GarthP2000

Now I'm going to show you folks an example (such as you most likely have seen before no doubt), of an extreme coming from the other (separation of church and state) side that I don't agree with and that goes too far. Check out this account from the L. A. school system: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6578096/ Now here is a case where they ban, in ALL educational instances, any references to God, be they historical, religious, literary, etc., including the Declaration of Independence. This goes well beyond the valid point against government specifically endorsing and propagating a religion in the public schools. This totally bans any mention or illustration of them outright. And in this the school errs grieviously. For one thing, they err because this *still* violates the 1st Amendment, at least potentially; specifically the free exercise clause, "... nor shall prohibit the free exercise thereof", as well as prohibits the historical instruction of the role religion played back in those days. A form of instruction that violates NO one's 1st Amendment rights. Neither does the instruction of the Bible as far as an instrument of literature. But sometimes (many times I daresay) folks read accounts like these and mindlessly presume that that's how all the separation of church and state advocates operate. Which is about as stupid as saying that all conservatives are a bunch of bigots. And its mindless morons such as the pointy-haired school administrators as these that make it all the more rough for separation of church and state, so you have a point about the backlash there.

A question for THE Prophet, if I may. :D--> In what way is the government sponsorship of a group that openly discriminates against a group of people (Boy Scouts against atheists in this case) JUST a small and insignificant matter? Hmmmm, what if that same government sponsored, in like matter, a group that discriminated against Christians? Would it be a small and insignificant matter then? I doubt it. But then again, atheists are a small and unpopular enough group to beat up on without any real threat of retaliation now, isn't it? Isn't that the way of gutless bullies? Hhmmm?? And what do you think of ol' Benjamin Franklin's quote? I'd really like to hear your take on that. And I even will pomise not to 'rip you one' in response, as I'll let your response speak for itself. ;)--> A common refrain in treating these items as tho' they were the basis for law in this country. .... Which they are NOT. Last time I checked, the Constitution is the law of the land, not heritage, traditions, and culture, ALL of which change over time. (Why, it used to be according to heritage, tradition, and culture for blacks and women to be denied the right to vote. But the principles of the Constitution, and amendments that went according to the spirit of the document, that changed all that :)-->) And please refrain from flawed and desperate straw man arguments equating atheism/humanism with socialism/communism. There are so many flaws in that argument, even with previous references to Nietche, materialism, etc. that it isn't even funny. And I don't care WHAT VPW said. You should know enough that his credibility is .... around here. ;)--> Hey, thats about my kinda reaction too, when a gay man would try to approach me in a sexual way. .... So-o, in what way should that mean, in order to be honest and true, that I have to think that homosexual is NOT ok? Or to be given equal protection under the law? I'm not black or Jewish either, and I dislike rap and eat unkosher foods. So-o does that mean that I need to think that being Jewish or black is un-ok too? :D--> If being a pain in the a$$ is an art form, then I'm Michelangelo. ;)-->

Okay, that was going over the top a bit, but it seems to me that there is this ... mental block where people keep interpreting 'separation of church and state' as tho' it is to be interpreted as 'driving religion and God out from this country', or 'you are a citizen of this country unless you are religioous, at which time you are now an alien' or some other such *blatant* distortions. Yes, I said that they are blatant. Contrary to the popular "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" theories, the main drive for the enforcement of the separation of church and state does NOT have its roots in, nor is getting active conspiratorial support from the Evil World League of Communists, Socialists, Godless Infidels and Other Anti-American Heathen of The Anti-Christ (E.W.L.C.S.G.I. & O.A.A.H.T.A.C ?) It is largely supported by those who do not see religion as the proper place of government involvement, BOTH right wing and left. Religious and secular. The vast majority of who love America and freedom just as much as you do.

