[QUOTE=FriarTed]
I love liberal tolerance.
[/QUOTE]
I assume you’re referring to my insult?
I guess when liberals insult you, it’s different from when you tell them “Bite me.”
Liberal intolerance: exceeded only by conservative hypocrisy.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Which part is BS- the definition of Deism as seeing God as remote & uncaring, or the claim that Franklin, Jefferson & Paine did not share that perspective on God? They could well be called Deists, but not ones that regarded God as removed or unconcerned from human affairs.
[/QUOTE]
“Uncaring” is your own ridiculous addition to the equation. No-one i know would equate Deism with an uncaring God, and a God that cares is in no way inconsistent with a God that allows his creation to run on natural principles.
Because that’s what folks like Franklin believed. It’s not about whether or not they thought God was caring (clearly, they did), but whether they believed that the world in which humans live works upon regular natural principles that can be understood by the human mind through techniques of observation and the application of reason. The Enlightenment world, for these people, was one that did not require considerations of miracles or supernatural interventions, and was one that needed to be understood on its own terms, based on a consideration of causes and effects in the natural world and their usefulness to humans in that world. The morality at the heart of human nature might have been handed down by God, but it was to be exercised for its own utility here on earth, rather than as some stepping stone to eternal salvation or a bludgeon to keep Calvinist predestinarians in line.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Yeah, prayer in both the House and Senate have been offered daily under the direction of their Chaplains since… oh… SEVENTEEN-FRICKING-EIGHTY-NINE.
[/QUOTE]
**The United States of America: ** Preaching one thing and practicing another for over two hundred years! ™
(Or perhaps more appropriately: preaching one thing and then preaching anyway.)
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
It’s kind of a shame that contemporary Muslims haven’t embraced the archaic term “Musselman.” Whenever I read about the Treaty of Tripoli, it evokes the image of a society of incredibly bulked-up, well-oiled guys wearing nothing but turbans and tiny Speedos. “We’re all really pumped to hear about the treaty, America!” flex “You rock!” pose
[/QUOTE]
This is the best thing ever.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I’m with those who hope this puts another chink in the armor of ceremonial deism–a concept that should insult atheist and theist alike.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, he wasn’t a chink. He was a paki.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
I love liberal tolerance.
[/QUOTE]
Have liberals really been such pussies for so long that conservatives are actually surprised when they don’t tolerate their bullshit? Here’s a clue: liberals will call you out on your bullshit, and may tell you to go fuck yourself for trying to foist said bullshit on others.
Tolerance will not be extended to bullshit. Do not be surprised of such in the future.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
I love liberal tolerance.
Which part is BS- the definition of Deism as seeing God as remote & uncaring, or the claim that Franklin, Jefferson & Paine did not share that perspective on God? They could well be called Deists, but not ones that regarded God as removed or unconcerned from human affairs.
[/QUOTE]
Most historians consider Jefferson a Deist.
And Paine openly identified himself as such.
As for Franklin, see above.
This may be because i’m not American, but I honestly couldn’t care less what religion the Founding Fathers had or didn’t have.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
I’m all for Ceremonial Deism
[/QUOTE]
That’s because you’re an obnoxious, ignorant fuckhole who makes Jesus weep every time you gleefully lube up your Faith Dildo and try to jam it up the unbelievers’ collective dungeye. And you actually drooled something about liberal tolerance? Go get fucked, you arrogant shitsucking prat.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
That’s because you’re an obnoxious, ignorant fuckhole who makes Jesus weep every time you gleefully lube up your Faith Dildo and try to jam it up the unbelievers’ collective dungeye. And you actually drooled something about liberal tolerance? Go get fucked, you arrogant shitsucking prat.
[/QUOTE]
Gracious! Did your eyes roll back into your head and you collapse in a heap after all that? Howard Beale, move over!
Tolerance does not include tolerating intolerance.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
I believe in a fence between friendly neighbors, not an uncrossable wall.
[/quote]
Taking away the flowery language, does this mean you don’t believe in a complete seperation of religion and state?
