Say Anything Blog

  This is a little off topic, but oh well

I was brought up in a religous home. I remember thinking Santa claus was real, the tooth fairy was real and the tales in the bible were real. Then when I reached a certain age, people told me that the first two were fake, but the last one (sampson and his hair, Jonah in a whale, etc..) were real. I thought they were more confused than I was. I went to bible camp, the whole nine yards. At one point, some crazy pastor even had me believing wanting to have sex with that beautiful girl sitting next to me was wrong. I finally had enough and never went back to church. I recieved Lee Strobel’s Case for Christ. I read it. Then I read Thomas Paine’s "Age of Reason." Paine, without any modern technology (it was written in the late 1700’s) blew poor Lee away. I have never looked back since. I guess my point is, if you want to believe in a religion, be it Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or be an atheist, it is a decision that should be made when you are an adult and can fully understand the issue at hand. To teach a child any religion is a form of child abuse in my opinion. It will never stop, because if these beliefs are not rooted in our minds at a young age, people will simply stop being religious. Religion is no longer relevant.

Oh and by the way, the founding fathers were mainly deists. Read Jefferson’s bible. It is like he took a pair of sissors and cut out the pages that had the miracles in them and then said, this might have happened.

To teach a child any religion is a form of child abuse in my opinion.

That’s stretching the definition of "abuse" just a bit, don’t you think? Abuse - any teaching you don’t agree with.

Religion is no longer relevant.

How conceited. The reality is that religion is very relevant to a lot of people.

That’s stretching the definition of "abuse" just a bit, don’t you think? Abuse - any teaching you don’t agree with.

 No. Telling someone as a child that if they don’t believe in a certain thing, they are going to be damned to eternal hellfire is emotional abuse in my book. That didn’t happen to me, but I know people it did. It might not be the worst form of abuse, but it is abuse none the less.

  How conceited. The reality is that religion is very relevant to a lot of people.

 The fact that it is relevant to a lot of people doesn’t make it relevant. I guess that one boils down to opinion. I believe the world would be better off if there was some level of intolerance of silly beliefs. Now I don’t mean locked up thrown in jail intolerance, but the kind of intolerance that is shown to people that believe the earth is flat or that the holocaust never happened. Right now if a member of Congress stood up and said he believes that there is a parental figure that lives in the sky who created the world in literally six days and that his son is coming back to take him to eternal paradise someday, he would not recieve near the amount of political trouble he would if he said he doesn’t believe the bible is anything more than a fictional book of fables. I think that says something very unflattering of our advanced society. Sam Harris has a book that talks about this subject, called "the end of faith" I don’t agree with him completely. I do think people use religion for political purposes more than the other way around, but he raises some important and obvious questions.

Clint—I have never heard this stated so eloquently or succinctly.  Bravo!

The fact that it is relevant to a lot of people doesn’t make it relevant.

GraemeA—So I guess that if it is not important to you, it is just not important?  No one is challenging your right not to believe .

Graeme, I guess from your statements that you are a staunch secularist and prossibly an aethist and probably don’t believe in an after life.  So be it.  You accuse others of fousting their religion on others but you are doing exactly the same because your non-religion is really a religion of disbelief.

Religion of any kind has a bearing on the type of society we have because the society gets its moral bearings from its religions.  A society based on non-religion is typically amoral where anything and everything is permitted whereas a society with religion has the tenets of the religion e.g. commandments for its moral guidance.

Anyone who claims that atheism is not a religion, or is the absence thereof, is either deceived or just plain dishonest.  Human beings are spiritual beings; there is no getting around that.  I worked with a bunch of people at Big Sky, for instance, that were very spiritual about skiing and snowboarding.  It’s how we’re made.  So whether you’re on one side of the fence or the other, it’s on a spiritual basis.  So your position on religious matters is a spiritual one, a religious one, by the very nature of the argument...whether you embrace faith in God or not.

 Ron, I never said that. If you look at the next sentence I said that the relevance of religion boils down to opinion. I just think some peoples opinions should be subject to some level of intolerance. I think people are slowly but surely, starting to realize that. You can tell because most people treat religion more like a tradition than a personal relationship with God.

