Obama Attends Church for 1st Time in5 Months.

One can use the word religion however they please, but the fact of the matter is religion is a set a beliefs a group of people agree upon and adheare to. Christainity is a religion as is islam and agnostisim, humanism, and atheism.

One can believe they have the truth and point to to all others as in error, but that does not make them an authoritarian.

If one insists that his or her religious "truth" applies to everyone everywhere, then one certainly is a religious authoritarian.

A religious authoritarian is one who uses force to push their views on another.

One is also a religious authoritarian if one threatens unsuspecting and trusting people that an after-life in supernatural hell awaits the skeptics who disobey their "truth" and an equally supernatural after-life in heaven awaits those who believe the alleged "truth". Browbeating by threats- including threats of after-life supernatural punishments and rewards- is using force.

Yes, Christains are guilty of using force to push their belief on others.

You bet they are..

However, so aren't muslims, hundus, butddist, Sheiks, and yes humanists, agnostics, and athesits. Right now the biggest authoritarian groups are muslims and atheists

.

Atheism is a religion? Atheism is about as non-religious as you can get.

Muslims use brute force and terror to accomplish their goal of domination and atheists use the force of a corrupt and bigoted grovernment. Little difference exists between the two.

So you don't see any difference between how law and order- such as they are- are imposed in Iran and in the United States?

Atheists are no more able to use corrupt and bigoted government than are proclaimed religionists. Indeed, religionists usually claim that their moral authority comes from some God or other. Atheists are at least honest enough to admit that their ideas of morality and of the kinds of laws that best regulate society in a republic are spawned in the human mind, not by some supernatural Dude off in some mythical heaven.

Government is corrupt and bigoted because people are corrupt and bigoted, not because of atheism. The most corrupt people both in government and in civilian society almost always proclaim some superhuman religion as their salvation.

ziggy wrote:
If one insists that his or her religious "truth" applies to everyone everywhere, then one certainly is a religious authoritarian.

Nope they aren't. People still have the choice whether or not to believe said person.

ziggy wrote:
One is also a religious authoritarian if one threatens unsuspecting and trusting people that an after-life in supernatural hell awaits the skeptics who disobey their "truth" and an equally supernatural after-life in heaven awaits those who believe the alleged "truth". Browbeating by threats- including threats of after-life supernatural punishments and rewards- is using force.

Again one has the choice whether or not to believe what is being said. They are not forced

ziggy wrote: Atheism is a religion? Atheism is about as non-religious as you can get.

Atheism is as much a religion as christainity under the ledgitimate defination religion.

ziggy wrote: So you don't see any difference between how law and order- such as they are- are imposed in Iran and in the United States?

and your point is what? I see muslims using terror as a method of control and expansionism.

ziggy wrote:Atheists are no more able to use corrupt and bigoted government than are proclaimed religionists. Indeed, religionists usually claim that their moral authority comes from some God or other. Atheists are at least honest enough to admit that their ideas of morality and of the kinds of laws that best regulate society in a republic are spawned in the human mind, not by some supernatural Dude off in some mythical heaven.

Atheists are very able to use the government to get their way and force it on others. Madeline Murrey O'Hara, proved that.

ziggy wrote:Government is corrupt and bigoted because people are corrupt and bigoted, not because of atheism. The most corrupt people both in government and in civilian society almost always proclaim some superhuman religion as their salvation.

In you opinion, because you have an ingrained hatred of christainity. The truth is to found elsewhere however.


[/quote]

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
If one insists that his or her religious "truth" applies to everyone everywhere, then one certainly is a religious authoritarian.

Nope they aren't. People still have the choice whether or not to believe said person.

No, if one insists that his or her moral beliefs are the only religious truth, and uses his or her God as authority for that alleged universal truth for everyone, then one is a religious authoritarian.

ziggy wrote:One is also a religious authoritarian if one threatens unsuspecting and trusting people that an after-life in supernatural hell awaits the skeptics who disobey their "truth" and an equally supernatural after-life in heaven awaits those who believe the alleged "truth". Browbeating by threats- including threats of after-life supernatural punishments and rewards- is using force.

