United Liberty

Morality and religion are not dependent on each other. I’ve met far more “moral” men who were atheists than men who claimed they were religious, yet did “immoral” things. Religious men tend to lean toward hypocrisy, wherein their actions are not fitting of their claimed beliefs, primarily because they feel they have only God to whom they must answer and that such a being will forgive them.

It is these atheists, deists, and philsophical non-deists who are quite frequently more “moral” than the stereotypical modern Christian.

Fortunately for Christians, the locus of control is centralized, so the established hierarchy of the Church is free to bring down the hammer and distance itself from any self-proclaimed Christian who has “lost their way”.

There are many paths to enlightenment, and it’s unfortunate that so much Christians are not at all like their Christ.

“Jefferson understood that our liberties come from God, and that if they do not come from God then they are granted by government, and can be taken by government at their pleasure.”

Incorrect. If rights do not come from a god, that doesn’t mean they come from a government. Rights are inherent. Every human has them just for being alive. It’s the government that “recognizes” such rights, not gives them. In other words, the Bill of Rights didn’t give us any rights that we didn’t already have. The rights listed are there because they should be protected.

I would suggest reading Chapter 2 of Michael Badnarik’s book, “Good to be King”. He offers that chapter for free because people like you keep making this mistake.

Anonymous,
I did not claim that morality and religion were dependent upon each other, nor that atheists can not be moral people. However, for atheists morality becomes a matter of logic…I behave morally because I want other people to reciprocate, which would lead to a peaceful society. However, detached from God, morality has no inherent root. In other words, if I am weak I embrace morality in society because I want the protection that societal morality provides. Yet if I am strong, rich and powerful and can do whatever I please, what attraction does morality hold for me? In that case, morality precludes or inhibits me from exercising power to increase what I already have. Detached from God/religion, morality is illogical from a purely Darwinian perspective. Being stronger makes me better and subjugation of the weak is simply the natural result from implementation of “survival of the fittest”.

I wholeheartedly agree that there are many people who claim to be Christians (or Muslims or Buddhists or Jews) who fall far short of the ideals of their espoused religion. While some of that is due to hypocrisy and expediency (recalling the number of murderers on Death Row or weeping politicians caught in adultery who suddenly “find Jesus”…he was hiding behind the couch!), much of it is simply the imperfection of the human condition. I consider myself to be a “good Christian”, but I am far from perfect and readily admit my shortcomings.

I think the key is being religious while also realizing that this requires a personal relationship with God, and not just relying on the words of men in positions of religious power, who may or may not be moral people. If all Christians were like the televangelists on TV, I’d never step into a church. Often times I think Christ would be appalled at some of the things that are done and said in His name. However, the failures of his adherents do not diminish the perfection of His teachings. (And thank you for providing opposing commentary without belittling or insulting).

Scott,
I respectfully disagree. Detached from our divine nature as children of God, what makes our rights inherent (see comments above concerning Darwinism)? If we are not children of God then we are just another one of millions of species of animal upon the Earth, so what makes those rights inherent? And you restated the very point that I was making. Government does not “grant” rights, it protects rights that are inherent in us by virtue of our birth. I’ll be happy to read Badnarik’s chapter, but my assertion that rights come from God is not a mistake, even if you happen to disagree. The concept that we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights” was a new concept, and without that concept we would still be subject to a king, having no rights but those granted by government. Good comments though…

If there is no separation between church and state then I guess you won’t mind if America starts incorporating Islam into it’s legal system? Or how about Wicca?

Vast,
Did you even read the article, or go back and read the letters I referenced? I said that there was nowhere found in the Constitution or the Declaration the phrase “separation of church and state”, or anything like it. Read the Constitution…”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” What is so hard to understand about that? The “wall” is, as Jefferson noted, one way. It keeps government out of the affairs of the church, and bans the establishment of a national religion. The incorporation of Sh’aria would be a de facto incorporation of Islamic religion into civic law, which violates the clear text of the Constitution.

If the majority of Americans reach a point where Islamic principles are embraced then that could very well be incorporated into our legislation and jurisprudence (i.e., regulations limiting usury or alcohol use), reflected in our laws, without violating the Constitution, just as many Judeo-Christian principles are codified in our laws without creating a national religion.

Your missing the point.

When you have prayer in public schools, you are forcing non-Christian students to either participate or become ostracized.

