable in the government; that is put into a favorable position in the government; is Christianty.

You don't like charitable choice?

I do, that's why I object to giving at gun point in April. It's why you should be vehemently opposed to the government meddling in actual charity work.

Why shouldn't there be a level playing field when it comes to spreading around the money?

FBOs can give their money to whomever they please.

Why shouldn't FBOs receive funds just like other NGOs?

Because it's illegal for the government to fund religions.

Religious people pay taxes too.

Religions don't; and "religious people" are not at issue, except for these "religious people" who expect that they should be able to wrangle the legislative and financial support of the government for their religion.

Little example? You really like to minimize what the secular left is doing, don't you?

No. Not at all.

You really like to confuse secular with atheist, don't you? You really like to imply that secularism is communism, don't you? You really like to demand that Christian folks who wish no government involvement in their religion are trying to get rid of Christianity in this country, don't you?

Want some examples in America? I'll name more than one. Here's a whole list of incidents. All you need to look at is what the secular ACLU is doing:

This looks less like what the ACLU is "doing," and more like fundamentalists griping about their religion being separated from the state.

The subtle difference is irrelevant in this context. Whether one is atheistic or seuclaristic, the same results will occur.

Untrue. Atheists may certainly move to destroy other religions, but keeping religion separate from government will preserve religion--keeping government separate from Christianity will preserve Christianity.

They are trying to create a society devoid of religious values, or at least remove some of them.

Completely made up nonsense.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ok. Pat Robertson then--and the rest of those politically active TV evangelists can probably be thrown in too. I admit it's stretching some to say GWB want's to establish a state religion, but it's not stretching to say that GWB's findamentalist, anti-separation of church and state supporters do. Provided, of course, that the religion that is introduced and caused to grow and multiply in the government; that is made firm or stable in the government; that is put into a favorable position in the government; is Christianty..

A VAST majority of Christians are not fundamentalists.

I do, that's why I object to giving at gun point in April. It's why you should be vehemently opposed to the government meddling in actual charity work..

I agree, but it is a much larger percent of liberals, secularists, and atheists who dont want charity to perform this kind of stuff, but want govt to do it.

FBOs can give their money to whomever they please.

Because it's illegal for the government to fund religions..

It wasnt when the Constitution was ratified. However, activist judges have made it illegal, however, if you got down to the REAL law, those activist judges rulings should be reversed.

Religions don't; and "religious people" are not at issue, except for these "religious people" who expect that they should be able to wrangle the legislative and financial support of the government for their religion.

No. Not at all.

You really like to confuse secular with atheist, don't you? You really like to imply that secularism is communism, don't you? You really like to demand that Christian folks who wish no government involvement in their religion are trying to get rid of Christianity in this country, don't you?.

When the Constitution was ratified, religions were given govt supported financing. The signers intended for religion to influence the govt, but not the other way around, hence, FREEDOM OF RELIGION. I dont read anywhere that it says the STATE govt cannnot financially support a religion. And dont give me that flaky arguement about some amendment that was added later that is so vague and doesnt even mention the word religion in it one time, its so broad that people use it for everything from its my right to trim my toenails, to its my right to be funded by the govt to study the red winged butterfly and its only inhabitated area, a 10 foot square area in alaska.

This looks less like what the ACLU is "doing," and more like fundamentalists griping about their religion being separated from the state.

Untrue. Atheists may certainly move to destroy other religions, but keeping religion separate from government will preserve religion--keeping government separate from Christianity will preserve Christianity..

Yes it is true. Think about it. When muslims worldwide dont do anything to stop the Muslim terrorists, they are defacto helping. Same thing with secularist and atheists. Secularists dont actively, as much anyways, oppose religion as do atheists, but their inaction supports it.

Completely made up nonsense.

hahah, not made up in the slightest. Guess you have no response.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

LuvRPgrl gave you great answers. I'll just add my comments.

Ok. Pat Robertson then--and the rest of those politically active TV evangelists can probably be thrown in too. I admit it's stretching some to say GWB want's to establish a state religion, but it's not stretching to say that GWB's findamentalist, anti-separation of church and state supporters do. Provided, of course, that the religion that is introduced and caused to grow and multiply in the government; that is made firm or stable in the government; that is put into a favorable position in the government; is Christianty.

