Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

It's Time to Kick Jesus Out of Politics

By Nathaniel Hoffman, Boise Weekly. Posted March 19, 2008.


Is legislative prayer really necessary?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

BOISE -- Every day at Idaho's temporary statehouse, broadcast over loud speakers, you can hear prayer. Sometimes it's the House chaplain recalling the travails of Daniel or perhaps dipping into a New Testament reflection. Or maybe it's the Senate's pastor asking for divine guidance in matters of state.

Every day we withhold our judgment until the amens are about to begin.

In the Senate last week it was, "... in the name of the great physician who came with healing in his hand."

OK, that's kind of creative.

And then, coming from the House side, "We do all these things in Jesus' name ..." Do we really?

The vast majority in the Idaho Legislature and in legislative bodies across the country remain vocal about their belief in prayer. But the tradition of legislative prayer, while long and well-documented, is one that the Constitution merely "tolerates."

A 1983 U.S. Supreme Court decision upheld legislative prayer in Nebraska saying, "To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."

According to those same, er, activist justices, it is fine to spend taxpayer money on two Christian pastors so that they may tend to their legislative flock with a daily public display of Jesus affection. Because that's what's always been done.

Rep. Sue Chew, a Boise Democrat, is a Buddhist who relies on prayer to get through her days. Like one day last week when a simple Medicaid bill was killed for narrow ideological -- perhaps religiously motivated -- reasons.

Chew says it is difficult for her to sit through the House's exclusively Christian prayers, but she is reluctant to say anything. She believes that House chaplain Rev. Tom Dougherty means well.

"I see his smiling, joyful face, and I don't know that he'll get what I have to say," Chew said.

He won't. We checked.

Dougherty, in his first year as House chaplain, is a pastor at Cloverdale Church of God in Boise.

"They don't have to listen," Dougherty said when asked if he has any reservations about offering Christian prayers to a public audience that includes non-Christians.

At least two senators are not as forgiving as Chew. Elliot Werk, a Boise Democrat and Chuck Coiner, a Twin Falls Republican have had a word with Senate Chaplain David Goebel in the past. They asked him to remember his audience is not uniform in belief.

"I kind of appreciate it as long as it's done in a respectful manner to people of all faiths or of no faith," said Coiner, an Episcopalian by marriage.

Coiner said that the daily invocation -- the second order of business in both the House and Senate -- is a time to think of colleagues in distress, to remember manners, to slow down.

"I try to use word pictures and metaphors that I can connect with as a Christian but also are open for other people," says Goebel.

Hence the great physician in the sky. Still, Goebel considers his posting at the Annex to be part of his ministry.

"It's a very different kind of ministry than being a pastor in a local church," Goebel said. "I'm used to being very clear and direct about who I am, what I stand for, where I'm coming from."

Many lawmakers are just as clear and direct in their faith.

"I think it is a wonderful idea to make eternal supplication on behalf of the people of the state of Idaho and the Legislature every single day," said Sen. Bart Davis.

Some lawmakers skip the prayer session, scooting into their seats in time to speechify and vote. Some adjust the angle of their laptop screens so they can read email while everyone tucks chin to chest in a show of spineless conformity.

We stand tall in the press gallery, head unbowed, lips unmoving, emotions ping ponging between agnostic contempt and a desire to rip off our shirt, revealing a thick, imagined chest-sized Star of David tattoo.

Dear Idaho, we heathens too are participating in the political process.

The public encouragement of religion, no matter how vague or poetic, is troubling to civil libertarians like Jack Van Valkenburgh, head of the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho.

"Anytime the government is promoting a religion it's undermining the freedom of religion in my view," Van Valkenburg said. "And to encourage a particular religion or a particular set of religions is particularly offensive."

The 1983 Supreme Court case, Marsh v. Chambers, rested on the fact that within three days of appointing a committee to hire congressional chaplains in 1789, the First Congress approved the Bill of Rights, including the Establishment clause.

But in carving out a First Amendment exception for legislative bodies, the justices failed to apply the Lemon test, the method that all courts use to determine church-state violations. It is taught in most high school government classes.

"I have no doubt that, if any group of law students were asked to apply the principles of Lemon to the question of legislative prayer, they would nearly unanimously find the practice to be unconstitutional," wrote Justice William Brennan in his dissent to the Marsh ruling. Three justices dissented.

Every legislature in the union does prayer in one form or another, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most states pay their chaplains.

Ben Franklin suggested prayer at the Constitutional Convention. The U.S. Congress hires chaplains and pays them like ad execs.

Sen. Davis says that everyone at the Annex is an adult and can make up their own mind about the prayers offered. But many impressionable young pages wander the halls, open the doors for Davis and use the public wi-fi to download movies and music. Their political initiation is going to be skewed by this daily religious indoctrination.