 DocDave. I haven’t built a building where people can come and not worship God, and I don’t go knocking on people’s door’s asking them to not believe so I don’t think i am pushing my rationality on anyone. I wouldn’t consider myself an atheist. If there was proof of the supernatural events any religion claims to be true, I am all ears, but there isn’t. That is where the "faith" trump card comes into play. I don’t find the connection to religious belief and a moral society at all. We continue to hear (from the likes of Brent Bozell, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson) that secularism is ruining our lives and our society is on a one way ticket to distruction and gay men will be sodomizing each other at every street corner and blah blah blah. But our society has improved by leaps and bounds by fighting the dogmas of religion. In the "good old days" when religion was followed well, religiously, like in the early 20th century, there was segregation, women were treated like shit, gays were ostracized from society, but there was no profanity on tv. No tittie popping out on the superbowl. Our society is worse now? Religious fundamentalists would have me believe so.

Old habits die hard and religion is becoming more and more tradition and secularism is slowly but surely going to take over the US. We are just a little slower than the rest of the western world. We shouldn’t feel too bad, the middle east is a few centuries behind us. In the end, it comes back to my original opinion, religion is no longer relevant.

geez, I am long winded this morning.  

Of course, by "religion" they mean Christianity.

Funny how you "know" that but they never said it why did they not say it? Because they were not promoting or denying any religion.

GraemeA makes a very valid point about the politician standing up and making a pro-christianity staement and nobody blinking an eye but stating the opposite would draw dire consequences.

What if Jesus did return today? I think he would cast into the nearest jail.

This post is complete bull.  The religion clauses of the first amendment mean one thing:  You have the free excersize to practice your religion in your own home and express it the way you want to.  But the establishment clause means the minute you try to use public money to instill you religious beliefs upon the population as a whole, that is where the line is drawn.  I have no problem with "in god we trust" on coins because that is tradition, nor do I have any problem with the posting of the 10 commandments on certain buildings because that is tradition. But the minute someone says you have to sing "Jesus" songs in public school and say that I have to believe in the bible, that is where the line must be drawn.  By the way, the founding fathers were not fudamentalist christians, that is a lie used by the religious right.  Most fled their homelands because they couldn’t practice the religion they wanted to because a certain religion was being forced upon them.  Infact, quite a few were diests.  Some were even illuminati.  If you look at the one dollar bill you will find a pyramid with an eye.  That is an illumaniti symbol.  The illuminati historically was a group of scientists who rebelled against the church because Galileo was burned for observing the earth move around the sun and not vice versa.  The founding fathers believed in the enlightenment.  They believed in logic, reason, and science.  So, the idea that the founding fathers supported just evangelical christianity is historically false and I wish the religious right would stop trying to re-write history.

The founding fathers believed in the enlightenment.  They believed in logic, reason, and science. 

The exact opposite of the modern GOP, which wants to teach Bible stories in science class.

The exact opposite of the modern GOP, which wants to teach Bible stories in science class.

Says the ignorant man to a bunch of atheist and agnostic Republicans.

We’re not all the same. We’re a diverse bunch.

Come on Don they do not want to teach bible stories they want to teach another fable called Intelligent Design and I believe that goes beyond just the GOP. 

Yet they opened every session of Congress and most of the major meetings with Prayer.  Oh, yeah, and had prayers at almost every major event including inaugurations, etc.

So for Jeremy and Don Myers, did the Founding Fathers pray at their meetings because of "tradition" like In God We Trust or the 10 Commandments?  Was it Tradition that forced them to do something that they did not believe in?

You both are trying to convince us that the Founding Fathers were Illumaniti and Druids and Sorcerers and Pagans and Muslims and Jews and Hindu and Buddists and were not Christians.  Have at it.  That is why the Dollar has a Pyramid.  Because the Dollar we use today was designed by the Founding Fathers.  Yeah, they used Dollar bills that had the same design as we have today.

What f*ing planet are you two from?  Just wondering.  Do they have a word on planet Denial for "Asshats"?  Believe what you want, but rewriting history to make historical figures something they are not to suit your current beliefs just undermines your arguments.

