“So now the atheists have had their hearing and they have, at least temporarily, chipped away at the rights of all Americans to pray as one.”

That’s ridiculous.  Individuals have a right to pray, but there is NO right for “all Americans to pray as one.”  For one thing, not all Americans pray, such as atheists.  Does a “right for all Americans to pray as one” mean that atheists are compelled to pray?  If yes, then it’s a gross infringement on religious freedom.  If no, then all Americans cannot pray as one.

“Maybe that’s what it will take.  Maybe after the secularists and socialists take away every right that we took for granted, maybe then we will get back on our knees, pray, and take our country back.”

Maybe you ought to learn what religious freedom means.  It does NOT mean the government tells people when and how to pray.

“Maybe, just maybe, after we have lost our right to pray at all we will finally pray together again as a nation.

Is that what it will take?  Are our hearts so hardened?”

You have no concept of genuine religious freedom.  You seem to have it confused with tyrannical governmental coercion.

Brian, I could not have said it better myself *applauds*

Well Lynus, you couldn’t have said it any worse either.

What this takes away is the spiritual leadership in our country.  At least President Washington recognized, in his first Thanksgiving Day address, that it is good and right to give thanks to God.  This is a nation founded on a creed.  The belief that all men are created equal and that all have equal rights.  Praying to God, even mistakenly, reaffirms this core belief of our nation.  It states that we are more than just congealed slime and that our culture is more than simply a manifestation of chemical reactions that have no rhyme or reason.  Truly if we men were not created equal, they have evolved unequally.

Granted civic piety can be a dangerous thing when it is not a Catholic state, but it is not nearly so dangerous as one that gives greater importance to hurt feelings than to the recognition that there are inalienable rights that transcend the civic order.

“What this takes away is the spiritual leadership in our country.”

In the country I happen to live in (the USA), the government is specifically prohibited from telling its citizens what religion they’re supposed to follow.  Instead, we have something called religious freedom.  You apparently yearn for a “Catholic state;” given how horribly that organization has acted by covering up child molestation in order to keep its facade “clean,” I’m glad this country’s government is nothing like that.

Baron,

I am afraid you are wrong. You see in the United States I have the freedom of religion. You know that pesky little freedom that lets me practice ANY religion or NONE at all. I know this might be a little shocking to you.

“Truly if we men were not created equal, they have evolved unequally.
Granted civic piety can be a dangerous thing when it is not a Catholic state, but it is not nearly so dangerous as one that gives greater importance to hurt feelings than to the recognition that there are inalienable rights that transcend the civic order.”

Actually it would be the other way around if you had any logic whatsoever. This country was founded on the freedom from religious oppression. I am sure every history book pretty much says so. So I think on this point we can clearly agree.

This country .... My Country… is not a catholic, nor Christian nor Muslim nor Jewish nor atheist country. So to allow one religion elevation beyond those of others is in ABSOLUTE CLEAR VIOLATION of the freedom of and frankly freedom FROM religion.

I can point out your shear hypocrisy in one single question. What if the ceremony in the white house was one of a Muslim belief?

What if we allowed Muslim prayers in school.

What if we changed the money to say “In Allah we trust”

Your misconception shrouded ever so badly by your religion is that this country is a Christian one. Thats your mistake. And anything less then accepting that fact would be the likes of living in Iraq. You want your religion you can have it. But you have no choice but to accept the fact that it is NOT the only one.

“inalienable rights that transcend the civic order.”

That single statement right there is why the catholic religion is on the verge of utter chaos. Try to elevate your religious dogma to a status higher then the law of the land and you will find yourself in jail preaching to the pidgins. Unless of course you are a catholic. In that case you simply get moved to a new state.

Hypocrite much?

This whole thing is so bizarre. A national day of prayer doesn’t force anyone to actually pray, as Pat pointed out even most Christians didn’t pray on that day. Because no one was forced to pray (and few actually did), one wonders what bothered the non-religious about a Christian president asking his Christian brothers and sisters to pray. There is more coercion to participate in Earth Day than this.

Most Christians are concerned because of this strong aversion in the atheists to any religion in the public sphere. Religion for a Christian should be a whole person commitment (public and private), yet were constantly being told that we cannot bring religion into our public lives. Where is this leading?

Haha, you guys are funny.

@Brian
Note I said spiritual leadership, not religious.  If you don’t understand the difference I recommend a sabbatical from trolling and reading a good dictionary and maybe some philosophy. I do wish for a confessionally Catholic country, but that is another matter and one that doesn’t really concern the United States as such.  But I am glad you are so comfortable and secure with this governmental body that is free of all sexual deviants and cover ups.  Likewise that our children attend these safe public schools were none are ever molested or abused and certainly not at the rate of 15% of all students nation wide.  Nor are abusive teachers moved around, covered up, excused or rehired elsewhere.  Yup, perfectly safe in the good ol’ government run establishment.

@ Lynus
Would I prefer a muslim prayer to the willful absence of prayer?  Probably, though neither option matches up with the history or tradition of this country.  If you say my logic is backwards, then so is history.  The Declaration of Independence was penned before the Bill of Rights and stated the following: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Those are the inalienable rights that I was refering to.  Not only are they not catholic dogma at all, but also they are the raison d’etre for the colonies’ war of independence.  The end of the DoI appeals to the Supreme Judge of the world.  Nor does it mention religious freedom.  Now does this make us a christian nation?  No.  I have never held nor believed that this is explicitly a christian nation, but it was one with enough sense to deduce the simple truth that if we are worth something, then there is something greater than us that made it so.

So as you can see, I am not holding Catholic dogma above the law of the land, I am merely quoting the basis on which this land claims to make laws.  If these claims are false, then how can our government claim to rule?

@Christina
First, what was struck down was legislation requiring the president to declare such a day, not the declaration itself.  And it isn’t addressed to just Christians, but to all Americans.  As the judge’s opinion spelled out, this legislation has no non-religious purpose.

@baron
“Note I said spiritual leadership, not religious.  If you don’t understand the difference I recommend a sabbatical from trolling and reading a good dictionary and maybe some philosophy.”

I suggest you take a respite from pomposity.

“But I am glad you are so comfortable and secure with this governmental body that is free of all sexual deviants and cover ups.”

I never said the US was perfect; the Vatican is clearly corrupt.

“Likewise that our children attend these safe public schools were none are ever molested or abused and certainly not at the rate of 15% of all students nation wide.”

You can’t defend the RCC by pointing fingers at others and saying “look what horrible things THEY do.”  That reveals quite a bit about how you yourself view what’s moral and immoral.  It certainly doesn’t agree with my morality; I have this odd idea that aiding child molesters is bad even if other people also do bad things, and pointing to those other bad things does absolutely nothing to justify or diminish the crime of aiding child rapists.

Baron, An intellectually well developed argument. I must admit I was not expecting such.

However you cant willfully dismiss the same protection from religion for those who don’t believe at all.

“that they are endowed by their Creator”
Completely subjective.  Where in some would hold science to be the creator. Would you not agree?

