Merry Christmas Rick Perry

[Ree]

I didn't bother to report because, as the owner, I did not expect Moderators to rein him in - would you have if I'd reported it? Can you give me an example of some time that a Moderator has slapped Raps' hand for violating his own rules?

Can you give me another example where you felt he had?

Again, if we aren't aware, then how the heck can we do anything?

Yes, if you had reported it, I would have raised the issue with him, actually.

But it's enough to make me consider whether I want to be a part of the site after all... something that I'm still considering.

And that's the wonderful thing about the internet and the world we live in. That's entirely your freedom to choose as you feel is right.

[Rapscallion]

Currently on holiday in sunny Cleethorpes. Will be back to this in due course.

Rapscallion

[Nekojin]

Can you give me another example where you felt he had?

Again, if we aren't aware, then how the heck can we do anything?

Yes, if you had reported it, I would have raised the issue with him, actually.

MadMike was involved on Page 5 (not in an official capacity). The visible presence of other staff involved in the thread is a deterrent to reporting; this is a known phenomenon on forums all over the web, and not just here. After all, we don't know what goes on behind the scenes.

Thanks for addressing the issue to this degree; in the future, if I have an issue specifically with a moderator, admin, or Raps doing something that I think is breaking the rules, I'll be sure to report it.

Since Raps seems intent on carrying on the fight, I'll offer a hopeful alternative to continuing this thread's fatal derailment - I'll address some of his points (and especially the farcical point that atheists have never done anything worse than offending people) in a new thread. But that'll have to wait until later tonight or tomorrow.

[Rapscallion]

Sort of back and unpacking.

For the record, Ree has brought things to my attention before and isn't afraid of telling me she thinks my actions were not appropriate. No moderator that I can remember has ever lost their position on any forum I've run as a result of that.

I'll deal with the rest of this when I get time, hopefully later tonight.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Time to return.

So, where were we? I've had a little time off, so this may be a little more coherent.

I consider the theist vs atheist point of this to be pertinent to the matter at hand. Over the last few decades, the US has seen a massive rise in the influence of the religious right. Putting mentions of a deity onto money back in the 1800s was one of the earlier instances (before the last few decades, admittedly), and changing the motto of the US to the same phrase in the fifties. 'under god' was added to the pledge at roughly the same time if memory serves, but I suspect I'll have a correction on that if I'm out by a few years.

Since the republican political party began to court the socially conservative (primarily religious) to regain a measure of support within the land, that's accelerated. Heavily.

My position on religion has been mostly a live-and-let-live approach for quite some time, but of late I've realised that it's a pretty one-sided approach. The fiscal and social conservatives in the US are pretty much indistinguishable these days, or at least that's what I've seen on various reports. I don't have the first-hand knowledge that those in the US have, but there's no way that an atheist is going to get to be president, let alone a muslim, without a fundamental shift in the public approach to how religion is viewed. Whilst there's a separation of church and state in operation, what with churches having those rather nifty tax laws in their favour, it's only being observed by the state. The religious right are time and again trying to get in on the political act.

It's pretty much accepted now to the extent that as far as I can see, nobody complains. Michele Bachmann has a rather interesting statement starting at about 16:10 in the link, with the really interesting bit at 19:40. Sure, she's a nutjob, and Gravekeeper recently described them as cartoon villains if memory serves, but this is someone who had a presidential campaign they started thinking they had a chance to get elected. This is someone who fully believes that her religious beliefs should direct her political stance on subjects, as well as claiming her observation of weather formations as messages from her deity to be a 'joke'.

Let me make this extremely clear. This is one of a number of people who could have had their fingers on or near the nuclear trigger.

She's by no means the only one. Just think on that.

That's an extreme example. The religious conservative element has been making direct effects on rights and freedoms of people. Gay rights are a notable cause right now, with campaigners for gay rights finding themselves up against DOMA and the kerfuffle within. The religious faithful are being called up to prevent the same rights they enjoy being extended to same-sex couples.

