Yesterday afternoon I took a departure from my usual routine of writing my book, and watched some T.V. Normally, I don't watch much late afternoon T.V as there is rarely anything of any value on for me to watch.
Yesterday was an exception.
I don't know how many of you have ever watched Anderson Cooper's talk show, I never had before yesterday as I normally don't waste my time with the likes of Oprah, Dr. Drew, Donahue, Jerry Springer or any of their ilk. It's usually what I call "Opium for the masses".
The subject matter of this show though intrigued me. It was Muslims in America. On the show were a panel of "American Muslims". They I guess, have a show on TLC. I don't think I will ever watch the show as I do my best to stay away from "Reality T.V". These genuinly nice people seemed to be truly trying to "live the American dream" and just be who they were. Of course, there was a counterpoint to this panel, and you guessed it. It was a CRAZY "Christian" woman that did nothing but spout hate and venom at the guests.
It started out entertaining enough.
The "Crazy Lady" would say something to the effect of "Islam is NOT a religion" and Anderson would ask a question to the panel about her comments. I was AMAZED, the members of the panel never once got upset, irritated or angry. They maintained their cool even when the "Crazy Lady" spouted patently offensive rants about how Islam is "The most violent religion in the history of Earth." and how they "aren't good Muslims because they follow American Law". Never once did the members of the panel fall to her level of insults and degredation. I was impressed.
I was the one shouting and angry at the "Crazy Lady". Not because I was defending Islam. If you know me at all and have read ANY of my posts, I won't defend any religion as I don't buy into any of their dogmas. I am happy to listen to someone's point of view, but I don't defend any particular religion. I figure they are all fair game, ONLY if your argument is valid though.
Hers wasn't.
It was typical Right-Wing hate speak. Her uneducated rants and insults only served to make everyone that feels her same way look more like the Nuts they are.
My favorite part of the show was where she claimed that Islam killed more people than any other religion on earth. Ummmm. WRONG. Christianity has throughout history killed more people in the name of Jesus than all the wars ever fought COMBINED. I found it entertaining that she refused to acknowledge this even when a Christian Pastor, informed her of this. Her response was "No, I don't believe that". It just shows the delusional lies that these people tell themselves to continue in their little world of hate where they firmly believe that Jesus is "ok" with their delusion.
If there were a Jesus, I would guess from what I have read, and I have read that great work of fiction called the Bible. That fella would NOT be happy with her or any other hate spouting "christian" believer out there. I have a feeling that that fella would tell those folks to get right with themselves and follow the "Golden Rule". Oh, wait in their world that ONLY applies Christian to Christian.
In my final analysis of this show. I would have to say this: I think I would be happy to call the guests on the panel friends. They came off as genuine and understanding. They espoused more "christian" values than the Christian that was attacking them.
Way to go Guests!
Friday, November 18, 2011
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Get stuff from 80% off to FREE
I found this site where you can get just about anything for Free (If you refer people to try it) or as much as 95% off without bidding or having to pay a fee to do so. Everything is also only $2.00 for shipping.
It's pretty cool!!
Check it out you might like it.
No More Rack!!
It's pretty cool!!
Check it out you might like it.
No More Rack!!
Friday, November 4, 2011
Michigans new "Anti-Bullying" Law
So the "Social Conservatives" in Michigan decided it would be a good idea to pass an Anti-Bullying law. They even named it: "Matt's Safe School Law" after Matt Epling a student that killed himself after enduring years of bullying. On it's face this sounds great right? Michigan is finally catching up with the rest of the country and looking to stop bullying in it's schools and institutions right?
--Wrong--
Michigan is ONLY looking to stop bullying if you happen to bully someone of Christian belief. Yes, that's right. I was baffled when I read this. This law actually PROTECTS bullies from prosecution if they are bullying someone out of a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No that isn't a typo, if you feel that you are morally justified in bullying someone, you WILL NOT be held accountable for those actions in Michigan.
This law also has the following provisions; it does NOT require School Districts to report incidents of bullying, no provisions for enforcement of the law, no teacher training and it does NOT hold adminstrators of the schools accountable if the fail to act on any reports of bullying. It does NOT list any groups as protected OTHER THAN Christians, whose "personally held religious beliefs protect them". -- The Republicans logic for this is this "Religious Freedom".
On the Senate floor, this was ACTUALLY STATED on the record: "bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.” Then these same politicians go on to say: "The special protections for gay and transgendered teachers will make it extremely difficult for [public school] districts that might want to remove them from the classroom."