Also you cant help but notice and agree in all logical thinking that religion has and continues to influence social laws and decisions. So is it not reasonable that if that is allowed then so should the opposite. I am of the mind of equality. So to make concessions for one group must allow for concessions of others if we are to agree upon the basis of “all men are created equal”

The absolute chaos that ensues would be ridiculous. So is it not a more plausible and agreeable decision that no concessions be made either way in matters of state and government? I believe this rings true to the central point of the argument which is overlooked for emotional reasons.

Agree or disagree?

Well, we need less talk about rights in this country and more talk about our duties.  We do not have a freedom from religion, but a freedom of religion.  We have a duty as creatures to worship our creator.  There is nothing contrary about having a national day or prayer because the Gov. is not trying to tell you how to pray, just that it is your duty as a citizen.

1) I didn’t realize that national days of whatever needed to be re-declared every year. If that is the case, it should have been struck down on the issue of violating the freedom of religion of the president. period.

2) Even if it was addressed to all Americans, only those who had some concept of a God and who actively choose to do so, would actually pray. Thus, effectively it would be a message to Christians (and maybe a few other deist groups)

3) Freedom of religion protects against the government establishing a religion (like the Church of England) or restricting the free exercise of religion (like China). A politician asking his constituents to pray does neither of these things. If he had said “Prove you’ve prayed or you go to jail,” then yes there would be a problem, but that was not the case. If anything, restricting a politicians ability to ask for prayer would be a violation of his freedom of religion, thus going back to point one.

Unfortunately Blake. I must completely disagree. Freedom of Religion implicitly implies freedom from religion. Atheism could be considered a religion. Holding true to a “god” is not a prerequisite for a religion.

Less we be back in the dark ages fighting over who’s religion is the right religion which I have noticed is not an arguing point here.

Christina, You couldn’t possibly be oblivious to the hypocrisy of that statement are you? You are using the exact same logic thrown to you by the LGBT group for the last few decades. Denying a segment of the population a right not afforded to them.

When they tell you that “will not effect the church or your marriage you claim fear of children, In the wake of the RCC issues, then you claim the mysterious fall of your marriage or the union of marriage.

Now you attempt to take the same road…

Furthermore Christina point 3 is completely invalid. The president has the right to at any time pray or go to church. So that entire argument is red hearing.

The point being which you completely fail to grasp is that the government can not openly endorse any religious practice whatsoever which violates the freedom of religion by allowing one religion to claim “This is my day, the president believes me therefore I am better then you”

And unfortunately if you remove the superiority complex from any one religion it looses value.

Can you not see that this game has been played over and over and over again in our country and in history as a whole? How many countries at one point in time claimed to be in favor if “their” god?

If this country is so free then why can’t we have nativity sets on our court house lawns? why can’t a cross be on public lands? If the cross and this nativity set had been allowed all these 200 plus years why all of a sudden is offenive to this loud, obnoxious minority that seems to be able to rule our country and give us nothing but mockery and prejudice in the newspapers, magazines and television?
If you substituted any “PC people” so glorified by the atheists and secularists they would be screaming discrimination.. but Christians?
Dear Lord save us from those who want to be free of the name of God and any reminders of Him; who even the forefathers writing the Constitution acknowledged. Amen.

I cant believe someone is trying to argue this:

“If this country is so free then why can’t we have nativity sets on our court house lawns? why can’t a cross be on public lands?”

PUBLIC LANDS. You answered your own question. For the same reason you cant have a Star of David, Nor any religious item on public land. To allow one over the other endorses favoritism. Thus negating the freedom OF religion clause.

“If the cross and this nativity set had been allowed all these 200 plus years why all of a sudden is offenive to this loud, obnoxious minority that seems to be able to rule our country and give us nothing but mockery and prejudice in the newspapers, magazines and television?”

Thousands of years ago we used to throw rocks at lightning… We used to believe the earth was flat and the sun rotated around us. Each one of these had its place and time. But we grow beyond it. Its called Evolution.

“If you substituted any “PC people” so glorified by the atheists and secularists they would be screaming discrimination.. but Christians?”

No, you are simply falling prey to the same treatment you have given any other group of people throughout history and you claim foul? How many have died been murdered or sacrificed in the name of your god? How many? Thats discrimination. And you my dear man have absolutely no right as a human being to play the victim card.

Hey Tapestry6, if you get your courthouse officials to create an open public forum in front of the courthouse, you can put up your nativity right in front of the courthouse.  Of course, all those “loud, obnoxious minorities” will have an equal right to put up their own displays, so you probably don’t really want that.  You’d rather live in a country that promotes your views and suppresses all other views that disagree.

To be clear Tapestry6, I do not find a cross on a public building offensive at all. Frankly I could not care less. What I DO find offensive is the favoritism you seek and what I suspect is the crux in this entire argument. You have fallen from favor and it annoys you. It bothers you that you no longer are held higher then any other religion and have to abide by the same rules. I simply do not care for the “poor me” argument when all this does is level the playing field.

The assumption that your religion is better or the only one or the only way and that the UNITED STATES government should cater to that. I find that assumption reprehensible. If it is to big a pill to swallow I suspect finding yourself some beach front property in IRAQ. I here allowing one religion to rule the government is working out wonderfully for them.

@Brian
You were the one who brought the comparison of leadership into it.  Unless you have some real facts to bring to bear, you statement of the “Vatican is clearly corrupt” is as groundless as “curling is the finest display of athletic ability”

@Lynus
Find me where you have the freedom from religion.  Near as I can see it does not exist.  The exact wording is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  I cannot draw this ‘freedom from religion’ statement from there unless you mean your religion requires you to be religiously free from religion.  And while all men may held (confessionally by our founding document) to be created equal, it does not hold that all thoughts and opinions are equally true, correct or just.

I don’t see the Creator as subjective at all.  For one, science is a discipline and therefore incapable of action.  It takes a Will to Endow, and ‘nothing’ cannot have a Will.  So, by that logic, there is something that actively made us equal and gave us the very rights that we use as the very basis of our government.  So a national day recognizing the existence of such a thing and its inherent superiority (otherwise how could it bestow on us) is good and proper.  That’s really all that prayer is.  It is not a national day of worship, nor is it a national day of communion.  If we deny this recognition, then we attribute ultimate power to the government which rules solely because we do not over throw it, rather than by any sort of natural law.

Baron, I am loosing respect for your argument as any elementary student could point this out to you.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Respecting an establishment of religion.
Government will make now law catering to one establishment of religion. Therefor making government completely religiously ambiguous. Meaning government will not cater to ANY religion or make a law that Caters (IE: respecting) ANY religion.

So that means government will be completely out of the religion business. Therefore also meaning that they have no religion to cater too. Which means DEVOID of religion.

I don’t know how to make that any clearer for you.\

Secondly “It takes a Will to Endow, and ‘nothing’ cannot have a Will” No That is as silly as it sounds. My doctor just gave me lasic surgery so I can see clearly again. Seeing as the doctor endowed me with vision, does that make him god? Clearly you are kidding with this thought process.

My parents chromosome endowed me with black hair and brown eyes, does that make them god?

