Randman's call for nonSecular education...

Religious expression is prohibited. How can you argue that? Take the 10 Commandments thing. Personally, I don't even think of that as religious expression, but more as cultural expression, but the reasoning behind banning it is that it is a religious expression.Same with opening high school football games with prayer, or prayer at governmental functions, Christmas displays on public property, etc, etc,...

Are you kidding me? Every televangelist has stated that Xianity should be within the govt, and Xian doctrines/morality be enforced with laws***. The fact that you are trying to play like this is some unknown is really repulsive to me. Once again, I grew up in a Xian evangelist stronghold and went to a Xian affiliated University that had evangelicals and watched the 700 club for years. You cannot play this game.But let's get some concrete examples. They have successfully gotten money diverted from social program agencies to religious ("faith based") organizations. Part of this deal was an allowance for members of these orgs to offer religious based ways of obtaining help, and even religious services. As part of this they are even allowed to start working on the children of the people they are supposed to be helping.As part of this they are also fighting (IIRC successfully) to allow them to discriminate in hiring against atheists or nonXians, despite the fact that they are supposed to be providing a govt service.So there's a two-fer.Recently revelations of evangelizing at the Airforce Academy were quite upsetting. But this goes along with several military related issues where officers have been courting Xian groups, speaking to them in ways they are not allowed to do as officers, as well as bringing such concepts to the troops.There have been efforts to promote religion in prison by using preferential treatment for those choosing to be religious (better accomodations/etc).How about the recent scandals regarding ten commandments monuments and other iconography at and within court rooms? They want it seen that they are the source of our laws, and even more absurd that they were the first laws. Ironically this showed how bad Biblical education can be for understanding history.And this is not to go into laws against activities they do not like. By which you are saying you didn't read my posts to you. I have agreed that some antitheists have been oppressive in some cases. Your inept caricature of my position is noted.How hard is this to understand for you? The govt should deal with practical issues and use secular (that means taking no stand on religion at all) programs to solve them.Members of the govt are certainly allowed to be personally religious, but should not use their position to broadcast the nature of their faith, particularly in a way to promote their beliefs nor institute policies which are a promotion of belief sytems (or derogatory to other belief systems).***- I changed the sentence in an edit after discovering that it did not convey what I meant, and could easily be misunderstood. The original sentence could be read as saying that Xianity itself should be enforced by law.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-17-2005 05:46 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

OK, just name who and when or what they said. I have never heard one televangelist state that Christianity should be imposed by the government. Now, I have heard them say they want to get government officials saved, but they want everyone to be saved, but that's not the same as wanting Christianity to be enforced with laws, and in fact, it seems incredible that you claim that.

If it is in a judge's chambers, displayed modestly, that would be personal religious expression. A giant statue on court house grounds is not.Its funny that you would call it a cultural expression. That's exactly where it becomes against the Constitution. The govt doesn't get to make "cultural expressions" regarding religion. That suggests the religion is singularly important to the culture, and conversely that other religions are not.If your argument is that the 10 Cs are not religious in nature, then you are being disengenuous.I think christmas displays and prayers at games aren't that bad, though the latter pretty well crosses the line. As long as no one is complaining I'd say why bother.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Whoops, speed kills. I worded that poorly. A more clear wording would have been "and Xian doctrines/morals be enforced with laws". That is what I meant.I will change the wording in the post to avoid confusion for others.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ah, so what you really object to is Christians being able to participate as equals in the political process. JUst wanted to make that clear because no Christians I know of want to use the government to impose Christianity. It's just that Christians and Christian values are as equal as anyone else's person and values in trying to influence the law.What you favor is religious discrimination such, for example, nonfaith-based charities can obtain taxpayer money regardless of their beliefs, but religious charities should be discriminated against even if they offer the same services.Just want to be clear here....

How does the Ten Commandments ruling prevent you from putting a Ten Commandments statue on your own property? Or telling people the Ten Commandments?I don't see in what sense your religious expression is prohibited when you aren't allowed to dig into my wallet to pay for your expression. An expression by the government, paid for by persons who do not support that expression. How does that impact your freedom of religious expression? Why do you believe that your freedom of personal expression encompasses those activities?

The Constitution forbids the restricting of religious expression, period. The fact I am not an elected official or serving in a public position is not germane to the discussion.Why is that so hard for you to grasp?To reinterpret the Constitution as stating that all public participation with any religious act, symbol, or worship is wrong, the courts have thus made secularism the de facto religiou of the US government, and that's wrong.The problem is once you interpret the Constitution to create hostility towards religion, you have moved away from religious neutrality, and that's what the courts have done.Let me ask you this. Why should tax dollars pay for roads that church buses can drive on? Is that public funding of religion?

Except by the government, which, as an entity itself, is strictly prohibited from religious affiliation or expression. I never said that you were. But Roy Moore did not pay for the monument himself, nor erect it on his own property. He certainly would have been able to do those things, do you deny that?Or do you believe that all persons are prohibited from erecting Ten Commandments statues on their own property? Why is it so hard for you to grasp that public officials and government agents do not own the property that they use and administer?And if you do understand that, then why do you believe that your religious expression grants you a right to do things to my property? Secularism isn't religion. By definition it's the lack of religion. The lack of something cannot itself be that something; A cannot equal ~A. Freshman logic. I don't see how. Do you think that the utilitarian act of moving people from one place to another constitutes an expression of religion?

I have answered all of that already. If you have something new to add, then let's discuss it. If not, then move on.If you don't understand something I have written, then please quote it and ask for an explanation, and I will be glad to clarify.

[qs]Let me ask you this. Why should tax dollars pay for roads that church buses can drive on? Is that public funding of religion?

Since churches pay no taxes;yes

So maybe the idea the state cannot in anyway "fund" religion is not correct?The Constitution basically just bans the government from legislating or restricting religion. It is very pro-religion, not anti-religion, as some think. The idea is religious expression cannot be prohibited by the government. That's the purpose.

I guess I don't see where you answered anything. Maybe you can show me where you think you addressed those questions?Or did you think that pointing out that you yourself did not hold public office somehow addresses all my questions? If you believe that, then I suggest you attempt to expand on your answer; it seems like a non sequiter to me.

Specifically, the government is banned from establishing a civil religion.Unfortunately, somehow, the Supreme Court has ruled that means we can still have a civil religion. I don't entirely understand how that works.