This affects people directly.

The whole abortion rights issue has come before various state bodies time and again, costing time and money. There is once more religious justification given for this, generally from the catholic side of things.

This affects people directly.

For what it's worth, I'm not really pro or anti abortion. I'm more than happy that it's a decision I don't have to make.

I see this whole 'protection of religious expression' as part and parcel of the same style of thing. Edge religion in as a protected status and it gains credibility amongst the young and impressionable. I don't think it's an organised conspiracy, more an opportunist event here or there, but it's done with a specific aim in mind. It also violates the spirit of the separation of church and state part of how the country is run.

Freedom of religion should not mean protection of religion. If your faith cannot defend itself, it's not exactly worth protecting, right? Besides, it's not as if the beneficiaries of the legislation in question are that oppressed with churches on many corners with different takes on the same book.

The whole religion without politics being harmful has been covered earlier, but it pertains to this. AIDS in Africa being a prime example of this, where preaching that condoms are forbidden has caused generations to be wiped out is something that should be treated as murder, as far as I'm concerned.

However, this is about the whole stepping toes over the line into politics by the religious.

Yes, I'm angry. I'm furious. A religious exemption has been granted to effectively endorse and protect religion on state grounds. With the sort of crimes religion has perpetrated, if you're not angry then you're not paying attention.

I wouldn't mind so much if it were just a case of sales of baked goods to raise funds for an orphanage. I can ignore that, possibly even buying some (waistline permitting). Whilst I don't have much respect for 'pick and mix' religion, at least it's usually beneficial to all around. It's not, though. The sort of people who are coming up with this sort of legislation are motivated by self-interest and promoting their cause to impressionable young minds.

Enough is enough, as far as I'm concerned. Religion needs to go back to its own domain, preaching to those who want to listen and are old enough and coherent enough to think for themselves if they want to. Whilst we still have religion, we'll have this recurring time and again.

That's why I'm angry. I'm also stunned that more people aren't.

There will be more on this.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

A little more.

An interesting thing I've noticed on these sorts of debates is that when you say one thing about a religion, you get several other people telling you that they don't believe that exact thing. Happens quite often with discussions involved christian beliefs.

With that many different options on the table, it's necessary to take a specific approach to the problem at hand. All these different variations of one faith have at their heart one specific aspect - they all believe in a (fairly similar) god.

The law in question effectively expects invokes some sort of credibility for a deity (or supernatural force). I don't accept the claims that such a being exists. There are quite a number of things I can go into detail on in this regard, so feel free to put forward your views on this. However, without any sort of evidence of the existence of this being, is this even slightly reasonable to propose? Isn't the very foundation of this regulation baseless? I think so, and quite frankly should someone produce something that is convincing evidence for such a being then I would happily go down on bended knee.

I've seen claims time and again, but I've yet to see any that withstood reasonable scrutiny.

The very basis of this law is to protect something that cannot even be shown (or will not depending on the excuses used) to exist.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Putting mentions of a deity onto money back in the 1800s was one of the earlier instances (before the last few decades, admittedly), and changing the motto of the US to the same phrase in the fifties. 'under god' was added to the pledge at roughly the same time if memory serves, but I suspect I'll have a correction on that if I'm out by a few years.

The motto and the "under god' bits were added specifically to be "anti athiest" because of the "godless communists" that were the enemy during the McCarthy era.

It's tribalistic bullshit that really has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with othering.

My position on religion has been mostly a live-and-let-live approach for quite some time, but of late I've realised that it's a pretty one-sided approach.

The militant religious zealots no more represent the masses than the militant anti-theists zealots represent the masses. That anyone listens to either side is depressing. Both sides are equally wrong. Just because one is more heavily represented does not give the other any greater legitimacy.

I see this whole 'protection of religious expression' as part and parcel of the same style of thing.