Johniam, Ahh no, that is nowhere NEAR what I said, and I think you know it; you're just throwing barbs around. (Once more from the top) The Constitution does indeed protect religious freedom. And it does so by keeping government out of it, by having government be neutral to the practice of it (except when the practice of said religion violates the law and/or people's rights). That is what separation of church and state is all about! Religion, and the practice thereof is not the government's business. What part of any of this do you not understand? (Gad! Its like pulling teeth. ... from a hippo, ... using a toothpick!) And no, the PEOPLE do not have the right, Constitutionally or otherwise, to override the 1st Amendment of "Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion" no matter what their desire is to 'make religion important'. Constitutional protections of rights are not, repeat NOT, subject to majority vote. Nor should they be. Otherwise the majority could theoretically override the constitutional rights that mean the most to you. Besides, if making religion is so important in their lives, you'd think that they'd practice it more, hmmmm? That they would actually put forth a decent effort at "What would Jesus do?" Hhmmmm, and from what I've read, Jesus didn't go around trying to elect 'godly politicians' into government. Neither did the apostles and disciples in the book of Acts. Maybe they had a better idea as to how to communicate the importance of religion. Ohh, like *living it at the greassroots level*? Seems to me that that would be a more effective means of showing people and inspiring them how important religion is, and not trying to implement religion thru government. Think about that quote by Benjamin Franklin for a moment. Just think about it, and what it means and entails. Was Benjamin totally out to lunch when he said that? Was he wrong, biblically or morally? Funny thing I've noticed is that what Ben said is diametrically opposed to those here who say that there is no wall between church and state, and even after I posted, more than once, that quote for all to see, NOBODY has had the brass ones to come straight out and say "Benjamin Franklin was dead wrong when he said that. This should be a nation and government under GOD!" or something clearly to that effect. Which would have shown more honesty I think. But a lot of folks look the other way and pretend that nothing like that was ever said by any of our Godly Founding Fathers. Let me tell you something. There have been things said by our founding fathers that if said today by anybody running for president, they would have gotten less votes than Ralph Nader.

Too Gray Now (and Dabobbada), First of, let me set this clear. Its not my _motivation_ to fight/be argumentitive for arguments sake or to be always RIGHT (Mirror, mirror on the wall-like satire notwithstanding). I do come across in a combative manner at times, but that doesn't make it my sole motivation (tho' I do admit that sometimes it is kinda fun, especially when arguing with the more anally-challenged ;)-->)... But then again, a simple glance in the Politicks and Tacks forum gives a not-so-subtle indication that I ain't the only one playing this game here; various players in this thread have also let fly in that arena, and we all know it. So perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to put on the 'holier than thou-I never play that game' facade, ok? Now as to my question that I wanted answered. Perhaps I didn't put it clearly enough, so here it is. In what way are the majority of Americans honoring the Constitution when they contradict it by holding their political leaders to some religious test (ie., whether or not they go to church/believe in God, whether they are for or against the churches teachings on topics like abortion, school prayer, etc.) even tho' the Constitution plainly states that no religious test shall be required of those seeking office? Now legally, they can't 'be charged with a crime' as it were, as having these religious reasons for electing politicians to office; people can use the most ridiculous of reasons for electing someone. How about folks electing Bill Clinton to the presidency simply because he said "I can feel your pain?" --> But how is electing someone from a 'do you believe in God or not?' standpoint consistant with our belief in the Constitution and its way of government? THAT was my point behind that question.