LOL….you're scared that Pat Robertson and assorted TV evangelists are going to establish some sort of federal religion? Get real. And what if they DID manage to get some religious expression back into the mix? They have every right to do so. As long as you are not being forced to follow a religion, the establishment of religion is not taking place.

I do, that's why I object to giving at gun point in April. It's why you should be vehemently opposed to the government meddling in actual charity work.

I object to excessive taxation myself which is one reason I supported GWB. Actually it'd be a good thing to reduce government charity and let the private sector take over. Maybe that's Bush's ulterior plan.

Because it's illegal for the government to fund religions.

In this case the government is funding charity work, not religions, through the FBOs. The FBOs cannot force anybody to believe in their religion. If people don't like the religious aspects of the charity group they can leave and find a non-religious charity group to help them.

Religions don't; and "religious people" are not at issue, except for these "religious people" who expect that they should be able to wrangle the legislative and financial support of the government for their religion.

Yes, it is exactly the "religious people" who are at issue. They are being discriminated against. They pay their taxes like anybody else, they should not be discriminated against when it comes to government handouts just because they are religious people. Everybody, religious and non-religious, should be treated fairly. People should not be discriminated against based on their skin color….nor should they be discriminated against based on their religion. (Of course, if the federal government just got out of the charity business this wouldn't be a problem for you in the first place.)

You really like to confuse secular with atheist, don't you? You really like to imply that secularism is communism, don't you? You really like to demand that Christian folks who wish no government involvement in their religion are trying to get rid of Christianity in this country, don't you?

I don't confuse seculars with atheists. I'd rather point out their similarities. I do understand your definition of secular, however, most professed "secularists" today are NOT religious people, hence, their typical opposition to anything religious that is going to thwart their hedonistic pursuits.
Although secularism is not communism per se, it definitely can LEAD to communism, a political form that requires religious expression be stamped out everywhere. You must admit that pro-secular groups like the ACLU have socialist-communist roots.
Again, you seem to think that most seculars today are religious folks that just want a secular government (which btw we already have). I contend they are not. They want to stamp out religion. Most secularists are non-religious, atheist, or agnostic. Then there's the seculars-in-the-making group who say they are "spiritual" but hate traditional religion.

This looks less like what the ACLU is "doing," and more like fundamentalists griping about their religion being separated from the state.

People definitely should gripe - and very loudly - when secular, atheist, communist groups like the ACLU infringe on their Constitutional right to freedom of speech whether it is religious expression or not.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So it's not Christian-right Bush, but you eeevil godless anti-Christian secularist liberals who are causing the war!

Like his fellow travelers in right-wing and neo-con circles, D'Souza gets it wrong. The leaders of terrorist organizations could give a fat rat's arse about our moral or religious short-comings. Those are simply a convenient lever to move those who carry out their bidding.

These terrorist leaders motivation lies in generations of Western foreign policy and the real, or perceived, injury done to their people and their culture. These charismatic figures use the language of religion, jihad, holy war, etc. to give their desperate followers something to believe in...to kill for...to die for. The secularism of the West has nothing to do with it. It is merely a simplistic explanation the right-wing uses to justify its position, and in much the same way.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Like his fellow travelers in right-wing and neo-con circles, D'Souza gets it wrong. The leaders of terrorist organizations could give a fat rat's arse about our moral or religious short-comings. Those are simply a convenient lever to move those who carry out their bidding.

These terrorist leaders motivation lies in generations of Western foreign policy and the real, or perceived, injury done to their people and their culture. These charismatic figures use the language of religion, jihad, holy war, etc. to give their desperate followers something to believe in...to kill for...to die for. The secularism of the West has nothing to do with it. It is merely a simplistic explanation the right-wing uses to justify its position, and in much the same way.

Western foreign policy? Is that why they bomb Indonesia, philippines, took over afghanastan? Such an opinion is idiotic. The terorists have one goal, CONTROL. They will go to any means to achieve it.