Most of the time it's bullshit and should be pointed out as such. But when a person is disallowed from wearing anything that displays their religious preference because it might offend someone who isn't religious, that's just as much bullshit as trying to make people pray when they don't believe there's a reason to.

Edge religion in as a protected status and it gains credibility amongst the young and impressionable.

It's worth noting that creed is already a protected status. It's just that usually, most people think it's a-ok to be bigoted against the majority. It's not.

It's apparently news to a whole hell of a lot of people that those who are part of the majority or so called "privileged" class can also be discriminated against.

Freedom of religion should not mean protection of religion.

It should mean protection of a person's inalienable right to believe whatever the fuck they choose to, without anyone else trying to dictate otherwise.

I don't care how right anyone thinks they are. If they try to change another person's beliefs through any means other than polite discussion, they're fucking assholes and should get stuffed.

If your faith cannot defend itself, it's not exactly worth protecting, right?

Faith doesn't have to defend itself. People might choose to defend their faith, but that's up to them, not the ones who want that justification.

The whole religion without politics being harmful has been covered earlier...

And it's just as cherry-picked as ever. People are assholes. People have been assholes since the dawn of time. Even animals are assholes.

With the sort of crimes religion has perpetrated, if you're not angry then you're not paying attention.

How can anyone take an argument like this seriously?

This statement is no more correct than the zealots on the other side of the spectrum claiming that science is corrupting us.

Whilst we still have religion, we'll have this recurring time and again.

And if you were to succeed in getting rid of religion, then you'd just get to fight whatever gets created to take it's place.

Because it's not religion that's at fault. It's people. And no matter what else you do, you'll still end up with people being assholes because that's how people are.

The base fact is that by going after religion, you're wasting your energy on some side quest and doing nothing at all to fix the overall issue.

The law in question effectively expects invokes some sort of credibility for a deity (or supernatural force).

Except that it doesn't. Sure, most people will assume that, but not everybody who celebrates a winter holiday, not even those who celebrate the most common one in the US, are even religious. Hell, one of the more notable atheist authors, Dawkins, quite happily celebrates many Christmas traditions.

And that's before you even get into the fact that many of those "Christmas traditions" are only a few centuries old to begin with and were only attached to Christmas due to timing.

[Nekojin]

See, that was a far more reasonable post than earlier in the thread.

Apologies if this rambles a little bit.

I have a half-dozen links that I researched yesterday for the purpose of putting forth a point that atheists aren't harmless. From Nazi Germany (which wasn't atheist, in and of itself, but Hitler was quite specifically rabidly antisemitic, and took a large part of his influence from Marx and other atheists who thought that wiping out Jews was a good idea), to the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia (nearly 2 million theistic people killed by atheists in the name of wiping out religion) to the Russian purges (somewhere near 9 million killed for the same reason), there's ample evidence that atheism can be just as barbaric as theism.

Trying to draw a line in the sand here and saying, "People who do THAT are bad, people who do THIS are good," is just plain old tribalism, once you get down to it, and atheists are just as susceptible as theists to behave in that manner. Partly, because that's how we're wired. Making a distinction between those who believe that there is a god and those who don't believe is just more tribalism, just the same as the squabbling between different religions and different factions of the same religion.

Pointing out all of the ills of religion without acknowledging the good things it's done (the Christian church was the only source for non-nobility to acquire any education beyond their parents' trade for a long, long time, for example) is extremely disingenuous. Could these things be done without religion? Perhaps today, yes. Back then, no - the church was seen as untouchable. Random people teaching the peasantry would have been squashed, but the church doing the teaching gave an umbrella of protection to the act.

Many, many people go through life looking for a sense of identity, a sense of belonging to something greater than they are. A lucky few find this in a trade that they love. Far more end up doing jobs that they tolerate, at best, but that they don't identify with (Who wants to be a stock clerk, for example, without longing for something better?). Religion gives a sense of community, identity, belonging for many of these people. Maybe they believe; maybe they just pay lip service to the belief and truly just want a place to belong. Without religion... what would they have to cling to? Perhaps they'd find something else, or they might not.