Davis offers them a false choice. All Idahoans go to the halls of government to seek redress. Most say they embrace god. Many really do. Some tolerate it.

Who knows how many stay away because their views are excluded every morning during the second order of business?

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: jesus, church and state, religion and politics, legislative prayer

Nathaniel Hoffman covers state politics for the Boise Weekly and edits PaleoMedia.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Simple answers to simple questions
Posted by: factbased on Mar 19, 2008 12:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, it's not necessary.

The act of prayer is, to all available evidence, entirely inconsequential. Unfortunately, being seen to pray may be necessary to win over certain constituencies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» it's politics, not religion Posted by: Lector
*sigh* The whole christmas thing again...
Posted by: paulaH on Mar 19, 2008 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saying "Merry Christmas" is not banished, it just isn't the law. I don't have to say it if I don't want to. I don't want to. End of story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Really! Such nonsense! Posted by: LeeAnnG
RE: I know the feeling **CHECK OUT JOHN SHELBY SPONG**
Posted by: maribelle on Mar 19, 2008 6:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also have to wonder if Christians aren't missing the real message of their gospel by taking it literally.

Hetware you said a mouthful. Have you read any John Shelby Spong, like "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" and "WHy Christianity Much Change, or Die". He was almost brought up on heresy charges twice. Quite a thinker and writer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: I know the feeling
Posted by: Intellect on Mar 20, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no "banishment" of an individuals use of the seasonal greeting, Merry Christmas! Individuals have always had the right of free speech and freedom of religion.

What they do not have is the right to use public buildings to erect religious monuments or a Decalogue or to use the government or public assets to assist them in proselyzation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I know the feeling Posted by: Bibsi
RE: I know the feeling
Posted by: emmas on Mar 20, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The greeting 'Merry Christmas' hasn't been banished. Plenty of people say it. Why do some Christians get so offended by non-religious greetings like 'Happy Holidays'? I'm an atheist; I don't belong to any religious group, but I don't get offended and feel persecuted when people say Merry Christmas' or 'Happy Easter' to me. It really frustrates me when Christians in predominantly Christian countries start talking about their non-existent persecution. If someone thinks that my saying 'Happy Holidays' constitutes persecution, then it's pretty clear to me that the person lacks any perspective on what 'persecution' actually is. People were persecuted during the Holocaust. People were persecuted during the Inquisition. People in Palestine are persecuted. The greeting 'Happy Holidays' doesn't compare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religious thugs impose their beliefs on others
Posted by: Moonray on Mar 19, 2008 1:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What makes religious people so dangerous is that many assume they have the right to impose their beliefs on others. (Just ask Osama Bin Laden.)

It is inexcusable that Christians or others in America would inject their religious beliefs into government meetings and even carve religious statements onto public buildings. They even have a religious slogan on our money.

Adding injury to insult, the religious clique even gives itself huge exemptions from all taxes -- in effect stealing public tax money to subsidize their religious operations!

Americans need to stand up and put a stop to this blatant violation of the Constitution. Vote against all Republicans and anyone else who would tolerate this ongoing obscenity. Enough is enough!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Just what constitutes "religion" Posted by: Adler Berriman Seal
Get Faith Out of Politics & Politics Out of Faith
Posted by: NoPCZone on Mar 19, 2008 2:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nobody is well served when they try to mix the two. The Bible contains a quote of Jesus that instructs followers to render unto the government and to god separately those things due to each.
Christians trying to interject their faith into politics are not even following the basic tenants of their own faith.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just a kind of instinctive feeling
Posted by: talkville on Mar 19, 2008 3:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's always something that's kind of un-settling, kind of suspicious really, about those who invite Witnesses and make a spectacle of piety. Especially in view of the fact that the more such things are held up to wide public display, the invocations solemnly proclaimed by such people are usually accompanied by actions and policies which are of the most opposite kind. Why such a need to be Witnessed by others? Does this somehow excuse the frequently most cruel, intolerable and retrograde policies they usually promote in action? Just who are these 'good' people trying to convince of their 'goodness'?

Institutions of government are for carrying on the affairs and addressing and solving the problems of THIS real and actual society just as it currently is. Take religious dogmas and beliefs out of these settings and buildings; that's why different people of different beliefs and ways of living have the right to build and erect their own buildings and institutions and to gather there to carry on their ways.

