Buffman

themistocles

I had fun reading through these. I wonder how many of these types are (or were) Christians. Just because someone doesn't believe that something is a myth doesn't change the verifiable evidence that it is a myth.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...f/FlatHome.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html

http://members.aye.net/~rms/fltearth.html

(Extract)
I sometimes call myself the Last Iconclast. Science is a false religion, the opium of the masses. I myself count it as a begining of Sanity to confess 'the creation proves there was a Creator' so a God or Creator...Exists. From a life-time of study, of seeking out a proving things, from the study of 6,000 years of recorded history, from observation, from experience, from Common Sense Observation, have concluded the 10 Commandments are in fact good Laws of Living and Behavior for oneself and all in contact with you...truley 'Laws of Physics for Living.' That is my opinion. The Fact the Earth is Flat is not
my opinion, it is a Proved Fact. Also demonstrated Sun and Moon are about 3,000 miles away are both 32 miles across. The Planets are 'tiny.' Sun and Moon do Move, earth does NOT move, whirl, spin or gyrate. Australians do NOT hang by their feet under the world...this is a FACT, not a theory! Also a Fact the Spinning, Whirling, Gyrating Ball World Planet, Globe Idea is Entirely 100% now and at all times in the Past, a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE...a Blind Dogmatic Article of Faith in the Religion for the Blind unreasoning beast of prey. No earthly reason for a Sane, Upright Member of the Elite Elect Humans to subscribe to it. Also a Fact, today the Elite of Earth ALL live on the Flat World. Only the illogical, unreasoning "herd"...prefers the way-out occult weird theology
of the old Greek superstitution earth a spinning ball! Both Copernecious and Newton, the inventors of the "modern" superstitions (400 year OLD modern) have said: "It is not possible for a Sane reasonable person to ever really believe
these Theories." Thus sayeth Newton-Copernecious. What sayeth THOU?
(End extract)

What sayeth I? "You are a fruitloops!" Unfortunately far too many folks are mentally conditioned by other RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES (Propaganda) that have imprisoned their critical thinking process concerning the supernatural. Monotheists have been pushing their propaganda and campfire tales for many thousands of years. Reliance on verifiable evidence has only been around for several hundred.

Just because error/ignorance/superstition doesn't bother YOU, aren't you knowingly helping to promote their survival and recruitment programs?

themistocles

I don't think it's my obligation or responsibility to force people to believe as I do. If they want to believe in Christianity, fine, I don't care as long as their belief in Christianity is not at odds with the public good, which is responsibility of government (and thus the litmus test of appropriate and inappropriate).

However, the innocuous public display of religious symbols, particularly of the seasonal variety, is not shoving beliefs down the throats if there's no consequence for disagreeing with the beliefs advertised.

That applies not just to public religious display, but the beliefs, attitudes, and actions of public officials as well.

Jewel

Many European countries do not have a separation of church and state. The US does and it allows for maximum religious freedom. You may find religious displays on government property innocuous, but I do not. And many religious folk don't either. Government employees are free to promote their religion on their own time and on their own property. They have no business doing it on government time, on government property using taxpayor money.

You are also fully free to feel that anyone who opposes religious displays on government property is wasting their time. Where does the line get drawn? Only at official theocracy?

Buffman

themistocles

I don't think it's my obligation or responsibility to force people to believe as I do.

Nor do I. However, I do believe that when I have learned the differences between fact and fiction, accuracy and error, and reality vice superstition that I have a responsibility to support/promote conclusions that are based on the verifiable evidence. I do not feel compelled(obliged) to do this....though some folks might feel that they are. I merely seek the most accurate evidence and let each person determine what to believe based on that evidence. That's one of the many problems. How to get that evidence before the greatest number of people with the assurance that they can accurately comprehend what is being made known to them? (Many a scientist is dogged by this problem.)

That applies not just to public religious display, but the beliefs, attitudes, and actions of public officials as well.

Apparently my use of the Flat Earth Society was too obtuse. Once again we seem caught in the semantics jungle. What are the differences between opinions, beliefs, faith and facts? Only facts require certification based on the most recent verifiable evidence. Any opinion or belief based on fact is dramatically different than one that is based solely on faith. Even Creationists have accepted that position ...which helps to explain why they have not been able to use their Holy Bible as a reliable source document...and lose their cases in "secular" courts of law.

SLD

It's one thing for a low level government functionary who does not have any serious ability to affect my life liberty or property wearing a simple cross over around their neck is fine. They do have the right to express themselves no doubt. A judge, or even an IRS auditor - absolutely not. Anything that could give the impression that by having a particular religious viewpoint would get you a favorable ruling, decision or what not is unacceptable.

Can you imagine the firestorm if a government contracting agent were to wear a crucifix and one of the bidders commented on how nice it is, and ohh, we go St. Mark's, which catholic church do you go, and so on and so on. If that person's company won the bid, it would be tainted, and possibly subject to legal challenge.