As a non-American, I find your attitude towards “the Founders” interesting. Do the ideas and the intent of “the Founders” which they did not embody in written law form part of the law of the US?
That must make it hard to know what the law is.
Revenant Threshold, the founders probably wouldn’t have wanted us to concern ourselves with what their religious beliefs were. You have a point.
I tend to thing of the floor of the House and the floor of the Senate as belonging to the People. Ceremonial deism offends me because it is just “going through the motions.” Same thing with “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance’s “One Nation Under God.” There is a basis unfairness to a large portion of our citizens who are not believers and to those believers who don’t like God bandied about so carelessly.
It reminds me of a grace that we kids used to say at mealtime when our parents weren’t paying attention:
“God is great; God is good; Yea God!”
Since the Supremes say we’re going to continue to have this Ceremonial Crap, then I want to see something that represents more of the variety of the People that these women and men are representing. How about Wiccan prayers to a Goddess?
Mind you, I am a Christian. But what difference does that make? It is just a ceremony. It doesn’t mean anything, does it?
Why can’t they pray in their offices before they come into the main rooms? Why isn’t that enough?
Anyone remember the prayers of Peter Marshall? They were like poetry. He was the Senate Chaplain in the Forties or Fifties I think. As beautiful as they were, I’m still opposed on Constitutional principle. He could have found other ways of inspiring these leaders.
[QUOTE=OttoDaFe]
As long as Congress makes no law establishing or restricting religion, what it does within its own chambers is its own business.
[/QUOTE]
It pays for those chaplains out of government money, so the law providing for the chaplain is an establishment of religion. Just like the law providing for “In God We Trust” as the national motto and putting it on all the currency is an establishment of religion and the law that inserted the words “Under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance is an establishment of religion. The notion that these things are meaningless “ceremonial deism” is roundly disproved every time someone suggests abolishing the chaplains or the motto or deleting the words from the PoA and the radical right shits enough bricks to build a tabernacle. Look at how the Supreme Court ducked the issue in the Pledge case a few years back, reversing the decision on a standing issue because the 9th Circuit decision declaring the “under God” law unconstitutional was spot-on. Look at how the country went into hysterics over the 9th Circuit decision. And that’s meaningless ceremonial deism? If anyone should be up in arms over SCOTUS’s declaring these mentions of God meaningless, it should be the radical right. They should be demanding that the insult of having an expression of belief in God declared meaningless be ended by removing the words from the money and the PoA.
But back to the prayer issue, I side with the protestors, not because there shouldn’t be Hindu prayers opening the Senate’s session but because there shouldn’t be any prayers opening them. If the Senators all want to get together at some non-government funded location and have a prayer said over them by a volunteer then more power to them. But not one dime of government money should be paying for that prayer and not one minute of government time should be used for it.
On another note, the websites for the House and Senate chaplains scare me. The House chaplain seems to believe that his office is Constitutionally mandated and the Senate chaplain spells right out that his job is to affirm the belief of the Senate that God is the “Sovereign Lord of our Nation.”
[QUOTE=Otto]
… and the Senate chaplain spells right out that his job is to affirm the belief of the Senate that God is the “Sovereign Lord of our Nation.”
[/QUOTE]
I had to see it to believe it (no offense meant towards you, Otto).
Ceremonial deism indeed! :eek:
LilShieste
[QUOTE=Zoe]
It reminds me of a grace that we kids used to say at mealtime when our parents weren’t paying attention:
“God is great; God is good; Yea God!”
[/QUOTE]
The version I remember is, “God is great, God is good, let us thank him for this food” (pronouncing “food” to rhyme with “good”).
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Shiva forgive us.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure that’s what Shiva does.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Ezra Stiles, 1790
[/QUOTE]
Wow, this is some good stuff…I think I need to read some more of Franklin’s writings. 
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I’m not sure that’s what Shiva does.
[/QUOTE]
Errmmm . . . Vishnu?
Nuttin’! Vishnu wit’ you?
Yea, God! was the final exclamation in the camp mess hall prayer:
Rub-a-dub-dub. Thanks for the grub. Yea, God!