There's always something problematic about those who show too much of an inclination to make sure that others SEE them worshiping-- it always smells a bit too much of hypocrisy. Just what is motivating them to legislate -- hard to tell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: My granddaddy used to say Posted by: bitsfick
» RE: My granddaddy used to say Posted by: talkville
pfft! scribes, pharasees: hypocrites!
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Mar 19, 2008 4:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Matthew 6:5-14
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

stupid christians! prayer is private!

oh, dear lord, protect me from thy followers!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Crossing The Line And Back Again Posted by: Doubting Thomas
We Are a Religious People
Posted by: rcase on Mar 19, 2008 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are a religious people. Over 90% of us believe in God. Most of us are Christian. This has been recognized from day one in the founding of America. This is not to say that any denomination is "established" in the sense of being an official religion. Because we are a religious people we believe God is interested in our affairs; yea, not only interested but would seek to guide our affairs to make this country and the world a better place. There are two problems: one, some don't like the idea that God exists and that he is interested in our affairs. They would seek to impose their skepticism on all of us. If we want to pray, do it at home but I am offended if you do it in my presence. But religion is hardly religion if it not restricted from public expression. Shall the skeptical minority impose its intolerant will on the majority? The second problem is that we have many expressions of religion and that any one person's prayers may not reflect the religious beliefs of others. The answer is that we encourage one anothe even as we tolerate one another. We take turns. I suppose the athiest should also have a turn. He or she might want to make a statement at the point where prayer is often given to declare belief in the self-sufficiency of the human mind, or power politics, or whatever it is that drives the ideology. Atheism, agnosticism, or secular humanism are, in the end, all forms of religion since they approach life from a faith perspective (that perspective being there is no God, or, we cannot know if there is a God). Tolerance, or at least sensitivity towards one another is a better approach than the rants against Jesus.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We Are a Religious People Posted by: mainspark
» RE: We Are a Religious People Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» EmcinoM... Posted by: Quannah
» You think We Are a Religious People..? Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
» So we re free... Posted by: bornxeyed
» Bzzzt. Wrong. Posted by: factbased
» RE: We Are a Religious People Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: We Are a Religious People Posted by: Intellect
» RE: We Are a Religious People Posted by: Basenjis
What Would Zoroaster Do? Or Cernunnos, for that Matter?
Posted by: jmmartin on Mar 19, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hear! Hear! You've pinpointed the exact nature of the damage done to our Constitution by legislative prayer when you describe Ms. Chew's uneasiness as a Buddhist having to sit through so clearly, obviously Christian an invocation. The establishment clause should be literally interpreted. As world events make painfully, tragically clear, prayer to one god is to the exclusion of all others, and prayer in public places (as adverse to churches, cathedrals, synagogues, and mosques) tends to establish the authenticity of the god prayed to.

Just don't expect the Bush-packed Supremes on the current court to do anything to reverse the its precedent. The current majority would like to reverse Roe v. Wade, but not legislative prayer. You've got that arch mackerelsnap crypto-theofascist Antonin Scalia sucking up to Roman authority; his stooge, the porno-loving African-American hypocrite who always votes as Scalia does, being too slow-witted to do otherwise, and Roberts, Scalito, and Kennedy (who's very likely Catholic as well) pitched against associates who probably concede the issue thinking it's not all that important, so why make a fuss?

They'll never see the harm done by legislative prayer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Faith is
Posted by: bitsfick on Mar 19, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
found by the masses to be true, the wise to be false, and the politicians to be usefull.

Seneca the younger, 4bc-65ad

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Faith is Posted by: wal55
Kick Jesus out of politics
Posted by: rewassenich on Mar 19, 2008 5:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US Constitution clearly separates church and state. If prayers are said in Congress and the state legislatures, the courts should step in and stop this nonsensical practice. Are our elected 'lawmakers' above the law and the Constitution??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well.... Posted by: aussidawg
» Well.... Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Kick Jesus out of politics Posted by: Intellect
Hence the great physician in the sky.
Posted by: bitsfick on Mar 19, 2008 5:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm going to sue the S.O.B. for malpractice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow
Posted by: Kcanadensis on Mar 19, 2008 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had no idea that was going on. I'm somewhat horrified. It's almost like someone is wanting to guilt everyone into doing what conservatives would want. I don't know. But it really is time for our gov't to become secular AGAIN. That's right folks- America never was a "Christian Nation", and was founded on secular principles. Let's see it the way it's supposed to be, rather than having the chosen ones shoving their dreck down our throats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow Posted by: rhinojos
Who Would Jesus Bomb? !
Posted by: GrannyBgood on Mar 19, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A very timely question.