When you have religious icons in the public square the government is in effect lifting one faith above all others, which in effect violates the 1st amendment.

And as you state the incorporation of Sh’aria into our laws would violate the constitution, which I agree with, but incorporating the 10 commandments, creating laws banning same sex marriage because it’s a sin per Christian mythology are just as much a violation of the constitution as Sh’aria would be.

So what you are saying is so that the 10-15% of the population that do not self-identify as Christians must muzzle any expression of our faith in order to not offend non-Christians? Nonsense. The Supreme Court and the federal and state legislatures start each day with a prayer. Church was held in the U.S. Capitol for many years after it was built until some of the large churches in Washington, D.C. were built. We have religious symbols all throughout our national monuments, on our currency and in virtually every aspect of public life.

Those who do not participate are not ostracized. They do not get pointed out and mocked. And if they are offended then they should grow a thicker skin. I am not offended when I see a Jewish menorah or when I have been present during a celebration of Hannukah with a friend. I can hear a prayer and not participate. I can attend church with a Catholic friend and not take the wafer and wine without feeling like I am being shunned. We can have public expressions of faith without believing in that faith, but still showing respect for it.

The Ten Commandments are indeed incorporated into law, but that is because they are limitations on behavior accepted by all (or most) societies, not just Christianity. Thou shalt not kill (murder), thou shalt not steal (robbery, theft, burglary), thou shalt not bear false witness (perjury, defamation)…which of these would you get rid of for the crime of being “Christian”? The ones that are overtly religious (thou shalt have no other gods before me, thou shalt make no graven image, thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, thou shalt not covet, honor thy father and thy mother) are not codified in law.

Your assertion that religious icons in the public square is absurd on its face. As I noted, Washington DC is filled with religious symbols, much of them designed by the Founding Fathers, who wrote the Constitution you claim it violates.

Also, laws banning same sex marriage were created only in response to the courts and a few legislatures that attempted to force a change in the definition of marriage that has been practiced for thousands of years across virtually every culture and society, Christian and non-Christian. Same-sex marriage is not a right, and 31 of 31 states that have put it to a vote have upheld the traditional definition of marriage. That is not a purely Christian issue. Even the majority of Californians, arguably the most liberal state in the nation, voted to maintain the traditional definition.

“Those who do not participate are not ostracized. They do not get pointed out and mocked.”

Actually, Louis that is exactly what was happening in the 50s when cases like Engle v. Vitale were making their way to the Supreme Court. Catholic and Jewish children were mocked and bullied because they refused to participate in a prayer that was against their religious beliefs.

2005 Van Orden v. Perry, upheld the right to display the Ten Commandments in public (Texas). Said Chief Justice William Rehnquist, “Our cases, Janus like, point in two directions in applying the Establishment Clause. One face looks toward the strong role played by religion and religious traditions throughout our Nation’s history…. The other face looks toward the principle that governmental intervention in religious matters can itself endanger religious freedom.” He was referring to similar KY and TX cases with split rulings. In the Engle case. I think you can make an adjudication against that type of harassment without using the Establishment Clause as your basis. This type of behavior is unlawful whether you are being harassed because you are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, black, Hispanic, gay…whatever. Don’t infringe on the rights of hundreds of millions of Christians (or Jews or Muslims) because of a few idiots.

How many people does it have to be before its wrong? 1000? 100,000? 10,000,000?

Murder and theft are not crimes because they are part of the 10 commandments. They are crimes because they rob a person of their right to life, liberty, and the ownership of property.

As for the definition of marriage, your history is wrong. There have been recognized legal forms of same sex marriage through all of human history and in many cultures from the Roman Empire, to the Native Americans, to 18th and 19th century China. It was only when Christianity decided that they needed to out populate the rest of the civilized cultures of the world did it become something to be shunned and hated.

The phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the underlying principle of the First Amendment and the no-religious-test clause of the Constitution. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and later learned they were mistaken. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists—as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] … the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state. I commend it to you. http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf

Separation of church and state was deliberately intended. Forget Jefferson and your spurious claim of a “one-way wall”. James Madison, the main author of the Constitution and Bill of Rights directly speaks in favor of the *total* separation of church and state. He speaks of the danger of religious intrusion into the affairs of the state. Separation is absolute FACT, as evidenced by Madison’s words:

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. ” (Detached Memoranda)

“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together” (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

“The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State” (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)

Vast,
It only takes one to be wrong, but as I noted, that can be dealt with legally through means other than suppressing the religious expression of the majority. As for your comments on gay marriage being practiced by many civilizations, would you be so kind as to provide your source for that claim? I’ve heard it repeated often but never sourced. I know that a number of civilizations have devolved to the point where they practiced and condoned sodomy and various forms of sexual deviancy (stated as being outside the norm of human behavior, not as a moral judgment), but then, those civilizations all fell, didn’t they?

Doug,
Excellent response. You given me a humber of points to ponder. I think we actually agree more than disagree on this issue. I have no desire to see ecclesiastical authority mixed with civil authority (i.e., I don’t think that the Pope should dictate policy any more than I would accept the implementation of Sh’aria law), and in truth, I think it would have a negative impact on the mission of churches. My problem is when government interferes with free religious expression in the name of the separation concept. Saying a prayer at a football game is not an establishment of religion, but banning it is certainly an impediment to “the free exercise thereof”. Forcing the catholic Adoption Services to place children with gay couples or close down (especialy when there are other agencies that DO place children with gay couples) is an infringement on religious belief. The same issue applies with eHarmony (which was started as a Christian dating service) being forced by the courts to advertise for homosexuals. Or prohibiting Christmas displays.

Madison also stated “It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.” Would the circumscription of religious expression not be a violation of that principle?

Aveteran,
Spurious, huh? Somebody is getting good use out of that Word-of-the-Day calender. As far as Madison being the “author” of the Constitution, let us take him at his own word…”“You give me a credit to which I have no claim in calling me ‘the writer of the Constitution of the United States.’ This was not, like the fabled Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads and many hands.”

I understand the need to keep the clergy and the government separate, but you go too far in asserting that the principles and morality which have traditionally sprung from religion can be lawfully segregated from the legislative action. The principles upon which the Constitution was founded are derived primarily from the Magna Carta, English common law and the Bible (Judeo-Christian principles). They can not be separated and still function as intended.

I don’t buy your claim. Religion can and should be separated from legislation. A law based on religion rather than reason is inherently unjust and prejudicial.

Agnostic parents are not “offended” by the fact that the BSA has an oath to their god. The problem is ( and I am a Unitarian, not an agnostic) that no organization has the right to discriminate against my children, operating on my tax-payer dime in our public school. We are practicing our religious convictions. This is not that complicated. You either stop discriminating against people on religious grounds in public institutions, or go find some private facility in which to do so; like a church.

Our law is not based on religion (as I noted above, only 4 of 10 of the Ten Commandments are codified in American law, and those four are universally accepted principles of civil society, regardless of religion). The fact is that around 85% of the country, according to various polls, self-identify as Christians, with additional adherents to other religions. However, our morals and values are derived in large part by our belief system (for what is law but a codification of the rules governing civil behavior?). You can’t ask people to divorce their morals from their religion, nor should you try to bar them from political activity because they hold religious beliefs.

Scare Bear, thanks…that was the point I was trying to make.

Unitarian,
I have no idea what in the world you are talking about. What in the world does Boys Scouts have to do with public schools and government funding? BSA is a private organization. The case in point concerning public lands was a lease agreement made by the Boy Scouts that they would provide clean-up and maintenance of the park in exchange for a reduced lease on that land. The public was free to use the land that the BSA maintained. What is your gripe? I’m sorry, I just don’t understand the point you are trying to make. And are you saying that the BSA should not be able to set requirements for its members? What about freedom of association?

The BSA holds its meetings in my sons public school, but they refuse to allow him to join on religious grounds. This constitutes discrimination.

Unitarian,
The Constitution guarantees us freedom of association. If you are atheist or agnostic, why would you want your son to join Scouts in the first place? The Scouts are what they are because of what they believe. Odd that you would respect the organization (else why would you want to join) yet oppose their beliefs. By the way, the Girl Scouts also would refuse to allow your son to join. Will you also ban them from public property for sex discrimination?

