Hi Racheal, I really didn’t mean to disclaim Your words but rather those that seem to be in your “book.”

RACHEL WRITES: My government book (I’m a high school student) gives most of the credit for our Constitution to Christianity, and damn near uses that to justify religion in government. Disgusting.

The links I sent where to show you that there is a Separation of Church and State and that there was to be NO single church or religion over another.  Hence Freedom of Religion.

Rachel, your statement isn’t wrong.  Jefferson, Madison, et. al. ALL believed strongly that religion has absolutely no place in government.  Guiding principles are just that - the golden rule?, etc. Religion certainly has zero claim on how people should treat each other as religions wish evil upon non-believers - sad, sick, inhumane and a source of grief over the ages, but true.  Power and control is the goal of ALL religions.

Hi Rachael maybe you ought to read a couple of these links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

http://nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

I don’t know what school you’re going to or what government book you’re having to read, but your statement is wrong.

As I mentioned yesterday, the source of the homily was James George Frazer’s The Golden Bough, abridged edition as published by the Oxford University Press page 625.

Certain religious types claim to have a lock on morality and the virtues and sentiments expounded upon by the Aztec Priest to his congregation at the end of the Festival of the Flayed God.  This festival featured the human sacrifice of a goodly number of people.  Their bodies were skinned and the skins worn by volunteers and selected members of the community, as if they were wearing union suits.  The hands of the victims were cut so the person wearing the skin could still use their hands.  The skins were worn for twenty days, and then as they were rotting,  the skins were removed and buried with all due religious trappings.  The homily was reported by a Spanish monk who observed the festival.

Speaks volumes about the messages and morality of those of religious certainty ...

Here’s another way all can help PRGP:

Last week, the head of the C.I.A., Michael Hayden, announced the agency destroyed tapes of what he called a “harsh interrogation” and what you and I would call torture. The reason? To protect agency operatives from legal consequences.

Thankfully, members of Congress are already expressing their outrage over this action. Senator Kennedy said, “We haven’t seen anything like this since the 18 and a half minute gap on the tapes of Richard Nixon.”

This is a cover-up of epic proportions, but to get Attorney General Mukasey to take action, we need to keep the pressure on. That’s why I just signed this petition demanding that Attorney General Mukasey immediately appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate what’s been going on at the C.I.A., and prosecute if appropriate. Can you join me?

Sign the petition at http://www.aclu.org/ciacoverup

Thanks,
Dominick

Excellent PRGP and all can help by doing the following.  I Made my ‘phone call to Senator Feinstein and you can call your elected offical to do the same!

Hi,
I just took action on this item and would ask if you
can you help by follwoing the link below?
We need to flood Senators phone lines in advance of the vote for NO telecom immunity and ask them to join Senator Dodds fillibuster.
Follow this link:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/filibuster

Then please forward this message to your friends and familys.

Thanks,
Dominick

Yankee - Since the 2006 elections didn’t cause the Dems to grow any gonads, it would seem that it is now up to the people.  Apathy breeds contempt by those in power.  The American people, at least a militant plurality, must take to the streets, literally and figuratively to put the fear of the people into our supposed leaders.  Boycott the snivelling press (print and electronic), support the voices that speak truth to power, hammer congress with letters and threats of being tossed.  The meek will inherit nothing but sorrow and lost freedom.

In one rather disgusting way the R’s have something going for them. They want to portray their opponents whether they be secular-humanists, or liberal Christians (most of the Democratic party), as traitors. They debase the flag, those who in thier disgust can no longer honour it are painted as traitors. They turn the republic into an imerilaist clepto-pluto-theocratic entity, that no person of conscience can support, and all those who now oppose it become traitors. This is how they intend to separate the lerned people of conscience from the common people. We have to be vigilant that they don’t succeed.

Dom, As if the the Newtster would listen.  He’s one of the worst panderers and a huge “Christian” hypocrite (hypocrisy seems endemic with religous folk).

PRGP some ought to tell Gingtich this.  I just watched and listened to him on a program this morning. Still the Dupe or is that Dope?

