Boy, look at them goalposts move!
So you agree that religion doesn’t affect morals. Saying something is wrong, but still doing it, is not a good example of moral behavior. It’s actually called “hypocrisy”.
And including SHMG is forcing all subsequent oathtakers to also include SHMG. Because we can only judge people by their actions and words, you’re demanding that our politicians either agree with your religion, or lie.
Actually, no. Lightnin’ is the one who’s upset with Obama. As I said earlier, I couldn’t care less. “So help me God” is a non-issue to me. What I do care about are people who think atheists and other non-Christians are less American or moral and won’t vote for someone who’s not Christian.
So you don’t think that there is a fundamental difference in moral philosophy between you and Pat Robertson then?
No I don’t agree with that at all. Hypocrisy has no impact on the commonly held moral beliefs of a community. It doesn’t change what people believe just because some of them act hypocritically.
You’re requiring that they not make an expression of faith based upon the hypothetical impact on hypothetical future people.
You refer to me as a “culture warrior” (yet another potential Bill O’Reilly trademark) and you accuse me of being in lock-step?
It’s not a question of fault? Who came up with the term “War on Christmas” and why? It wasn’t atheists. It was Christians pissed off that they weren’t getting their way.
Of course. It also happens to be the ideology on which this country’s government is based. Too bad the Religious Right keeps forgetting that.
You asked when Christians were going to remember that. I asked about Obama because my answer would be January 20th.
I don’t think atheists are less moral, but that they have a different idea of morality. I don’t see it as a linear up/down scale but more of a lateral two-dimensional one. Your zone of commitment is different. Personally I don’t go out seeking to find out the religious beliefs of my political candidates, but their beliefs do impact how I will vote. I have not knowingly voted for or against an atheist. I have knowingly voted for Christians and Jews.
No, that is not what our country is based off of. You are making a fundamental mistake about the establishment clause. It’s about an official state religion, and that’s it. It doesn’t say Politicians somehow become this perfect amoral being that is merely a metaphysical conduit for the pure will of the people.
It depends on the context. I am perfectly used to hearing someone say “bless you” when I sneeze.
If someone says “bless you” when I finish a financial transaction, I would be taken aback. The former is commonplace. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the latter is only found in communities that are already quite religious. I don’t particularly like it, but it is nothing to make an issue about. After all, it might be perfectly commonplace where I am, and when in Rome.
The bigger issue is not being blessed at the bodega but watching your president go to church and celebrating it as some sort of collective American experience. I personally find that distasteful. I also tend to find most American expressions of religion in general to be distasteful, but that is more of an aesthetic judgment than anything else. It is not easy to separate the aesthetics from politics with me, though.
I am obviously not looking to participate in all aspects of all cultures. You know me better than that. But religion/irrelegion is such a sharp dividing line in most parts of this country. Being on the wrong side of that line in most places is not a great place to be.
How old are you that you think that things that go back decades were coined by Bill O’Reilly?
So what matters to you is who came up with the term, and not the actual issue that the term is used to describe?
Do you think that suddenly out of the blue someone got offended for the first time in 2006 and Bill O’Reilly reported on it?
Go look at gravitycrash who insisted that this is a Christian nation. He’s far from alone in that thought. There’s plenty of folk out there who’d be perfectly happy with a theocracy as long as it was a Christian theocracy.
But it’s not Barack Obama’s fault.
The media doesn’t have to be invited to stand on the street in front of the church and show the President walking in, which is what they usually do. He may be your employee, but he is also a person with his own opinions, beliefs, and feelings. If you don’t want to be told by YOUR employer how to express your belief or non-belief, then maybe you should realize that he might not want that, either.
Devout Jews would probably disagree; the ones I’ve met all think the distinction between Christianity and Judaism is every bit as fundamental. They see Christians as polytheists. Members of various Christian sects seem to take their differences pretty seriously, too. In the past, people have fought and died over those supposedly ‘less fundamental’ differences. (Something all too many Christians in this country seem to forget.)
Right.
That’s about my view on it.
Yeah, I understand that actually.
Sure, that’s true, but it seems to me that there is becoming more of a culture where being religious is looked down upon. I have been in groups where defending Christianity is looked down upon, at this point in my life as often (seemingly) as it has been the reverse. In New York ridiculing Christianity is actually a pretty common occurrence, you hear it at dinner, in the bar, amongst activist groups, on the street, etc… It has become perfectly culturally acceptable to make fun of those stupid religious people, nevermind that many of them are listening to people ridicule them a few feet away.
I know, I talk to them online daily. They are not a majority opinion, even on the message boards we both frequent.
In my experience Jews prefer that you at least believe in God, even if it is in an erroneous fashion.
Is long hair a belief system ? One that calls for the destruction of all others and has a long history of doing just that ?
As pointed out, that’s ridiculous - a typical Christian persecution fantasy. And it’s not at all irrational to fear something like a new Inquisition; this country is full of people who’d like to indulge in oppression and brutality and murder towards unbelievers and sinners. And they already do, when they can get away with it.
Yes, that is the mindset of the typical believer . . . oh, you meant the other guy.
One reason that atheists tend to be nervous around people who flaunt their religion, is that they often are examples of “malicious small-mindedness that looks for petty excuses to take offense”.
Just like Christianity, you mean ?
Democracy and the separation of powers and so on all require that someone be willing to ignore the demands of such intolerant, totalitarian religions. Civilized behavior in general begins with the rejection of religious values, however much people feel obligated to spout how Christian or whatever they are.
And I see no reason that an American born, American cultured Muslim is less likely to value such things as the seperation of church and state than an American born, American cultured Christian. Quite likely he’d be MORE likely to respect such principles than a member of the faith that has overwhelming power in this country. He knows what’s it’s like on the unpopular side.
Wrong. Go read the Constitution. See where it mentions God. (Hint: it occurs in EXACTLY one place: the phrase “In the Year of Our Lord”. A friggin’ DATE!) Do you honestly think that ommission was accidental? The Founding Fathers knew precisely what they were doing when they left all mention of the Deity out of the foundational governing document of this country.
The government of this country was explicitly designed to be SECULAR. That doesn’t mean only non-religious people can hold public office. It does mean they should refrain from inappropriately inserting religious beliefs into official government actions, which is what Justice Roberts would be doing if he inserts the phrase “So Help me God” into the official Presidential oath of office.
No one is demanding that. Politicians should be free to believe what they wish. They should not, however, act in ways that imply their personal religious beliefs represent the beliefs of the wider polity.
That’s because we are in the Bubble. Good luck overhearing the same conversation thirty miles north of here.
It is culturally acceptable only in an extremely small geography and among an extremely narrow subset of people. I certain’t couldn’t get away with that at work. One of the people I work with totes her Bible Answer Man mug everywhere she goes.
I also started going to a Jewish bible study group with a colleague, curiously enough. I think if I told any of them I am a nonbeliever, their heads would explode.
I disagree with your definition of secular. Secular =/= atheist. The government cannot establish a religion, but that doesn’t mean that politicians can’t be religious.
They are supposed to vote with their conscience as to what they think best serves the people, and you elected them knowing who they are. (in theory)
Well that would just be rude. That’s more a ‘don’t be a dick’ rule.
’
Why do you go if I may ask?