Only ONE right answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who Would Jesus Bomb? ! Posted by: mainspark
» RE: Who Would Jesus Bomb? ! Posted by: Liberty G
» RE: Who Would Jesus Bomb? ! Posted by: mainspark
» morality is public; Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: morality is public; Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Who Would Jesus Bomb? ! Posted by: Intellect
» RE: Who Would Jesus Bomb? ! Posted by: rhinojos
» RE: Who Would Jesus Bomb? ! Posted by: oceanwaves99999
Christ vs Christianity
Posted by: purereason on Mar 19, 2008 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Christ demnded was living on the basis of the System that gave us life. He, like some others, called the System the Truth. This makes us to value human relationship. But, Christianity made the religion known after him to idol worship. When people rely on speculation for guidance in life disaster is the result. This is what is happening all over the world, it has reached the nadir in the USA as no one is promoting culture and spirituality. Culture and Spirituality can be had only in relationship with the System of Life. for more visit Pure Reason, the Expression of the Enlightenment

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Christ vs Christianity Posted by: aussidawg
Religious Oppression????
Posted by: Doubting Thomas on Mar 19, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our problem is that we, the secular, were quiet for way too long and let the religious claim their "traditions" as the reason for allowing them to cross over the line many, many times. Now the secular community seems to have mustered up it's courage to stand for it's convictions, and anytime we find instances where we are calling things, like prayer before government gatherings, into question, the religious start to scream religious oppression! It's not oppression people, you simply shouldn't have been doing it in the first place. You, the religious, are just used to getting your way about things and start crying oppression when we are calling you on it. If we took this prayer thing back to the courts, and it was ruled unconstitutional, no one will be stopping any of you from praying! Every single American is free to pray when and where they want. What we would be stopping is the government's participation and endorsing of religion, which I believe should stop. That's how I see it anyway.
"Vote Nader"
I'm an atheist, and I approve this message.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligious Oppression???? Posted by: saltillosuzy
» RE: eligious Oppression???? Posted by: oceanwaves99999
Hypocracy
Posted by: modeler on Mar 19, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Polticians are professional benders of the truth (not to call them liars). What do prayers accomplish under those conditions if not abetting their actions? Is that separation of state and religion? I think not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Legislative prayer
Posted by: peacemama on Mar 19, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I were in a Islamic country and they offered preayers to Allah this would not offend me or if I were in India and they offered prayers to a Hindu diety. I would be respectful enough to silently meditate. As a minority I would respect their beliefs, as long as I was not forced to take a direct aprt in their relgious activities or services. I get tired of minorities in this country whining all of the time, that they are not respected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Legislative prayer Posted by: wal55
» Ahhh.... Posted by: Domokun
» RE: Ahhh.... Posted by: oceanwaves99999
» RE: Legislative prayer Posted by: purereason
» RE: Legislative prayer Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Legislative prayer Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Legislative prayer Posted by: bittershaman
» RE: Legislative prayer Posted by: bwj8
» Welcome to the USA Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Legislative prayer Posted by: Intellect
re: rcase & wal55
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Mar 19, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is clearly in reference to you two:

"oh, dear lord, protect me from thy followers!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: re: rcase & wal55 Posted by: wal55
Jesus only cares about football!
Posted by: war_on_tara on Mar 19, 2008 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They still talk about that Hail Mary pass at Nazareth High.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a non-issue to get Atheist's panties in a bunch
Posted by: EncinoM on Mar 19, 2008 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every legislative body, since their creation has opened if not every session at least the first one with a pray. The Supreme Court does it also.

The Author leave out the Lemon Test, here it is

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

The problem is the Lemon test goes to funding and such legislation, a apply this test to broadly and Amry Chaplins are unconsitutional, as well as "In God We Trust" on money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prayer is the stupidest possible act.........
Posted by: tap17x on Mar 19, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.........because it's so ineffective. Where were the answers to the prayers of those plummeting down from the Twin Towers, knowing they were about to become sidewalk stains? Is God too busy to act? When has a prayer ever made an objective difference? Praying is simply a sop by politicians to the idiot voters who don't know any better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jesus Said:
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Mar 19, 2008 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Render unto Bush what is Bush's, and unto God that which is God's.."

Or something like that...


See what I mean..?


I'm with Jesus..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jesus Said: Posted by: wal55
» RE: Jesus Said: Posted by: oceanwaves99999
Oh, please! Not again!
Posted by: sawdust on Mar 19, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just another example of religion (and its'varied adherents) run completely amok in America. We've got our priorities skewed totally out of whack. If it's this bad in Idaho (nobody lives there) things must really be screwed up everywhere else. Must Jesusism, Mariology and fundamentalist blathering pollute everything, for the sake of getting (and staying) elected? I think I'm going to be sick.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reject Religious Fundamentalists and Begin to Change
Posted by: hadashito on Mar 19, 2008 11:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once our ignorant and distracted public has finally realized that the religious fundamentalist moron who occupies the Oval office, and his cronies, have destroyed much of the value of this country with bloody, corrupt schemes, the Pentagon and the military have been infiltrated by religious fundamentalitsts, the Supreme Court has been populated by Bush cronies, and the corporations and the media have taken advantage of the trend with the help of the White House and Republicans in the Congress, then maybe there will be change - - after they are all booted out of their cat bird seats and we may begin the rebuild the country they are so fervently trying to destroy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All Fundamentalism is Evil...! Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
All civil government is the Devil's workshop. Why pray about it?
Posted by: leland61 on Mar 19, 2008 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then the devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And the devil said to him, ‘To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please Luke 3: 5 & 6

