Government, religion, and "secular" vs. "religious"

Maybe 20 years ago, I would care, but acting like we are at the top of a slippery slope? We long fell down that. After relentless nuclear barrage of Marxism from the corporate government media complex in the last few decades, the "Christianity" hitting us feels like a kid's water gun.
 
You just want to keep those public indoctrination camps running, don't you.

The problem I keep having with your posts on this is that the current question at hand is not one of whether or not the public indoctrination camps keep running. It is a given that they will continue running, and you have said so much yourself. The question at hand is one of whether or not Louisiana can include the display of the 10 Commandments within its requirements for the public indoctrination camps that we both take for granted it will continue to run either way.

The options in the question at hand are: a) display the 10 Commandments, or b) refrain from displaying the 10 Commandments, leaving a vacuum to be filled by public advocacy of some other equally religious but less righteous ethical system.

You seem to think option b is better than option a. And you're entitled to that opinion. But please don't pretend that what you're advocating is any kind of separation of church and state.

As long as public school exists (a given that you have granted) separation of church and state is not one of the available options.
 
The problem I keep having with your posts on this is that the current question at hand is not one of whether or not the public indoctrination camps keep running. It is a given that they will continue running, and you have said so much yourself. The question at hand is one of whether or not Louisiana can include the display of the 10 Commandments within its requirements for the public indoctrination camps that we both take for granted it will continue to run either way.

The options in the question at hand are: a) display the 10 Commandments, or b) refrain from displaying the 10 Commandments, leaving a vacuum to be filled by public advocacy of some other equally religious but less righteous ethical system.

You seem to think option b is better than option a. And you're entitled to that opinion. But please don't pretend that what you're advocating is any kind of separation of church and state.

As long as public school exists (a given that you have granted) separation of church and state is not one of the available options.

[MENTION=12430]acptulsa[/MENTION] said: "It's very important to keep what politics you can't eliminate as local as possible." :up:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ion%92s-First-Religious-Public-Charter-School
 
Again. I agree. And in the case at hand, keeping the politics as local as possible means the federal government not interfering in what Louisiana does.

And when we get that done, maybe we can convince Louisiana they have no business interfering in what Allen Parish hangs on their classroom walls.

Then maybe we can convince Allen Parish they have no business interfering in what Oakdale hangs on walls.
 
And when we get that done, maybe we can convince Louisiana they have no business interfering in what Allen Parish hangs on their classroom walls.

Then maybe we can convince Allen Parish they have no business interfering in what Oakdale hangs on walls.

I agree.
 
Unfortunately, the government sometimes strays from this ideal by, for example, using taxpayer dollars to support religious activities

As long as government continues to daily and directly violate the actual text of the 1st amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of my religion, periodically posting the 10 commandments in a courtroom is never going to get me agitated. The ACLU acts like we haven't had a solid decade now of everyone working in government being mandated to take sensitivity training that directly violates the religious beliefs of state employees.
No, two wrongs don't make a right, but I won't care about the wrong the ACLU cares about until it cares about the greater wrong.

erecting religious symbols on government land

I don't see the ACLU defining "government land" nor defending having it in the first place. Again, as a result of their complacency I don't care what they have to say on the matter.

discriminating on the basis of religion in government programs.
Already covered above.

These actions violate the Establishment Clause, which recognizes that religious freedom thrives best when the government stays out of it. Matters of religious belief should be left to individuals and faith communities, not to governments or political majorities.

Thugee.

It was a murder cult in India until the 19th century. Adherents would pretend to be a group of travelers on a road, and gain the confidence of other travelling groups under the guise of safety in numbers. Then the thugs would spring on the unsuspecting group and strangle them all in the name of Kali.

Various people have tried to pretend this religion never existed - and I suspect that is primarily because this is an unequivocal case of the colonial British government doing something good. When they found out this was a thing in the 1700s, they stamped it out.

That's because the British were still Christian at that point. And I'll own that, as a Christian - Christianity does not play well with death cults.

When Christians find out your culture regularly holds festivals where you paint your pyramid red with the blood of human sacrifices, equal treatment of religion goes right out the fucking window. Yeah, it would have been really nice if the people who stamped that out weren't such jerks. It would have been nice if they didn't totally destroy their knowledge along with their culture. But letting it coexist as-is was not an option.
Likewise, if your woke cult includes ritual child sacrifice either through the murder of the unborn or the disfigurement of existing children, Christianity doesn't have any toleration for that.
And we'll all own that. We're actually the first to shun the Christians-in-name-only who have started worshipping this modern Molech.

And the sad thing is, all you have to do is pretend not to be a death cult. There were mosques in Constantinople centuries before it fell, because they were relatively tolerant as long as you weren't a death cult. And Islam did a fine job hiding the fact that it is, so they got to practice their religion even in the longest lasting Christian empire in history.

So yeah, the ACLU can pretend like they're holding Christianity back. But the question is, from what? We're getting awful close to the point where most Christians are pretty up to speed on the fact that this government actively supports at least one death cult, and when a critical mass gets clued in, well, you're going to see an awful lot of people ready to trash this government at that point.