Dmiller, I was inviting constructive criticism. Heck, I was even inviting negative criticism. Whatever anybody wanted to post either positive or negative. But you ought to know that just because I invited comments, doesn't gaurentee, nor requires that the ideas/concepts given won't be challenged. That's part of the free and open forum here or anywhere you venture too. (Ie., this isn't the Larry King Show). And I find it interesting that Too Grey Now has voiced his 'castigations', and not a peep from you. And like I said before, I didn't 'castigate' people for responding, but in 'castigating' the specific points that I thought was flawed. You might believe differently, but I know why I posted better than you do. Again, I know better as to the motivations of why I post, even if you do not. Perhaps I am not the most smooth and diplomatic poster here, granted. You do have me there. I do state straight out where I am coming from, with no reservations. (A manner which clearly is NOT compatible with TWI's manner of operation, as you well know) And when it comes to something that I strongly believe in, like all of us do in the varying things we strongly believe in (including you I daresay), sometimes the strength of emotions do come out, and perhaps I need to put what I'm saying better. But I daresay that not all that I'm saying (or even most of what I'm saying) is full of hooey, particularly about this topic. And the basic premise I make no apologies for. But you know something? I might be wrong, but I don't think that the anger in the responses to what I post is entirely based on my manner of posting, but also might be based in relation to the topic matter of church/state relations, and whatever knee-jerk fear that some folks have based on the MIS-information that they have gotten about what separation of church and state entails. Ya think? ;)-->

Too Gray Now, Nahh, I just challenged you to think about and even address the last question in my previous post to you. But I see you didn't do that at all. So, if I read you right, how separation of church and state plays out in real life is invariably going to mean driving out religion in real life, am I right? As tho' if we endeavor to keep religion/spirituality out of government legislation/regulation, it just can't be done, so why even try? Nahhh, apparently the founding fathers saw some possibility that folks like you just can't seem to grasp w/o thinking that religion in society will come crashing and burning down. (Lions and tigers and bears, Oh my!) They realized, due to their more immediate experience of that pyschotic mixture of religion/government that wound up being a disaster/freedom destroyer in Europe, both by Catholics AND Protestants, that 1) religion is (or supposed to be) indeed a personal and even a private experience. Not that you can't share/live your religious gospel/doctrine with others. But that religion is best experienced in 'the private sector', as it were, of human life. Which leads to 2) involving government in on this arena always, if you'll pardon my French, f***s things up! Always has. Always will. Which always puzzles me regarding various conservatives. They embrace the Reagan mantra about "Government isn't the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem!", and yet when it comes to getting government involvement in religion (and of course, the government $$$$$ that invariably goes along with it ;)-->), *BOOM*, government is already the necessary ingredient as to Christianity thriving in order to 'save us as a nation', as per the dictates of various biblical verses re: The nation that makes God as the Lord. (.... What? You didn't think we were going to involve any OTHER religion in on this, do you?? -->) And speaking of such verses, don't go pulling them out as a counter to this please, because for one thing, Isreal never could get the 'godly government' thingy right, as example after example in the OT clearly illustrates. Also, the founding fathers have been influenced to a great deal by the Enlightenment period in the early 1700s-early 1800s period of history. Which gave us results like the basis for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, free enterprise capitalism (Adam Smith anyone?), daring to use reason to challenge even church orthodoxy (Thomas Jefferson's quote about "Question with boldness even the existance of a god." Etc.) without having to be burned at the stake, etc. Ahh, not exactly Pat Robertson approved, 700 Club material here, I would say. :P--> The voices that clamored for justice and fair dealings from government (ala MLK and others) deals with things like ethics, justice, fair play, and equality under the law, things that are not just 'private' as they are about our dealings with our fellow humans. Please don't confuse/make that identical with, religion/spirituality, which IS, and is supposed to BE, "a private matter between you and your God, whatever you perceive Him to be". All of which has NOTHING to do the heinous and vile plot of driving all religion out from this country for good. ... **MWUHAhahahahaha!** -->