In other words, these religious right nut-jobs believe that efforts to protect gays, atheists, and non-christians from assault and discrimination and bullying impinge on their "religious freedoms" to express and act on their belief that the beliefs of others (orientation or otherwise) is an abomination. --SICK.
This belief relies on a twisted sense of religious liberty. Freedom of religious expression does NOT extend to kicking the crap out of someone because their beliefs or orientation do not happen to agree with YOUR religious beliefs. It does not give someone the right to fire an employee because they don't share your views on religion or sexuality.
I wonder, would these same people trumpeting the banner of "religious freedom" would feel the same way about their rhetoric if a muslim student beat the crap out of a christian student because he felt that the christian student were an Infidel? I doubt it, they would be APALLED!
Makes me want to be a Christian, I can bully people, discriminate at will and have NO consequence whatsoever as long as I "claim" that it's a religious reason. No, I can't do that. There is NEVER a good reason to do those things based on someones beliefs, orientation, skin color etc.
If there was a Jesus I would guess based on the philosophies espoused in the Bible, he would have been disgusted by the whole idea of protecting one group of people from accountability based solely on Religion.
--Wrong--
Michigan is ONLY looking to stop bullying if you happen to bully someone of Christian belief. Yes, that's right. I was baffled when I read this. This law actually PROTECTS bullies from prosecution if they are bullying someone out of a "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No that isn't a typo, if you feel that you are morally justified in bullying someone, you WILL NOT be held accountable for those actions in Michigan.
This law also has the following provisions; it does NOT require School Districts to report incidents of bullying, no provisions for enforcement of the law, no teacher training and it does NOT hold adminstrators of the schools accountable if the fail to act on any reports of bullying. It does NOT list any groups as protected OTHER THAN Christians, whose "personally held religious beliefs protect them". -- The Republicans logic for this is this "Religious Freedom".
On the Senate floor, this was ACTUALLY STATED on the record: "bullying kids is okay if a student, parent, teacher or school employee can come up with a moral or religious reason for doing it.” Then these same politicians go on to say: "The special protections for gay and transgendered teachers will make it extremely difficult for [public school] districts that might want to remove them from the classroom."
In other words, these religious right nut-jobs believe that efforts to protect gays, atheists, and non-christians from assault and discrimination and bullying impinge on their "religious freedoms" to express and act on their belief that the beliefs of others (orientation or otherwise) is an abomination. --SICK.
This belief relies on a twisted sense of religious liberty. Freedom of religious expression does NOT extend to kicking the crap out of someone because their beliefs or orientation do not happen to agree with YOUR religious beliefs. It does not give someone the right to fire an employee because they don't share your views on religion or sexuality.
I wonder, would these same people trumpeting the banner of "religious freedom" would feel the same way about their rhetoric if a muslim student beat the crap out of a christian student because he felt that the christian student were an Infidel? I doubt it, they would be APALLED!
Makes me want to be a Christian, I can bully people, discriminate at will and have NO consequence whatsoever as long as I "claim" that it's a religious reason. No, I can't do that. There is NEVER a good reason to do those things based on someones beliefs, orientation, skin color etc.
If there was a Jesus I would guess based on the philosophies espoused in the Bible, he would have been disgusted by the whole idea of protecting one group of people from accountability based solely on Religion.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Ten Commandments for Atheists
While reading the news this morning I came across this story from USA Today. I thought it was great so I am reposting it here. You can read the original story here:
(RNS) In his new book, "God, No!" atheist magician Penn Jillette tells how he was challenged by conservative radio host Glenn Beck to come up with an atheist's version of The Ten Commandments.
By Sang Tan, AP
"I wanted to see how many of the ideas that many people think are handed down from (G)od really make sense to someone who says, 'I don't know.'"
Here's his list:
1. The highest ideals are human intelligence, creativity and love. Respect these above all.
2. Do not put things or even ideas above other human beings. (Let's scream at each other about Kindle versus iPad, solar versus nuclear, Republican versus Libertarian, Garth Brooks versus Sun Ra— but when your house is on fire, I'll be there to help.)
3. Say what you mean, even when talking to yourself. (What used to be an oath to (G)od is now quite simply respecting yourself.)
4. Put aside some time to rest and think. (If you're religious, that might be the Sabbath; if you're a Vegas magician, that'll be the day with the lowest grosses.)
5. Be there for your family. Love your parents, your partner, and your children. (Love is deeper than honor, and parents matter, but so do spouse and children.)