Screaming Eagle made a GREAT point. If the govt isnt going to fund something because it is religous in nature, then they shouldnt be able to fund an equal organization that is secular. THAT would be discriminating against a religon, EXPRESSLY forbidden, with NO INTERPETATION, or a living breathing Constitution needed.
IF the govt is going to fund secular schools, they should fund religous schools also. If they refuse to fund religous schools, then they shouldnt fund any at all.

 

[LOki]

A VAST majority of Christians are not fundamentalists.

EVERY Christian theocrat is some kind of fundamentalist.

I agree, but it is a much larger percent of liberals, secularists, and atheists who dont want charity to perform this kind of stuff, but want govt to do it.

You are certainly talking about socialists and communists, but advocation for governmental control of social programs has nothing to do with liberalism, secularism, or atheism--theocrats demand it though.

It wasnt when the Constitution was ratified. However, activist judges have made it illegal, however, if you got down to the REAL law, those activist judges rulings should be reversed.

Ok. The moment the Bill Of Rights was ratified,it became illegal for the federal government to fund religions--activist judges had nothing to do with it. I think we've covered some of this before.

When the Constitution was ratified, religions were given govt supported financing.

Not constitutionally.

The signers intended for religion to influence the govt, but not the other way around, hence, FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

Nonsense. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, and the intention was to create a wall of separation beween church and state to assure freedom of religion.

I dont read anywhere that it says the STATE govt cannnot financially support a religion.

Check into the First Amendment.

And dont give me that flaky arguement about some amendment that was added later that is so vague and doesnt even mention the word religion in it one time, its so broad that people use it for everything from its my right to trim my toenails, to its my right to be funded by the govt to study the red winged butterfly and its only inhabitated area, a 10 foot square area in alaska.

The First Amendment specificly mentions religion (although it only mentions it once).

Yes it is true. Think about it. When muslims worldwide dont do anything to stop the Muslim terrorists, they are defacto helping. Same thing with secularist and atheists. Secularists dont actively, as much anyways, oppose religion as do atheists, but their inaction supports it.

Religious people who advocate for a secular government are not being inactive in regards to religion, they are certainly not anti-religion--they are preserving religion by maintaining its sepraration from government.

[Advocates for secular government] are trying to create a society devoid of religious values, or at least remove some of them.

Completely made up nonsense.

hahah, not made up in the slightest. Guess you have no response.

Completely made up nonsense.

LuvRPgrl gave you great answers. I'll just add my comments.

LOLBBQ!

LOL….you're scared that Pat Robertson and assorted TV evangelists are going to establish some sort of federal religion? Get real.

Get real yourself. The issue is not whether or not I fear that Pat Robertson and assorted TV evangelists are going to establish some sort of federal religion, the issue is that I refute your assertion that they, those like them, and those that support their theocratic aggenda, are not trying to establish some sort of federal religion.

And what if they DID manage to get some religious expression back into the mix? They have every right to do so.

Actually, since we're "getting real" now, they don't.

As long as you are not being forced to follow a religion, the establishment of religion is not taking place.

If your religion is being introduced and caused to grow and multiply in the government; if your religion is made firm or stable in the government; if your religion is put into a favorable position in the government; establisment of your religion is absolutely taking place.

I object to excessive taxation myself which is one reason I supported GWB. Actually it'd be a good thing to reduce government charity and let the private sector take over. Maybe that's Bush's ulterior plan.

If so, then private sector religious charities do not need, and should refuse on principle, goverment funding.

In this case the government is funding charity work, not religions, through the FBOs. The FBOs cannot force anybody to believe in their religion. If people don't like the religious aspects of the charity group they can leave and find a non-religious charity group to help them.

Funding gathered coercively by the government for charity work, and given to your religious organization whose religion I (perhaps) donot subscribe to for charity work, means the government is funding religion for charity work, and more importantly, funding another religion at the expense of me funding my religion for charity work.

Yes, it is exactly the "religious people" who are at issue. They are being discriminated against.

No they're not.

They pay their taxes like anybody else, they should not be discriminated against when it comes to government handouts just because they are religious people.

No person is denied any government assistance because of their religious afiliation due to stictly abiding by the separation of church and state.