You have the free excersize to practice your religion in your own home

I have a constitutional right to practice my religion whereever I please. I believe the point of this article is that individual right to practice religion are being undermined by the "separation of church and state" mentality.

I agree with you that public money has no place in religion. I agree with you that the founding fathers were nor fundamentalist Christians. I agree with you that no one should force you to practice a faith to which you do not belong. I, however, believe that everyone has right to practice their religion wherever they choose, even by singing "Jesus" songs in school.

Why should the fact the the person next to me is not the same religion inhibit my ability and right to worship the Lord?

Good point Ron and I do not think it does however, and this is just personal experience as Lik said this is diverse bunch so I do not want to build a box here, most christians will not sit by while you practice your religion.

There are all kinds of Republicans.  I happen to be on the a-religious side of things.  Not that I don’t have beliefs, but mine are not the canned "Bible Thumpin’" kind that reject science and knowledge and learning and want to teach ID.

True there are guys like Pat Robertson and Falwell that I think are douchebags, but overall, morality and religion are extremely relevant.  Even if we take a Secularist view that Religion is a construct used by those in power to control the behavior of the masses, it is quite clear that no human society has ever existed with a complete lack of religion.  Even the Secularist societies of Europe and the Communist countries of the last Century have had a religion-whether Marxism or post-Catholocism--that dictates the bounds of appropriate human behavior in their society.

It is the secular view that I have the most trouble with.  Secularism and those that subscribe to it seek to destroy religion so that people depend not on God, but rather on an all providing Government for their moral guidance.  Whether God exists or not, the invention of Secularism attempts to do the exact same thing that religion has always done-control the masses and dictate to society what is right and wrong.  These philosophies are deeply rooted in Marxism and to deny or attempt to deflect their honest intentions simply exposes how corrupted you have become by the nature of Secularism.

Whether God and Jesus and Noah and Adam existed or not is not for me to teach.  But it is a parent’s solemn right to raise their children as they see fit.  To call exposing your children to your values and mores and morality "Child Abuse" is sick.  You attempt to claim that your views should be enshrined in our government’s teachings and that children should be indoctrinated into NOTHING as opposed to SOMETHING.  Lack of Religion and Secularism and Global Warming and Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are Religions unto themselves.  They serve the same purpose.  To attempt to explain that which cannot be defined or quantified and to preserve order among people.

You have the free excersize to practice your religion in your own home.

 

OK, then let’s define Freedom of Speech the same way.  You have the right to Freedom of Speech only within your own home too.  Nope, Freedom of Religion is applied to the Public Square too.  And Freedom of Speech covers the right to express your religious views in the public sphere.  Can’t have one without the other.

Why is it that the ACLU instead of defending people’s rights to free exercise of their religion in the public square choose instead to limit people’s rights to express themselves in public when their speech involves Christianity?

Jeremy said, This post is complete bull.  The religion clauses of the first amendment mean one thing:  You have the free excersize to practice your religion in your own home and express it the way you want to.  But the establishment clause means the minute you try to use public money to instill you religious beliefs upon the population as a whole, that is where the line is drawn.

Actually the first amendment just means what it says. If the "public money" comes from the state and they’re trying to promote a religion - it’s allowed under the first amendment.

Funny I just thought of something. What if a church does not pay taxes whichg they don’t and then catches on fire. Should the fire department that is supported by the rest of our taxes be dispatched to put out the fire? Then to take it a step further what if it is a muslim church.

Richard,

And if you are single, or a childless couple, and own a home on which you pay property taxes, then by this same logic aren’t you entitled to a rebate of that portion of the taxes you paid which supports the so-called "public schools?"   (That should read: "government-based union monopoly schools," shouldn’t it?)

Well yes and no.

You are applying the logic of an entity that pays no taxes to the group that does pay taxes but wants to be selective with which taxes they have to pay. Having good schools in an area will increase the value of your property so the tax payed in this case does get benefit from the school taxes.

Richard,

What you say is true enough… or would be.  But tell me, when was the last time you took note of a "good" public school that actually increased the values of the homes in the area?