The religious reich is wrong. There is nothing they can do about government. It will always reflect the corruption of its ultimate master, the devil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prayer in the Senate or House
Posted by: willymack on Mar 19, 2008 11:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is a holdover from the days following the time when the church challenged the soverign of the nation for power. This occurred throughout Europe, and was resolved through power sharing agreements, evidenced by the fact that the king/queen of England is also in charge of the church of England, or that anyone born in Denmark is automatically enrolled in the lutherin church. Religious bodies have attempted to worm their way into American politics since day one, and would take over if allowed to do so. They command a respect and deference that, in my mind, is undeserved and unconstitutional.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You learn something new...
Posted by: Afban on Mar 19, 2008 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an Episcopalian, I must say this:

said Coiner, an Episcopalian by marriage.

was the most intriguing bit of this whole post for me. I had no idea that it was possible to become an Episcopalian by marriage. I wonder if our priest's Jewish husband realizes he's one of us now! (Bwahahahaha!)

Seriously, though. Prayer is a private act and should be kept that way. I do not understand how any Christian could find it acceptable to force non-Christians to sit through our prayers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Episcopalian by marriage? Posted by: Adler Berriman Seal
THERE IS NO........
Posted by: rsmohio on Mar 19, 2008 2:17 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
place for religion in government. Not in any form under any circumstances. NO EXCEPTIONS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What about Israel? Posted by: Adler Berriman Seal
Jesus told us to keep Church and State Separate..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Mar 19, 2008 2:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is there any debate on this as I tried to say humorously Jesus Himself said, told us and those of His time to keep Religion out of the cesspool of politics..

Jesus was the first to announce the separation of Church and State when he said:

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's..!"

Any so called Preacher that tells you or argues different is a blaspheming heretic and going directly against what Jesus taught..

It's a shame many on the left are so loath to dare quote or use those words Jesus left us...

If they did it would be the strongest and often the last word on this stupid argument..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is he on the dem or re slate?
Posted by: The Big Raven on Mar 19, 2008 3:31 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I never heard of this guy before is he a actor? or he is a millionbillionare? Is he for the Iraq war? probley one of thoose peace loving long hair types thats all we need and what race is this guy hispanic? hayzoos aka Jesus ah hah now I know he one of thoose immergrants comming up here stealing my below minimum wage earnings so he can send for his famileeya were fucked folks

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Lawmakers Really Want To Pray....
Posted by: Animal on Mar 19, 2008 4:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then it should be on their own while in session, or on their own time. Legislative prayer should be regarded the same as school prayer- done on theier own, but not in an organized session that would have to be sat thru by those who may not share their religious beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

as I have said before
Posted by: dannrusso on Mar 19, 2008 4:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there is nothing wrong with the message...

the messengers, however, need a little work

:-)

peace,
Dann

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

17,621 words Total
Posted by: BeyondBeliefs on Mar 19, 2008 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Latin Language contains 17,621 words Total.

The flat earth barbarians of the Roman Empire spent 560 years trying to translate into Latin, make sense out of, the various texts they stole during their conquests... well...just those books they did not chose to burn.

Today, who would sacrifice TRUTH (a half Billion Years of Creation ) consume the earth to build killing machines and attack Creation in order to defend, and ENFORCE, the Fables fabricated by the Rulers of Roman Empire to control their army of SLAVES ?

Words were NEVER the Truth.
Only Life is Truth.

The patriots to the recently woven flags of INVISIBLE BORDERS, and the obedient worshipers of these recently invented magic ghosts of eternal heavens and eternal hells, would terminate life in the real world in order to enforce their words on the innocent children of other lands.

All Humans want their freedom, not ours.
Our words are no better than their words.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amen! Enough of Fake Messiahs
Posted by: BlueKansas on Mar 19, 2008 5:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I too am sick of these morons praying to their invisible friends and insisting their elected officials do the same. It's a sad fact that even a sane politician has to pretend to pray to nonsensical beings that do not exist.

The long-term solution is education. The short-term solution is vigorous enforcement of the 1st Amendment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why do Christians ignore Jesus?
Posted by: Morgaine Swann on Mar 19, 2008 6:36 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus said to go into your closet and pray. He said not to make a public spectacle of prayer, yet they want to shove it down everyone's throat. If they don't believe in the words of their own "savior," why should I?