6. Respect and protect all human life. (Many believe that "Thou shalt not kill" only refers to people in the same tribe. I say it's all human life.)
7. Keep your promises. (If you can't be sexually exclusive to your spouse, don't make that deal.)
8. Don't steal. (This includes magic tricks and jokes — you know who you are!)
9. Don't lie. (You know, unless you're doing magic tricks and it's part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)
10. Don't waste too much time wishing, hoping, and being envious; it'll make you bugnutty.
(RNS) In his new book, "God, No!" atheist magician Penn Jillette tells how he was challenged by conservative radio host Glenn Beck to come up with an atheist's version of The Ten Commandments.
By Sang Tan, AP
"I wanted to see how many of the ideas that many people think are handed down from (G)od really make sense to someone who says, 'I don't know.'"
Here's his list:
1. The highest ideals are human intelligence, creativity and love. Respect these above all.
2. Do not put things or even ideas above other human beings. (Let's scream at each other about Kindle versus iPad, solar versus nuclear, Republican versus Libertarian, Garth Brooks versus Sun Ra— but when your house is on fire, I'll be there to help.)
3. Say what you mean, even when talking to yourself. (What used to be an oath to (G)od is now quite simply respecting yourself.)
4. Put aside some time to rest and think. (If you're religious, that might be the Sabbath; if you're a Vegas magician, that'll be the day with the lowest grosses.)
5. Be there for your family. Love your parents, your partner, and your children. (Love is deeper than honor, and parents matter, but so do spouse and children.)
6. Respect and protect all human life. (Many believe that "Thou shalt not kill" only refers to people in the same tribe. I say it's all human life.)
7. Keep your promises. (If you can't be sexually exclusive to your spouse, don't make that deal.)
8. Don't steal. (This includes magic tricks and jokes — you know who you are!)
9. Don't lie. (You know, unless you're doing magic tricks and it's part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)
10. Don't waste too much time wishing, hoping, and being envious; it'll make you bugnutty.
Update to Venting Post
So get this:
The head IDIOT (Coach) Suspended my son from the last game of the season for something he DIDN'T DO!
Yes, that's correct.
My wife and I proved he did nothing and that there wasn't an issue. The IDIOT decided to suspend him anyway. OK. He's stupid and a moron I get it. My son and I decided that since the last game of the season (the game he got suspended from) fell on MY BIRTHDAY (Yes, happy B-Day to me) that we would skip the game and do some father-son stuff together. He wanted to take me to lunch, play some video games etc. So, we skipped the game and did some stuff together.
No harm in that right? Not a big deal, he wasn't playing anyway. He didn't want to go, and I was irritated enough at the IDIOT that I didn't see the point in going either.
So, come to find out they LOSE their game. Ok. they lost most of the games they played this year, mostly due to inept coaching on his part but that is another story. I guess he did something to get himself kicked off the sidelines and couldn't be on the sidelines to coach. (Not sure what that was, I WASN'T there). Suddenly I am getting nasty emails and facebook posts claiming that I DID SOMETHING to cause this.
This is where I am confused, if I WASN'T THERE, how could I have done something to them? Sounds a bit like the 'blame game" and childish CRAP to me. Until Monday, when I got to work and checked my email I had NO IDEA that they had even had an issue at the game. I didn't check my facebook updates or anything all weekend so I had no idea there was any issue at all.
Needless to say, my son goes to school on Monday and kids from the team are saying it MY FAULT they lost. IT seems the IDIOT is telling the KIDS it's MY FAULT they lost. Not sure how, but he is for some reason hell bent on making me the exucse for his INEPT and terrible coaching and behavior.
Needless to say, my son will NOT be playing for those IDIOTS next year and I would encourage anyone that has kids that play sports to NOT sign them up for anything involving that IDIOT. I won't post his name or anything here since he would probably SUE me for stating the truth or some other garbage.
I am over it, really I am.
Stupid people just shouldn't breed.
The head IDIOT (Coach) Suspended my son from the last game of the season for something he DIDN'T DO!
Yes, that's correct.
My wife and I proved he did nothing and that there wasn't an issue. The IDIOT decided to suspend him anyway. OK. He's stupid and a moron I get it. My son and I decided that since the last game of the season (the game he got suspended from) fell on MY BIRTHDAY (Yes, happy B-Day to me) that we would skip the game and do some father-son stuff together. He wanted to take me to lunch, play some video games etc. So, we skipped the game and did some stuff together.