Having heard Mr. Romney’s speech, I must say, as a student of Mormonism (born/raised in SLC - NOT a Mormon), he was slick, pandering, into avoidance of his religious beliefs and wrong in his opinions.  Freedom absolutely does not require religion.  In fact the religions of the world severly inhibit the freedom of humans to value each other and help each other.  Opiate of the masses?  More like master of the masses.  Keep it all out of government - the founders knew what they were doing - leave the Constitution alone!

#118605 by Thomas Billis

Thanks for the exact dating.  I remember having to relearn the pledge because of the change.  Anything to separate us from those godless communists.

#118601 by cyrena

Thanks for the comprehensive list of definitions

  Coming into the discussion late, there isn’t much left to expound upon.  However it struck me that the question of morality always seems to arise when talking about candidates and religion.  From the “faithful” we hear about the higher standards of morals and ethics they adhere to.  Recent research has shown that nonbelievers or atheists score higher on morality/ethical tests than do believers.  Other recent findings indicate that morality may be hardwired into our species, in fact evidence of morality being hardwired appears in all primates. 

Fidelity to the stone age stories and myths continues albeit well edited to fit whatever occasion or location.

Just for fun I have added a report on a hominy given in the past.  I’m sure you will recognize the themes, motifs & etc..  tomorrow I identify the source, but feel free to speculate.

“ ...preached a sermon to the assembled congregation, in which he dwelt with pathetic eloquence on the meanness of human existence and exhorted his hearers to lead a sober and quiet life, to cultivate the virtues of reverence, modesty, humility and obedience, to be kind and charitable to the poor and to strangers; he warned them against the sins of robbery, fornication, adultery, and covetousness; and kindling with the glow of his oratory, he passionately admonished, entreated, and implored all who heard him to choose the good and shun the evil, drawing a dreadful picture of the ills that would overtake the wicked here and hereafter, while he painted in alluring colours the bliss in store for the righteous and the rewards they might expect to receive at the hands of the deity in the life to come.”

Another interesting story concerning religion’s involvement in politics.  Scroll down to the story entitled, “Bishop’s Bully from Politicized Pulpit”.

http://www.redstateupdate.net/

E.J. I cannot help myself from commenting again.If you think that there was brilliance in that speech please let me know where you went to school.I t must have been a seminary.“There is no freedom without faith”.I could give you a history of rligion destroying freedom from the “enlightenment"on down but it would take pages and is boring.I suggest you google the enlightenment and follow the logical course that the more that faith is kept under control freedom flourishes.To be totally free I believe you must totally discard faith and actually think for yourself but that discussion is for another time.While you bask in the brilliant parts of a speech that basically says if you do not believe in judeo christian ethos the United States is not the place for you I will bask in the realization you have become an idiot.

I share Romney’s view that “liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government,”

Utter nonsense, I’m very happy Buddhism is not a religion.

I did want to talk a bit about the constitution. Why did the framers put so much stress on the separation of church and state? They had all been well versed in recent European history. They were familar with the hundred years war, and of the devine right of kings. They also knew that religion in America is far more varied than in individual European countries. They knew that a deeply religious, but religously varied people would soon come to blows if they let religion and government mix. We are far more diverse religiously today than the founders could have imagined in their wildest dreams. We ignore their admonishment to our great peril.

Clearly TruthDig readers GET IT! EJ needs to try a thought experiment. Pretend for a week that you are an atheist. This doesn’t mean you have to give up your faith, just that you try to see the world, and your relationship to its peoples as an atheist would. I’ve spent decades as either a Buddhist, or atheist, so I have no problem identifying how these people think. Its pretty disturbing to have others consider you to be some lower form of life because you don’t share the same beliefs. Beliefs that to you seem to be nothing more than delusions.

  We all need to perform these sorts of thought experiments from time to time. If I believed as X does, or had his history etc. how would I see the world. This should not be too hard to do. But it does require temporarily putting our own worldview in the corner for awhile.

I find it just amazing that these Christians profess they are “GOD fearing” Christians. It is a know fact if you fear something or someone, you cannot trust them, and if you cannot trust them, you cannot love them. Ann Landers stated in an article I read as a child probably in the middle 1960’s, that she would rather have God loving people as opposed to God fearing people. I agree, why do these people who fear their God want to force it-him onto others. That is not very nice of them.