Yes, I was comparing an entity which pays no taxes with one that does, but after all, the principle in the same. 

I can not point to any specific neighborhood per se however I would point to areas like inner cities visa the suburbs.

Yes the principle can be the same which is why I said yes and no, the point I was attempting make was that in a lot of ways there is already comingling of church and state when a tax supported entity goes to the aid of a none tax paying entity.

Hopefully, as I become more practiced at posting here, my occasional delight at my own somewhat offbeat and contentious sense of humor will become less troublesome.

On my way to an appointment with my attorney this morning, I noticed that a local middle school which was opened less than two years ago, is already surrounded by trailers/auxilliary classrooms.  With kids still in school, education, or what passes for it, is still a hot button issue with me.   

Now I think we may have gotten off on a different topic but one that I think can never have enough debate.

I bet the school you drove past is a government funded school and there lies the issue. Hate to say it but voucher (not because I do not believe it but because it will start a shit load of posts) programs just might be the fix for these issues. That school was probably under funded from day one and had no plan for community growth.

See, churches do pay taxes.  They employ people and those people pay income taxes and property taxes and social security taxes, etc.  Churches are businesses just like any other.  (Much to my dismay in some cases)

So let’s ask ourself--the ACLU is a tax exempt entity and pays no Corporate income tax as such.  If their building catches on fire, should we pay to put it out?  What about the Salvation Army?  United Way?  Oh, yeah and let’s not forget that the congregation pays taxes on the money they earn and pay social security taxes and other taxes.

But I do like the logic here.  Those that do not pay taxes to support a public service should not be entitled to use it for free.  How about we stop giving free healthcare to the poor that don’t pay any state taxes to support it?  Maybe Welfare is next.

"Under-funded" is an interesting choice (pun intended) of terminology.  Is the Air Force "under-funded" if they only get 25 squadrons of F-22 Raptors, instead of the 35 they requested?  Is Homeland Security "under-funded" if each and every cargo container is not examined at its US port of entry?  Or to take yet another example, is the Head Start program "under-funded" if last year’s projected 8% funding increase is ereduced to 6.5% instead?

The point, of course, is that all of us must live within our means, the federal government especially so.  After all, its not "their" means, but ours. My original point was that too much of the allocation of funds is on auto-pilot, and that even a cut in the rate of increase is regarded publicly by some as a draconian act of spite.  Like the abolition of the 1974 Budget restraints, I think that zero-based budgeting would be a start, but I am old enough to recognize, sadly, that every attempt to instill any sort of fiscal discipline on the Congress, for whatever reason, has thus far met with failure.   

Only a paranoid nutjob would believe that there is some kind of organized conspiracy to supress Christianity in the US. It’s poppycock, unsupported by any real evidence or common sense.

There IS, however, a well-funded movement to ram Christianity down our throats.

Yes, that means prayer in schools.

If this interpretation of the First Amendment is correct then it could also mean animal sacrifice too I suppose. I doubt this is what the Founders intended.  

Don Myers insults, Only a paranoid nutjob would believe that there is some kind of organized conspiracy to supress Christianity in the US. It’s poppycock, unsupported by any real evidence or common sense.

You’re a part of the group that is trying to suppress Christianity. Now you deny it. Amazing.

MikeAdamson said, If this interpretation of the First Amendment is correct then it could also mean animal sacrifice too I suppose.

Animal sacrifice has been held up by the courts as religious freedom. So has drug use.

in schools?

    yeah, you do have a right to practice your religion in the public square, but you cannot use GOVERNMENT tax dollars to push your religion onto others.  That includes requiring students to do nativity plays in school.  My biggest complaint with people who think that religion should be injected everywhere is that it is only there religion that should be injected.  If we had a simulated passover seder in public school, the fundies would go nuts.  Some founding fathers were, in fact, Jewish and Diests.  That is a fact.  Without Jews there would be no Christians remember.  Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism.

yeah, you do have a right to practice your religion in the public square, but you cannot use GOVERNMENT tax dollars to push your religion onto others.

Agreed. But that isn’t the law or the meaning of the 1st Amendment. States and local governments hold the power to do as they please.