I never called mysel an atheist. I am a Unitarian. I have no beef with Trinitarians, Christians, anybody, so when my son told me that the BSA was recruiting in his classroom I called to find out from the den leader if he could join. I explained to him that we did not take oaths to the deity called “God,” (neither should any follower of the Abrahamic traditions, “God” being another of the names of the pagan deity “Odin”- but that is beside the point) but as Unitarians my son would gladly take an oath to Nature and nature’s law. They refused. Like I said, my dime, my school, my First Amendment, and my Civil Rights Act. I have no issue with freedom of assocoation, just do not discriminate against my children in the public school that I pay for.

Girl Scouts? Title 9. Equal access and opportunity for gender. And oddly enough, they do not discriminate on the basis of religion.

But back to you, should an organization operating in a public school have a right to discriminate against Jews? Catholics? African-Americans? Freedom of association, right?

While I despise religion and all its criminality and excuses for failure of prayers and behavior of its members, I do support the right of individuals to believe WHATEVER they like as long as that doesn’t infringe on my right to mock and ridicule it. If astrologers and psychics had the same power religion has in this country, and did the same things religion does with our tax dollars, I would speak out against them as well.

It is such a shame that we have insane, ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum. Liberals are idiots when it comes to solving real problems, as are ultra religious conservatives. It seems both try to legislate their own version of morality, often invoking religious scriptures (which are not credible).

The reason we need a separation of church and state and we need to ban coerced prayers on students in schools is simple. Because Christians don’t like it when other religious beliefs are forced on their children (such as Islam or paganism or witchcraft), so why do they wish to impose their beliefs on students who aren’t Christian?

Government neutrality is the only real solution to this dilemma. The government shouldn’t use tax money to support or prohibit a person’s religious/non-religious conscience. It also keeps checks and balances between theocrats who want to persecute others as “non-believers” and statists who want to violate a person’s individual liberty to exercise their religion freely.

What is amazing to me is how right wing christians can support capitalism, which is all about loving money, and yet believe in the bible, which condemns the love of money as well as condemning coveting and even says to redistribute the wealth. I suppose they are pretending their god is a capitalist in spite of the bible showing a psychotic lunatic as their deity. Just like liberals pretend to “care for the children”, when in fact their promotion of statism will result in our children paying off a debt they never deserved.

A solution to the conservative crying game issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc) is very simple. Keep government from getting involved in ALL marriage and keep government out using tax money for abortion. If the government were limited as it should be, these presidential 4 year issues would disappear. For those of you who voted for Bush in 2000/2004, I don’t doubt some of you did ONLY because of his “pro-life” stance, and yet 8 years of him being president has NOT reduced or stopped abortions. That is because the population is asleep with these ideologies that never work in a free society.

A person who truly loves liberty needs to leave others alone in their pursuit of happiness, so long as that pursuit doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s right to do the same. Live and let live.

“High teen pregnancy rates, abortions, sexual disease, infidelity, divorce, heartbreak. Families broken apart, homes wrecked.”

Very interesting to note that the (willfully?) uninformed author ignores the simple fact that what he described above is much more a problem the more religious the state (or country) is. But why let reality interfere with one’s delusions, right?

And yes, Jefferson was a deist. But to say he was a “believer in Jesus” seems to imply he was just like you (the modern American Talib… I mean, evangelical). Which is obviously a lie. I saw, with my own eyes, the two Bibles Jefferson cut to make his own version. They are at the UVA library. He stripped Jesus of any divinity. Jefferson considered Jesus a great moral teacher (which “he” mostly wasn’t anyway, but that’s a different story), so he removed all super-natural non-sense. I suspect if Americans knew these little facts, they wouldn’t be so eager to (stupidly) worship the Founding Fathers.

Anonymous,
“modern American Taliban”? Really? How many Christians do you see going around kidnapping, torturing and beheading those that do not agree with them? How many strap bombs to themselves? How many attack innocent civilians? I thought I made pretty clear that Jefferson was not a Christian in the modern interpretation, but a deist who had great respect for the teachings of Christ, if not a belief in his divinity. Apparently your particular case of anti-religious, cranio-rectal inversion is so far advanced that you feel the need to argue against points that were never made.

There is also a big difference between worshiping the Founding Fathers and having a deep respect and reverence for what they sacrificed and what they accomplished. You obviously are anti-Christian, and that is your right. I started to get angry at your comments upon first glance, at the unnecessarily rude and personal denunciations and accusations. Then I realized that nothing I could say to you would make your angry existence any more miserable than it already is. I truly feel sorry for someone so bitter as to attack Jesus, whose only message was one of love and service. Having to choose between your moral code and His, I’ll take His every day of the week. Have a great day.