And for all the politicians out their professing their religious beliefs, you all should be fired. Most companies I worked for forbid the forcing of your personal religious views onto others while preforming your job, it should be no different for these elected representatives. Besides, didn’t the invaders from England flee their land because of religious persecution in the first place. Government has no business in establishing rules for the people of this country from their religious feelings or beliefs. Emotions tend to cloud the issues and exclude logic and commonsense.

And Mitt, does that sacred underwear come in a thong style?

Thomas Billis on 12/07 at 3:47 am
Cyrena under god in the Pledge of Allegiance I think was included in 1953 during the Mccarthy era to show us a god fearing nation verses the those atheistic communists.So you have Joe McCarthy to thank for the under God part of the Pledge of Allegiance.God works in mysterious ways.

Dominick:  No Thomas it’s Eisenhower to thank for those extra words added.  When we went into a cold war with Russia.  He wanted them to know we belived in a Higher form of life.

Religion has its place in our private lives I guess but only if men refrain from defining religions role in our lives through their own prejudices.
Religion has no role in OUR Government and whomever claims religion has a role is a bigot by attempting to to force their beliefs upon us, I want none of it.
I was indoctrinated into catholicism from kindergarten up until the third grade but I was denied further indoctrination (much to my delight) because I was incorrigible.
At least back then Catholics preached the Ten Commandments and had to go to confession to save your soul but stayed out of Politics but seeing how Evangelists have succeeded in blurring the lines of Church from State ( thanks to the Reps.)they now have become much more active in Political policy.

What this country needs is a man or woman to
declare once again the principle of Church from State in NO uncertain terms.

It just irks me to all get out to hear these morons decry Islam Theocracies only to have you accept their Christian Theocracy.

Of course, it’s easy to make fun of Mormons, since many of their beliefs seem so downright weird (wearing of sacred underwear; religious ceremonies in which a man’s sex organs are sprayed with water to ensure fertility; belief that Cain, the first murderer, also became the first Negro, etc.).

Of course, Joseph Smith was a not-very-talented fraud. The Book of Mormon has large passages copied word for word from the King James Bible—including the translation errors. His “Book of Mormon”—his amusing attempt to write the Great American Novel—contains several grammatical errors that God would probably not commit, like making the past tense of “endure” the non-word “enduren.”

Whole books have been published itemizing these obvious flaws.

But all religions have articles of faith that are, viewed from the outside, pretty damned bizarre. Both Islam and Judaism, for example, share the belief in cutting off the naturally-occurring foreskin from a man’s penis as a sign of faith. Dang!

Most Christians hold the non-sensical belief that God is both one being, and three beings. A famous Christian theologian, Tertullian, explained this belief with the simple phrase, “I believe it BECAUSE it is absurd.” Thus Jesus, in the Garden of Gethsemane, was praying to his “father” who is, simultaneously, himself.

Moslems are often horrified at the notion that God impregnated Mary. From their point of view, I can understand their horror. What were the mechanics of this act? And if you believe in the Trinity, was Jesus his own father?

Really, all religions are subject to easy mockery. If you believe in a particular religion, go ahead. Enjoy yourself. But don’t make your religious beliefs a basis for law. Good law requires a logical—not a religious—foundation.

Religion, by definition, is belief in things which cannot be demonstrated or proved. As such, it is a remarkably poor foundation for systems of government. This is true whether the particular religion is Christianity, Islam, or any other religion. If you base law on religious principles, which are not the province of logic or proof, then the laws themselves are beyond logic or proof.

This is not to say that all religious law is illogical: some of it is, and some of it isn’t. The point is, none of it can be subjected to rational discussion and proof. After all, it’s “the word of God.” In the ancient Hebrew theocracy, for example, the (logical) law against theft was on equal footing with the (illogical) law against eating shellfish.

Good government should have exactly zero connection to religion, and good religion should have zero connection to government.

This is one creepy guy.  I love how “people of faith” claim the moral high ground no matter how low-life they really are.  How about a candidate that tells the religious right to go to hell.  How about a candidate who knows and understands the Constitution of the United States.  And how about the media sticking to important issues at hand and drop the religious crap…

The Republicans don’t seem to have any decent candidates, except maybe Ron Paul, and the Democratic candidates don’t look all that great, although there are several that could make good presidents.