Dmiller, Lets look over the playback video of yours of my 'time up at bat', and see if I did indeed strike out. Let's roll the clip: Do tell? You mean to tell me that he's that distrustful with everybody? Looking over his previous posts, he doesn't give much truck to Catholics or atheists based on his TWI-learned beliefs. But I tell you what. We'll call that 'Ball One'. Ahh, no. That addressed HIS no doc, details, or proof as to HIS assertion as to 'folks like me lapping it up', and lack of docs, details, and proof of Bush not showing any bias towards atheists. Not when Dubya's own daddy (Bush Sr.) making some DOCUMENTED crack about atheists not being either patriotic or citizens of this country ("We are a nation under God", the elder Bush said. And I can give you the link that fully documents that if you like), and Bush the Younger is very loyal to how his father raised him. You couple that with Bush's fundamentalist leanings, ... so no, I doubt any claims about Bush's not wanting to discriminate against atheists. Base hit for me. :)--> ??? --> ??? So-o-o, in what way was that NOT proof of my point?? I gave you a clear illustration of what he said, and you act like it isn't even there, specific words shown notwithstanding. Nahhh, that was a double base hit there. Looks like a man on first and third. :)--> Lets bring up 'Slugger Casey' shall we? Interesting point, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation is basically concerned with separation of church and state issues. Heavily slanted against Christianity? Is that what the separation of church and state winds up being to you? Criticism of Christianity? Of course there is going to be some of that, specifically in reference to the issues I just mentioned. And yet, you take all of that as a heavy anti-Christian bias being propagated in college? Want to know how many Christians are for the same separation of church and state? ... Or are they going to burn in hell too? ((WHACK!)) Long fast grounder that burns past the shortstop, nearly knocking him over, and sends Who's-on-first and I-don't-know-on-3rd sliding across the home plate. World Series, here I come! :D-->

John Kerry? :D-->

Too Gray Now, Man! A bit presumptuous, far reaching and knee-jerk here now in these past two posts of yours now, aren't we? Harvey comes across with a plain and simple appeal for the separation of church and state, and keeping the fundamentalist power-mad dogs at bay from wreaking havoc on our Constitutionally based government, and you go off like its the End Times, with religion being totally cast out from this country, or as much as can be done, to be replaced with the Ultimate Marxist State! ... Christmas, guy, get a grip! Uhh no, thats NOT what he said or 'seemed to say'. He said keep it out of government, out of the laws, out of his bedroom, out of the war rooms. That isn't the same, ... and you know it! And freedom FROM religion *IS* a part of freedom. It HAS to be, or freedom of religion is a f***ing fraud! And it isn't the 'voices of faith' that do the electing of our government officials, its the 'voices of the PEOPLE' who have faith (or non-faith as the case may be), who do so. Also keep in mind, you who are supposedly loyal to the Constitution, that the Constitution FORBIDS any government officials from having a religious test being required of them in order to run for office. Now I know there is no way in hell that that can be enforced upon all the people in this country, but for those who blatently use the religious test of "Does this candidate believe in (cough 'MY') God?" on the candidates, please tell me in what way they are honoring and being faithful to that document that they boast so self-righteously about when they do that, hmmmm? Patriotic Americans, my a**! Stop and think about that previous question again, I dare you. For the Separation of Church and State, and Damn Proud of it!! :P-->