Again one has the choice whether or not to believe what is being said. They are not forced

They are being forced when the parent, or the school teacher, or the preacher when a child is forced to go to church, or any other authority figure who uses such threats over people who are without the mental tools to resist, yes they are. It is a kind of terrorism- emotional terrorism- based on threats of terrible happenings if one does not at least pretend to believe the gospel according to the carrier of that gospel.

ziggy wrote: Atheism is a religion? Atheism is about as non-religious as you can get.

Atheism is as much a religion as christainity under the legitimate defination religion.

Under which legitimate definition of religion?

ziggy wrote: So you don't see any difference between how law and order- such as they are- are imposed in Iran and in the United States?

and your point is what? I see muslims using terror as a method of control and expansionism.

You said that Muslims and atheists- I presume you mean atheists in America- impose their agendas the same way.

ziggy wrote:Atheists are no more able to use corrupt and bigoted government than are proclaimed religionists. Indeed, religionists usually claim that their moral authority comes from some God or other. Atheists are at least honest enough to admit that their ideas of morality and of the kinds of laws that best regulate society in a republic are spawned in the human mind, not by some supernatural Dude off in some mythical heaven.

Atheists are very able to use the government to get their way and force it on others. Madeline Murrey O'Hara, proved that.

Madeline O'hara did not force anything onto others. Her son was a victim of unconstitutional government impositions. She used the judicial arm of the government to stop another arm of government from doing that- just as the Constitution provides when there are questions about the law and of the Constitution. That is all she did. She did not require anything other than that government leave her son to his own search for spiritual truth. She did not force anything onto others.

ziggy wrote:Government is corrupt and bigoted because people are corrupt and bigoted, not because of atheism. The most corrupt people both in government and in civilian society almost always proclaim some superhuman religion as their salvation.

In you opinion, because you have an ingrained hatred of christainity. The truth is to found elsewhere however.

Where do we find that "truth"- that Christians and other religious people are not corrupt, and that they don't claim superhuman salvation?

ziggy wrote:

No, if one insists that his or her moral beliefs are the only religious truth, and uses his or her God as authority for that alleged universal truth for everyone, then one is a religious authoritarian.

Where is the gun or the force of law the compells one to obey? There isn't any. You proclaim yourself to be a superior moral agent to christians. I'm not forced to accept you views. I accept the scriptures of the word of God and thus universal truth. I will defend my views, but you don't have to believe what I say or accept my views. You are quite welcome to tell me to get lost, just as I can tell you the same thing.

Your defination of authoritarian is a bit off my friend.

ziggy wrote:
Madeline O'hara did not force anything onto others. Her son was a victim of unconstitutional government impositions. She used the judicial arm of the government to stop another arm of government from doing that- just as the Constitution provides when there are questions about the law and of the Constitution. That is all she did. She did not require anything other than that government leave her son to his own search for spiritual truth. She did not force anything onto others.

Her son was no victim, the American public and constitution was. The original intent of the US Consitution's anti-establishment clause was to prevent congress from establishing a national religion. All the Court system did was establish sectular humanism as the national religion. Ms. O'Hara used the force of government to compel her views on all others

You proclaim yourself to be a superior moral agent to christians.

I have made no such proclamation.

I accept the scriptures of the word of God and thus universal truth.

That you "accept" that authoritarian attitude does not make it so for anyone else.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Madeline O'hara did not force anything onto others. Her son was a victim of unconstitutional government impositions. She used the judicial arm of the government to stop another arm of government from doing that- just as the Constitution provides when there are questions about the law and of the Constitution. That is all she did. She did not require anything other than that government leave her son to his own search for spiritual truth. She did not force anything onto others.

Her son was no victim, the American public and constitution was. The original intent of the US Consitution's anti-establishment clause was to prevent congress from establishing a national religion. Ms. O'Hara used the force of government to compel her views on all others.

The Constitution, as Amended since the late 17th century, and as interpreted by the Courts since then, says otherwise. And the Constitution directs that the Courts, and not Cato or Ziggy, make that determination.

All the Court system did was establish sectular humanism as the national religion.

So is "secular humanism" somehow the default "religion" in the absence of any religion?

Your defination of authoritarian is a bit off my friend.