There should be no prayer on any government facility, in any legislature, any military installation. Ideally, you shouldn't even know the religion of the guy you're standing next to if you are in the military or are an elected official. None of that is supposed to matter in America. Let's try a little of that religious freedom people are so fond of, and let our secular government be truly secular. Get your "god" off my money, my federal buildings, my pledge of allegiance. Yes, I said "mine" because I'm an American, too, no matter what my religion happens to be. All those laws and all those freedoms include me, too, and there's no way I'm going to feel "included" when I'm forced to endure the invocation of a destructive desert war deity before I conduct public business. Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How Would Jesus Legislate?
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Mar 19, 2008 6:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus didn't ask to be dragged into the legislative chamber. He told his disciples not to pray in public, but in their closets. He told them to render what is God's to God and what is Caeser's to Caeser. He emphasized love, compassion, humility, forgiveness, generosity, non-materialism and nonviolence. In other words, everything the politicians who so often invoke his name oppose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks Posted by: luckypuck
How Would Jesus Legislate?
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Mar 19, 2008 6:50 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus didn't ask to be dragged into the legislative chamber. He told his disciples not to pray in public, but in their closets. He told them to render what is God's to God and what is Caeser's to Caeser. He emphasized love, compassion, humility, forgiveness, generosity, non-materialism and nonviolence. In other words, everything the politicians who so often invoke his name oppose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Jesus, No Buddha, No Mahammed, Etc.
Posted by: mindtrvlr on Mar 19, 2008 7:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to stop this insane worship of non-existant, unseen, invisable messiahs. What loving creator would make such a horrendous place as planet Earth and standby and watch us torture and kill each other, and fight over his/her existance. The Bible is the biggest mixmash of humane stupidity and contradictions that was ever written. That also goes for all the other so called religious material that was put together to control populations or give some false hope of life after death. You can give me my eighty virgins right now. What a joke all of these religions are. More people have killed each other in the name of religion, than anything else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Christians make easy targets for those seeking power.
Posted by: aussidawg on Mar 19, 2008 7:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the premise of the article...get religion the fuck out of politics!!! The current administration is using the tendencies of those of religious persuation to increase their power and are succeeding. The Dominionists are using the Christian Right in combination with the imperiaistic goals of the neocons to effectively take control of our government. These "Christians" wish to replace Constitutional Law with biblical law, and in doing so wish to extend the death penalty to: adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals, blasphemers, heretics, and even those whose "Christian" beliefs don't meet their "standards." They want to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as they believe that the sick are being punished through their sickness by God and further that by them having to pay taxes for these programs they are being robbed. It is their belief that caring for the elderly and sick should be done by friends, family, or churches and not them (sound famiiar?)They believe that the poor and middle class are poor or midde class rather than rich and elite because of their licensousness and rebellious nature and believe that they, the elite, are entitled by God to be rulers (whatever happened to Christ's views on the rich I have no idea.) They believe it is a sin to lie, unless they the ruling class lie in order to effectively rule the underclass, which would be anyone BUT themselves.Finally, they consider Liberals to be the beast of the Bible, the most evil of evil because they are rebellious and independant thinking. (One can see why conservatives don't like us...we won't march in lockstep with their needs for safety and security or rules and regulations. Actually, they hate pleasure and sex cuz they have neither...thus the rules and regulations!) This group (much larger and more powerful than one might think based on their insane belief system, but populated by all of the conservative Right Wing Authoritarians aka sheeple) that currently make up the republican party, was first led by Pat Robertson, and is now symbolicaly led by none other than Preznit George Bu$h, and include such government officials as Anthony Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Tom Deay, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, most of the PNAC signers, and many individuals and other government officials. The Dominionists have effectively taken over the Republican party. THIS is what happens when religion and poitics are mixed...a friggin disaster! This is Sean Hannity's idea of a "Great American" and "liberty and freedom. Please read the above linked article...it will open your eyes. Unless the American sheep want to wake up "Christian" by mandate it's time to wake up. Oh and one more thing...whatever you do..DON'T VOTE FOR ANY REPUBLICANS unless you want to wake up to state mandated prayer!!! This is but one of the demands the Dominionist Theocracy desires to be law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow...
Posted by: adp3d on Mar 19, 2008 8:26 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I'd like to coin a new term - Christofacist...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow... Posted by: EJ
» RE: Wow... Posted by: snowdude38
» RE: Wow...Not Christo! Posted by: Jayzer
What would Jesus Do?
Posted by: snowdude38 on Mar 19, 2008 10:10 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First he'd be a progressive, since he was the first progressive in that early world view of conservative aggressive warmongers.
The elitist rich who felt that the peasants were only meant to be slaves.
Jesus treated all with respect and dignity, even those who thought Jesus to be thier enemy.
That's what being a progressive means,
looking forward, not back.
Thinking not reacting with violence or
abusive behavior.
Jesus was the first progressive and
I choose to follow his path.
The coservative right and the neo-cons can now take there place in hell, where they belong. Next to thier Lord, SATAN...
Goodnight W... Goodnight Dick...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What would Jesus Do? Posted by: oceanwaves99999
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see
Posted by: luckypuck on Mar 19, 2008 11:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’m surprised Mr. Hoffman omitted that Benjamin Franklin’s effort to hire a congressional chaplain was vociferously voted down. In fact, James Madison wrote, "The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.”

