Who cares what Bishops think? If you do, then you should also account for concerns of the leprechauns and forest faeries.

In my opinion this was simply the republican party attempting to paint Obama as a secular anti-religion president.


Whether it is John Boehner or Mitt Rommney they are all using this nonsense as rhetoric to scare voters.

I am not an Obama fan, but I do believe in honest discourse.

*controversy
*talks

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Talks) - requested by NetRunner.

I've said for years, "How can I have freedom of my religion--unless I have freedom from yours?"

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, February 17th, 2012 11:29am PST - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

@gwiz665


Thanks for the promote!

Them Catholic Priests prefer the feel of little boys' anal cavities without a condom. I know I do.

Also, that waddle under Bill's chin could make, I'm guessing, 7 or 8 roast beef sandwiches.

@kevingrr"Why do I find it shocking and exciting when I hear someone intelligently discussing issues..."

Because public political discussions (term used lightly) have become less and less about weighting the different arguments in an intelligent fashion, but instead about who can blazon out their argument the loudest all while trying to associate the other argument, or simply the opposition, with anything that could be perceived as bad.

Obama IS a secular anti-religion president.>> ^kevingrr:

In my opinion this was simply the republican party attempting to paint Obama as a secular anti-religion president.
Whether it is John Boehner or Mitt Rommney they are all using this nonsense as rhetoric to scare voters.
I am not an Obama fan, but I do believe in honest discourse.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

*quality

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by JiggaJonson.

Oh fine, *promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, February 17th, 2012 9:12pm PST - promote requested by JiggaJonson.

Bill Moyer and his ilk is so wrong. Separation of Church and state. Get the state out of the Church.

God bless him.
>> ^bobknight33:

Obama IS a secular anti-religion president.>> ^kevingrr:
In my opinion this was simply the republican party attempting to paint Obama as a secular anti-religion president.
Whether it is John Boehner or Mitt Rommney they are all using this nonsense as rhetoric to scare voters.
I am not an Obama fan, but I do believe in honest discourse.

The First Amendment protects the rights of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. However, it does not mean that anything goes.

For example, speech is a fundamentally protected right. But I cannot publish a false account of your business making me sick without repercussions - e.g., libel and slander.

And while religion is fundamentally protected as well, it does not mean anything and everything any religion does is okay - e.g., polygamy or female circumcision.

These are the facts.

There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.

That said, the Catholic Church supported commiecare from the get-go, so they're sowing what they reaped. When you strike a deal with the devil, you lose.

@bobknight33 Correct once again, my friend. Obama worships only Obama.

>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.

These statements are plainly contradictory. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from a government religion or any promotion of religion by the government. Also, as Boise_Lib notes above, it's impossible to have true freedom of religion without also having freedom from any other religion being imposed upon you. Intelligent people may disagree over whether certains actions constitute imposition of religious principles or doctrine, but the idea that the Constitution does not guarantee a level of freedom from religion is patently false.

This idea of "a wall of seperation" of church and state came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a baptist association while he was in France. It has been misinterpreted in recent times as a principle of exclusion of religion from government, but is this really what Jefferson intended? If he did, you might want to ask yourself why Jefferson attended church every sunday..in the house of representitives. You might want to ask why Jefferson closed presidential documents with "In the year of our Lord Jesus Christ", or why he negotiated treaties that used federal funding to pay for Christian missionaries to evangelize the indians. You also might want to ask why public education was teaching the scripture in schools, and why nearly every state had its own church..and why many states wouldn't allow non-christians to be elected to public office.

This idea of "freedom from religion" has no basis in history, or in the intentions of our founders. The secular community apparently feels that they can move in to this house that Christianity built and evict the ones who built it. It would be a bit like you inviting me to stay at your house and then I tell you that I am going to redecorate it the way I please and would you please stay in your room and never come out again.

Consider the words of William Rehnquist in a supreme court ruling about this issue:

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971381/posts


>> ^jonny:
>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.
The statements are plainly contradictory. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from a government religion or any promotion of religion by the government. Also, as Boise_Lib notes above, it's impossible to have true freedom of religion without also having freedom from any other religion being imposed upon you. Intelligent people may disagree over whether certains actions constitute imposition of religious principles or doctrine, but the idea that the Constitution does not guarantee a level of freedom from religion is patently false.

I understand where you're coming from @jonny, but the 1st Amendment is plain and clear about the 'level' of 'freedom from religion' and it's only the aforementioned.

The communist-founded ACLU has taken upon itself to decide that all mentions of religion in the public circle are, in fact, establishing a government religion, which is rubbish.

The words "Under God" in the pledge are not a religion.
Putting 'In God We Trust' on money is not a religion.
A cross in a military cemetery or public park is not a religion.

