A Believers Critique Of The Humanist Manifesto

While sympathetic to your critique (and the AHA's stance), Trinity Lutheran Church v Comer fits well within past precedent of how the Constitutional separation of church and state operates here in the US.

It appears to me (IANAL) that the controlling precedents may include Everson v Board of Education which allows public funds to be used by students of religious based schools under certain restrictions and Lamb's Chapel v Union Moriches Union Free School District forbids excluding groups based solely that they are religious from applying for the same benefits and services that are available generally to all groups. And since this is restricted to just funding for the playground upgrade, it appears to me that it passes the Lemon test (disclaimer: I have not read Lemon v Kurtzman or other cases that explicitly invoke the Lemon test.)

Having skimmed the written opinion, though, I do have some qualms. There are some strange things there that make me suspicious that Roberts is trying to get ready to pare back the separation of church and state. Gorsuch and Thomas wrote concurring opinions that pretty much seems that they are ready to gut church/state separation pretty drastically (Thomas isn't a surprise here, and Gorsuch merely replaces Scalia in this regard.)

I am sympathetic to Sotomayer and Ginsburg's dissent, but (and you need to take into account my lack of formal legal training) I think I would disagree with their legal reasoning.

Sorry for the verbage - especially if it's off-topic. It's one thing to express an opinion on what one would think the perfect situation is, but many of my fellow Americans confuse their pesonal opinions about what they would prefer with what the Constitution actually says and allows, an understanding of which requires a not-particularly deep knowledge of past precedents and how Constitutional law operates in this country.

As I've had to admit before, we are stuck with the Constitution that we actually have, not the one I would prefer.

Faith writes: It's a stupid law of the land if it allows freedom to openly totalitarian murderous "religions."

So you might claim; yet the fact it it is the US Constitution. Thank God!

My belief in God is based on direct experience. Nobody here today saw the Flood. No, they did not, but then nobody saw the sun forming from a ball of hydrogen gas either. Most of us don't even have personal experience with the evidence that the sun formed in that way.

If The Flood did occur, then God is giving us false evidence - and that's wrong.

Too, if the sun was created ex nihilo rather than forming, then should see evidence of that. Since the evidence suggests that it formed, if it was created then that would be a trick as well.

So it's not just about being based on direct experience, but also what are the ramifications of the belief being true.

My experience with God could have been a trick. But if it wasn't God, then it wasn't God who was tricking me

It's a stupid law of the land if it allows freedom to openly totalitarian murderous "religions."

Who and how do we decide which religions are worth of our protection?

The state represents ALL the people not just some of them.

And yet ALL of the people never agree on anything. In our minds, it is always separation of ________(Insert cause here) and State. We want the state to run the way we feel best represents humanity.

tangle writes: And what's this false religion bollocks? All religions are false except the one you were personally born into? Religious belief is not rising, it's falling. Where are you getting these myths from?

Ringo claims Jesus never existed or that if a character with that name did exist, He most assuredly does not represent absolute truth. Secular humanism by nature is relative to the individual whims of humanity. IF God did not exist, secular humanism would be the most logical alternative---indeed the only alternative as we formed a global consensus.

If Jesus is real and alive and is what the apologists say he is, we have a problem in that no consensus can or will) be formed.

Tangle writes: The state represents ALL the people not just some of them.

Tangle writes: It's simple, the answer is the state. How can it be anything else?