And lastly of course not. I don’t attribute ultimate power to anyone. If that were true free will would not exist. And natural law? Your very religion acts against anything that is natural law so I find it a rather ironic point in your argument.

@Linus,

I don’t understand your first argument that I’m being hypocritical, unless LGBT is now classified as a religion and I didn’t know it.

As for point three being invalid, part of our religion involves praying with others. To deny someone the ability to ask others to pray with them is a restriction of their religious freedom. The thing we cannot do is FORCE someone else to pray with us.

Why does this bother you so? We haven’t had a Christian state in hundreds of years, is this something you really fear?

It is Jesus who said that if the Apostles kept quiet, the stones would cry out.

@baron
“Brian
You were the one who brought the comparison of leadership into it.”

Only because you opined for a “Catholic state.”

@Christina

You cant throw out the freedom of religion to spend millions of dollars to campaign against two loving people in a committed relationship then claim foul when the same trick is turned on you.

Thats the hypocritical thinking I speak of.

I have friends who are in a loving commited relationship that happen to be two men. You use the bible to surpress thier rights. You destroy thier lives in tangeble ways and then claim religion to do it.

We claim freedom of religion and that religion should play no part in civil law. You say “me’h ignore it” then you run a nasty smear campaign against them about children and the church not being allowed to participate in child placement services because of it breaking your beliefs. You claim foul because you could be forced to marry two people of the same sex. They again say no because of freedom of religion.

They explain to you how the freedom of religion protects you, you say no it could happen so as such I am going to destroy your life.

Now that freedom of religion is invoked, in the favor of those who you just !@#$% all over you claim fowl.

That is by its very definition hypocricy.

The President took an outh to honor the laws of this great nation and that included not using his presidency to “favor” any religion. He is fullfilling his responsability and again you cry foul.

Millions of dollars are spent on stoping gay marriage instead of protecting children from child molesters. You get called on it and you claim foul.

The government takes its stance on exactly what it should be doing and you claim foul. I am sorry if the very tool you used to cause harm and grief to others is now coming back to bite you in the arse. But please, dont look to me or the LGBT for an open ear. You burnt that bridge a long time ago.

@Christina.

Take a moment and read this. Tell me is this how you would like to spend your final days?

http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issue_caseDocket_Greene_v_County_of_Sonoma_et_al

@Christina. Just so you don’t think I am grasping at the one case in the history of the world. Here are a few more…

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/when_anti-gay_hospitals_attack

Thats what the organized religious groups did to my friends. Tell me, what has the LGBT group done to your friends and loved ones?

The government stepped in and said “enough is enough” By pushing the right wing religious fundamentalists back to where they belong and letting compassion ring true for once.

I support any effort to push organized religion back and out of the government. FOREVER.

Lynus, you make no sense.  Existing and being God are two different things.  The surgery was willed by the doctor, and the doctor exists.  The surgery could not just be willed in a vacuum, there has to be a subject doing the willing.  And so if we are endowed with something, there must be someone or something willing the endowment.  So the founders, in the DoI, made a statement of faith that there is someone or something that made humanity what it had become, including these principles by which we claim the authority to govern.  If these statements are false, then the only authority the government can claim is the might of its supporters.

Your reading of the establishment clause assumes that ‘regarding’ and ‘catering’ are synonymous.  I do not see ‘cater’, ‘favour’, ‘devoid’, or ‘from’ anywhere in that statement. The older and more direct interpretation, which is contextually consistent with the politics of Europe and the writings of the founding fathers, would state that the USA is not and will not be a confessional state.  There will be no established religion of the United States. France was confessionally Catholic, England was anglican, Russia was Orthodox, much of Scandinavia was Lutheran, etc. and this is what they wanted to avoid.

Regardless of that point, religion requires a set of rules and tenants, a belief in God can be, and often is in practice, seperate from this.  You can believe in God and not have a religion and you can have a religion but not have a God.  Religion is something that binds a person’s conscience.  A public belief in God is not the same as a state religion.  So even if you are correct in your interpretation, honoring a Creator, as we already have at our founding, is not an matter of Religion but of belief.

Baron. Note it says “respecting” not “regarding” there is actually a huge difference in those two words.

Regardless of whether there is a god or not is void of the point of this conversation.

This conversation relates to whether or not government has any right to endorse a “god” of any type. And I believe I clearly and accurately proved it does not. The founding fathers were escaping religious persecution. I don’t believe they would have wanted it to inflict the united states. Hence the separation of church and state.

Simply put, Government has no place in Church and Church has no place in government. This line has been blurred for way to long and the church has been allowed to push its way into the private lives of people who want nothing to do with it. This is simply people who see it, understand it and have had enough of it pushing back.

Your walk with your god is your own. It has no place in my or my friends lives and I am frankly tired of it using its influence to dictate civil law. Again, if you don’t like it then I suggest you look to Iraq for your next vacation home.

Baron, I was a bit emotional with the previous post. I mean you no disrespect as you have approached me with civil behavior. My apologies if it came across more harsh then I meant. And I do appreciate the civil nature of our conversation.

Which of the founding fathers were escaping persecution?  From what I can tell they were enjoying the freedom that their respective colonies had to govern themselves both politically and religiously, while maintaining loyalty to the crown.  Some of the states continues to profess a state religion after ratifiying the constitution.  This brings into question your assertion that it was the intent of the fathers to completely seperate religion and government.

Now for your Iraq comment.  Iraq itself was not an offical muslim state, at least not in the sense of Iran or Oman or Afghanistan, so you might have tried one of those for rhetorical emphasis.  As a Catholic, I would prefer to summer in a country where Catholicism is the state religion.  The two that come to mind are Malta and Monaco.  I’d need to learn French for Monaco, but it might be worth it.  I wouldn’t mind being ruled by the decendents of Princess Grace Kelly, at least then the politicians would be worth looking at.  =)

The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics. The dominance of the concept, denounced by Roger Williams as “inforced uniformity of religion,” meant majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst. In some areas Catholics persecuted Protestants, in others Protestants persecuted Catholics, and in still others Catholics and Protestants persecuted wayward coreligionists. Although England renounced religious persecution in 1689, it persisted on the European continent. Religious persecution, as observers in every century have commented, is often bloody and implacable and is remembered and resented for generations.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Perhaps this then:
Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs of affiliations.
The tendency of societies or groups within society to alienate or repress different subcultures is a recurrent theme in human history. Moreover, because a person’s religion often determines to a significant extent his or her morality and personal identity, religious differences can be significant cultural factors.
Religious persecution may be triggered by religious bigotry (i.e. the denigration of practitioners religions other than those of the oppressors) or by the State when it views a particular religious group as a threat to its interests or security. At a societal level, this dehumanization of a particular religious group may readily turn into violence or other forms of persecution.

Put into context with the above statements of the LGBT can you blame them for wanting freedom FROM religion?
The points make themselves.

A few key points in case you missed them:

“This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. “

“meant majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst. “

Proposition 8. Look it up.

“Religious persecution, as observers in every century have commented, is often bloody and implacable and is remembered and resented for generations.”

Look at the current support for LGBT groups based upon age group.