To Louis DeBroux : Jesus was hardly a “moral” teacher. What “moral” advice did he offer to anyone that you couldn’t find with ANY philosopher or teacher before or after his time? Jesus is not some “moral” master in a vaccuum. Others have come prior to Christianity which I find offer superior morality than that of Jesus. What about the immoral advice and beliefs Jesus offers? Did you forget about those?

If your excuse is to say it is “out of context”, then why didn’t Jesus know that his words would be misused and why wasn’t he ABSOLUTELY clear to avoid any confusion?

This is also assuming the existence of Jesus is even legitimate in history. Not even the historicity of Jesus is plausible, whether in the gospels or some pseudo-authored “historical” data. Elvis Presley has far more evidence of his existence and even his “resurrection” (the claim Elvis is still alive) than Jesus Christ ever or will ever have.

Believe in Jesus? Fine. Just don’t expect me to respect such a stupid belief as valid or realistic. The last thing a christian who worships that serial killing, child raping, lying, manipulative bully should be doing is telling muslims their god is “evil”. Both are evil, it’s just that muslims don’t have the advantage of having reached a secular view of the world yet.

Even the most devout of Christians in America behave as if they are atheists when it comes to miners stuck in a mine, or when they have to pass a test in school, or when they do experiments in a laboratory. I think deep down, they know prayer is a miserable failure that they are just not willing to admit doesn’t work. Come on Christians, buck up and admit prayer doesn’t work!

Anyway, if you wish to talk to yourself and rub your magical genie lamp to get your wish granted, fine. Just don’t try to force it on anyone else, including children in school or courts of law. Imagine a world where instead of praying to a sky daddy, everyone rubbed a lamp and made wishes and no wishes every came true. Would you want that to be in every school in America in the name of “morality”? What bullshit.

I’m out.

Anti-theist,
Your last comment captured you completely. You most certainly are out. Morally, intellectually out. Your foolishness and nastiness speaks for itself. Nothing I can say would reveal your idiocy more than allowing your own words to stand. You must be so fun to be around. Do you reserve this rage only for Christians, or for truly evil people as well?

Louis DeBroux : You first make the claim I am “morally out”. I’m not quite sure in what capacity you mean, but I can assure you my morality is superior than that of the Christian god in the text of scripture as well as how such a god is described by Christians today. So, you really have no place to state I am morally out.

Secondly, to presume I am intellectually out, you must believe that believing the claims of Christianity is “intellectually in”. If this is so, a simplistic defense of stating something “intellectual” about Christianity that is unique would suffice as an argument for you.

I reserve this rage rightfully so towards all superstitions and myths which cause more harm than good. Christianity is my gem in the desert because I was a christian for 18 years as well as a bigot for those 18 years. So, I do know about what I speak. Islam is a close second for me, primarily because I am not as familiar with it as I am with Christianity. However, I think Islam is the greater danger in the world today. That is why I try to get along with all people who wish to fight Islamic tyranny. This includes a great number of Christians.

I can’t recall anything I said to be “foolish”, although, I would take “nastiness” as a compliment. I mean, we are talking about Christianity aren’t we? I can think of no nicer words to say about a cult that has grown to the epic proportions it has or has done the amount of insane damage that it has. Before you call me nasty in my view of your religion, remember, the bible is quite NASTIER in what it says about non-believers. Not only does it call them childish names, it actually LIES about them as well as THREATENS them. I have not threatened you nor have I lied about you. I am 2 steps ahead of your blood cult. Yippy.

Anti-theist,
Obviously your departure from Christianity has rendered you a much more compassionate, emotionally stable person capable of expressing your thoughts rationally. A sampling:
“a psychotic lunatic as their deity”
“a christian who worships that serial killing, child raping, lying, manipulative bully”
“if you wish to talk to yourself and rub your magical genie lamp to get your wish granted”
“instead of praying to a sky daddy, everyone rubbed a lamp and made wishes and no wishes every came true…What bullshit.”
“your blood cult”

Religion is something that at the end of the day requires faith, but faith is not the same as blind obedience. We gain faith when we follow the precepts of Christianity and see the positive results that flow out from it.