Dan 3:1-18 writes: Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its width six cubits. He set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. 2 And King Nebuchadnezzar sent word to gather together the satraps, the administrators, the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the judges, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 3 So the satraps, the administrators, the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the judges, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces gathered together for the dedication of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 4 Then a herald cried aloud: "To you it is commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, 5 that at the time you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, you shall fall down and worship the gold image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up; 6 and whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace." 7 So at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the horn, flute, harp, and lyre, in symphony with all kinds of music, all the people, nations, and languages fell down and worshiped the gold image which King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 8 Daniel's Friends Disobey the King Therefore at that time certain Chaldeans came forward and accused the Jews. 9 They spoke and said to King Nebuchadnezzar,"O king, live forever! 10 You, O king, have made a decree that everyone who hears the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the gold image; 11 and whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. 12 There are certain Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego; these men, O king, have not paid due regard to you. They do not serve your gods or worship the gold image which you have set up." 13 Then Nebuchadnezzar, in rage and fury, gave the command to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. So they brought these men before the king. 14 Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying to them, "Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the gold image which I have set up? 15 Now if you are ready at the time you hear the sound of the horn, flute, harp, lyre, and psaltery, in symphony with all kinds of music, and you fall down and worship the image which I have made, good! But if you do not worship, you shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you from my hands?" 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego answered and said to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. 18 But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up."

Granted we do not worship the State, at least not knowingly. But if the state passes a law which some disagree with, the answer is not simply for them to leave. The answer is the right to obey the God of your choice. Some laws and some state-sanctioned ideologies need to be challenged. I'm sure atheists feel the same way about Christian Nationalism as (some) believers feel about a secular humanist state.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : fixed a few things

quote:

---

Granted we do not worship the State, at least not knowingly. But if the state passes a law which some disagree with, the answer is not simply for them to leave. The answer is the right to obey the God of your choic

---

Just as Faith ignores the Bible and mKes up her own “God’s Law” to demand that discrimination against gays should be permitted? (Or rather to ignore the issue she’s addressing and demand that gay marriage is banned)

Banning gay marriage is, of course demanding that others obey Faith’s God so I hope you don’t include that.

But the target she’s supposedly addressing - anti-discrimination laws - are a problem. Some Christians, believing that their God demanded racial segregation refused to serve non-whites, and there were not always acceptable alternatives. That’s why the US has laws against such discrimination.

The general rule is that religion is not an excuse to disobey a valid law. A law intended to target a particular religious group is not allowed but a law that happens to disadvantage a religious group for a valid purpose is valid.

The assertion that gay marriage targets Christians is intende to get around this point. The fact that it is obviously untrue never seems to worry those pushing it, though.

Talking about me behind my back? Such fine debate form there. Not to mention the **** about me.

Everything I say about Christian belief is based on the *****, including the Moral Law of God. And you are ***** about what I've said about gays since I have explicitly objected to "discrimination against gays" as my argument is ALWAYS about gay marriage only and not about gays as such. Gay marriage violates the Biblical definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Of course Christians are to obey all the secular laws, EXCEPT WHEN THEY CONFLICT WITH GOD'S LAW.

Your post reminds me an awful lot of the way the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump, just by making up stuff they call impeachable though it isn't. Maybe this is becoming the method of choice for the **** on every topic.

quote:

---

Talking about me behind my back? Such fine debate form there. Not to mention the lies about me.

---

You’re a convenient example. And since you’ve lied about me on your blog I hardly think you you are in a position to criticise. Mentioning you on a thread you’ve already posted to is hardly “behind your back”.

So, just your usual “How dare you tell the truth about me, I’m a ***** *********!” Line.

quote:

---

Everything I say about Christian belief is based on the Bible, including the Moral Law of God.

---

Really? How does it address the fact that there is no law in the Bible forbidding a Christian from catering to a gay wedding party ?

quote:

---

And you are ***** about what I've said about gays since I have explicitly objected to "discrimination against gays" as my argument is ALWAYS about gay marriage only and not about gays as such.

---

You are contradicting yourself there. Denying gay marriage is all about discriminating against gays. Refusing to cater for a wedding party because the couple are gay is discriminating against gays.

quote:

---

Gay marriage violates the Biblical definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

---

Aside from the fact that there isn’t any formal definition that really isn’t relevant. You can refuse to marry another woman all you like. Nobody will object.

quote:

---

Of course Christians are to obey all the secular laws, EXCEPT WHEN THEY CONFLICT WITH GOD'S LAW.

---

And catering to a gay wedding party doesn’t conflict with anything in the Bible. There is no law against the catering.

quote:

---

Your post reminds me an awful lot of the way the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump, just by making up stuff they call impeachable though it isn't. Maybe this is becoming the method of choice for the Left on every topic.