Contrary to some of the posters above, more comfortable stating their wishful thinking than the facts, there weren’t ANY invocations at ANY of the meetings of the first congress or the second or third. I’ve looked for information when the first ones began, but thus far have been unsuccessful. I’d appreciate it if someone has that information and would post it here.

Also, for the remainder of the century of our founding, Christian preachers published page after page of sermons, pamphlets and newspaper essays excoriating the Constitutional Conveners for their successful efforts to remove all references to God. Clearly the founders knew what they were doing.

As far as “In God We Trust” on our money as a sign that this is a Christian nation, I beg to differ. It's a sign that our politicians are corrupt in that they cave in to clearly unconstitutional efforts to establish Christianity as a state religion in order to garner votes from influential (read “monied”) special interest groups. The first attempt to put that EX-clusive motto on money came from a cabal of Christian businessmen (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) who, in 1861 “influenced” a lame-duck congress to make the change from the original "E Pluribus Unum". They also wanted to change the Preamble to the Constitution to read,

"We, the people of the United States, humbly acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all
authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government..."


Doesn't that establishment crap make you cringe? The best that could be said about the congress that passed this proposal, is that they might have been so terrorized by the cabal’s Preamble change, they caved on the motto issue. Still, that was at the expense of what is right and good for the country as a whole.

If there are those who still insist that Christians are not trying to establish a state religion, let them accept a proposal to print “In Allah We Trust.” Let them put up on government buildings, “In the Great Spirit We Trust.” How about, “We Don’t Trust Any God.”

I have some support material on this same topic which was posted on Alternet several months ago. Unfortunately, I neglected to mark the original author. If it was you, I apologize for not being as organized as usual, but your stuff is too good not to repost it.

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?"- James Madison

“I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest morality that has ever been taught” “. . . but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invested by priestcraft and established by kingcraft, constituting a conspiracy of church and state against the civil and religious liberties of mankind.” -Thomas Jefferson.

Lastly, ”I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’"
-Senator Barry Goldwater

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what would " satan" do ??? do y'all think that george w bush would know the answer?
Posted by: cherylsass123 on Mar 20, 2008 3:47 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it is high time to kick " christ" the true "devil" here in america, the **** out of america's politics! this prayer shit in public is ridiculous. THOMAS JEFFERSON WAS RIGHT! AS WAS JESUS THE PROPHET. RELIGION IS PERSONAL. and to quote george washington " GOD is personal, government should be ROMAN." and while we are at it, " christ-mas" should be eliminated as a national legal holiday. I mean? why don't we celebrate chanukkah as a legal holiday[ hebrew] nor halloween[ samhain, pronounced "sow-ween"; which is pagan]. then again even though this year, like always, the whole idea of the stupid, meaningless " holiday season" making me even more depressed- I had to think of the true reason for the season, so to speak. mel brooks, the filmmaker; perhaps put the holiday season's meaning in perspective in the movie, spaceballs; when he told the young jewish lad; " MERCHANDISING! IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MERCHANDISING!" that seems to be the reason for the season, alright! maybe we should ask pat robertson to declare what he " earned in donations" last year? or how well those books written by james dobson are selling lately? that, and TAX ALL CHURCHES WITH MORE THEN 500 SEATS! nope, somebody needs to kick this bastard of a so called " lord god" the hell out of this country's government! that would surely be a fine start! by the way, it's funny how the late dr. anton szandor la vey[founder of san francisco's "church of satan" and publisher of the satanic bible in 1969- felt that his church should NOT be tax free and rather shall pay property taxes to the city of S.F. he often felt that the so called "christian" churches should be forced to do the same!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

James Madison - The father of our Constitution
Posted by: Intellect on Mar 20, 2008 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not involve the principle of a national establishment...?”-- James Madison, "Essay on Monopolies"

The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles.
The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.”-- James Madison, statement when being outvoted in the bill to establish the office of Congressional Chaplains, from Madison's "Detached Memoranda"

“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents.”-- James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788