You point out how powerful the religious people are in the US culture - that the Republican Party is pretty much overrun with Christian zealots and that you can't be elected president without at least paying lip service to Christianity. All of this is true. But you have to look at it a little deeper, and realize the patterns going on here. The zealots are losing. They're getting more and more frantic that people are turning away from the church, because the church is intolerant not of the things they do, but who they are.

You point out that the Religious Right is waging a war against gays, against abortion, against sex education, and you're right... but they're losing! Every time this comes up to a challenge, they lose ground. The fight for abortion was truly over forty years ago, and all that's left is thrashing around, trying to find ways to get around Roe vs. Wade. And every time they try to pass laws that make it harder or more expensive to get abortions for people who want them, they lose. Likewise for the gay rights issue - they're losing ground year after year. They're on the wrong side of history, and they're going to be buried by it.

They're getting shriller and shriller because they're losing. They're getting louder and more strident because they're losing. The number of people who profess atheist or agnostic beliefs is at an all-time high for recorded history, and it drives the authoritarian theists crazy to think that they're losing.

There's no question that we're in for a rough ride. The theists who want to be in control of things aren't going to cede their power easily. Which is not to say that it's going to get violent, but it's definitely going to have some dark times ahead before we see the light.

The very basis of this law is to protect something that cannot even be shown (or will not depending on the excuses used) to exist.

Without that very law, there's little question that we would be a dominionist Christian country (probably Catholic). The theist factions each had enough power that without a way to keep them from each others' throats, there would have been a struggle for power around which religion is the official religion. By expressly stating, "None of you are the official religion, and none of you ever will be," that allowed them all to have time to settle in... and, as a side effect, allowed the idea that perhaps we don't actually need a god after all to blossom.

The first amendment protects all religions, including "none." You can't stomp out Catholicism, but neither can Catholicism stomp out atheism. It has long been my belief that religion is purely a personal matter, and should be treated as such - just because person A is Christian, that doesn't mean that he can expect person B to adhere to Christian principles, and should not in any way be able to force person B to follow Christian principles if B isn't a Christian.

And despite the frantic protestations of the theists, the judges (many of whom are theist themselves) continue to rule that no, you can't force B to live like a Christian just because you pass a law that says you can. They're wise enough to realize that any law that tries to do such a thing could, in time, be used against their own sect. By establishing a clear-cut separation between church and state, they protect their own self-interests... and the self-interests of everyone else, whether the "everyone else" realizes it or not.

And back to the elephant in the room for a minute. I don't believe in any specific god or gods. I don't even have a firm belief in there being one at all. But it's hard to look at the universe, ask, "where did it all come from?" and not believe that it's possible that someone created it. What happened before the Big Bang? Where did all that mass, energy, or whatever it was come from? These are things that can't be answered yet, with our current state of knowledge. Perhaps it was created, but if so, by whom?

I'm content to live with the knowledge that I probably won't ever have an answer to this. I don't expect that science will discover some critical piece of data that shows a time before the Big Bang - at least, not within the 40 or so years that I have left on this rock. But I'm confident that even if the answer is found, it won't really shake my world - I'll keep on keeping on, regardless.

Let's wrap this up. Religion is needed for some people, to give them a sense of purpose, togetherness, identity. Some people use their religion to justify their own selfish attitudes, and sometimes they're able to convince others to go along with them - hence, the Crusades, and other religious-based atrocities. But underneath it all, this isn't a religious problem. Without religion, people would be finding some other reason to justify their atrocities - they wouldn't somehow just stop being dickheads to each other.

Or, to put it another way, religion is just an excuse (one of many, mind you) that the tyrants use to justify their excesses. Without religion, it's unlikely that their behavior would change at all... they'd just have a different excuse.

