I'm not a militant atheist. I'm a militant anti-fundamentalist. I'm actually a Deist. Like Einstein, I share a belief in Spinoza's god. (But I also find Christian dogma far-fetched, to say the least.)

I was raised in a home with a Baptist mother & a nontheistic father. My mother has become more fundamental in her beliefs as she's aged, but she still believes in the old Baptist adage that religion & politics do not mix. I can appreciate that.

I'm not sure that I've ever heard my father say a word about religion one way or the other.

I was much more influenced by the writing of Thomas Paine. The Age of Reason had a profound effect upon me. And of course, the writings of Jefferson, Madison, & others who wrote prolifically on the separation of church & state. If you want to know my agenda, it's ensuring that the wall of separation remains high & thick. Religion has no place in politics. Our country would be better off if we got the preachers out of our political parties.

Also, read my signature line. It's really all you need to know about me.

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

actually some people try. but some of the far right wing fundamentalists are just as scary as the far left wing liberals. its the loudmouths, saying outrageous things, that get the coverage and others dont. several churches in my area have actually split, with about half the congregation leaving over situations like this

it just doesnt seem to get the press coverage. i have actually wondered myself why more people dont stand up and speak out - maybe they dont want to be labelled a christian for the very reason we are discussing here. i have had conversations with others in churches that are griping to me about some of these things. but then when i ask why they dont stand up and say something, they either cant answer, wont answer or say it wont matter.

Why do some secularists feel the need to try to eradicate every semblance of religion from the metaphoric public square?

Yet another religion-bashing thread!

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

This is a natural reaction to religious fundamentalists who try to shove their beliefs down everyone else's throat. Living in the Buckle of the Bible Belt and having had frequent encounters with members of this obnoxious group, I can sympathize with the sentiment expressed in the OP.

I see it as criticizing the fundamentalists who want our country to be more of a theocracy. As dc2ga said, the average Christian isn't the problem; the extremists are. There is nothing wrong with criticizing those who want to force their beliefs onto the rest of us. If one religion is allowed to display its icons in the public square, all should be able to. Yet that would become unwieldy, so it's easier, and fair to all, to just not allow any religious displays.

__________________


Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

Excuse me, who's a secularist? I prefaced my piece by saying that I was 'raised in the church".....I sang mass 5 days out of 7, on average, for 3 years. Hardly "secular".

And it is not "yet another religion-bashing thread".....it's a "when your practicing of your religion infringes on my life and world"-bashing thread.
"Religion" has taken on new meaning. It's become a "bad word", if not, a maligned philosophy.
The Pilgrims (Puritans) fled England so that they could further their cause, the practice of their "reformed version of The Church of England", far from the influence and machinations of King Charles I....
Before them, Henry VIII established the Church of England, as a way to get around the interference of Rome, in his quest for a male heir, at any cost, which meant annulling his first marriage, to Catherine of Aragon; finding his second wife, Anne Boleyn, guilty of adultery and having her beheaded....in essence, religion has long been about "politics". Nowadays is no exception.
Except "religious freedom" has now, ironically, come to include "religious interference"......add politics to that, and you get "a hot mess".
The Falwells and Robertsons of the world have their own particular view of religion and its' place in society. Where they fail is providing that everyone should share their view, and if not, then they are "maligned", in fact, "scripturally". Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. "Freedom, of religion" is, in fact, "turned on its' head". Where's the freedom. Where is the tolerance for the beliefs of others, especially "non-Christians"? Hell, where is the tolerance for the beliefs of other Christians? Didn't Hagee call the Roman Catholic Church, "the great whore"??? All these demagogues and false prophets, share commonalities. They lost focus. They lost clarity (if they ever had it) They lost the precepts of their beliefs...and now believe something entirely different, and "dark"...."self-importance", in the grand scheme of things.
Reverend Wright is right in there with them. A victim of his own folly. ( And, yes, I said it) The messenger went off message, and became the message.
Sounds a lot like Washington, to me...anybody else see the parallels?

Look, no one is "blasting" anyone's religion or religious beliefs, or lack thereof...and shouldn't be.
The thing is Christianity is but one religion in a sea of many. If Christ, himself, taught tolerance, love, and acceptance of all peoples...where do these demagogues get off criticizing, lambasting, and preaching against other people and their religious beliefs? Agendi. Politics. Self-importance.
Religion is not religion, anymore...it's a commodity...like "oil futures", to be bought and sold, for gain, or influence. But it's lost it's flavor and favor.....like Pepsodent. Anybody still using it?

But it is inconsistent with all this damned tolerance and political correctness you people are trying to shove down everyone's throats. While I agree that things like the 10 Commandments have no place in government buildings (unless other legal codes, such as Hammurabi's and Justinian's, are also posted), it is likewise inappropriate for secularists to try to impose their views on American society - as they are doing by these attacks on religion.

So, what you're saying is that people are free to attack politically incorrect views.

But since this post was started by someone who has strong animus toward religion, the thread is an attack and not merely criticism. There is a history of anti-Christian threads by this particular individual.

Well, yes there is: tolerance and diversity must apply equally to all or it is not tolerance and diversity.

Why shouldn't all religions be allowed to? And since the 10 Commandments is a legal code, why shouldn't it be posted right alongside Hammurabi's and Justinian's legal codes?

I am damn sick and tired of you people who would deny freedom to certain groups of people just because they hold views you don't like. What happens when groups that are politically correct now fall out of favor and become politically incorrect?

The free exercise of religion in America (no matter what the religion) is absolute and no one has the right to infringe upon it.

I think most of us would agree that the Christian groups trying to take over governments and social institutions (adherents to dominion theology and/or Christian Reconstructionism) are a threat to America's constitutional republic but people who would deny to other Americans rights that they insist on for themselves (like the person who started this thread) are just as much a threat.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Simply because it is one of the great law codes of human history - like Hammurabi's or Justinian's.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Freedom of religion sort of implies freedom from, as well.

Despite this country having been founded on Christian principles, and despite that theology being the basis for most Western thought and philosophy, it's a little sketchy to skirt an official "endorsement" of any religion. That certainly IS unconsitutional, even if some 80% of the country agrees with it. I am a bit surprised to see many otherwise "strict Constitutionalists" give this sort of thing a free pass.

And, yes, it begs the question of which flavor of Christianity is being endorsed. Imposing an official set of moral strictures that possibly aren't in accordance with my own grates on me, and I am not a Libertarian, even.

Religion and politics have always been a volatile mixture, and I always think it's best to keep the two as separate as possible. Unless Congress is willing to make a law that outlaws "having no other God, but me", or is willing to jail people for not "honoring" their parents, somehow, it's best to view the Ten Commandments as a purely historical and cultural artifact, or guiding set of principles, rather than anything else. Especially from a State-endorsement p.o.v.

__________________
Unfortunately, the Founders did not address the possibility of this nation becoming populated with obnoxious twits.

But we don't live my Hammurabi's code or make it a key art of our religion.

The Ten Commandments are not Christian, they are Jewish. They are not part of the new covenant, thus there is no reason for Christians to be so attached to them.

Well, no, it doesn't.

The United States of America was not founded on Christian principles! It was founded, in large measure, on ancient Greece, ancient Rome and the philosophies of John Locke and other Enlightenment Era thinkers.

I would argue that it is not the role of government to impose moral strictures.

But keeping religion and politics separate is not the same as what people like the original poster want to do, i.e. keep religious expression out of the metaphoric public square. What amazes me is that while the First Amendment basically prohibits government from putting its hands on religion or interfering with it in any way, the religion-haters here seem to want government to do what it is prohibited from doing by legislating against religion.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."