That said, the two-party system seems to be failing us. And, more Americans seem to be ready for an alternative.

More on this in the article ...

“Independent centrist candidates might strike chord with voters”

American Chronicle
July 31, 2006

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11985

Romneys speech sound ded good, but that’s all it did!

Mitt has said he wouldn’t use his religion as a guide if he were President, but he clearly is against Same Sex marriage because of his religious beliefs and he’s against removing DADT because of those same beliefs. 
Both of those issues are clearly Civil Rights issues but he, like Evangelicals and some of those running for the Presidency from the Democrat party, use their religious beliefs to “Control” the LGBT right to anything and guide their decisions.  They’re all liars!

Felicity: As an aside, I’m not particularly fond of the god talking to, directing and advising George Bush.  One could even say that that god is the one we citizens are now ‘under.

Dominick:  There is a great funny side to this.  In one of those, <groan>, many speeches Bush gave outside, while he was giving one of his Lies about how well the war was going, a bird flew over him and crapped on his shoulder, no lie!! It was then I said GOD was talking to him just at that time and he wasn’t even listening!

When these religious types take over everyone who is not if their belief is inferior and in too many of their minds should not exist. Look at how history in this country has shown what was done to others accused of not being of the same religious group. Most were killed in one torturous way or another. From the (mostly) women and a few men accused of witchcraft or being in league with the devil to the indigenous people here when first the Puritans then the Christians invaded this country and slaughtered these people as being “red devils’ or heathens and therefore unworthy of existing. Religion was behind it all. If this is what God is about, we certainly do not need something so negative, hate filled and destructive as God. Especially in a person who follows these so called values running the country. If you do not meet their standards what will they do to those who think differently? Will they get equal treatment in this country under the narrow views of the so called religious right?

There is little mention of the group of settlers that the leader of the Mormon church deliberately mislead and sent them to their deaths by giving them wrong directions on purpose and not helping out with food or water either in the early days of the Mormon church. Real Christian of them.

When Mitt Romneys father was governor of Michigan many people felt he was so dishonest that if there was a 5 cent reward on his own mothers head, he would turn her in for it. The fruit does not fall far from the tree. And as for all the religioue hype, those are the very people you should seperate yourself from as they are not trustworthy.

I clearly remember when ‘under God’ became part of the Pledge because I haven’t said the Pledge since then - and I’m a practicing Catholic.

I’m not sure which ‘God’ this nation is supposed to be ‘under.’ Since there are as many ‘gods’ in this world as there are religions, and therefore no such thing as a generic god, it rather leaves it up to the powers-that-be to determine which ‘god’ we’re all supposed to be ‘under.’

As an aside, I’m not particularly fond of the god talking to, directing and advising George Bush.  One could even say that that god is the one we citizens are now ‘under.’

I didn’t watch the speech so I’m wondering if he addressed the official Mormon racism of which he was a part well into his adulthood.

That “freedom requires religion” bit is without question one of the most insulting things I have ever heard of a politician saying.  I wonder how Thomas Jefferson would respond to such drivel.  That statement alone should disqualify him from ever holding public office again.

Here’s everything you ever wanted or needed to know about Mormonism (this is the video they don’t want you to see).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo

EJ you said “I share Romney’s view that “liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government” and it’s your right to believe that. Thankfully you will never be president. Unfortunately there is a chance that Mitt Romney might be and the fact that he believes that those of us who are “secular” don’t have the same rights as the “faithful” makes him damn scary. I consider myself an agnostic as so clearly stated in cyrena’s post. I don’t care what other think and believe or how or where they worship. Just want them to keep their damn religion out of our government. Jack Kennedy spoke of his faith and made it perfectly clear that he believed in an absolute separation of church and state. Mitt just wants an acceptance of “his” faith. Thus Mitt Romney is unfit to be president of ALL the people of the United States with our diverse beliefs and faiths. Wish my faith allowed me to believe there are enough rational people to find Mitt unacceptable.