Live and let live is the only sane choice.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm wary of wading into this shit storm >.>

But I will merely put it this way: An extremist is an extremist. The cause, religion, political party, skin colour, etc that they're for or against doesn't matter. They are universally fucking assholes. The larger your team is, the more likely you're going to end up with an asshole or asshole(s) on it.

Christianity is the largest team. Its going to have the most assholes. Atheism likely has the same ratio of assholiness, but its a tiny tiny team. When it comes to American social conservatives, Jesus is just an excuse and a weapon to use against others. American conservative Christians exist in their own little sphere. They use Jesus to justify hating and controlling the things they don't like. While sheltering themselves as much as possible from the rest of the world ( Bad influences on the children and all ).

But Jesus is just the most recent tool of the fucking asshole that wants to punish and control others. One glance at how desperately these idiots have to writhe and twist to justify their own assholeness with the Bible is evidence enough. When you need to wade through 6 different translations of one obscure verse that wasn't intended for you to begin with just to vaguely justify why you think gays are icky, that's your god damn problem. Not the religion's.

The biggest problem with the rise of social Conservatives in the US was not that there was this huge pack of crazy assholes waiting to vote for the first person that courted them. But rather that politicians went to the crazy assholes and said "Hey, being a fucking asshole is totally cool with me, so vote for us!" and made being a fucking asshole socially acceptable.

No where is this more evident than post 9/11. When the media and the GOP basically made it acceptable to be a hate filled raging fucktard. Suddenly, all these assholes that normally sit at home and keep their shit to themselves were being told by Fox that their shit was totally right and acceptable and all their paranoid theories about brown people and gays were right all along.

They courted the crazy and triggered the Tea Party, which in turn bite them in the ass when their crazy started to become a political liability.

The GOP can see the writing on the wall. Their politics and beliefs have been steadily dying off as their old white asshole selves do. They're freaking out because there aren't going to be enough angry white conservatives to win the White House anymore in another 10 years. So they froth up the 1/3rd of lunatics to vote for them. While using every possible bit of shit and treachery they can to manipulate or scare the center into voting for them just enough to overcome the other side.

Religious assholism in the US isn't religion. Its pure, unbridled political manipulation. Much like it always has been in the history of Christianity. As the central religion of the majority of the world's greatest empires, you're damn right its going to be used as a tool of fuckery, control and power throughout the centuries.

Any sufficiently large group under one banner will have at least one god damn asshole that takes it too seriously and ruins it for everyone else.

[Panacea]

I consider the theist vs atheist point of this to be pertinent to the matter at hand. Over the last few decades, the US has seen a massive rise in the influence of the religious right.

Religious influence has waxed and waned over the years. It gained in the mid 1800's during the Great Awakening. It gain again during the Victorian era.

However, religious belief wasn't always geared towards putting religion in your face or controlling the behaviors of others. Religious belief was a motivator of liberal young people during the Civil Rights era: both of Jews who supported voter drives because they understood all too well what discrimination was, and Christians who believed in social justice; this belief is at the heart of social justice ideals of the Democratic Party today even if Democrats don't wear their religion on their sleeves the way religious conservatives do. Jimmy Carter exemplifies this. The social religious conservative based tapped into by Reagan was a reaction to religious liberals.

Since the republican political party began to court the socially conservative (primarily religious) to regain a measure of support within the land, that's accelerated. Heavily.

As I mentioned, that was a response to religious liberals in the US. They've always been a minority, but a loud one. But they vote, and that's what's given the GOP such power since 1980. Given that more and more Americans are "nones" and view that kind of politics with distaste, we are seeing that support wane. What we're seeing from religious conservatives is their last gasp. We're already seeing DOMA undone. Abortion is still a contentious issue since even liberals often find abortion on demand distasteful.

My position on religion has been mostly a live-and-let-live approach for quite some time, but of late I've realised that it's a pretty one-sided approach. The fiscal and social conservatives in the US are pretty much indistinguishable these days, or at least that's what I've seen on various reports.

