Toto

Lieberman had to backpedal on his statement that there was no freedom FROM religion. He said that non-believers could be good, moral citizens. He obviously thinks that religion is a valuable trait, but that's a far cry from saying that atheists have no right to exist.

I don't support Lieberman, but it does no good to demonize him, or try to pretend that there is no difference between Repubicans and Democrats on church state separation issues.

Krieger

I never said the two parties were the same, I just said that the elected Democrats are not as liberal as some people think - and then I was attacked out of nowhere. Hmm, I don't remember ever even debating/arguing with Daggah about politics before. Daggah, do you have another username I don't know about?

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Krieger ]</p>

MacPrince

As I read that article, I could only think of one phrase:
"Christian jihad"

d'naturalist

Someone needs to e-mail Mr. Just a copy of the Preamble to the Constitution. Every American should recognize that there is an authority higher than government. It's called the American people. We obtain our rights by virtue of the good will of our fellow Americans. It's a gift of fellowship and community that we share with one another in the grand spirit and tradition of liberty. The only way our rights can be taken away is if a vast majority of the people agree to give them up.

Buffman

Toto

Are you inferring, that because of the political realities, the Democrats are of lesser moral character than those Repubicans (or Democrats)who proudly wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves? If what I sense you to be inferring is accurate, and I suspect that it is, a 99-0 vote would indicate (to me) that the only members of the Senate with any moral principles are those that firmly believe that we are a "nation under God." If any Democrat (or Republican) doesn't believe that Congress has no right to create a law that places everyone under a supernatural (monotheistic) God, then he/she lacks the integrity to lead this nation. Should they be voted out of office because they stood on constitutional principle rather than political expediency, at least they honored their sworn oath. That takes enormous moral fiber and courage in this current emotional environment of superstition and religious paranoia. (Perhaps if a few more of them had actually served in combat operations, they might know what it really is that provides us our liberties and freedoms. The sacrifices of our nation's warriors...not it's CEOs.)

I understand, completely, the practicalities of politics. However, I also live by an ethical code of integrity that comes from within, not from a book of myths or a voting booth. I just thought I should make that clear.

When one spends a career in the defense of that Constitution to now be suddenly told that it only covered religious people, it is a very sad and rude awakening to the failure of our democratic federal republic. Obviously these are the identical type of people that were members of the Congress back in 1954-57. Just look at what that former group's cowardice has wrought. Well, this will be even worse because of the unanimity of support. (Just three, true, patriotic, American members of the House voted against their resolution. How sad for the tens-of-millions of theists and non-theists that counted on their representatives to have a little informed backbone.)

That's it! Not a very happy day for someone who has loved the Constitution, Bill of Rights and this country as much as I have for over six decades...and who believes that the greatest gift our Framing Fathers gave the world was the unique separation of religion from government.

Jamie_L

What irks me is the notion that secularism and atheism are the same thing.

What further irks me is equating government sponsorship of religion to expression of religions belief in the "public square". It's not the same thing, and these theocrats know it.

And lastly, not that I promote this, but if no government official was ever allowed to make mention of god or religion while performing in their governing function, how would that honestly diminish the freedom of the people to practice their faith? Further, how would it render government "dysfunctional"?

Jamie

ManM

You are proposing that those in government should have limits set on their freedom of speech/expression. "If you are in goverment, you can not express X." If X is religious, you have no problem with that statement. How would you feel if X was a secular political philosophy? Don't you see the tyranny here?

Buffman

ManM

I don't interpret Jamie-L's remark in the manner that you do. There is no reason whatsoever that elected officials should not express their confidence in the supernatural in any manner they wish...other than establishing laws to support their specific religious beliefs.

ManM

Buffman,
"...if no government official was ever allowed to make mention of god or religion while performing in their governing function..." sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

Toto

I read

"if no government official was ever allowed to make mention of god or religion while performing in their governing function, how would that honestly diminish the freedom of the people to practice their faith?"

with the emphasis on "governing function". As private people or as politicians, anyone can make any religious reference they want. But when they step into the role of "public official", they have certain restrictions. One is their oath to uphold the secular constitution, with its separation of church and state.

It is similar to public school teachers, who are government functionaries. They may not impose their own religious beliefs on their students while they are on the government payroll, but they may follow any religious practice on their owm time.