And for the record, if you have any problems with these statements take them up with the Library of Congress. As that is where the quote is from. The exhibition of American History.

Enough said.

Oh I almost forgot the most important part. The title:

America as a Religious Refuge:
The Seventeenth Century

Well the Puritans were not persecuted, they felt that they were being tainted by the heretical views of the other Christians and came to America to create a Puritan colony, we call it Massechusets.  This became a common theme. Maryland (Mary’s Land) was to be a Catholic colony, founded by the papist sympathizer Lord Baltimore.  This failed as the Catholic got ran out by the protestants from neighboring colonies.  So very few of the colonists wanted religious freedom so much as they wanted somewhere to have their religion as the guiding principle.

But that is besides the point.  As I said, religion is a set of beliefs that one holds to.  It is impossible to seperate religion from government, though it is possible to seperate the governing bodies of Church and State from eachother.  A Bishop does not make the laws, but his moral teachings should bear on the votes of a Catholic who, in a democratic society, helps make and pass the law.

LGBT are just as interested in expunging our influence in government as the other way around.  Its because we adhere to opposing views and they cannot both exist.  Its really that simple.  Either our rules are enforced and you are disenfranchised, or your rules are enforced and we are disenfranchised.  You can’t have it both ways.

At least be honest about it.

Lynus you are completely wrong about quite a lot of things. You also have a great lack of perspective.

Firstly in all of human history the most dangerous leaders have been atheist with one exception. That one exception happened to be the most anti-christian of them all unless you are stupid eneogh to take his public propaganda speeches to the contrary.

Secondly what was religious persecution was often motivated by other factors as well. The famous ones brought up by atheists are the albigensians, inquisition and the crusades. Most of you have no idea bout that at all. Further on the wars of religion of the sixteenth and seventeenth century were really all about power grabs for individual princes.

Thirdly in Christianity which seems to be the most hated, teaches that mans acts of relgion must be freely willed otherwise he gains no merit from them and it is wrong to force people to accept a religion. However there is a duty to prevent religious error from spreading if the religion is true, this follows logically from it being true. There is a marked difference between making it a civil crime to spread error by those who are the original perpetrators of the error and those who are not culpable of it.

Fourthly as there will be in the field of any human endeavor there may be mistakes and excess in behaviour but the moderation that has been observed towards other religions even by islam on the orthodox and the jews under their caliphates does not even copare to the actions of one Mao Tse Tung.

Fifthly and last but not least, since you atheists seem to love to try and paint the sins of individual christians as sins of the religion, therefore by your own brush you hypocrites are tarred worst of all by a significant margin.

The single most dangerous and perverted individual in the world that has ever existed was probably Mao. Mao was a committed atheist, murderer and rapist of young girls. In fact Mao was probably as bad as all of us christians put together.

P

@Baron. this stupid site just refreshed and blew away my comments. In short. It is your group that wants to change the rules whenever something doesn’t work in favor of you but the LGBT group wants you to adhere to one rule and one rule only. Seperation of Church and State.

@Paul, actually I am right about a great deal of things and I think I have proven my points 10 fold by now.

Secondly, who said I was an atheist, I don’t agree with “your god” so I must not have any at all… Typical…

Thirdly Your first point, who cares. Has nothing to do with the conversation. Now your just trying to pass the buck to a different group and say its all their fault. Again typical.

Fourthly, Again Deflect towards another group. When does this kind of deflection get you anywhere. Haven’t you learned that doesn’t work anymore?

Fourthly. Are you serious with this, your going to tell me that all the bloodshed in the name of your god had nothing to do with god. Yeah buddy, the holocaust never happened. Gotcha
Anyone with an high school diploma knows better.

Fifthly, Oh really? Yes I know the rules. Surely doesn’t stop you from denying someone a right or lobbying and throwing your weight behind a political stance. Why not right? You can allays blame the politicians if it doesn’t go your way. Typical smoke and mirrors.

And lastly again with the deflecting. Another group did it worse then we did so its OK for us to do it. Really? Grow up.

Tried and tried again. do you guys seriously get hand outs telling you what to say because it all sounds like a broken record repeated over and over and over…. look…. you just did it 4 times in your post. Divert (nothing to see here)

Tell me about it, I’ve lost my comments several times.  I learned to do a copy/save move every now and then.  It doesn’t delete it on firefox for me, just IE.

With the Seperation of Church and State, as you have defined it, would remove us from the public sphere and force us to live by the rules of others.  How is this different from what you are complaining about?

And in case you missed Pauls little hypocrite moment let me point it out for you in easy to understand measures shall I?

1: Its because of the athiests.
http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2006/10/hitler-stalin-and-mao-were-not-atheists.html

Try again

2: No blood was spilled for god. Nothing to see here. Hundreds of years of history are all wrong.

3: We don’t actively try to recruit. Ummmm Might want to rethink that one.
you just claim to be the moral compass for the USA but then hold no responsibility for the outcome of it. I would love to have that job.

4: See number 1. Typical…

5: See 4 and then 1 again… Got it.

I used the word sin. When a christian sins it is still a sin.

You haven’t proved anything on here at all.

This move against the national day of prayer are atheist in motivation.

I did a word search throughy my post looking for where I said that it is ok to do wrong.

My third point was directly against the misconception that christians have a policy of forcing people into their religion, and while you did not express that explicitly your tone did seem to indicate that you believed that.

The holocaust was not motivated by religious hate for the jews. Rather it was motivated by hitlers belief that the Jewish nation was the eternal enemy of Germany. If you don’t know that then how did you get your diploma?

I am not going to deny that there has been bloodshed but any honest individual knows that there is almost always something more in it.

It is good to know that you are not an atheist. Lastly again, where did I justify wrongdoing?

Baron, Sorry kinda went off on a tangent with Paul.

I am using Chrome and its doing it for me. Strange. Might have to try another browser.

I guess I cant see your dilemma here. I honestly cant. Live by the rules of others? You mean the government. The rules you ALREADY have to live by?

What rules could possibly come up that you wouldn’t already have to follow. By living in the United States and being a citizen of the United States or (any other country for that matter) you abide by the rules of the United States. You don’t get a special set based upon your beliefs. Thats like trying to say I am going to outlaw shellfish and pork products because of Leviticus…. Versus the alternative? The government holding you down and force feeding you pork and shellfish?

Look at the current conversation its a perfect example. No one said you cant pray. Just that the government cant endorse any religious prayer.
Nothing is stopping you from praying. Right? I don’t believe I got the memo to show up at father DuHammels church with a rifle and make sure no one is praying.

It simply means that the government can not put its weight behind any religion. None.

are you kidding.

Mao and stalin were so atheist it isn’t even funny. I notice on that blog he has nothing to say except to say that we cant be sure. LOOOOOOL

Hitler was so anti-christian it wasn’t even funny. That blogger along with sam harris is an idiot. Relying on the public political persona of hitler to decide what his views were. LOOOOOOOL. In 1939 hitler promised no religious persecution publically. In one sense he was correct, because he didnt persecute the jews based on their faith rather their race - hence Edith Stein got killed when she was actually a member of the Christian Faith, but that disctinction is not as important as the fact that hitler was a liar and a propagandist in public.