The GOP has always had problems balancing the social and fiscal conservatives. Real fiscal conservatism is too hard for most people to really understand. Social conservatism has more appeal.

That has nothing to do with the broader concept of religion, however. Not every person of faith is either a fiscal or a social conservative. You do an injustice by paining all religious people with that broad brush.

I don't have the first-hand knowledge that those in the US have, but there's no way that an atheist is going to get to be president, let alone a muslim, without a fundamental shift in the public approach to how religion is viewed.

I disagree. A few years ago folks said there was no way a black man would get into the White House. Now we have Barack Obama. We already have atheists and Muslims in public office, including the US Congress, as well as members of other religious faiths. It's only a matter of time before we have either an atheist or Muslim president.

Whilst there's a separation of church and state in operation, what with churches having those rather nifty tax laws in their favour, it's only being observed by the state. The religious right are time and again trying to get in on the political act.

I'll be the first to concede our tax laws need reform. I want to see 501c4 organizations repealed, or have to disclose their donors.

Churches have a right to let their views be known on political issues. They also do a lot of good with charity work. People are free to make up their own minds; I don't let the Catholic Church dictate to me how to vote on key social issues, or anything else. I vote my own conscience.

Michele Bachmann has a rather interesting statement starting at about 16:10 in the link, with the really interesting bit at 19:40. Sure, she's a nutjob, and Gravekeeper recently described them as cartoon villains if memory serves, but this is someone who had a presidential campaign they started thinking they had a chance to get elected. This is someone who fully believes that her religious beliefs should direct her political stance on subjects, as well as claiming her observation of weather formations as messages from her deity to be a 'joke'.

Michele Bachmann spends to much time listening to her own voice and that of people who agree with her, and not enough with the broader populace. I agree with her assessment of her character, but would point out her campaign faltered quickly: she can pull her BS on the ultra nuts in her party, but she doesn't gain traction elsewhere.

Let me make this extremely clear. This is one of a number of people who could have had their fingers on or near the nuclear trigger.

She didn't have a snowballs chance in hell. She's all rhetoric and no substance and everyone knew it but her.

The religious conservative element has been making direct effects on rights and freedoms of people. Gay rights are a notable cause right now, with campaigners for gay rights finding themselves up against DOMA and the kerfuffle within. The religious faithful are being called up to prevent the same rights they enjoy being extended to same-sex couples.

DOMA is out. Prop 8 is out. Religious conservatives are losing that battle and have openly admitted it. Current laws, including my home state's Amendment One aren't going to last.

The whole abortion rights issue has come before various state bodies time and again, costing time and money. There is once more religious justification given for this, generally from the catholic side of things.

Abortion is going to be the last gasp of the social conservatives. The laws that have recently passed or are being debated are of dubious constitutionality; over time they will either be repealed or thrown out.

But the thing is, with either abortion or gay rights, not all religious people approach them the same way. You leave out that there are many religious people who support women's choices, who support gay rights.

I see this whole 'protection of religious expression' as part and parcel of the same style of thing. Edge religion in as a protected status and it gains credibility amongst the young and impressionable. I don't think it's an organised conspiracy, more an opportunist event here or there, but it's done with a specific aim in mind. It also violates the spirit of the separation of church and state part of how the country is run.

The Establishment Clause protects the minority from the majority in religious thought. The Founders had living memory of religious repression and persecution; there were very good reasons to protect the expression of religious faith. That's also allowed for the protection of atheist thought in this country; the Establishment Clause has been used to protect the right of atheists to run for political office, and proclaim their own views. So it really does work both ways for both the religious and the atheist.

Freedom of religion should not mean protection of religion. If your faith cannot defend itself, it's not exactly worth protecting, right?