Anti-statists have a choice for the moment. Are we going to support the traditional low-brow narrative of the ACLU, or are we going to recognize Christianity for what it is - a generally well-meaning and tolerant faith with a line that you can't cross without also shutting down discussion? I don't want to see that side of Christianity awakened any more than the ACLU - but despite the fact that this bear is sleeping, and despite the fact that you have to poke it a lot to wake it up.... it's still a fucking bear.
 
As long as government continues to daily and directly violate the actual text of the 1st amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of my religion, periodically posting the 10 commandments in a courtroom is never going to get me agitated. The ACLU acts like we haven't had a solid decade now of everyone working in government being mandated to take sensitivity training that directly violates the religious beliefs of state employees.
No, two wrongs don't make a right, but I won't care about the wrong the ACLU cares about until it cares about the greater wrong.



I don't see the ACLU defining "government land" nor defending having it in the first place. Again, as a result of their complacency I don't care what they have to say on the matter.


Already covered above.



Thugee.

It was a murder cult in India until the 19th century. Adherents would pretend to be a group of travelers on a road, and gain the confidence of other travelling groups under the guise of safety in numbers. Then the thugs would spring on the unsuspecting group and strangle them all in the name of Kali.

Various people have tried to pretend this religion never existed - and I suspect that is primarily because this is an unequivocal case of the colonial British government doing something good. When they found out this was a thing in the 1700s, they stamped it out.

That's because the British were still Christian at that point. And I'll own that, as a Christian - Christianity does not play well with death cults.

When Christians find out your culture regularly holds festivals where you paint your pyramid red with the blood of human sacrifices, equal treatment of religion goes right out the fucking window. Yeah, it would have been really nice if the people who stamped that out weren't such jerks. It would have been nice if they didn't totally destroy their knowledge along with their culture. But letting it coexist as-is was not an option.
Likewise, if your woke cult includes ritual child sacrifice either through the murder of the unborn or the disfigurement of existing children, Christianity doesn't have any toleration for that.
And we'll all own that. We're actually the first to shun the Christians-in-name-only who have started worshipping this modern Molech.

And the sad thing is, all you have to do is pretend not to be a death cult. There were mosques in Constantinople centuries before it fell, because they were relatively tolerant as long as you weren't a death cult. And Islam did a fine job hiding the fact that it is, so they got to practice their religion even in the longest lasting Christian empire in history.

So yeah, the ACLU can pretend like they're holding Christianity back. But the question is, from what? We're getting awful close to the point where most Christians are pretty up to speed on the fact that this government actively supports at least one death cult, and when a critical mass gets clued in, well, you're going to see an awful lot of people ready to trash this government at that point.

Anti-statists have a choice for the moment. Are we going to support the traditional low-brow narrative of the ACLU, or are we going to recognize Christianity for what it is - a generally well-meaning and tolerant faith with a line that you can't cross without also shutting down discussion? I don't want to see that side of Christianity awakened any more than the ACLU - but despite the fact that this bear is sleeping, and despite the fact that you have to poke it a lot to wake it up.... it's still a fucking bear.

I suppose even prohibitions on murder are not universal. But without them, it is not a civil society.

One of the biggest failings of bleeding heart America is a belief that all cultures share a common set of moral standards and behaviors.
 
Two wrongs don't make a right.

There is only one "wrong" involved in this issue: "public" schools.

And given the "public" nature of "public" schools, there is no possible way to avoid that wrong.

So as it does for all issues of "public" rather than private policy (such as immigration, for example), it all comes down to a matter of "pick your poison" ...

I see the push to eliminate "separation of church and state" as a way to appeal to people to support and stay in public school. If folks are so inclined to raise their children morally, home school, send them to Sunday School, pull them out of public school and send them to a private school. I don't want or need another reason to pay for public indoctrination camps with my tax dollars.

So long as "public" schools continue to exist, you will continue to be made "to pay for public indoctrination camps with [your] tax dollars" in any case. Neither the inclusion nor the exclusion of any particular beliefs in or from "public" schools will make any difference to this. At most, you would simply be swapping one set of sectarian beliefs for some other set of sectarian beliefs.

The doctrine of "separation of church and state" is just a fig-leaf excuse for forcibly favoring some beliefs (such as that the Mosaic commandments ought not appear in "public" schools) over others, presented under a false banner of presupposed "neutrality". But the "separat[ors] of church and state" are no more entitled to foist their beliefs upon those who disagree with them (at the literal, tax-paying expense of those who disagree with them, no less!) than the reverse. Side with the "separation of church and state" sectarians, if you like - but within the context of "public" schools (or of "public" anything-else, for that matter), doing so is no more valid (nor any less objectionable) than siding with the "post the Mosaic commandments in classrooms" sectarians.

IOW: "Pick your poison ..." - force other people to subsidize the sacred and holy doctrines of Christianity (such as the Mosaic commandments), or force other people to subsidize the the sacred and holy doctrines of Liberal Democracy (such as "separation of church and state").

Church-state separation is a cornerstone of our democracy. It’s critical to preserving the right of every person to decide for themselves—without pressure from the government—which religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice. It also ensures that the government doesn’t undermine religion either by co-opting it for political purposes or rendering religious institutions dependent on the state to spread their faith.