Hitler has hundreds of private conversations and correspondence recording his hatred of christianity as the blight on the aryan race.

P

@Paul.

Again, why do you always have to have a group to crucify?
Does it make it easier to victimize a group of people when someone else passes a law saying that government is doing its job? Where is the proof?
I have lots of it on the other side *wink*

Just because I show you the proof and you choose to ignore it… Well in my experience that is also very typical. God himself could show up on your doorstep, smack you in the head and tell you that Gay marriage is ok and that the bible has it all wrong and you still would choose to ignore him so wasted words on you my friend.

The holocaust was a rhetorical reference to the Nazis denying it happened. sorry if you could not put two and two together.

Your logic of Church and State says that I cannot bring in any of my religious beliefs to government.  Nearly anything worth voting on whether it be abortion, marriage, war, education, taxation, welfare, healthcare, immigration, and so on are directly influenced and informed by my faith.  So by saying I have to leave the Church out of it, I have to leave myself out of government.  I could not vote.  Nor could any serious Catholic.  So I would literally be disenfranchised and living by the rules of others.

A government of the people, for the people and by the people will inherently reflect the beliefs of the people.  If you ban the beliefs of organized religion from the ballot box, you ban these people from government.

@Paul.

Of course they are idiots. It doesn’t agree with your viewpoint It must be the atheists fault again.

I could literally point you to hundreds of documents pointing out that Hitler was not an atheist.

This is the cheapest trick in the bag. Do you really think people are falling for it anymore? Really?

Step one. Find group to blame
Step two. Inflame accusations and make any particular bad guy historical figure to make your point.
Step three. Victimize and call everyone who disagrees stupid, idiot or use words like abomination to make it more Christ like.

Rinse repeat
I have better things to do Paul. Sorry. But your a waste of my conversation.
NEXT!

@Baron, WOW Now that was a real and honest response. I actually had to think about that one.

Kudos :)

Now on to your points. Have you ever seen the movie Dogma? If you have there is a really interesting comment by Chris Rock.

“Rufus: His only real beef with mankind is the **** that gets carried out in his name. Wars. Bigotry. Televangelism. The big one though, is the factioning of the religions. He said, “Mankind got it all wrong by takin’ a good idea and building a belief structure out of it.”

Bethany: So you’re saying that having beliefs is a bad thing?

Rufus: I just think it’s better to have an idea. You can change an idea; changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it.”

Hold steadfast to your beliefs but their has to be a time when simple logic, and compassion outweigh a belief.

Look, Read any of Leviticus or Deuteronomy and you will see that these laws simple don’t apply anymore. This is when simple logic should outweigh a belief system. When the good of the people is far outweighed by a belief structure.

Gay marriage is the perfect example. It has no effect on religion whatsoever. The very law we speak about protects you. But I believe the founding fathers had truth to their logic. That at one point the pursuit of happiness can not be weighed against a belief system.

Come on Lynus. There are lots of people on both sides who want to claim that hitler was a committed christian. The fact is that there are quotes which are true which seem to justify it.

However these are public. The best evidence that I have read in any work on Hitler is that Hitler believed that he was some form of god himself and interhcanged the ideas of Fate and God at will. However in private he was very very anti christian.

Perhaps I am a little harsh at the moment but there does seem to me something incredibly dangerous about atheism in general. As a group, they have probably been in the minority over history yet when some have reached power they have been the most destructive.

I realise that you are not an atheist but, the motivations against things like national day of prayer are atheist in motivation and it is for that I am reacting strongly. I ask you not to forget that since i consider abortion one of the worst things possible to do, I likewise am counting against the atheists the abortions commited in their countries.

lastly when you try to defend the atheist position that things like national day of prayer should be abolished even if you believe yourself you are falling into their camp.

Only a fool would expect christians and members of other religions to be perfect all the time, but we often do not help each other against atheism because protestants like to blow the catholic churches problems out of proportion and vice versa as one example.

Unjust religious persecution will happen because that is the nature of the fallen human being overall to make mistakes but it cannot be compared to atheism in general.

I do not know why you do not see atheism and anti christian motivations in general as the very dangerous to human beings motivations that they in fact are.

P

@Baron. Further to my point its pretty simple.

Gay Marriage ( I am using this only because it has effected me and my friends personally and its the freshest in my mind)

The constitution has many safeguards. One in particular prevents any law from being enacted that represses the rights of a minority by rule of the majority. Yet at every turn this particular group of people have asked for their rights and the government has given them (in most cases) only to be overruled by the majority. This is the exact problem I am addressing the fact that because of a majorities beliefs an entire class of people is not being treated like second class citizens.

Imagine if you will if womans rights, civil rights, segregation were up for popular vote in the respective time frames. I can honestly say with all certainty we would probably still have black and white bathrooms.

These are those special cases where a belief system should not negate the rights of any one group of people. Where simple logic and compassion overrule any groups beliefs. And it is my contention that it is these specific scenarios that the founding fathers had in mind.

Now you are quoting the film Dogma.

Way to go. Now I know why you think the way that you do.

What theological works have you actually read on the subject of religion? what metaphysical works have you read on the nature of God?

Well Paul. Thank you. I can respect that response.
I don’t believe for a second that atheism is inherently evil. I know a great deal of people personally who identify as atheist and are more Christ like then any Christian I have seen. So I think its a brash generalization and a cheap cop out for anyone who doesn’t want to admit they have problems.

I think what you are witnessing Paul goes well beyond peoples belief in a god or not.

I think in general people are tired of letting religion dictate right and wrong. In my experience this is definitely true of the younger generations. I think religion in any form would be better served by not lobbying around one particular political battle. Rather take the money and fix the problems in the church. You have to admit that the news has not shined brightly on the RCC and I think you are seeing the fallout of that. but it hastens my point which is fix the issues there before worrying about whats happening to Joe and Steve your neighbors. :)

@Paul. Please don’t insult me. There is very little you know about me and my background.

I speak Hebrew and Greek Fluently. I took several classes on correct terminology of the time. I have studied at length the interpretations and writings of the bible.

I spent 12 years in catholic school and another 4 in seminary in Massachusetts.

I am no longer a practicing catholic but I do still have my knowledge so again please don’t attack me on this front.

I was simply making an observation where the quote seemed to fit.

The thing is that when christians go off the moral rails it is in defiance of the moral teachings of the church and christianity.

Providing that God exists - Atheism is intrinsically evil. It is a denial of the most fundamental reason for someone’s existence.

I would agree that there are atheists who behave better than christians in certain ways but identifying them as more christian is not really the correct way to put it.

You may very well be correct in thinking that people are tired of religion teaching what is right and wrong. But that does not make the position correct.

The question is first - is the religion a true expression of Gods teaching and revelation to Mankind or is it not? If it is then it has of neccesity has the right to teach the teachings of God.

Yes we need to fix our problems in our Church. But while doing that if what we believe is right we also have a duty to more than just our Church.