Actually, that is exactly what the Establishment Clause was intended to do: protect the right of all Americans to practice their faith or lack thereof. And its whole purpose is to protect faiths that cannot defend themselves. That's the WHOLE POINT of having the First Amendment. It doesn't matter to me what YOU believe, it only matters to me what I believe. Likewise, it doesn't matter to you what I believe, it only matters to you what you believe. The Establishment Clause gives people with all different points of view room to exist. While we can try to change each others minds, we can't say, "this belief is not worthy to even be allowed to exist or display itself in public."

The cost is folks like the Westboro Baptist Church. However, it also means that someone on the other end of the spectrum can come up with inventive ways to disagree in public . . . like the folks across the street with the rainbow colored house. But for true religious freedom to exist for all, it means we have to protect the right of even the assholes to exist . . . while reserving the right to tell them that they are assholes.

Besides, it's not as if the beneficiaries of the legislation in question are that oppressed with churches on many corners with different takes on the same book.

Well, at least here we get back on topic with the subject of the original thread.

Claiming to be oppressed and actually being oppressed are not one and the same, that is true. And it wouldn't be the first time the religious conservatives have passed a law that benefits everyone. But if it doesn't protect everyone then there's the check and balance of the court system.

The whole religion without politics being harmful has been covered earlier, but it pertains to this. AIDS in Africa being a prime example of this, where preaching that condoms are forbidden has caused generations to be wiped out is something that should be treated as murder, as far as I'm concerned.

And yet again you paint all religion with the same broad brush. Not all Christians believe that passing out condoms to prevent the transmission of STDs . . . anywhere . . . is a bad idea. And the AIDS tragedy in Africa has persisted for reasons unrelated to religion, such as the political ambitions of leaders who don't like Americans.

Yes, I'm angry. I'm furious. A religious exemption has been granted to effectively endorse and protect religion on state grounds.

It also protects people who don't want to practice any religion. And it doesn't endorse any religion at all.

With the sort of crimes religion has perpetrated, if you're not angry then you're not paying attention.

There you go with that broad brush again, and ignore the very good things that religious people have done over the years.

Certainly I'm angry when crimes are committed . . . no matter by whom. I'm unhappy with how the Catholic Church handled the priest sex abuse crisis. However, the administrative failure of the Church has nothing to do with my personal relationship with God. They are not one and the same.

The sort of people who are coming up with this sort of legislation are motivated by self-interest and promoting their cause to impressionable young minds.

I agree that self interest motivates this legislation . . . political self interest. But it isn't about religion so much as a religious holiday that is celebrated by many secular people and non-religious people. I see this law having unintended benefits for non-Christian faiths . . which is a good thing.

Enough is enough, as far as I'm concerned. Religion needs to go back to its own domain, preaching to those who want to listen and are old enough and coherent enough to think for themselves if they want to. Whilst we still have religion, we'll have this recurring time and again.

I'm always skeptical of laws on religion either pro or con. But we are complicated as a species; asking people not to behave based on the totality of who they are . . . which includes their religious beliefs . . . is both unrealistic and short sighted. I have the right to make decisions based on my religious views just as much as you have the right to make your decisions based on your secular humanistic views.

That's why I'm angry. I'm also stunned that more people aren't.

You shouldn't be. In spite of the fact more and more people are non-religious, those who believe in a God far outnumber those who don't.[/QUOTE]

An interesting thing I've noticed on these sorts of debates is that when you say one thing about a religion, you get several other people telling you that they don't believe that exact thing. Happens quite often with discussions involved christian beliefs.

That's because your logic suffers from a fatal flaw.

You assume that all members of a religious faith have to believe the same exact thing. They don't. Some religious have next to nothing in terms of dogma (for example, the Quakers). But even in many religions that have strict dogma you can often find room for individuality. As a Catholic, I have to conform to certain dogmas: the Trinity, communion of saints, etc. But most of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, while official teachings, I am allowed to question and I in fact do question them. I'm not a robot or a clone, Raps. I'm a living human being with thoughts and opinions of my own. Even the Apostles disagreed from time to time on what it mean to be a Christian.