Bob, (So many flaws to address here, so little time. :)-->) No more than you in your posts here, my friend. No more than you. ;)--> Besides, what I 'rip up' is what I see to be the illogic of the content of what he posts. And its no more and no less than in any form of a pro-con debate. Ie., you posts your thoughts, and you takes your chances. Strike One. Same old, same old argument (read 'empty whine') about some ACLU Plot to 'make Christianity illegal'. Makes about as much sense as that old refrain about the 1962 Supreme Court ruling against mandated school prayer making prayer illegal. -->. And the reason the ACLU is going after the military's situation with the scouts is because the scouts require (yes Virginia, I said require) the scouts to believe in God, any god. Which leaves atheists OUT. And that is a no-no for a tax payer funded government organization, such as the military, to do that. Which is based on the very Constitutional reasoning of government supposed to being religiously neutral. Or, to put it simply -- Separation of Church and State! Strike Two. Didn't really listen to what he said about the Catholic Church now, didya? Hhmmmm, now what specific item was he referring to? Hmmmm? Ahh yes, Catholic priests. Specific Catholic priests who were raping young kids, and the Catholic Church setting up a slush fund to pay of the families of the victims. And I do believe quite a few of us here on the Greasespot were throwing 'digs' in their direction for the same reason. And I'd be willing to bet, if I search deeply enough, that I would find a few 'digs' from you too, I wager ;)--> Strike Three. I'd nail some of the other questionable points you raised, but three strikes is three strikes, and its getting late for me here. So, you're out! You'd think that there would be folks here that are better at baseball, or something. Nahh, I changed my mind, as there is one more point I gotta raise. And that addresses that old refrain about the atheist-communist connection not-so-subtely brought up by Dabobbaba. I too, used to believe in that connection, where atheism (materialism and all) led to, or was compatible with communism, yadayadayada. Then I actually met, talked to, and got to know quite a few atheists personally or over the email/internet, (which brings up the question of how many of you guys did the same thing) and I was astounded in what I found out re: the political/economic leanings of atheists as a whole. As in there IS no one-size-fits-all leanings in the atheist community. (There is an oft-used statement about organizing atheists is like trying to herd cats. That should tell you something right there.) However, upon closer look, if there can be said to be the largest group in the atheist world in this area, it would have to be the Ayn Rand Objectivist model of the Libertarian philosophy. And many things one can say about Ayn Rand/Objectivism, but Communist/Socialist they ain't. Not by a LONG shot. ... Neil Boortz anyone? And by the way, the majority of those whom the Communists slaughtered wasn't for them being religious. It was either speaking out against the regime/getting in the way of the regime/or some other political/power related/other dictator related reasons. Much like any dictatoship does when the sadistic leader wants to flex his muscles/eliminate any possible competition. And your point re: "They claim there is no god, but the state replaces god and the political system is the religion." is quite a bit of a puzzling statement. I mean, if they didn't believe in God, why would they come up with a system to replace that which they didn't believe in? --> Its not like they set up Communist Churches or styles of worship. Again, no more than any other kind of dictatorship, yet its the Communists that are accused of being 'the State's replacement for God'. So, Strike Four, and NOW you are out! Ya do need more practice in the batters pen, my man. :D-->

Man, I miss those days. I hope they keep that tne as a Thanksgiving Day 'tradition'.

If FOX News portrays TWI in a valid light whatsoever, even with the overwhelming evidence against them, that should prove why FAUX--err FOX News isn't 'Fair and Balanced'. -->

Johniam, No basis from evidence or proof, just baseless supposition. And one that I would be willing to bet is influenced sizeably by your 'bigotry' against atheists, such as was indicated freely by your earlier post, ie., "I must be really prejudiced; I wouldn't trust my wallet to the nun OR the atheist." Strike One. More of the S.O.S. (same old ....) and accompanied with a positive assumption re: Bush, and an equally baseless assumption of folks like me 'lapping it up', ie., believing it with no premise for doing so. Strike Two. Point about Hitler and other atheistic tyrants (altho' Hitler did believe in a 'god' as it were; a psychotic mish-mash of Catholicism/Nordic spiritualism leading to Aryan 'supremacy', and probably mixed in with a healthy dose of dope) well taken, but I did refer to 'history overall', and Harvey said 'most', not 'all' wars being about or enforcing religion. Even with the athiest examples given, the basic premise still stands. Strike Three. You should be out by now, but I'll give you another college try. And speaking of college: Man, you haven't attended college courses much, have you? Did you have a bad experience with a anal-retentive psych prof while in your stint at the local community college? But seriously, this supposed 'wide spread anti-Christian bashing' by university and college professors is largely a myth within your own mind. Sporatic instances here and there, yes, but not everywhere. And there are a lot of students who consider themselves educated without ever having to sit through any Freud psychology class. And what does that have to do with the point raised by Feinstein? Strike Four! You're out! Better luck in the Little Leagues my friend. :P-->