You said you WERE a bigot for 18 years. I humbly submit that you are using the incorrect tense, as it appears to me that your bigotry started AFTER you left Christianity. I do not attempt to force my beliefs upon anyone, but neither will I allow those beliefs to be censored by political correctness. I also make it a point to assume the best motives in people until they give me a reason not to, and to respect their beliefs no matter how strange or unorthodox they may seem to me.

From the outside looking in it appears that when you lost your Christianity you also lost your capacity for civility. Your mockery and epithetic rants not only don’t sway my belief in Christ, it reinforces it. I now see just how angry and bitter one becomes after rejecting the gospel. Though you won’t appreciate it, I’ll offer a prayer in your behalf. I would not wish upon anyone a life filled with such bitterness and rage. It must be miserable.

Louis DeBroux, prejudice is judging before you know the matter or know a person. I am not doing that. I am judging Christianity from the ability to see it from within and without. I am judging the bible for the same reason. Such a book has no legitimacy for modern culture nor for rules to follow. We have plenty of secular laws on the books which are superior to the bible’s dictates. The only real context the bible has in schools for example, would be historical knowledge of religion and christianity, which certainly has influenced the world as any other religion has at some point. To use the bible for anything but that, is to use it for indoctrination purposes, not actual education.

As far as my remarks about Christianity, I don’t find them to be incorrect. The bible describes God just as what I claimed. He killed lots of people over time (serial killing), he lied to people (about a great number of things including the universe, morality, etc), he dictated the rape of children (those polite, civil Israelites doing his bidding), and such a fictional character could easily be called a bully.

You can’t say you are against the separation of church and state and then turn around and contradict that by saying “I do not attempt to force my beliefs upon anyone, but neither will I allow those beliefs to be censored by political correctness”. By having government give preference to one religion over another or over no religion is exactly what we would call an endorsement of “force my beliefs” on others. Not only that, saying you “won’t allow” people to censor you contradicts what your own scriptures say. Romans 13 says to submit to government, and do not fight it. Jesus even said in the gospels to not resist the power whether it is good or bad.

I need to clarify a couple points. The separation of church and state is only dealing with government or government tax supported services. In this case, it is in places like courts or schools. Students or people on trial have a right to exercise their religious beliefs, including praying or anything else so long as they don’t infringe on others to do the same. It is when those in government (judges, teachers, principals, politicians, etc), while being paid by the taxpayers push religious views on others who are powerless to fight them.

So, basically….Students can be as religious as they want to be. Teachers cannot during schools hours because they are receiving a salary by the taxpayer. I am not against private schools using private money to endorse any religion.

As far as civility, I respect you enough to talk to you like an adult, instead of passifying your childish religious notions of “namecalling”. If you were a grown up who believed in other silly things, I would not hold back either. To me, religion is nothing more than an overblown silly set of beliefs which deserve scrutiny, not reverence. What kind of “truth” can’t handle scrutiny? The false kind.

I’m not bitter or full of “rage” normally. I would say the most miserable people I have met have been religious people who aren’t happy unless I believe like they do. When I hang out with my christian friends or my christian mother, I made it a point to tell them we don’t need to discuss religion at all and we can still have fun. I say live and let live unless they want to start it with me. I never initiate a religious debate, FYI.

I’m actually quite happy. I have a good job, loving family, cool dog, and I love living in a semi-free nation. I have learned to balance my hatred of stupidity with my love of humanity. So far, so good.

Anti-theist, so you respect me enough to talk to me like an adult, huh? Do you always initiate conversations with other adults with whom you disagree by openly mocking their beliefs and going on profanity-laced rants? Do you speak to your wife this way if she disagrees with you about something? It’s easy to do that with Christians, but I’d love to see you go on a similar rant against Muslims at the Arab Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. Would you do that? Somehow I doubt it. You’d rather use the anonymity of the web to spew your hatred where you don’t have to deal with the consequences.

We obviously disagree on the issue of religion as it pertains to public life. I just don’t understand a heart filled with so much hatred. You say you are not bitter or full of rage normally, but the fact that a simple conversation about religion can elicit such an obnoxious tirade speaks more about you than anything else. I don’t know what religious people you hang out with that are so unhappy (as if religion exempts us from normal human emotion), but if atheism or agnosticism or whatever you are leads to a mindset like yours, I’d much rather be religious than not. I don’t know what happened to you to make you so angry, but I truly feel bad for you.