---

Of course there are similarities. I’m telling the truth, you are ***** to try to deny that you did what you did. Which is indeed why you like Trump. He’s as mired in sin as you are.

Where did I talk about you on my blog? It would have been years ago if I did and I have no idea what you are talking about. It wouldn't have been a *** either.

You are not allowed to redefine what I say. Objecting to gay marriage and refusing to serve it is not about gays as such, who are to be treated exactly as everyone else is and I've neer said anything different. MARRIAGE IS AN INSTITUTION that is not for gays, period. YOU DO NOT GET TO REDEFINE THIS.

I **** that I did what I did? WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

And what doesw sin have to do with anything? They are making up impeachable doings thaqt are not impeachable. They are ***** and ***** and ***** and ***** and *****, all to get Trump out of office strictly because they don't **** him, the tens of millions of us who voted for him don't matter.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sin? Now we are accusing fellow debaters of sin? Now sin is a debate issue? I'm wrong about gay marriage because of my sin? And Trump is being impeached for sin? No wonder the world is going to Hell. With this kind of *****fingerpointing going on maybe we ARE in the very last days.

Faith writes: MARRIAGE IS AN INSTITUTION that is not for gays, period.

Not true Faith.

Marriage is a State Licensed legal contract. Religion or the beliefs of your cult are totally irrelevant.

YOU DO NOT GET TO REDEFINE THIS.

You are free to set the rules for your silly cult but not for anyone else.

quote:

---

Where did I talk about you on my blog? It would have been years ago if I did and I have no idea what you are talking about. It wouldn't have been a *** either.

---

It was years ago and it was a lie. (I can’t imagine why you would think it wasn’t)

quote:

---

You are not allowed to redefine what I say. Objecting to gay marriage and refusing to serve it is not about gays as such, who are to be treated exactly as everyone else is and I've neer said anything different. MARRIAGE IS AN INSTITUTION that is not for gays, period. YOU DO NOT GET TO REDEFINE THIS.

---

Of course it is about gays. Gay marriage - as it actually exists - is purely a matter of secular law giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples. The only affect of denying it is to discriminate against gays. There is no redefinition required.

quote:

---

I deny that I did what I did? WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

---

You claimed that you oppose discrimination against gays, yet here you are demanding it. You deny that you invented your own law but you don’t come up with any law against catering to gay wedding parties.

quote:

---

And what doesw sin have to do with anything?

---

You love Trump for his sins - some of them at least. That’s why you support the smears and the lies and the cover-up.

quote:

---

They are making up impeachable doings thaqt are not impeachable

---

Abuse of power is impeachable - and there is a whole load of evidence that Trump did abuse his power.

quote:

---

They are ***** and ***** and ***** and ***** and *****,

---

No, that’s Trump and his defenders.

quote:

---

... all to get Trump out of office strictly because they don't like him, the tens of millions of us who voted for him don't matter.

---

Trump doesn’t get a free pass any more than Clinton or Nixon did. And why should the number of votes matter any more than the greater number of votes for Hilary Clinton mattered to the Ekectiral College?

What did I say about you on my blog? I know it wasn't a *** because I don't ***, but I don't remember it. Is that why you've been so unbelievably nasty to me all these years?

Stop ***** about me. There is no discrimination against gays as such, they are not barred from anything anyone else may enjoy. Marriage is not for gays.

Stop ***** about me. I support Trump for his policies, for objecting to abortion, for wanting orderly legal immigration, for wanting a wall at our souther bordern, for improving the economy, putting millions to work, taking them off food stamps, above all and primarily for loving America and putting American interests above all others. He has done nothing wrong in all the ****'s attempts to hang something on him. He did nothing wrong in the phone call, and he'd already been exonerated of any wrongdoinjg by the Mueller report: no collusion, no obstruction of justice, Now they are trying to find something else. Everythign they find is something they invent to be something it isn't. They call it impeachable but it's not. Oh they may impeach him anyway and get away with it but all that means is that America is dead.