With that many different options on the table, it's necessary to take a specific approach to the problem at hand. All these different variations of one faith have at their heart one specific aspect - they all believe in a (fairly similar) god.

But in your case what you do is make basic assumptions that are often wrong and apply them broadly to everyone. That's not fair.

The law in question effectively expects invokes some sort of credibility for a deity (or supernatural force).

Actually it doesn't It simply accepts that many people celebrate a major holiday during the winter. It provides for variety . . . you could celebrate a major winter holiday that is completely secular in origin (like New Year's) and it would be protected under this law. That's the unintended benefit to non-Christians I mentioned.

I don't accept the claims that such a being exists.

No one said you had to.

To be continued . . .

[Panacea]

Continued . . .

There are quite a number of things I can go into detail on in this regard, so feel free to put forward your views on this.

Oh, I will! And have.

However, without any sort of evidence of the existence of this being, is this even slightly reasonable to propose? Isn't the very foundation of this regulation baseless?

Evidence of existence is not a requirement of the Establishment Clause.

I think the regulation is unnecessary and politically motivated, rather than a genuine expression of faith or a desire to protect faith. That is a better argument against this law (not a regulation) than what you've said.

I think so, and quite frankly should someone produce something that is convincing evidence for such a being then I would happily go down on bended knee.

That's entirely up to you. You've heard the Good News of Jesus Christ, and have rejected it. All I can do is give you the news. Accepting it is completely and totally up to you. You must make up your own mind.

I've seen claims time and again, but I've yet to see any that withstood reasonable scrutiny.

Reasonable to you. That's fine. That's your right. My right is to accept God, and I don't have to leave him out of my life because of yours or anyone else's objections as long I don't actively shove my faith down anyone's throat.

The very basis of this law is to protect something that cannot even be shown (or will not depending on the excuses used) to exist.

Again, it doesn't matter if God can be shown to exist or not. What matters is whether or not this law infringes on anyone elses ability to follow their own faith or lack thereof. If it does, then there is a basis for repeal under the Establishment Clause.

[Panacea]

Without that very law, there's little question that we would be a dominionist Christian country (probably Catholic).

Catholicism was a minority religion in the United States at its founding. The two biggest Christian denominations were Anglicans (now Episopalians) and Puritans, with Quakers a close third and Catholics a distant fourth. Catholics have been persecuted for much of our history, and it was a major concern in the 1962 election.

Without the Establishment Clause, we would have seen a repeat of the religious purges and wars that Europe had had and was still having at the time of the Revolution. We'd had such an issue here in America during the English Civil War: when the Roundheads beheaded Charles I, Puritans in Maryland overthrew the colonial government of Maryland (which was predominately Catholic because Maryland was established as a Catholic colony).

The Founders didn't want to deal with that kind of conflict anymore. They were a diverse group: Puritans, Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Anglicans. They wanted peace and unity, so they wrote the First Amendment with the intention of preventing further religious conflict.

While it hasn't always prevented religious discrimination and persecution, it has worked very well for us.

[Nekojin]

I stand corrected.

[s_stabeler]

I have a simple opinion on this thread: the law basically says that you can have a christmas celebration without worrying about some killjoy suing on the basis that merely putting on a christmas celebration is offensive. The law does not, as far as I can tell, allow you to compel participation in such a celebration (although Christmas is increasingly secular in practice)

[Andara Bledin]

The law does not, as far as I can tell, allow you to compel participation in such a celebration (although Christmas is increasingly secular in practice)

Actually, the law quite specifically prohibits any sort of coercion or proselytizing within the displays.

A display relating to a traditional winter celebration may not include a message that encourages adherence to a particular religious belief.

It doesn't need to disallow forced participation as the law only creates an allowance of displays and the teaching of the history of traditional displays. The only non-passive portion is the section that denotes that nobody is breaking the law by wishing someone a greeting that mentions something religious.