Cato, it has been only about 10 days since you repeatedly demanded to know from where came the moral "authority" for me to do something that I was not even doing. You have made "moral authority" that you disagree with the bogeyman for years here. So when I point out various doctrines of religious authority, how it is that I am suddenly a "bit off"?

ziggy wrote:

I accept the scriptures of the word of God and thus universal truth.

That you "accept" that authoritarian attitude does not make it so for anyone else.

People choose what they want to believe based on everything from pure acceptance of fact to personal bias influancing belief. That does not change what truth is or isn't.

ziggy wrote:

Your defination of authoritarian is a bit off my friend.

Cato, it has been only about 10 days since you repeatedly demanded to know from where came the moral "authority" for me to do something that I was not even doing. You have made "moral authority" that you disagree with the bogeyman for years here. So when I point out various doctrines of religious authority, how it is that I am suddenly a "bit off"?

And I still want to know where you or anyone else for that matter gets the moral authority to use the force of the government to take from one and give to another.

As far as your defination of authoritarian goes, you are quite a bit off. You accuse me of being authoritarian if I express to another the reward and consequences of their choices, even thought one is allowed to make said choice with out fear of reprisal from the government. However, you fail to consider yourself an authoritarian when you demand the government silence my free speach simple because you hate my religion. Yes, Ziggy, your defination of authoritarian is a tad bit off.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
Madeline O'hara did not force anything onto others. Her son was a victim of unconstitutional government impositions. She used the judicial arm of the government to stop another arm of government from doing that- just as the Constitution provides when there are questions about the law and of the Constitution. That is all she did. She did not require anything other than that government leave her son to his own search for spiritual truth. She did not force anything onto others.

Her son was no victim, the American public and constitution was. The original intent of the US Consitution's anti-establishment clause was to prevent congress from establishing a national religion. Ms. O'Hara used the force of government to compel her views on all others.

The Constitution, as Amended since the late 17th century, and as interpreted by the Courts since then, says otherwise. And the Constitution directs that the Courts, and not Cato or Ziggy, make that determination.

And the Courts have erred in their rulings.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:All the Court system did was establish sectular humanism as the national religion.

So is "secular humanism" somehow the default "religion" in the absence of any religion?

That's correct

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:All the Court system did was establish sectular humanism as the national religion.

So is "secular humanism" somehow the default "religion" in the absence of any religion?

That's correct.

That's interesting- that the absence if any religion is still a "religion".

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:
If one insists that his or her religious "truth" applies to everyone everywhere, then one certainly is a religious authoritarian.

Nope they aren't. People still have the choice whether or not to believe said person.

ziggy wrote:
One is also a religious authoritarian if one threatens unsuspecting and trusting people that an after-life in supernatural hell awaits the skeptics who disobey their "truth" and an equally supernatural after-life in heaven awaits those who believe the alleged "truth". Browbeating by threats- including threats of after-life supernatural punishments and rewards- is using force.

Again one has the choice whether or not to believe what is being said. They are not forced.

Then there is no authority and it is therefore not authoritarian for governments to pass laws to collect taxes and enact laws against murder, kidnapping or robbery- because people have a choice about whether to follow the laws?

You say that there are consequences to not following the laws of God- but that such laws are not authoritarian because one has a choice about whether to follow them. By the same logic, the laws of men promulgated through governments are not authoritarian because people can chose not to believe and follow them- even though there are consequences for not following them.

How is it that the laws of men, punishable by governments, as you often complain about, are authoritarian, but religious laws- punishable by God- are not authoritarian? Because, after all, one has a choice whether or not to believe in and follow the laws of both men and of God.

ziggy wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:All the Court system did was establish sectular humanism as the national religion.

So is "secular humanism" somehow the default "religion" in the absence of any religion?

That's correct.

That's interesting- that the absence if any religion is still a "religion".

Humanism meets the defination of a religion, thus Secular humanism isn't the absence of religion, it is a religion.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:All the Court system did was establish sectular humanism as the national religion.

So is "secular humanism" somehow the default "religion" in the absence of any religion?

That's correct.

That's interesting- that the absence if any religion is still a "religion".