Everybody, religious and non-religious, should be treated fairly. People should not be discriminated against based on their skin color….nor should they be discriminated against based on their religion. (Of course, if the federal government just got out of the charity business this wouldn't be a problem for you in the first place.)

Again, no person is denied any government assistance because of their religious afiliation due to stictly abiding by the separation of church and state.

I don't confuse seculars with atheists. I'd rather point out their similarities.

Actually, you pretty much demand they're the same.

I do understand your definition of secular,...

I wish you actually did.

...however, most professed "secularists" today are NOT religious people, hence, their typical opposition to anything religious that is going to thwart their hedonistic pursuits.

Completely made up nonsense. Most advocates for secular governement in this counrty are the sensible Christians who still have an appreciation for the reasons why the first Christians who colonized America did so.

Although secularism is not communism per se, it definitely can LEAD to communism, a political form that requires religious expression be stamped out everywhere.

Again with this demand that seclarism is practically atheism. It just doesn't quit with you, does it? Secularism can lead to communism no more than religion can.

You must admit that pro-secular groups like the ACLU have socialist-communist roots.

I must admit no such thing. I do recognize, however, that The ACLU, socialists, and communists all argue for the separation of government from religion--so do most Christians. It's a valid argument regardless of who it comes from.

Again, you seem to think that most seculars today are religious folks that just want a secular government (which btw we already have). I contend they are not.

Your contentions are consistent with your Christian theocratic hopes and dreams.

They want to stamp out religion.

Nonsense.

Most secularists are non-religious, atheist, or agnostic.

No, ScreamingEagle, in The U.S., they are mostly Christians.

Then there's the seculars-in-the-making group who say they are "spiritual" but hate traditional religion.

Would you still be so supportive of your theocratic mingling of church and state if these "spritualists" inveigled their religion into government? How about Satanists? Would you still consider mingling of church and state so appropriate when your little girl is encouraged by the high school wrestling coach to participate in a little pre-game prayer to Satan?

People definitely should gripe - and very loudly - when secular, atheist, communist groups like the ACLU infringe on their Constitutional right to freedom of speech whether it is religious expression or not.

Their freedom of speech is not being infringed upon when the religious are being prevented from using the coercive potential of government to advance their religion.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

LOLBBQ!

Get real yourself. The issue is not whether or not I fear that Pat Robertson and assorted TV evangelists are going to establish some sort of federal religion, the issue is that I refute your assertion that they, those like them, and those that support their theocratic aggenda, are not trying to establish some sort of federal religion.

Actually, since we're "getting real" now, they don't.

If your religion is being introduced and caused to grow and multiply in the government; if your religion is made firm or stable in the government; if your religion is put into a favorable position in the government; establisment of your religion is absolutely taking place.

If so, then private sector religious charities do not need, and should refuse on principle, goverment funding.

Funding gathered coercively by the government for charity work, and given to your religious organization whose religion I (perhaps) donot subscribe to for charity work, means the government is funding religion for charity work, and more importantly, funding another religion at the expense of me funding my religion for charity work.

No they're not.

No person is denied any government assistance because of their religious afiliation due to stictly abiding by the separation of church and state.

Again, no person is denied any government assistance because of their religious afiliation due to stictly abiding by the separation of church and state.

Actually, you pretty much demand they're the same.

I wish you actually did.

Completely made up nonsense. Most advocates for secular governement in this counrty are the sensible Christians who still have an appreciation for the reasons why the first Christians who colonized America did so.

Again with this demand that seclarism is practically atheism. It just doesn't quit with you, does it? Secularism can lead to communism no more than religion can.

I must admit no such thing. I do recognize, however, that The ACLU, socialists, and communists all argue for the separation of government from religion--so do most Christians. It's a valid argument regardless of who it comes from.

Your contentions are consistent with your Christian theocratic hopes and dreams.

Nonsense.

No, ScreamingEagle, in The U.S., they are mostly Christians.

Would you still be so supportive of your theocratic mingling of church and state if these "spritualists" inveigled their religion into government? How about Satanists? Would you still consider mingling of church and state so appropriate when your little girl is encouraged by the high school wrestling coach to participate in a little pre-game prayer to Satan?