With respect to education, the proverbial "gig was up" for any ostensible "separation of church and state" the moment that "public" schools became a thing (and politicians & government bureaucrats started dictating what would or not be permitted in those schools, based on some particular set of beliefs and preferences).

The only correct and fully proper "solution" to any of this problem is to abolish "public" schools altogether - not to federally impose some illusory "separation of church and state" upon them (which can only serve to exacerbate the problem). Short of that, regarding any decisions about what ought to be included in or excluded from "public" schools, the proper sub-optimal approach is for such decisions to be made as locally as is feasible - and the feds, with their one-size-fits-all edicts issued from Mordor-on-the-Potomac, should just butt right the hell out.
 
How many classrooms are in the state of Louisiana?

2 bucks here, 8 trillion there...

How about don't spend it in the first place.

You just want to keep those public indoctrination camps running, don't you. To the point of merging church and state.


Nationalist, Communist... to me, what's the difference?

I don't want to keep public schools, but as long as they exist they must promote virtue and not vice.
And this goes far beyond schools, to all the necessary government buildings, like courthouses.
 
Freedom of religion was never meant to cover evil religions that clashed with Christian morality.
Cry more.
 
The belief in "government neutrality" [1] (which, if it actually existed, would be as miraculous as the wine at Cana) is every bit as "religious" in nature as the expression of any other articles of any other faiths.

It just comes from a different "sacred text" - e.g., a grade-school civics-class textbook (instead of a Talmud, Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, etc.) - and is conveyed to new generations via different "temples" - e.g., "public" schools (instead of synagogues, churches, madrasas, etc.).

Your definition of "religious" conveniently omits any reference to the supernatural, thereby making the term apply to just about any belief, such as my belief that I'm typing on a keyboard right now and looking at a monitor displaying something you posted, or more generally my belief that there exists an objective reality that I experience and that I'm not merely a brain in a vat being stimulated by a mad scientist causing me to have my experiences.

More specifically, the obvious fact is that the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution (particularly the First and 14th Amendments) never intended that the term "religious" would apply to all laws.
 
Last edited:
Freedom of religion was never meant to cover evil religions that clashed with Christian morality.
Cry more.

What unadulterated nonsense. The First Amendment doesn't refer to any particular religion, and the prohibition of religious tests for federal offices reinforces the idea that no religion is to have a preferred position under the law. I'll post this again -- it's a footnote from Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S.488 (1961), a unanimous Supreme Court decision invalidating a provision in the Maryland constitution requiring that any state official must declare a belief in the existence of God:

In discussing Article VI in the debate of the North Carolina Convention on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, James Iredell, later a Justice of this Court, said:
". . . t is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?"

And another delegate pointed out that Article VI "leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority, and no kind of oppression can take place."


The same sentiments apply to the First Amendment, or are you seriously saying that the government may criminalize a belief* in a religion it deems "evil"? What kind of theocrat are you?

*The First Amendment protects religious beliefs, but it doesn't protect all actions expressive of religious beliefs.
 
What unadulterated nonsense.... What kind of theocrat are you?
This is one of those weird cases where I gotta mostly side with sword on this.
Nobody is saying the religion itself should be illegal (but see below) - what I think we'd agree on is the idea that all of our laws here were written with Christian ethics at least in the back of the mind.
Every law system assumes that murder is wrong - the difference is in how you define murder. A law system that was influenced by Christianity is going to take a very liberal view of what murder is. A law system that was influenced by Islam is going to take a much more conservative view, and will not consider it murder when you slit the throat of your female cousin who slept with a Jew or when you lock the doors of a girls school that's on fire because they're not covered properly to come out.

Those are two very real cases from our lifetimes. Like it or not, your view of what is legal and illegal is directly influenced by Christianity.

*The First Amendment protects religious beliefs, but it doesn't protect all actions expressive of religious beliefs.

This is a modern viewpoint that has more to do with megachurches than with law. You can't separate the acts of the religion from the religion itself. When you toss out millennia of practice, you aren't just deciding not to do things anymore - you're changing the religion.
You therefore also cannot say you're free to have a religion without also saying you're free to express that religion. If you're not free to express it then you're not free to believe it.

This is ultimately why I'm way more worked up about the Muslims entering this country legally than I am about the Hispanics who are coming in illegally. One of them is very open about wanting to completely jumble how our law is configured and the other one has a 95%+ ethical overlap with the way law was set up here. This idea of letting everyone be and do whatever they wanted religiously only worked for as long as most of us had the same first principles. That metric is changing and the people who have the most to lose from it are hyper-focused on disenfranchising the best chance they have to keep Sharia out of this country.
 
This is a good question for everyone.

Everyone is a theocrat. There exist zero exceptions. All that distinguishes any one of us from any other is the question of what kind of theocrats we each are.

I'm the kind of "theocrat" who doesn't give a damn if anyone else on the face of the earth believes the same way I do.

And what I believe is, if you think I'm a theocrat your definition of the word is way, way too broad.
 
Back
Top