Johniam, And history overall backs your claim up ... how? -->

Howdy folks, In one message board that I usually peruse, I came across this one message that had this link in it; a fantastically thought-provoking monologue by Harvey Fienstein, an actor in various movies (Independence Day being one of them). Watch it and listen to what Harvey has to say, and let us know what you think about it: http://www.inthelifetv.org/1402_player.html I know many of us heard very similar messages before, but apparently it bears repeating, and I am hard pressed to find any better way of putting it to you straight like Harvey does here, and I know he does it a LOT better than I do. :D--> Like I said, let us know what you think, pro or con. P.S., Oh, and please spare us any mentally and logically bankrupt disclaimers of "Oh well of course he would say that, 'cause Harvey is *gay* and a *liberal*!" please. I just ate. :P-->

But people, think of the downside example of a successful Mormon. ..... I speak of course, of Donny and Marie Osmond. {{{bbbrrrrrr}}}

That is when the all-too-convenient argument comes into play about 'the things of the spirit often don't make sense'. Mighty convenient. :- And some folks wonder why there are those of us who wind up becoming the 'damnable skeptics' that we are.

Looking over your argument Evan, isn't 'enlightened' by the holy spirit a tad more distinctive from lacking of free will than you give credit for? Because basically, all free will is is that you are the one choosing, whether you are 'enlightened' or not, whether you understand or not, whether you 'get the spirit' or not. Whether we see our need for Christ or not is really irrelevent in this respect. Perhaps that is why I have distanced myself from this kind of fundamentalist attitude/brainless mindset then. And to be honest, it was an attitude that I never dared to question for a good part of my life due to the appeal to fear and retribution that was the strong motivation not to, ..... until recently I did start to dare to question why this 'blind sided fear' was so necessary and uhh, 'godly' (-->). Ie., indicative of an ultimately Advanced and Superior Being worthy of our worship. And I finally realized, ... that it wasn't. ... Or, to put it in George Carlin's 'immortal' ;)--> words, "This isn't the work of a Supreme Being. This is more the result of an office temp with a bad attitude!" ;)-->

Why Templelady, its a process called ........... Windows! :D-->

Ok, ok, ok. Here is the answer that Joe Believer seeks as to Who the BEAST Shalt Be: George Dubya Bush and the False Prophet is: Hillary Clinton There ya are. ... Never even suspected as such, didja? ;)-->

Joe Believer, PLEASE tell us that you were being tongue-in-cheek sarcastic. Please?

What about those seeking proof? Of any religious/spiritual claim? Like we all did at varying points in our lives when we finally left/challenged TWI and its so-called 'authority'. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of this idea that the demand of proof to out of the ordinary claims and spiritual/religious 'truths' is to be demeaned as somehow 'evil', immoral, arrogant and defiant of God, refusal to admit to a Higher Authority, yadayadayada, ad nauseum. Particularly since it was that same 'demanding of proof and validity' mindset that helped us get out of abusive situations like TWI! More and more of us (like yours truly) are becoming free thinking skeptics, bound to no idiotology--err, ideology or orthodoxy. And if we demand a 'sign', proof, or reason for something that is touted as a spiritual incident, and some religious folks take offense to it, ..... Tough! Deal with it.

Can't analyze it huh? Just shut up and accept the account w/o question? Whats that green card that you're hiding behind your back? -->

Oak and George, Good one!! But you know the excuse that can be used to get around that one? "Well, my tongue has changed." Yep. Remember how TWI taught that the tongues can change from one language to another? Hmmmmm, how convenient. Also, is it me, or is it just about every acount of a miraculous happening, from tongues understood, to miraculous healing, to angelic appearances, all have one thing in common: NO documented and verifiable evidence that clearly meets all legal and logical standards for proof. Evidence that can be readily seen/heard/verified well after the account has happened by anyone who wishes to investigate. Penn & Teller and James Randi have illustrated this amply!