SLD

SLD

You've done it again Toto.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy


SLD

SLD

Ahh, but therein lies the rub, Themistocles, there is always a consequence when the government as a government appears to endorse any religious belief. It's not the creche that I find offensive, it's the implication by the government that if I toe the official line and accept the Christian religion, I will get better treatment by government officials that is very offensive and should be offensive to all who support our notion of freedom in this country. That's what the creche in front of city hall means: non-christians are not part of our community and can get lost.

Now I would agree that individual government employees, including elected officials and high government office holders, have the right to express their personal religious beliefs, and a lot of that will become public knowledge. However, such statements must be clearly identified as personal views and not the views of the government - otherwise you do have a serious C/S separation problem.

SLD

SLD

Excellent points, SS. However, it does bring up another question/argument that we studied in law school (bear with me it's been a while), and that is if we accept the premise that separation is not related to the free exercise clause, but something that is good in and of itself, then how can we apply that concept to the states through the 14th Amendment. It has been argued by some scholars that there is no individual right to separation of church and state - it's just a good thing to do. Thus the 14th Amendment's substantive due process analysis cannot be used to apply the separation clauses to states.

I disagree with that analysis. I think that separation and free exercise clauses are inextricably intertwined and that the one cannot exist without the other. Certainly Madison felt that way - they crafted the 1st Amendment to avoid the religious clashes that had rocked Europe for so many centuries previous. It is no accident that the first right listed in the Bill of Rights is separation of church and state - it was that important to the founders and especially Madison.

However does that mean that ceremonial deism is OK, because it doesn't rise to the level of interfering with practicing our faith? I suppose one person's ceremonial deism is another's "endorsement" of religion. I'm not sure how or if we can really draw any lines in this debate. Is it OK to have a Navy Chaplain do a generic deistic invocation at a retirement ceremony? I don't think it would be OK to have a Muslim Cleric cry out at such a ceremony that there is no god but allah and mohammed is his prophet. But what's the real difference as far as the Establishment Clause is concerned? One endorses a religious belief in Deism and the other more specifically in Islam. Many Americans hold neither beliefs.

For me personally, I'm not bothered by Navy Chaplains at official ceremonies saying a little non-descript deistic type prayer. I can sit through those politely and feign some measure of respect and I don't fear from those some sort of governmental conspiracy to force me to believe something. But the funny thing is that Madison opposed the idea of Navy Chaplains.

So where do you draw the line, or better yet, can you even begin to draw a line? While I generally fall onto a strict separation side, I confess that I really don't know if one should always do so.

SLD

sodium

I just think that there is a widespread view among us unbelievers that if we can only perfect separation of church and state, then this invincible wall of legal rulings will protect us from whatever the vast majority choose to believe. And I don't think that's a very practical solution. Constitutional law will inevitably come to agree with the wishes of the majority, because, in the end, they are the ones who appoint the judges.

As you can see from my bio, I'm a Canadian. We have no constitutional separation of Church and state. But I think the population is tilted slightly more in favour of the Naturalists than the strongly religious, than in the US, and so I think things are generally better here for us than in the US. In the end, voters are more powerful than legal rulings. So the only real answer, is to get more Naturalists.

If you have a constitutional separation of Church and State, then obviously you have to insist that it's observed. But I'm not really convinced of the idea in principle. Of course, I don't want the government endorsing religion, but only because it's a pack of lies. If I believed that religion was true, I wouldn't see much wrong with the government endorsing it, as long as this didn't extend to the level of persecution. And even then, I might agree, depending on what religion I thought was true. If I thought Christianity was really true, I wouldn't see much reason not to persecute people, if I could save more people from Hell.

themistocles

And many do. I don't think it's a matter of how many people "think of it", so much as what affect does such displays have on society. Getting panties in a bunch over the slightest indication that the reality that some people happen to be both religious and public figures seems rather irrational, provided the understanding that the "slightest indication" is a distinction from using religion against the public good.

I'm not arguing for public officials to wear placards for The End Times, I just think calling a nation with "In God We Trust" on it's currency a theocracy, then truly words have lost their meaning. It's irrational.

Fair enough, I entirely agree.

Well, regarding the legality of religious freedom, I think whether or not something is true with such beliefs is material (as it would be in other cases). What is important to me is whether or not someone's religious beliefs are contrary to the public good. I don't find it worthwhile to flip out if a known religious person mentions "god" in a speech, while serving in office. It's not contrary to the public good whether or not "god" is in the Pledge of Allegiance. It is contrary to the public good when creationism replaces science in the classrooms. It is contrary to the public good and the Constitution to make laws which descriminate against people based upon their beliefs.

Certainly individuals who get into office can abuse their office with such implications, I don't deny them happening in the past, I don't deny that risk existing. However, that implication is increasingly rare and taboo, as it should be. But in the same token, there have been numerous public figures of religious prominence that never implied such a thing. And personally, I'd rather a public official of merit who is religious, then a crook who observes absolutist c/s principles. If non-Christians "feel left out" because they aren't of the same religious persuasion as the politician, and the politician isn't working against the public good through their religious leanings, then I say "tough luck". I fail to see a problem worth attention.