Humanism meets the defination of a religion, thus Secular humanism isn't the absence of religion, it is a religion.

So then since secular humanism is the default "religion"- to which you said, "That's correct", there could be no such thing as government operations with the absence of any religion?

ziggy wrote:

Then there is no authority and it is therefore not authoritarian for governments to pass laws to collect taxes and enact laws against murder, kidnapping or robbery- because people have a choice about whether to follow the laws?

Governments are established by men to preserve one's rights. Further Governments get their authority from the people. Additionally, when a government no longer serves to protect the God givern rights of the people, the people have every right to replace said government. The founders understood this principle and stated such in the Declaration of Independance.

ziggy wrote:You say that there are consequences to not following the laws of God- but that such laws are not authoritarian because one has a choice about whether to follow them. By the same logic, the laws of men promulgated through governments are not authoritarian because people can chose not to believe and follow them- even though there are consequences for not following them.

How is it that the laws of men, punishable by governments, as you often complain about, are authoritarian, but religious laws- punishable by God- are not authoritarian? Because, after all, one has a choice whether or not to believe in and follow the laws of both men and of God.

One chooses to follow or not follow God's law. They are informed of both the the reward and consequences of their choices and ultimately they reap the reward or consequences, usually int he afterlife. In a free society one cannot be deprived liberty, property, or life becasue of the choice they make.

Governments exist to protect the rights of the governed. However, the same government can and usually does become corrupted, usually by the quest for power. This government can then force through the taking of one's liberty, property, or life, one to accept policy, i.e. law they wish not to be part of. You have been a part of this in demanding creationism not be mentioned in the public school realm.

ziggy wrote:

So then since secular humanism is the default "religion"- to which you said, "That's correct", there could be no such thing as government operations with the absence of any religion?

That is absolutely correct

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

So then since secular humanism is the default "religion"- to which you said, "That's correct", there could be no such thing as government operations with the absence of any religion?

That is absolutely correct

So then how should we decide which religion the government is to include in its operations?

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

So then since secular humanism is the default "religion"- to which you said, "That's correct", there could be no such thing as government operations with the absence of any religion?

That is absolutely correct

So then how should we decide which religion the government is to include in its operations?

The government needs to stay out of religion altogether and adheare to the original tenets of the US Constitution. Which by the way is simple. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof. Religion belongs to the people, not the government. The government needs to stay out of religious matters altogether.

But you said that the absence of religion in government means that secular humanism is the default religion. "That's correct", you said.

And when I asked if there is no such thing as government operations with the absence of religion, you said, "That's absolutely correct".

So when you say that government needs to "stay out of religion altogether", that means that secular humanism becomes the default religion- according to your answers. Government can't win for losing, based on your answers.

ziggy wrote:But you said that the absence of religion in government means that secular humanism is the default religion. "That's correct", you said.

And when I asked if there is no such thing as government operations with the absence of religion, you said, "That's absolutely correct".

So when you say that government needs to "stay out of religion altogether", that means that secular humanism becomes the default religion- according to your answers. Government can't win for losing, based on your answers.

They do exactly as the US Constitution requires. The government makes no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:But you said that the absence of religion in government means that secular humanism is the default religion. "That's correct", you said.

And when I asked if there is no such thing as government operations with the absence of religion, you said, "That's absolutely correct".

So when you say that government needs to "stay out of religion altogether", that means that secular humanism becomes the default religion- according to your answers. Government can't win for losing, based on your answers.

They do exactly as the US Constitution requires. The government makes no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Has government made any law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:But you said that the absence of religion in government means that secular humanism is the default religion. "That's correct", you said.

And when I asked if there is no such thing as government operations with the absence of religion, you said, "That's absolutely correct".

So when you say that government needs to "stay out of religion altogether", that means that secular humanism becomes the default religion- according to your answers. Government can't win for losing, based on your answers.

They do exactly as the US Constitution requires. The government makes no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Has government made any law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?

It certainly has. Everytime a Christmas display is denyed on public property, the US Government shows favortism for humanism. It thus has established humanism as the state religion. And that is just one example of many.

But when government allows a religious display- whether Christian or whatever, on public property, it is favoring THAT religion.