No harm in that right? Not a big deal, he wasn't playing anyway. He didn't want to go, and I was irritated enough at the IDIOT that I didn't see the point in going either.
So, come to find out they LOSE their game. Ok. they lost most of the games they played this year, mostly due to inept coaching on his part but that is another story. I guess he did something to get himself kicked off the sidelines and couldn't be on the sidelines to coach. (Not sure what that was, I WASN'T there). Suddenly I am getting nasty emails and facebook posts claiming that I DID SOMETHING to cause this.
This is where I am confused, if I WASN'T THERE, how could I have done something to them? Sounds a bit like the 'blame game" and childish CRAP to me. Until Monday, when I got to work and checked my email I had NO IDEA that they had even had an issue at the game. I didn't check my facebook updates or anything all weekend so I had no idea there was any issue at all.
Needless to say, my son goes to school on Monday and kids from the team are saying it MY FAULT they lost. IT seems the IDIOT is telling the KIDS it's MY FAULT they lost. Not sure how, but he is for some reason hell bent on making me the exucse for his INEPT and terrible coaching and behavior.
Needless to say, my son will NOT be playing for those IDIOTS next year and I would encourage anyone that has kids that play sports to NOT sign them up for anything involving that IDIOT. I won't post his name or anything here since he would probably SUE me for stating the truth or some other garbage.
I am over it, really I am.
Stupid people just shouldn't breed.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Venting today
I need to vent a little today.
It appears that a boy on my son's football team has issues with my son and a couple of his friends. The issue in a nutshell is this: He annoys the crap out of my son and his friends, and when they get irritated enough to respond he runs home and cries "their picking on me mom!"
This has been going on for years now. He needles and needles and pushes buttons and really drives kids nuts then when they get mad it's "I was only kidding/joking/playing" and cries "they're bullying me!" or something similar. It's a damn joke, the worst part about it is this: My son has NEVER even so much as pushed the kid or gotten physical with him in all this time. He has vented and told the kid on multiple occasions to "shut up", "go away" etc.
Well, the reason for my venting on this is now this kid continually needles and pushes my son and probably 10 other kids pretty regularily, from what I understand one of the kids in the group got fed up and stated " I wanna kick his ass sooo bad" and what happens?
His MOMMY calls the Head Coach of the Football Team crying about how my son and his friends shouldn't be on the team if they are going to be threatening her "little angel".. BULLSHIT! HE needles the kids and when they get fed up, HE cries about it and this is what happens? I DON'T think so, it's a damn ridiculous JOKE.
So, now the Coach has to have a "team meeting" to discuss this, and WASTE time addressing a NON-ISSUE (at least as far as I can see). What needs to happen is this: That kid's parents need to tell him to stop annoying and bothering people. He uses "I'll tell Coach/Teacher/Mommy" if the kids get irritated and he KNOWS that at a minimum Mommy will back him up. Mommy, needs to stop being an "Attack helicopter parent" and teach her kid that actions have reactions.
It's simple - Don't go round pissing people off, and people won't want to change your facial landscape.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I am often), I teach my kid to behave and treat everyone with respect and dignity. Is it TOO DAMN MUCH to ask other parents to raise thier kids with common decent values? This kids family purports to be Christian (they're Mormons) but I DON'T see it...
Thanks for letting me Vent.
It appears that a boy on my son's football team has issues with my son and a couple of his friends. The issue in a nutshell is this: He annoys the crap out of my son and his friends, and when they get irritated enough to respond he runs home and cries "their picking on me mom!"
This has been going on for years now. He needles and needles and pushes buttons and really drives kids nuts then when they get mad it's "I was only kidding/joking/playing" and cries "they're bullying me!" or something similar. It's a damn joke, the worst part about it is this: My son has NEVER even so much as pushed the kid or gotten physical with him in all this time. He has vented and told the kid on multiple occasions to "shut up", "go away" etc.
Well, the reason for my venting on this is now this kid continually needles and pushes my son and probably 10 other kids pretty regularily, from what I understand one of the kids in the group got fed up and stated " I wanna kick his ass sooo bad" and what happens?
His MOMMY calls the Head Coach of the Football Team crying about how my son and his friends shouldn't be on the team if they are going to be threatening her "little angel".. BULLSHIT! HE needles the kids and when they get fed up, HE cries about it and this is what happens? I DON'T think so, it's a damn ridiculous JOKE.
So, now the Coach has to have a "team meeting" to discuss this, and WASTE time addressing a NON-ISSUE (at least as far as I can see). What needs to happen is this: That kid's parents need to tell him to stop annoying and bothering people. He uses "I'll tell Coach/Teacher/Mommy" if the kids get irritated and he KNOWS that at a minimum Mommy will back him up. Mommy, needs to stop being an "Attack helicopter parent" and teach her kid that actions have reactions.
It's simple - Don't go round pissing people off, and people won't want to change your facial landscape.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I am often), I teach my kid to behave and treat everyone with respect and dignity. Is it TOO DAMN MUCH to ask other parents to raise thier kids with common decent values? This kids family purports to be Christian (they're Mormons) but I DON'T see it...
Thanks for letting me Vent.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Separation of Church and State? (In God We Trust)?
I found this article on the First Church of Atheism Blog. (Please go there, and donate and help them help all Atheists everywhere). I think it's relevant:
By Rev. Chris Andersen
Throughout the course of my wanderings, the subject of religion and government has occasionally reared its head in discussions with friends, family, classmates, etc. While talking about the merits and negatives of including “In God We Trust” on our currency, I noticed a common statement: “It’s just four words. What does it matter?” The same is said concerning the phrase “One Nation Under God” in our pledge. On the surface, I may agree. My worry is that it will not end at just four words. So where will it end?
Hmmm, time for a brief history lesson:
A Gospel Minister, Rev. M. R. Watkinson, sent a letter in November 1861 to the Secretary of the Treasury. This was a time when religious fervor was en vogue during the Civil War. In the letter, Rev. Watkinson pleaded his case (from one Christian to another) that U.S. currency should recognize all mighty god in some form.
An excerpt from his letter:
“… no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.”
Within seven days of the original letter, the Secretary of the Treasury set about the process of devising a motto to include on the nation’s coins. In God We Trust first appeared on U.S. coins three years later in 1864. The motto’s appearance on our coins came and went… and came and went… and well, you get the point. That changed during the McCarthy period when in 1956 the President approved a law passed by Congress which made IN GOD WE TRUST our national motto. Beginning the following year, our new national motto would be printed on U.S. currency… coin AND paper.
The passing of this law came on the heels of another landmark event. Congress added the words “under god” to the pledge of allegiance two years earlier in 1954. One of the arguments of the day was that reasonable people should not object to the addition of just two words (sounds remarkably similar to what the reverend had said nearly 100 years earlier).
A decade later, government and religion were back on the front pages. The non-theist population started asserting its voice. An Atheist mother was enraged that her tax money was being used to buy bibles for public schools. Worse than that was the mandate that her son would take part in bible readings and prayer while attending school. When her son opted out, he was beaten by his classmates while the school officials turned a blind eye. The mother brought suit against the board of education. In a nearly unanimous decision (8-1), the Supreme Court agreed that mandatory bible readings and school prayer were unconstitutional.
In the years since, many have argued that the establishment clause of the constitution either does not exist or does not apply because of past precedent. What precedent you may ask? You guessed it… Government endorsement of religion on U.S. currency, Government endorsement of religion through our national motto, Government endorsement of religion in our official pledge of allegiance.
People who want religion integrated more into our government / education / society often claim that a few liberal judges have hijacked the legal system and are legislating from the bench. This argument just doesn’t hold water. Judges have pointed to the establishment clause consistently over many decades. These are not isolated cases involving a few radical judges. The dual protections of the first amendment have been cited by dozens of courts and judges over a sustained period of time. Both liberal judges as well as ultra-conservative judges have pointed to the constitutional protections in their findings.
By keeping phrases such as “in god we trust” and “under god” in our official government psyche, we keep the door open for fundamentalists to claim precedent. The fight is ongoing to bring organized prayer and bible readings back into public schools. If the religious wing manages to get that through somehow, do you think they will be satisfied? They weren’t satisfied with having coins minted with “in god we trust”. They weren’t satisfied with having a religious national motto. They were not satisfied with making every citizen in the country acknowledge a god in order to pledge their allegiance to this nation and its flag.
If they gain momentum, what will be next? Will they once again start banning any books that are not in agreement with the bible? Strike classes from school curriculum which do not conform to biblical stories? This is not much of a stretch, but what will be next? Will we start enforcing more laws from the bible? Start snuffing out any atheistic movements as well as Wiccans and Satanists? After that we may move on to tell Muslims that they have their own countries they can live in. After all, this is a nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles. If we do not stay vigilant in the protection of the separation principles of the first amendment, we could end up like the people of England before the settlement of America; being forced to adhere to a narrow religious interpretation. This may not include Mormons. It may not include Jews. It may not include Protestants if the government happens to follow catholic principles instead. It is in everyone’s — religious or not — best interest to maintain a strict separation of church and state. By allowing religion into the government business, we allow government into religious business. I don’t think anyone really wants that.
By Rev. Chris Andersen
Throughout the course of my wanderings, the subject of religion and government has occasionally reared its head in discussions with friends, family, classmates, etc. While talking about the merits and negatives of including “In God We Trust” on our currency, I noticed a common statement: “It’s just four words. What does it matter?” The same is said concerning the phrase “One Nation Under God” in our pledge. On the surface, I may agree. My worry is that it will not end at just four words. So where will it end?
Hmmm, time for a brief history lesson:
A Gospel Minister, Rev. M. R. Watkinson, sent a letter in November 1861 to the Secretary of the Treasury. This was a time when religious fervor was en vogue during the Civil War. In the letter, Rev. Watkinson pleaded his case (from one Christian to another) that U.S. currency should recognize all mighty god in some form.
An excerpt from his letter:
“… no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.”
Within seven days of the original letter, the Secretary of the Treasury set about the process of devising a motto to include on the nation’s coins. In God We Trust first appeared on U.S. coins three years later in 1864. The motto’s appearance on our coins came and went… and came and went… and well, you get the point. That changed during the McCarthy period when in 1956 the President approved a law passed by Congress which made IN GOD WE TRUST our national motto. Beginning the following year, our new national motto would be printed on U.S. currency… coin AND paper.
The passing of this law came on the heels of another landmark event. Congress added the words “under god” to the pledge of allegiance two years earlier in 1954. One of the arguments of the day was that reasonable people should not object to the addition of just two words (sounds remarkably similar to what the reverend had said nearly 100 years earlier).
A decade later, government and religion were back on the front pages. The non-theist population started asserting its voice. An Atheist mother was enraged that her tax money was being used to buy bibles for public schools. Worse than that was the mandate that her son would take part in bible readings and prayer while attending school. When her son opted out, he was beaten by his classmates while the school officials turned a blind eye. The mother brought suit against the board of education. In a nearly unanimous decision (8-1), the Supreme Court agreed that mandatory bible readings and school prayer were unconstitutional.
In the years since, many have argued that the establishment clause of the constitution either does not exist or does not apply because of past precedent. What precedent you may ask? You guessed it… Government endorsement of religion on U.S. currency, Government endorsement of religion through our national motto, Government endorsement of religion in our official pledge of allegiance.
People who want religion integrated more into our government / education / society often claim that a few liberal judges have hijacked the legal system and are legislating from the bench. This argument just doesn’t hold water. Judges have pointed to the establishment clause consistently over many decades. These are not isolated cases involving a few radical judges. The dual protections of the first amendment have been cited by dozens of courts and judges over a sustained period of time. Both liberal judges as well as ultra-conservative judges have pointed to the constitutional protections in their findings.
By keeping phrases such as “in god we trust” and “under god” in our official government psyche, we keep the door open for fundamentalists to claim precedent. The fight is ongoing to bring organized prayer and bible readings back into public schools. If the religious wing manages to get that through somehow, do you think they will be satisfied? They weren’t satisfied with having coins minted with “in god we trust”. They weren’t satisfied with having a religious national motto. They were not satisfied with making every citizen in the country acknowledge a god in order to pledge their allegiance to this nation and its flag.
If they gain momentum, what will be next? Will they once again start banning any books that are not in agreement with the bible? Strike classes from school curriculum which do not conform to biblical stories? This is not much of a stretch, but what will be next? Will we start enforcing more laws from the bible? Start snuffing out any atheistic movements as well as Wiccans and Satanists? After that we may move on to tell Muslims that they have their own countries they can live in. After all, this is a nation founded on CHRISTIAN principles. If we do not stay vigilant in the protection of the separation principles of the first amendment, we could end up like the people of England before the settlement of America; being forced to adhere to a narrow religious interpretation. This may not include Mormons. It may not include Jews. It may not include Protestants if the government happens to follow catholic principles instead. It is in everyone’s — religious or not — best interest to maintain a strict separation of church and state. By allowing religion into the government business, we allow government into religious business. I don’t think anyone really wants that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)