If we were to take your position of ignoring what is going on in the world just to make ourselves as good as we can be then we will not be acting as catholics. Rather the true catholic seeks to be as good as he can possibly be with the grace of God and seeks to bring people to God as well as opposing that which is opposed to God.

This is the simple fact of our religion. perhaps that is what makes us odious in the worlds sight.

Lastly I apologise for my earlier tone - I was initially emotional because of various world events.

P

Fair eneogh - however I must ask you what Saints you have studied. Catholic education has in general failed in the last twenty five or so years and despite your qualifications in languages you may have been unfortunate to study what would rightly be considered unorthodox.

P

First, do not confuse the Catholic Faith with so-called bible churches.  We use the bible as a tool and a sacred guide, but the real teaching authority lives in the sucession and culmination of the teachings of the bishops.  So line by line, the bible is useless.  As a whole it is priceless.  Each book must be read as it was meant and toward the audience it was directed towards.

Dogma was a terrible movie in many ways, but that’s just my opinion.
The sugguestion of ideas versus beliefs was the worst part.  To me it sounded like “don’t be passionate about anything” “nothing is real” “nothing is important”.  You may have heard differently.  I can’t live without a conviction worth dying for.

So OK, we’ll use Same Sex Marriage.  By Seperation of Church and State I cannot vote on this.  The definition of marriage, in my faith, is inextricably tied to the definition of mankind.  It is part of who we are, and since we believe we are made in the image and likeness of God, it is a clue into His nature.  Now if I live in a country where SSM is allowed, we will have a series of problems.
1) I am obligated to pass on my faith to my children, so I must teach them these same beliefs.  In the process I, and eventually they, will be labeled bigots because we believe that SSM is an ontological impossibility.
2) In teaching my children about sexual morality and the purpose of sex in the human context, also an important part of my faith, I will have to go against what is ‘legal’ and teach that homosexuality is a perversion of what sexual intimacy is supposed to be about.
3) These problems are doubled if there are ‘hate-speech’ laws.
4) Because of seperation of Church and State, I would not be allowed to vote on the regconition of SSM because of my faith.
5) My faith requires me to spread these teachings to the whole world in the hope that others will believe and receive the redemption won for them by God, so I cannot participate in legitimizing anything that is contrary to the faith.  That would be counter to my mission.
So where does that leave me?

“Providing that God exists - Atheism is intrinsically evil. It is a denial of the most fundamental reason for someone’s existence.”

I think that is creating undue friction honestly. You see. Atheism is very often correlated with science. And have we not already had enough of that story by now?

Its the same story replayed over and over. Science discovers something Religion argues it cant be. Science attacks religion and we repeat.

The friction is incurred by mere perception. Lets face the honest truth here ok? If you were 18 and looking at the church. In recent events. Would you want to find your way to god? The more you put up a fight the more that is perceived as old people with dumb traditions. Each 18yo has an innate sense of individuality. Which frankly doesn’t line up with Christianity. However lines up rather nicely with atheism.

I submit that its the struggle between the atheists and the catholics that will inevitably be the doom of the catholic religion. All you need to prove that is to look at the current timeline of events and demographics of the 18-30yo church participation.

No one could deny that. But lets switch gears on how to fix it. Simple. Fix the problems in the church and lead by example. Get back to the good things the church’s did for the community stop spending time and money on whats not effecting you. Show the world that the catholic religion is a good peaceful place. Not some horrible child raping factory. I know thats harsh but lets be honest about the public image.

And as far as saints. All of them :-P I am particular to St. Felicity.

Baron,

“First, do not confuse the Catholic Faith with so-called bible churches.  We use the bible as a tool and a sacred guide, but the real teaching authority lives in the sucession and culmination of the teachings of the bishops.  So line by line, the bible is useless.  As a whole it is priceless.”

From your lips to gods ears.

This delimna is easily solvable by looking again at the overall teachings of the bible.

So let me shed a few points:
1: Homosexuality is not a choice. Any one with half a brain could tell you its not. So we should clarify that one right off the plate.
2: The teaching of compassion and love should be the overriding factors here.

Look, We could go back and forth all day long with bible quotes but the short story is this. God himself as in Jesus and GOD never said homosexuality is a sin. Yes yes, put down your bible I know you can quote Romans, Leviticus, Sodom and Gomorrah and we can go round and round but the general rule is this. If it was SUCH a big deal why isn’t it a 11th commandment.

Teach your kids your feelings on the subject. As my father did but reinforce with love of family regardless.. thats where the overwhelming gift and message should be come present and instilled in minds and hearts of your children before the more redundant rules. Would you not agree?

I have heard so many horror stories of parents disowning and suicide? I guess I leave you with one thought on this subject. Would it be better to have a gay son then no son at all?

And if your son or daughter were to be gay would you not want them to have a happy life. Not one filled with hatred and discuss? Mary of Magdalene story in here somewhere *wink*

And on your last point it depends on your “mission” Spread the word of his love, compassion and forgiveness or your mission of denying someone a real chance at happiness because god said so. Which one do you think he will favor more?

Baron, And lastly when you step into the voting booth to vote on such issues. Do you believe your children would respect you more as the father of steadfast beliefs and the guy who denied a bunch of people a right. Or as the compassionate man who saw past the dogma and decided that love and compassion should rule the day.

just my thoughts.

Firstly I am in the eighteen - thirty age bracket and when I was only eighteen this subject was big news. However I was still more intelligent than the average eighteen year old because instead of relying on what was public perspective and what is presented in the media as the truth i went and got an accurate a picture of the problem as possible.

One of my attributes is wanting to know what actually is true rather than what is presented to the majority as true - and over and above that - i dont care what it is that the majority thinks. Even before going to universoty to study physics i might add I could tell you what most of the logical fallacies were.

Fortunatly I actually escaped what was presented as Catholic teaching in many of those schools and have educated myself over the last seven or so years from the writings of saints and the documents of the Church on various topics. 

I realise that your position does take the probable mean course in dealing with the problems in the church - but i would classify what you have just said as a human attitude.

I would like to stress that if we do not fight the war on every front we will defeated on every front. In sorting out the problems in the Church we must also fight evil in society as much as we can.

I would really reccomend the Life of Christ by Bishop Fulton Sheen.

So I should deny my faith and believe what you believe instead?

I actually prefer “Peace of Soul” :)

Frankly, To be honest. I don’t believe the catholic church possesses the same means as it used to. Put simply I don’t believe you can afford to fight on all fronts any longer.

I pray that I am wrong but every sign seems to lead to a better stance would be to withdraw. Cultivate and come back in stronger then you were before. Just my opinion of course.

To quote Bishop Sheen “Pride is an admission of weakness; it secretly fears all competition and dreads all rivals.”

Baron,
No! Absolutely not. I am but a man with an idea not something to be followed literally. But I believe blind faith is wrong. I believe a man must weigh out his decisions with his heart. And always be thinking about the bigger picture. It is easy to deny someone a right when there is no face to attach to that. It is far more difficult to make an educated well thought out decision after exploring all options.

For example. I would be perfectly content with the term “civil marriage” if the government would also include a safeguard in the constitution that all rights afforded a married couple (from a government perspective) were protected and afforded to a (civil union)

I believe anything less would be no different then asking Rosa Parks if a negro bus system would work.