I just checked it was 1954

Cyrena under god in the Pledge of Allegiance I think was included in 1953 during the Mccarthy era to show us a god fearing nation verses the those atheistic communists.So you have Joe McCarthy to thank for the under God part of the Pledge of Allegiance.God works in mysterious ways.

•  “….Religion can certainly be conducive to freedom. But does freedom require religion?....”

NO!! NO!! and NO!!! again!

•  “….Is religion always conducive to freedom?...”

NO!! NO!! And NO!!! a million times!! It has proven (over the centuries) LESS conductive to freedom far more often that it IS!!

EJ’s piece is basically good. (IMO) Where it falls short, is not necessarily his fault, but rather the deterioration in the general understanding of terms like religion, and spirituality, (they are NOT THE SAME) and particularly the idea concept and meaning of SECULAR/SECULARISM. It’s the language that keeps getting so screwed up, and the failure of our cultures to utilize it in a way that everybody basically gets the same meaning from it.

For instance, how does one behave or think as a “militant atheist?” If a person is an atheist, then they’re an atheist, there is no ‘degree of atheism”.

•  An atheist is a person who does not believe in God.

That’s from the dictionary. That’s pretty clear. It doesn’t say whether or not they care if OTHER people believe in God. It just means that THEY don’t. How is this a problem?

Now, here’s another type belief relating to the notion/concept/existence of God. Agnostic.

•  Agnostic – 1.Somebody who believes it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. 2. Somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood.

Simple enough. (I’m an agnostic by the way). Maybe God exists, and maybe God doesn’t. It just depends on how one ‘interprets’ the concept of God, since there is no ‘proof’ either way.

And, that’s the difference between religion and spirituality. If Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, then he might have seen God in the Ocean, or in a dog, or in the Sun, or the rain, or a flower, or all of those, plus many more. (Maybe, I don’t know…that’s just the sort of conceptual connection that I might make). Still, no proof.

Secular/Secularism. Here is lies the biggest misunderstanding/conception of all. I’m going to provide the various definitions for this as well.

•  Secular- 1. NOT CONCERNED WITH RELIGION. Not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters.

•  Secularism – 1 The belief that religion and religious bodies should have no part in political or civic affairs or in running public institutions, especially schools. 2. The rejection of religion or its exclusion from a philosophical or moral system.
Does any of this mean that any of these are AGAINST religion, or that they REJECT religion entirely? NOPE!! It means that a moral system, does NOT require (nor should it be based on) religion. It means that religion (and the various rules/doctrines/philosophies and belief systems) should NOT be the basis for a political structure or the rules of law by which it constructed. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to co-exist, only that that religion should not be the basis for it.

MORALS are not determined by religion. One need not be a “believer in God” to know that it is IMMORAL to murder or steal from another individual/human. If they DON’T know that, then we have these nice man made laws designed to make sure they do.

•  Secular Humanism – a philosophy or world view that stresses human values without reference to religion or spirituality.

I’m a secular humanist. Secular humanism IS conducive to liberty and justice for all (the original last few words of the US Pledge of Allegiance) without having to be ‘under’ God (or on the sides of God, or in the middle of God).

Speaking of which, those words “under God” that everybody gets so shook up about, were NOT included in the original document. My reading, (which I can source later for anyone who really needs it) tells me that those words were added sometime around the early 1950’s, at or around the time of the Korean War. (I don’t know why or by whom – might be an interesting inquiry)

Amen.

EJ you go to your Church and I will not go.You are completely out of your mind.His speech was more of that Christy shit.I am sure before you go to sleep EJ God tells you that liberty is his gift to us.I am sure all the people who died for this liberty would have preferred it was not at such a high cost.EJ I could care loess whether you and Mitt Romney sit in the front row of church everyday what I object to is making this secular country I was born in Christianland.I guess you and Thomas Jefferson disagree.He was a deist.Here is a sober thought Thomas Freaking Jefferson could not win an election in the United States because he did not swear allegiance to Christ.The Founding Fathers had no trouble with Jeffersons beliefs they appointed him to post after post and the people had no problem with it either they elected him twice to the Presidency.We could not elect a Jefferson now but we can elect Jesus Freaks by dozen.By the way EJ how is the American theocracy working out.