Their freedom of speech is not being infringed upon when the religious are being prevented from using the coercive potential of government to advance their religion.

Yikes…19 replies to 6 comments? This is getting ridiculous. I'm just going to address one overall idea that you seem to not understand:

A totally secular government is a myth. Secularists think that public policy should be totally separate from religious influence. That's impossible. Politics cannot be totally separated from religion or other belief systems of individuals who participate in the political system. As long as religion or other belief systems help to form the identity of people, religion or other belief systems will be a force in politics. Moral views (based on religious beliefs) will be reflected in the laws of a country that is democratic.

Believe it or not, most Christians support a secular government in our country as proscribed by our Founders. Let it be known that our Founders did not turn their backs on God but embraced Him in the public square. What most thinking Christians oppose today is the secular Left's attempt to relegate their religious morals to an impotent backburner and allow our laws to reflect a godless, relativistic approach to society which allows for too much degeneracy and a slackness in the law that is destroying the moral fabric of society and our country.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Like his fellow travelers in right-wing and neo-con circles, D'Souza gets it wrong. The leaders of terrorist organizations could give a fat rat's arse about our moral or religious short-comings. Those are simply a convenient lever to move those who carry out their bidding.

These terrorist leaders motivation lies in generations of Western foreign policy and the real, or perceived, injury done to their people and their culture. These charismatic figures use the language of religion, jihad, holy war, etc. to give their desperate followers something to believe in...to kill for...to die for. The secularism of the West has nothing to do with it. It is merely a simplistic explanation the right-wing uses to justify its position, and in much the same way.

You make a good point there...the leaders are using our moral short-comings to inflame their jihadist followers.

Regarding basic motivation, I disagree. I believe the root causes are a hatred of democracy, capitalism, and individualism - all factors of Western civilization which are a threat to the Islamic order. For the leaders it's all a matter of power.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No, what you've heard are reports of whacko liberals attempting to squash religious expression. Secularists are quite satisfied to let anyone express themselves religiously as long as they aren't trying to insert religion into public education or government.

so, a religous charity that helps homeless find jobs is ok?

 

[MissileMan]

Western foreign policy? Is that why they bomb Indonesia, philippines, took over afghanastan? Such an opinion is idiotic. The terorists have one goal, CONTROL. They will go to any means to achieve it.

Screaming Eagle made a GREAT point. If the govt isnt going to fund something because it is religous in nature, then they shouldnt be able to fund an equal organization that is secular. THAT would be discriminating against a religon, EXPRESSLY forbidden, with NO INTERPETATION, or a living breathing Constitution needed.
IF the govt is going to fund secular schools, they should fund religous schools also. If they refuse to fund religous schools, then they shouldnt fund any at all.

Are you implying that secular equals religious?

 

[MissileMan]

so, a religous charity that helps homeless find jobs is ok?

Your statement doesn't violate the conditions of my statement does it?

 

[Bullypulpit]

so, a religous charity that helps homeless find jobs is ok?

Sure, so long as they don't proselytize.

 

[trobinett]

Sure, so long as they don't proselytize.

Proselytize: try to convert somebody: to try to convert somebody to a religious faith or political doctrine.

Well, if it gets them off the public tit, I'm all for it.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Proselytize: try to convert somebody: to try to convert somebody to a religious faith or political doctrine.

Well, if it gets them off the public tit, I'm all for it.

See, we can agree on something.

 

[LOki]

Yikes…19 replies to 6 comments? This is getting ridiculous.

Ridiculous? ScreamingEagle, I wouldn't have you think that I would take your commentary out of context, or dodge a point I must agree with by directing my attention to only those posts I disagree with. You should be flattered I considered every thing you posted worth a thoughtful response.

I'm just going to address one overall idea that you seem to not understand:

I can't wait....

A totally secular government is a myth.

Not so. Some few minor details aside, we very much have one right here in the good ol' U.S. of A.

Secularists think that public policy should be totally separate from religious influence.

Nope.

That's impossible.

Yep.

Politics cannot be totally separated from religion...

It sure can.