I believe there is compromise but only when emotions can be laid to rest to have an open civil of conversation such as this one.

In some battles you may be correct that the prudent fight is to withdraw. Unfortunatly some fights are essential and part of our Duty.

To oppose gay marriage is one of those. For some that is fulfilled by simply voting against it, for some that duty is being more publically vocal.

I would be very interested in continuing a debate on homosexuality another time with you.

Baron Korf I have a huge amount of information that you might also be interested in. I must however bow out because of time.

God Bless.

P

Do you want my email Lynus?

You mean you have an idea that blind faith is wrong.  But hauling snark aside, you have inadvertantly skirted the question.  Maybe I should’ve defined the terms better.  Assume that the Catholic in question has studied the development of dogma and doctrine and after much study of history and prayer has come to the conclusion has determinded that the Church is correct in her teachings and as such is bound to them.  How does he participate in a democratic society where faith is not allowed in politics?

Actually I may as well elucidate my belief on the position.

Homosexuality is more or less explained in the following ways in my opinion which is reflected in my readings of some pyschologists on the subject and related ones as well as my study on the demonic and the capabilities of them.

1. Firstly it is not something that cannot be changed because there are a siginificant number of “ex” gay individuals who say that they are not homosexual any longer.

2. The source of homosexuality can be demonic in some individuals. That is, according to theology it is completely true to state that it is within the power of the demonic to influence the imagination and the passions towards homosexuality just as they can influence people to feelings of suicide, anger and other things. If you doubt me read the sections in the Summa on the capaibility of the angels.

3. Fighting against homosexuality in the modern world is no different to fighting for purity in any other sense. It can be overcome in the same way as anybody has overcome addictions to porn, masterbation, and dragging oneself away from regular illicit sex of any kind. This fact is established by the very fact that there are people who have overcome homosexuality and stated this.

4. It cannot be assumed that the demonic is the only cause of homosexuality since the three sources of temptation are the world the flesh and the evil. This means that when a person gives into temptation the fight becomes harder and harder the more one gives in. A person who thinks that he cannot be other than homosexual is probably right because what henry ford said “if you think you cannot do it you are correct”.

5. It similarly cant be assumed that just because there are people who may have legitimatly tried not to be homosexual who then have turned round and said that it is impossible in their case that they are correct. Losing a battle or giving up is not a proof of their position. In the Christian teaching one of the important things is persevering and not giving up.

If you are still interested in my defences of the above positions say so.

P

further comment on 4.

It is not because they are absolutely right that they cant do it, but the fact that there opinion affects their capabilities.

P

Baron, My apologies it was not my intent to skirt the question.

Business needs stole my attention.

In response one must weight the vast knowledge of the church against that of reasonable responsibility to the public at large. I would then further that by accessing how many this “turns off to Christ” and the teachings. If your plan at large is to bring more people to the good work of the lord then isn’t it a clear violation of that creed to deny someone or better yet a larger class of society to that of the message?

Voting blindly because your faith allows you to is the scapegoat mentality. In judgement which is the heavier burden to bear, one of lack of compassion as Sodom and Gomorrah teaches us or that one of an ill willed heart. You see, I don’t proclaim that you don’t vote your belief what I ask is that belief be well thought out and planned. Based upon facts and logical thinking weighed against your belief system. I certainly would like to meet my maker with a clean heart knowing that I did my best to balance rather then say “I thought thats what you wanted”

:)

Anyway, if you wish to continue in email then yes of course. My email is Lynus3@gmail.com

All are welcome to participate.
:)

Paul, There are a million things wrong with those comments however subjects like these are better set to a different forum and not one of a public thread as not to offend. Please email me. But be aware that my nights are for my family so I may not respond right away. :)

My email is above.

As an interesting historical example. As an Empire or Nations morals declined so did the society.  Example, Greece, Rome and Western Europe and I fear, the United States is following suite.  Although some of the comments on here are very polished and appear knowledgeable, they are lacking in understanding and wisdom.

That doesn’t answer the question.  Can a person vote in accordance with their faith or does that exclude them?  Its a simple question.  All you are saying is that if I am voting that way it’s obvious that I haven’t thought enough.

Ok Baron, I guess I am not answering it directly enough so lets try this approach.

If I approached you and asked you why you voted against the rights of another human being and your only reply was “because the bible said so” yeah then I would be a little angry. I would expect more from a civilized culture then “the bible tells me so”.

So the answer is YES if you took the time to weigh it out and can justify it with more then “I read it in the bible”.

So do I want to negate your vote completely because you voted on your faith (which I think is the crux of your question), of course not. Then I would be the one living in Iraq. (used for point of reference only)

Blindly voting without giving it a common thought of the repercussion. That is what I take issue with. Understanding that your faith is not exactly the same as another’s then voting strictly on your faith without any other reasoning IS IN FACT forcing your religion on another person. That I will absolutely take issue with.

I hope you find that answer more to your satisfaction.

According to Lynus everything other than christian is good Relationsip between human and any other life or even material and a marriage between them is good. Ok carry on Let others who hold a different view be free to preach and practice that.  When we lose “HUman Values” we lose everything and become fully ignorant

Wow Rose. Abundantly brash claims. Jumping off the abyss of assumption a bit aren’t we?

I never said anything other then a Christian relationship was a “good” relationship
I never advocated for marrying chairs, dogs or pillows. Further slander of someone who simply offers a heartfelt alternative.
I suspect you would do well to research Asian cultures where same sex marriage is not legal yet they are marrying pillows and fictional characters.

I believe the major flaw in your logic is that in order to be a good person and have good morals I have to be Christian. Again, the two aren’t mutually exclusive you know. Once again you take the stance that YOURS is the Only religion and the ONLY one that is right. Until you wake up and realize that none of that is true this friction is going to continue.

I am not sure that this was said, but for sake of time I am not going to read the whole thread. LGBT couples can very well have CIVIL unions, this gives them the rights, but they CANNOT be Sacramentally bound in the SACRAMENT of Holy Matrimony, that is ONLY for a MAN AND WOMAN. Furthermore, if you are not a Catholic and are only reading these articles in the NCR(National Catholic Register) only to bash the Catholic Church, then I will sincerely pray for you, to my God, the all-powerful, all-knowing, and Loving Creator.

Before there is any more bashing, MAYBE the “bashers” would stop and think… Rather than taking it literally about praying TOGETHER, which would be nice…maybe it means those of us who DO pray- that does include a lot of people and many faiths- have a day set aside so that IF WE CHOOSE TO, we can pray as one.
I am constantly amazed that even on a website that is reportedly a “Christian/Catholic, that we have some very…angry(?) people that rankle at the thought of ANYTHING that smacks of Christian/Catholic unity, or for that matter anything that relates to TRADITION: Praying, forgiving, Latin- what have you.

How very sad.