“I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principal with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the national treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done maybe to apply to the constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non currant”-- James Madison, being outvoted in the bill to establish the office of Congressional Chaplain, Madison's Writings, Vol. 3, p. 274

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do we believe in magic
Posted by: BeyondBeliefs on Mar 20, 2008 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Virgin births, walking on water, water to wine, angels, demons, spirits, heavens, hells, talking burning bushes, Jonah coughed up by a whale, instant Adam and Eve, talking snakes, forbidden fruits, parting the red sea, murdering the first born, Noah's arc, floods, raining fires, pillars of salt, resurrecting the dead... on and on... all told that they are ''born sinners'' , ''pornography'' and ''bastards''' for being born without their religion's authorization, all told that Life is not meant to live here on earth, but instead for an after life... and ONLY if they obey the orders of the ruling high priest of the crusading army of armed missionaries.

If we are to be judged by our association with the preachers of ancient barbaric flat earth religious doctrines, then we will never escape the ignorance of our barbaric past.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

false claim
Posted by: binkey on Mar 20, 2008 3:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not true that 90% of people in this country believe in God. Just before the 2000 election(the last days of the free press) an article came out in the Oregonian, showing that believers in most states don't even cross the 40% mark. (in Oregon it's less than 1 in 3). When the neo cons took over, the story changed, but now that they have become so unpopular, it is getting harder to keep things under control. Just last week, it was reported that the fastest growing religion in this country was- no religion. Since the non believers comprise almost 20% of us at this point, that means that 1 in 5 of us doesn't believe. And, I don't think that is the whole story. Why is the fastest growing church in this country "no church"? People's tolerance for the excesses of the religious is wearing thin. This is not making people turn away from the church- it is making them more willing to join with others in publicly stating what has always been true for them.

Get over it- most of don't believe in god, and the christians have been so rude to the rest of us (by trying to take over our government, or dictate who we can marry, for example)that we are no longer hiding our complete disbelief in their poorly conceived collection of fairy tales out of politeness.

At this point in history, when I hear someone publicly professing their faith, I seriously wonder what their secret perversion is. The psychological complexities of participating in such "faith" are such that, if one didn't have a strong need to avoid the truth, one would have no need for such a convoluted view of reality.

If this seems disrespectful, I can only say that it pales in comparison to the disrespect that these christians have been dishing out in large steaming helpings to the civil society that I support, and the constitution upon which it rests.

And I am so tired of the assault on the constitution. The history of this country is full separation of church and state. This was introduced from the very beginning FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHRISTIANS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: false claim Posted by: drbill
» RE: false claim Posted by: EJ
» RE: false claim Posted by: oceanwaves99999
Know why witnesses have inverted nipples?
Posted by: Beepath on Mar 21, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From people using their index fingers and poking them in the chest saying, "get off my porch!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are a religious people/ rcase
Posted by: Kuressaare on Mar 23, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well brother or sister,speak for yourself. What fundamentalists cannot grasp and will not, is that those not endowed with their particlar direct circuitry to god don't give a hemisemidemiquiver for what the invented head of all this stuff means,says, or wants. It's your invention, little people, not ours. There were people 5000 years ago who had realised, not been been given sacred texs in burning stone or gold, that the love they bore for each other was the sentiment without a name: Swedish still has none other than "kärlek" or "kaerlek" depending on your softwear, others don't make a difference between aimer and aimer, like or love. Other like Spanish resort to "querer", as in "te quiero","I want you. How demeaning. They have the perectly fine "Amar" as in "Te amo", I love you, and when they say it is deep stuff, very, So why the need for querer in this meaning? Too scared to say the real thing.

But let me revert here, this idea of a religious people and those Chirstian: you know how insulting you are? I find your religion unacceptable, the ingenuiy of execution varieties in order to avoid the shedding of blood. Honestly, do explore Mithraism, that's Zorastianism's predecessor (maybe), bull's blood, and one does not mean Egri Bikavér, the Hungarian wine

And cheers too, next time around one could be born to Shinto parents, who are much in tune with the natural world, despite the spurious claims in the allied world after the war. If it takes no more than being born to parents of a certain religion in order to become one of that religion, and I am damned if I can see any other rationale for what most of us wind up with, then I'll look forward to another try for you, but I am happy being left out, so that is a great moderator, yes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have seen enough religion, enough I say!
Posted by: theblaast on Mar 24, 2008 5:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, as a secular fundamentalist, I'm in the minority. I don't think we will ever be free from the divisive mind control of religion or the implied necessity of prayer. To believers it seems anything bad that happens in their life is part of god's plan--anything good is a prayer answered. THEIR particular god is the TRUE god and proof is faith. How can you rationalize with such creative self-deception? It's like shooting at a swarm of bees with a BB gun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement