Obama Attends Church for 1st Time in5 Months.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:You say that government "can be" a religion, but that secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism "are" religions. How is government any different from secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism as relates to being or not being a religion?

Anthing can be made a religion. The government has made secular humanism the state religion

By your definition, patriotism is yet another religion. And during wartime, it is the hotest "religion" around. Should the government stop making patriotism a "state religion"?

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:You say that government "can be" a religion, but that secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism "are" religions. How is government any different from secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism as relates to being or not being a religion?

Anthing can be made a religion. The government has made secular humanism the state religion

By your definition, patriotism is yet another religion. And during wartime, it is the hotest "religion" around. Should the government stop making patriotism a "state religion"?

Yes, anything can be made a religion. What you are avoiding however, is the simple fact the Government has made secular humanism the official state religion. The government then uses the public's tax dollars to further it's offical religion of secular humanism. The government also uses its power within the court system to silence competing religions, especially christainity. All of these things being done by the government is unconstituitonal.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:You say that government "can be" a religion, but that secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism "are" religions. How is government any different from secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism as relates to being or not being a religion?

Anthing can be made a religion. The government has made secular humanism the state religion

By your definition, patriotism is yet another religion. And during wartime, it is the hotest "religion" around. Should the government stop making patriotism a "state religion"?

Yes, anything can be made a religion. What you are avoiding however, is the simple fact the Government has made secular humanism the official state religion. The government then uses the public's tax dollars to further it's offical religion of secular humanism. The government also uses its power within the court system to silence competing religions, especially christainity. All of these things being done by the government is unconstituitonal.

And what you are avoiding is that your definition of what constitutes "religion" is so broad as to be meaningless. If everything is a "religion", then nothing is a religion.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:You say that government "can be" a religion, but that secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism "are" religions. How is government any different from secular humanism, atheism and agnosticism as relates to being or not being a religion?

Anthing can be made a religion. The government has made secular humanism the state religion

By your definition, patriotism is yet another religion. And during wartime, it is the hotest "religion" around. Should the government stop making patriotism a "state religion"?

Yes, anything can be made a religion. What you are avoiding however, is the simple fact the Government has made secular humanism the official state religion. The government then uses the public's tax dollars to further it's offical religion of secular humanism. The government also uses its power within the court system to silence competing religions, especially christainity. All of these things being done by the government is unconstituitonal.

And what you are avoiding is that your definition of what constitutes "religion" is so broad as to be meaningless. If everything is a "religion", then nothing is a religion.

What can and can't be is not the issue, what is constitutional and what isn't is. You claimed that atheism and agnostism aren't religions. They, however, meet the defination of a religion. If you find that defination board and meaningless you'll need to take that up with the writers of the dictionaries used on www.dictionary.com. Until you change their mind, that's the defination.

What you can't seem to get through your thick skull is that anyone can make anything a religion. That isn't even the point. What is the point, is when what someone has made a religion is pushed onto others using the force of government. You state secular humanism isn't a religion, yet your devotion to it says otherwise. You then use the government to both force me to support secular humanism with my tax dollars and you seek to silence any mention I may make of other religious views.

You state secular humanism isn't a religion, yet your devotion to it says otherwise.

As evidenced by what? Please be specific.

I am also devoted to pumpkin pie, morning coffeee, losing more weight, and to loving others. Are those religions, too?

ziggy wrote:

You state secular humanism isn't a religion, yet your devotion to it says otherwise.

As evidenced by what? Please be specific.

Is it not a fundamental set of beliefs agreed upon by a number of people?

ziggy wrote:I am also devoted to pumpkin pie, morning coffeee, losing more weight, and to loving others. Are those religions, too?

They can be come your religion if you make them such.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

You state secular humanism isn't a religion, yet your devotion to it says otherwise.

As evidenced by what? Please be specific.

Is it not a fundamental set of beliefs agreed upon by a number of people?

You use Webster as your authority for definition of religion. Here is what Webster says about secularism:

Definition of SECULARISM
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secularism

Also:

Definition of SECULAR
1a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical
2: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular?show=0&t=1287361039

Using Webster, secular and secularism obviously refer specifically to rejection and exclusion of religion. Webster is your authority, but Webster disagrees with you.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Religion - Noun

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially, when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

So is the study of the natural scienes- physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, biology, etc.- a religion?

They can be.

But the Constitution specifically directs Congress to promote and encourage these "religions".

Article 1, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

I'm not getting in the religion conversation because I see how Ziggy's twisting words-par the course-but I'm afraid what he's saying and what the Constitution are saying are two diffent things.

The clause he mentioned is known as the Copyright clause.

Aaron wrote:I'm not getting in the religion conversation because I see how Ziggy's twisting words-par the course-but I'm afraid what he's saying and what the Constitution are saying are two diffent things.

The clause he mentioned is known as the Copyright clause.

I know. Ziggy is like a spoiled teenager. He wants his way and he'll say whatever he has to so he can get his way. I just waiting for the temper tantrum.

It's clear from years of reading his writing the one document he does not understand is the Constitution. As is with this clause, he wants to define it as he understands it, not as our founding fathers intended it. This is but one example of how he twist things to meet his agenda.

How is Ziggy the one twisting thing to meet an agenda? Cato is the person insisting agnosticism and science are religions.

Stephanie wrote:How is Ziggy the one twisting thing to meet an agenda? Cato is the person insisting agnosticism and science are religions.

That is because one is a religion and the other can be made a religion. However, if you go back and look at the thread, the real issue has been the US Government establishing secular humanism as the state religion and taxing to support it. Maybe instead of worrying about twisting words, you had better be more concerned with the establishment of a state religion.

Stephanie wrote:How is Ziggy the one twisting thing to meet an agenda? Cato is the person insisting agnosticism and science are religions.

If you do not see how he is attempting to twist this entire conversation, it is because you choose not to and I'm not getting into it with either you or the Professor. All I'm saying is that the Professor's intrepretation of the Constitution is (as usual) wrong. If you want to discuss the copyright clause in which Ziggy is saying gives one the right to study the natural sciences, we can have that discussion. I just hope you understand the Constitution-including the 1st Amendment-better then he does.

I disagree with your assertion, Cato.

You worry about what you think our President's religion is. I couldn't care less what his religion is, although I will say I believe he is a nominal Christian.

You're upset over a "national day of prayer". I couldn't care less about that either. If you believe in prayer, you're going to pray. If you don't, you're not going to and some politician in Washington declaring this is the day to pray isn't going to matter a hill of beans.

I worry about politicians trying to force their religious beliefs on the citizenry. I have seen no evidence of this from this President or his administration. Obama has provided us all with ample ammunition to make this his only term. Why would anyone want to distract from the legitimate issues, the real problems he has caused to chase phantom problems? I'll never understand that.

Stephanie wrote: You worry about what you think our President's religion is. I couldn't care less what his religion is, although I will say I believe he is a nominal Christian.

Where have I said I care what religion he is? I frankly don't give a tinkers Darn what he is.

Stephanie wrote:You're upset over a "national day of prayer". I couldn't care less about that either. If you believe in prayer, you're going to pray. If you don't, you're not going to and some politician in Washington declaring this is the day to pray isn't going to matter a hill of beans.

Where have I ever said I care about this? Neither of the items you mention are the point.

Stephanie wrote:I worry about politicians trying to force their religious beliefs on the citizenry. I have seen no evidence of this from this President or his administration. Obama has provided us all with ample ammunition to make this his only term. Why would anyone want to distract from the legitimate issues, the real problems he has caused to chase phantom problems? I'll never understand that.

So don't I worry about what the politicans are forcing on others. I am sick and tired of various groups, politicans, and judges corrupting the Constitution to further their agendas. Religion is just one example of many.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:How is Ziggy the one twisting thing to meet an agenda? Cato is the person insisting agnosticism and science are religions.

If you do not see how he is attempting to twist this entire conversation, it is because you choose not to and I'm not getting into it with either you or the Professor. All I'm saying is that the Professor's intrepretation of the Constitution is (as usual) wrong. If you want to discuss the copyright clause in which Ziggy is saying gives one the right to study the natural sciences, we can have that discussion. I just hope you understand the Constitution-including the 1st Amendment-better then he does.

Aaron I missed this post.

I think Zig is using the copyright clause to prove a point. Cato, despite is protests to the contrary, seems to want the government to adopt "Christianity" as the national religion. Every time the government prevents Christian symbols or Christain prayer from being incorporarated into or onto government events or property, he cries foul. He has declared this is secular humanism and that the government has adopted that as the official religion of the US. Now he's insisting that being agnostic is a religion in and of itself. He's the one convoluting facts to fit his view or his agenda.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:How is Ziggy the one twisting thing to meet an agenda? Cato is the person insisting agnosticism and science are religions.

If you do not see how he is attempting to twist this entire conversation, it is because you choose not to and I'm not getting into it with either you or the Professor. All I'm saying is that the Professor's intrepretation of the Constitution is (as usual) wrong. If you want to discuss the copyright clause in which Ziggy is saying gives one the right to study the natural sciences, we can have that discussion. I just hope you understand the Constitution-including the 1st Amendment-better then he does.

Aaron I missed this post.

I think Zig is using the copyright clause to prove a point. Cato, despite is protests to the contrary, seems to want the government to adopt "Christianity" as the national religion. Every time the government prevents Christian symbols or Christain prayer from being incorporarated into or onto government events or property, he cries foul. He has declared this is secular humanism and that the government has adopted that as the official religion of the US. Now he's insisting that being agnostic is a religion in and of itself. He's the one convoluting facts to fit his view or his agenda.

First, I don't think Cato does want our government to adopt Christianity as a national religion. What I think he wants is the first amendment to be applied properly which does not prevent a Christian from being displayed on government property as has been upheld by the most recent Supreme Court decision.

Cato's problem is, he lets Ziggy's distortions, word games and weaslewording bother him. What Cato needs to do is see Ziggy for the farce he is and not let his bullshit get bother him.

Not that anyone has asked, I'm going to give my opinion on religious displays on public property.

Provided they aren't paid for with taxpayer money, and all groups have equal access, they never bother me.

I'm agnostic, but Merry Christmas never offends me. Why would it?

I still think Cato would like to see Christianity adopted as the offical religion of this nation, whether he is willing to admit it or not.

I don't think he would but I could be wrong. Cato is a lot of things but one thing I've never seen him really do is try to force his beliefs on others.

The only person I see trying to force their beliefs on anyone here is Ziggy and Terry. Thier intrepretation of the 1st Amendment is wrong as the Supreme Court affirmed in Salazar v. Buono. Justice Kennedy stated it correct when he said "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

So if Ziggy's attempts to violate the 1st Amendment are not humanism, how would you characterize it?

Stephanie wrote:

I still think Cato would like to see Christianity adopted as the offical religion of this nation, whether he is willing to admit it or not.

No I wouldn't and I have never ever said I would. I have stated for the record a number of times I have no right to force my views on others, HOWEVER, they have no right to force their view on me either.

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

I still think Cato would like to see Christianity adopted as the offical religion of this nation, whether he is willing to admit it or not.

No I wouldn't and I have never ever said I would. I have stated for the record a number of times I have no right to force my views on others, HOWEVER, they have no right to force their view on me either.

That rings lame, Cato. Because in Murray v. Curlett and Abington Township School District v. Schempp- the cases in which you argue that Madeline Murray was trying to make atheism the official religion- the Abingdon School District was compelling students and the state of Pennsylvania was compelling school districts to perform Bible readings in the mornings before class, and which, according to the trial record, included preaching of specific religious doctrines deduced by selective readings and certain interpretations of the Bible.

That state law required that at least ten verses from the Holy Bible be read at the opening of each public school on each school day."

But the school district was not content to even just read the Bible without comment. The school district was deducing and promoting specific religious doctrines. Effectively, the state of Pennsylvania and the Abingdon School District were compelling public school students to endure certain Biblical interpretations and religious indoctrination.

Yet you have said repeatedly that this was OK and that Murray should not have taken it to the Courts, and that the Courts should not have ruled against the Abingdon School District. So you seem OK with some people forcing their views on others via state law and public school district rules- as long as they are forcing your brand of religion.

ziggy wrote:
That rings lame, Cato. Because in Murray v. Curlett and Abington Township School District v. Schempp- the cases in which you argue that Madeline Murray was trying to make atheism the official religion- the Abingdon School District was compelling students and the state of Pennsylvania was compelling school districts to perform Bible readings in the mornings before class, and which, according to the trial record, included preaching of specific religious doctrines deduced by selective readings and certain interpretations of the Bible.

That state law required that at least ten verses from the Holy Bible be read at the opening of each public school on each school day."

But the school district was not content to even just read the Bible without comment. The school district was deducing and promoting specific religious doctrines. Effectively, the state of Pennsylvania and the Abingdon School District were compelling public school students to endure certain Biblical interpretations and religious indoctrination.

Yet you have said repeatedly that this was OK and that Murray should not have taken it to the Courts, and that the Courts should not have ruled against the Abingdon School District. So you seem OK with some people forcing their views on others via state law and public school district rules- as long as they are forcing your brand of religion.

You are much like the politicans now running for office, when you don't have a clue, sling mud. That is simply pathetic. First, not once have I ever remotely suggested that any should be forced to particpate in religious items they choose not to. As far as O'Hara goes my views stand. I pretty much used her own words. Thirdly, when you say compelled, I have to question if anyone was truly compelled to do anything or if the issue was more in the line of I want to force my views on others and I will use the law to do it.