...or other belief systems of individuals who participate in the political system.

Different issue. Secular government does not demand government by atheists. As a point of fact, one of the very rationales stated my the Foundng Fathers <b>for</b> the wall of separation of church and state, was to prevent religion, or religious affiliation, from being a consideration regarding public service or citzenship in the USA.

As long as religion or other belief systems help to form the identity of people, religion or other belief systems will be a force in politics.

Yet their religions need not be the government. Their religious doctrine and dogma need not be supported by or supportive of the government, nor does the government need be supported by or supportive of their religious doctrine or its dogma.

Moral views (based on religious beliefs) will be reflected in the laws of a country that is democratic.

True, but those laws, described and enforced by a secular government, must be described and enforced separately from religious doctrine and dogma.

"What would Jesus do?" is a valid, and allowable, consderation which a government official might have when creating or enforcing law and policy. What is absolutely invalid is that same government official demanding, or even implying, that disobeying that law, or not following that policy, is being disobedient of Jesus--that disobeying the government is disobeying God.

Believe it or not, most Christians support a secular government in our country as proscribed by our Founders.

I believe it--that is my argument. The trick is to convince you of it.

Let it be known that our Founders did not turn their backs on God but embraced Him in the public square.

But they did not let their religion become the basis of the law in this land. They pointedly rejected all notions of placing Jesus vicariously into office.

What most thinking Christians oppose today is the secular Left's attempt to relegate their religious morals to an impotent backburner and allow our laws to reflect a godless, relativistic approach to society which allows for too much degeneracy and a slackness in the law that is destroying the moral fabric of society and our country.

Ommission of the prospect of eternal damnation at the hands of some Supersonic Santa Claus, is no argument that one's morality is "relativistic", "degenerate", "slack", or "leftist" in any manner what-so-ever--all you can validly assert, on that account, is that their morality is not superstitious. No religion can objectively claim to hold a monopoly on moral behavior. "Jesus is Lord", "There is only one God and Muhammed is His prophet", "if you see the Bhudda in the road, you must kill him", and "the Earth Goddess cries every time you flush the toilet", are all examples of the kind of "religious" morality that secularists, indeed, demand be relegated to to an impotent backburner, and allow our laws to reflect a rational approach to society, which allows for objectivity in the law that validates the moral fabric of our society and our country.

 

[mattskramer]

There should be moderation in almost everything. Consider part of the 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

What if my religion tells me to not strike back against enemies. I conclude that, to be loyal to my religion I think that I should not pay taxes for taxes support the creation of military weopens used in killing my enemies.

What if my religion tells me to remove myself of all possessions – including clothes. As a result am I fee to walk outside in the nude?

Consider the 2nd amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does that mean that I can own a fully-functional fully automatic machine guns or bazooka? Can I buy a fully functional tank if I can afford one. What about ICBMs?

 

[LOki]

There should be moderation in almost everything. Consider part of the 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

What if my religion tells me to not strike back against enemies. I conclude that, to be loyal to my religion I think that I should not pay taxes for taxes support the creation of military weopens used in killing my enemies.

What if my religion tells me to remove myself of all possessions – including clothes. As a result am I fee to walk outside in the nude?

Conscientious objection has long been an option when it comes to participating in warfare, provided of course you make a valid case.

As far as getting naked is concerned, there's nothing stopping you from dispossessing yourself of all possesions, but the consitution prohibits the government from inflicting your religion on everyone else. It's a fine line to be sure.

Consider the 2nd amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Although off topic, I truly dig into considering the 2nd Amendment--so I'll bite.

Does that mean that I can own a fully-functional fully automatic machine guns or bazooka? Can I buy a fully functional tank if I can afford one. What about ICBMs?

Setting the distinction between arms and ordnance aside: Yes, Yes, and Yes. How about that?

 

[mattskramer]

Conscientious objection has long been an option when it comes to participating in warfare, provided of course you make a valid case.

What about paying for weapons. If my understanding of my religion prohibits me from subsidizing the creation, should I be obligated to pay taxes, a portion of which goes to pay for weapons?

Also, should people be allowed to use peyote in their religious practices?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_Church