The Ten Commandments posted on a courthouse wall? A little more controversial, but not a religion.

Peeps in a free society have no right to live free 'from' encountering speech or ideas they don't agree with.


>> ^jonny:

>> ^quantumushroom:
There is no legal anything found anywhere guaranteeing "freedom from religion". The State is not allowed to establish a religion or promote one religion above others. That's it.
The statements are plainly contradictory. The 1st amendment guarantees freedom from a government religion or any promotion of religion by the government. Also, as Boise_Lib notes above, it's impossible to have true freedom of religion without also having freedom from any other religion being imposed upon you. Intelligent people may disagree over whether certains actions constitute imposition of religious principles or doctrine, but the idea that the Constitution does not guarantee a level of freedom from religion is patently false.

Yea no shit, and people who impose on others should stop claiming others are imposing on them.

when people stop accomodating you it doesnt mean you had a right to be accomodated in the first place... you were just ignorant of your own position and now you pay the consequence.

these religious freaks want everyone to be free ... to worship baby jesus in whatever way they choose.

@quantumushroom - I don't understand how you define the boundary of the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government to espouse one religious doctrine over another.

I absolutely agree that in a free society no one has the right to live free from exposure to ideas (or speech or any other expression) that they don't like. But it's one thing to read a prayer on a billboard, and quite another to read it on the wall of a courtroom. When I see the billboard I know that someone cares about that message enough to spend quite a bit of money on it. When I see it in a courtroom, possibly facing the full weight of government authority, I have to wonder if my own religious beliefs will be used against me if they don't conform to what's on the wall.

I don't have a problem with things like a nativity scene in a public park, so long as it is privately sponsored. I don't really have a problem with references to god on money or in the pledge of allegiance. I don't care for it, but in those cases its as much a figure of speech as a religious statement. (The recitation of the pledge in schools is a larger issue, because there you're dealing with kids in an essentially authoritarian environment.)

I think the disagreement here basically comes down to whether you consider a particular expression of religion to be a promotion of that religion or one of its doctrines.

>> ^shinyblurry:
many states wouldn't allow non-christians to be elected to public office.

Had to stop reading right there.

Article 6, paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

>> ^quantumushroom:


The communist-founded ACLU has taken upon itself to decide that all mentions of religion in the public circle are, in fact, establishing a government religion, which is rubbish.


Every time you label things like "communist-founded ACLU," etc., you bring down the entire discourse to poop-hurling and name-calling. A good argument is one that sits on the fence. I'll ask you the following questions:

1) Do you believe in evolution?
2) Do you think that government, a protocol of civil conduct, is always flawed; and therefore it should be minimized or eliminated?
3) Do you believe in the passage "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35; do you live by it?
4) Do you believe in divorce and interest rates? Would you oppose them if you could vote against them?
5) Do you believe in a non-profit Universal Healthcare, or something similar? Mark 3:10
6) What countries do like besides the United States?
7) Would you support a war against Iran?
Do you believe that Mexicans, the original owners of this land, are free loaders when we arbitrarily set a border south of AZ, NM, CA, and TX and decided to call their migration "illegal"?
9) What would be one good thing can you say about Obama, although I am not a fan of his, to show any lack of bias?

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated:

There shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State in preference to any other.

Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:

Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God is such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to him; all persons professing the Christian religion, are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty;
wherefore no person ought by any law to be molested… on account of his religious practice; unless, under the color [pretense] of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality… yet the Legislature may, in their discretion, lay a general and equal tax, for the support of the Christian religion. (until 1851) [pp.420-421]

Constitution of the State of South Carolina (1778), stated:

Article XXXVIII. That all persons and religious societies who acknowledge that there is one God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, and that God is publicly to be worshipped, shall be freely tolerated… That all denominations of Christian[s]… in this State, demeaning themselves peaceably and faithfully, shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges. [p.568]

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:

The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.

That's just a few of them. Religious test doesn't mean what you think it means. No response to anything else in my post?


>> ^jonny:
>> ^shinyblurry:
many states wouldn't allow non-christians to be elected to public office.
Had to stop reading right there.
Article 6, paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The topic is birth control and religion... which has a unique and interesting history of its own.

A little research showed that North Carolina's provision concerning that is never enforced because it's "known to be void or would almost certainly be struck down in court."(due to conflicting with the federal constitution) ...and I would take a guess that there's likely people in office who would find it absurd to enforce anyways.

Interesting that the other provision that's never been enforced was put in place to prevent blacks from voting (back at the time).

@quantumushroom @shinyblurry @bobknight33

"Freedom from religion" is a phrase that's often misinterpreted or misunderstood, sometimes intentionally. In honesty, I took it the wrong way when I first heard it.

People who "preach" FFR generally are not saying they have the right to never be exposed to religion. They are simply saying that they must not have laws imposed upon them which are based in religious belief if they are to be free to practice their own beliefs.

Irreligion is afforded the same protections as religions are. I have just as much right to live my life religion-free as you do to live your life religiously.

I hope I’ve made it clear that I’m perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home, and hug them to themselves and to share them with other people who come around and play with the toys.

They are not to make me play with these toys. I will not play with the toys. Do not bring the toys to my house. Don’t say my children must play with these toys. Don’t say my toys are not allowed by their toys.

>> ^bobknight33:

Obama IS a secular anti-religion president.


If only.

@MonkeySpank

Every time you label things like "communist-founded ACLU," etc., you bring down the entire discourse to poop-hurling and name-calling.

Do you know why I "labeled" it communist-founded ACLU? Because it was!

I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself … I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

--Roger Baldwin, founder of the ACLU in 1920, speaking in 1935

I'll ask you the following questions:

1) Do you believe in evolution?

>>> A Creator created evolution.

2) Do you think that government, a protocol of civil conduct, is always flawed; and therefore it should be minimized or eliminated?

>>> It's always flawed in the sense that it's run by humans, not angels. Corruption is the grease of democracy; the greater the size of the government, the more tyrannical.

3) Do you believe in the passage "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35; do you live by it?

>>> As much as possible, but I imagine everyone thinks that. Also, sometimes the best way to love your enemies is to end their karma in this lifetime.

4) Do you believe in divorce and interest rates? Would you oppose them if you could vote against them?

>>> No, but we pay a heavy price for each.

5) Do you believe in a non-profit Universal Healthcare, or something similar? Mark 3:10

>>> It doesn't work, so no. Do I believe in helping those who truly need help? Yes.

6) What countries do you like besides the United States?

>>> There are other countries? I like some aspects of some countries. Japanese ninjas, Canadian Shatner, etc.

7) Would you support a war against Iran?

>>> Yes, as needed. You really want to allow nutjobs to have The Bomb? Say goodbye to Nuked York.

Do you believe that Mexicans, the original owners of this land, are free loaders when we arbitrarily set a border south of AZ, NM, CA, and TX and decided to call their migration "illegal"?

>>> We won those states by winning wars with Mexico. We are all trespassers on dinosaur land.

9) What would be one good thing can you say about Obama, although I am not a fan of his, to show any lack of bias?

>>> He's an eloquent speaker.



1) Do you believe in evolution?
2) Do you think that government, a protocol of civil conduct, is always flawed; and therefore it should be minimized or eliminated?
3) Do you believe in the passage "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." Luke 6:35; do you live by it?
4) Do you believe in divorce and interest rates? Would you oppose them if you could vote against them?
5) Do you believe in a non-profit Universal Healthcare, or something similar? Mark 3:10
6) What countries do like besides the United States?
7) Would you support a war against Iran?
Do you believe that Mexicans, the original owners of this land, are free loaders when we arbitrarily set a border south of AZ, NM, CA, and TX and decided to call their migration "illegal"?
9) What would be one good thing can you say about Obama, although I am not a fan of his, to show any lack of bias?

I think the disagreement here basically comes down to whether you consider a particular expression of religion to be a promotion of that religion or one of its doctrines.

I don't see a meaningful establishment of a religion in any of it. I do see a bias towards the 80%-90% of the people who believe in some kind of deity.

The Ten Commandments on the courtroom wall, that's a whole other thread. How can you have a courtroom when the Bible says "Judge not lest ye be judged."


>> ^jonny:

@quantumushroom - I don't understand how you define the boundary of the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government to espouse one religious doctrine over another.
I absolutely agree that in a free society no one has the right to live free from exposure to ideas (or speech or any other expression) that they don't like. But it's one thing to read a prayer on a billboard, and quite another to read it on the wall of a courtroom. When I see the billboard I know that someone cares about that message enough to spend quite a bit of money on it. When I see it in a courtroom, possibly facing the full weight of government authority, I have to wonder if my own religious beliefs will be used against me if they don't conform to what's on the wall.
I don't have a problem with things like a nativity scene in a public park, so long as it is privately sponsored. I don't really have a problem with references to god on money or in the pledge of allegiance. I don't care for it, but in those cases its as much a figure of speech as a religious statement. (The recitation of the pledge in schools is a larger issue, because there you're dealing with kids in an essentially authoritarian environment.)
I think the disagreement here basically comes down to whether you consider a particular expression of religion to be a promotion of that religion or one of its doctrines.

@xxovercastxx

As for nativity scenes on government property, the commandments in courthouses, "God" on money and in the pledge, etc. Whether these are forbidden by the establishment clause or not, why should the government be proselytizing? Isn't that big government authoritarianism?

>>> Yeah, in a sense it's BS that any of that happens. I was an atheist for one half of my life and I resented the hypocrisy. Religion and law are like a double helix so the degree of freedom we have is amazing.

And finally, in what I hope might help to illustrate my point, I pose this question to you three: How would you feel about a law banning blood transfusion? It's a serious sin, you know.

Only to Jehovah's Witnesses.

The ACLU was never a well-meaning organization, IMO. They've done 'some' good, but as you here at least are indifferent to the God/Trust on money, etc., those guys are, by comparison, radical and intolerant.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Only to Jehovah's Witnesses.

That's exactly my point. Aside from the population numbers, how is applying Jehovah's Witness beliefs to the entire country via laws any different than applying Christian beliefs to the entire country via laws?

>> ^quantumushroom:

The ACLU was never a well-meaning organization, IMO. They've done 'some' good, but as you here at least are indifferent to the God/Trust on money, etc., those guys are, by comparison, radical and intolerant.


I'm not at all indifferent to God on money and in the pledge and such, I'm just saying "Never mind, for a minute, what the law is, let's talk about what the law should be."

Crosses in military graveyards is a new one for me. I think that should be the choice of the deceased individual or their surviving family.

proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man

Even though this isn't about the ACLU. I have to point out that the ACLU isn't even Left...they're conservative. They defend the constitution...they do not deviate from it, and they can by no stretch of the english language be considered "Activists".

They may have been founded by someone who believes in Communism but that's like saying the Ford corporation is full of Nazi's...it just isn't and you're an idiot if you believe that.

What this is is lazy intellectualism...basically you have a fact and you use that to prove anything and everything about a certain topic without actually questioning your own assumptions or testing your theories. Don't listen to people who are lazy intellectuals; you'll end up fighting for ignorance.

No conservative gives a rats ass if the President is black or for that matter anything else. We care about being conservative first. Obama is as left as they come. That's why we oppose him.

He is not center left. He is to the left of the left.He makes Ted Kennedy and John Kerry look ok. >> ^VoodooV:

proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man

Just some history of the 2 parties......Setting aside the fact the the KKK was formed by the all inclusive tent of the Democrats...to scare the southern brother who remained Republican up until the 60s.



The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina.

Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights.
The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.

The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats.
One of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any civil rights legislation. Even though Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democrat, and a relatively liberal president during the 1930s and '40s, he rarely challenged the powerfully entrenched Southern bloc. When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death.

Link

>> ^VoodooV:

proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man



So who is opposing the Black Man? Which party enslaves the Black Man today? Democrats use the welfare system which keeps many enslaved into poverty. Republicans want to help those get out and become free men and women to make free choices for themselves.

If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime. Democrats want to feed the poor fish-sticks. Republicans want to teach how to fish.

>> ^bobknight33:

No conservative gives a rats ass if the President is black or for that matter anything else. We care about being conservative first. Obama is as left as they come. That's why we oppose him.
He is not center left. He is to the left of the left.He makes Ted Kennedy and John Kerry look ok. >> ^VoodooV:
proof that conservatives will put aside their supposed morality at the drop of a hat just to oppose a black man



Did you just admit that conservatives care more about conservatism than they do the country? Forgive me if I misunderstood you, but it's hard to take anyone seriously who thinks Obama is left of left.

Or are you just trolling like QM, spouting stuff you know isn't true just to rile the sift up?

Or are you so deep in the bubble just nothing is getting through.

But by all means, keep painting this absurd picture of left wing radicalism and slippery slopes to socialism. You're just fracturing your party even more and ensuring Obama's re-election. The more you double down on this personal vendetta against Obama, the more you ensure you're going to lose.

As for your 2nd quote. Maybe you're right, but in your utopia, the EPA would be gone, thus ensuring that no one would be safe to fish Or maybe I could just buy fish from a corporation, but with no gov't oversight, the fish will probably make you sick, thus ensuring you're bankrupt for life and can never improve your life. Right Bob?

Bob obviously didn't read Yogi's post about lazy intellectualism. Next time, do a little bit more effort than just cutting and pasting from a google search to find something that fit your narrative. @bobknight33.

If cutting an pasting works then so be it. At least I gave credit to the source.
Yet again the left will ignore the truth and and point elsewhere. >> ^VoodooV:

Bob obviously didn't read Yogi's post about lazy intellectualism. Next time, do a little bit more effort than just cutting and pasting from a google search to find something that fit your narrative. @bobknight33.