Since people, left up to their own whims, are prone to rationalize and make up thier own stadards, there needs to be one standard by which all live, God.  The government does’t give rights, God does.  If we give our government the power to give us our rights, THEY CAN ALSO TAKE THEM AWAY.  Communism seeks to remove religion from the equation for just that reason.  History has shown us that removing all religion has deliterious effects with leaders such as Stalin.  Hopefully with this crowd I do not need to name the countless multitude of totalitarians who claim rights reserved for God.  It also works the other way, for instance with that crazy president of Iran whose name I cannot spell.  The state laws should not enforce religious ones such as jail time for adultery.  We are all sinners and its God’s right dispenses punishment, not the state.  I am sure eveyone has heard the expression “everything in moderation”.  We need to have God as our standard so that the people who make the laws realize they are not giving us rights but working for God and not themselves.  It is for them to uphold and live by God laws not enforce them.  Our country was founded on Chrstian principles and if we abandon those, we are lost.  People of all faiths, or none at all for that matter, are welcome but they must understand the principles on which this country was founded are Christian and that is part and parcel of living her.  If you move to France you don’t expect the people to speak Engish to you and then get offended when they don’t.  If I was to move to a Muslim country I would not be offended by thier open practice of faith. What did I expect moving to a muslim country.  I do have a reasonable expectation to practice mine w/o persecution and that is the way is should be here.

Kristen, I agree about some of your points but the one I take issue with is the “we need to have god as our standard” well, if you are referring to we as in all Christians. Sure. Frankly I don’t really care. If you are speaking of we as in everyone in the USA? Well then my dear you would be completely wrong. See previous post about your religion being the only one.

You keep beckoning back to the same philosophy, in order for us (meaning everyone) to have good morals and be good people we need god. I’m afraid you are wrong and its that attitude that puts most off to Christ. You act in complete contradiction to the teachings.

I meaning me know hundreds of people who are self proclaimed athiest who act very Christ like. Sorry but I am calling that for what it is. A convenient lie.

And your right, I don’t expect to move to France and speak English. Thats called common sense. But the Christian religion is not the only religion in the united states and it certainly is not the US religion. So frankly your bogus claims hold no water.

the USA was founded on freedom of religious persecution. See post in this thread. What you are calling for is a unitarian religion that all have to believe as you do or else. Sorry but thats what the forefathers of this great country were running away from.

My beliefs are just as valid as yours regardless of what you think. And if you want to put up a nativity scene at Christmas on public land then my friends might want to put up a sign of the pagan solstice. Why would there beliefs be any less valued then yours… see the hypocrisy here?

I am hearing a lot of talk that sounds suspiciously like calling for a national decree of religion. Politics and religion dont mix. If we were to allow them to mix then we wouldnt care about opinions on matters of state it would simply be “I am voting for the catholic” Here is a news flash for most check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Religions_of_the_United_States.png

As you can see the catholic religion is overwhelmingly second place to protestants. So should that be the new religion of the US?

Secondly you live by mans law. Anything other then that statement and you are a loony living in another realm of non reality.

Government does make laws and those laws should not be dictated by the laws of governments belief system. I defer to the fist statement. For example.

Married by the church without a marriage license is NOT legally married.

Go and kill a man for disobeying gods law and guess what you end up in Jail per the laws of the government. Right?
Of course. I think there is a lot of lacking reality here and unfortunately its time to snap back to real life folks.

Claiming that gods law or gods influence on law is above the law of the democratic society you live in is reprehensible and devoid of common sense.

If laws were to be driving by gods hand then who’s god? What version of god? Yours? Mine? Bob? Sams? Mikes?

Again referencing back to the first statement
Get a grasp of reality. Its for this very reason that we have rules and a constitution to protect from such things. To simply disregard because it doesn’t fit the scenario is to throw away everything this country was founded on.

Thats the reality of the situation.

We as Americans have a right to a Day of Prayer and to make every day a day of prayer (as I do) and frankly as a Christian I don’t care what some federal judge says or thinks about it.  They can only stop me from praying to the Lord when they stop my heart from beating.

Lynus,

A few counter points to some of your comments.  I tried to read most of the thread.. Whew….

1.  A true Pluralistic state, as opposed to a secular state, allows the public and private practice of all it’s citizens of any religion they choose.  They are allowed to present, promote and advocate their idea’s on the wider public forum.  The USA was established clearly as a plurality, since many states and cities had confessional religious ties when the Constitution was passed, and these were NOT outlawed because of the acceptance of the Constitution.  It’s clearly obvious then that the constitution of the USA did NOT forbide states to be confessional.  The states eventually did pass their own constitutions, or amended their existing constitutions to reflect religious plurality, but this was done by the states, NOT mandated by the federal gov’t.

2.  Homosexuality by it’s nature is a tendency towards a certain affection and sexual activity.  There are other types of individuals that also have preferential and affected sexual desires that tend in other ways contrary to the natural norm of sexuality.  These would include but are not limited to people who are pedophiles, zoophiles (sex with animals), Rapists etc…  All of these differ from physiologically compatible sexuality in that they are sexual acts, between two willing persons who can complete the sexual act as is natural for the use of the sexual organs.  Heterosexuality is the only sexual affection where the sexual desire is directed in a way that is compatible with the natural use of the sexual organs.  This is called Science Lynus.  Now, you can talk as much as you want about animals doing unnatural things in zoo’s, but animals do all sorts of things that are contrary to their obvious nature, and often contrary to their best interest.  You have animals practicing rape, pedophilia, Filicide (killing your own offspring) Matricide, Patricide, Gang raps, Parent abuse, child abuse etc….  All sorts of things that we rightly forbid from our society are practiced among animals, so argumentation trying to affirm the so called ‘normality’ of homosexual acts is just futile.

3.  Regarding your rejection that Christianity does not inherently say anything that would exclude homosexual acts.  This is just dishonest.  Even if you throw out Leviticus (which to a large extend Christians aren’t bound because of St. Peter’s relaxing of dietary rules as well as the requirement to circumcision), the New Testement letters from Paul as well as multiple mentions by the early church fathers (many being followers of the apostles) forbade these acts.  Not only these sexual acts, but all sexual acts outside the confines of Marriage between a man and a woman.  Let me draw a line for you.  Jesus was clear that Marriage was intended for One Man and One Woman from the beginning (I’m sure you can find the bible passage I am referring to).  It was also clear that he opposed sexual acts outside of marriage, as the Epistles and Letters of Paul are very clear.  So, if you can’t have sex outside marriage, and marriage is only between one man and one woman, I would say Jesus was pretty clear about homosexual sex not being in God’s plan. 

4.  You stated early that Science was the creator.  I don’t think you meant to say that, since I hope you know that Science is merely a body of knowledge as well as a methodology of investigation.  You could no more say that Science was a creator, than you could say that Linguistics is what gave humans the ability to speak. 
  -Now, if your saying the Laws of Nature are the creator, then that’s a different line of reasoning.  Certainly Catholic can agree that the Laws of Nature are the reason we are the way we are, but that does not preclude a God who set in motion and willed the Laws of Nature.  In fact, if anything, cosmological physics is pointing more to a singular event from where the entire known cosmos came from, than ever before.  If there was a singular event (commonly referred to as the ‘Big Bang’), then that all the more point to the likely existence of an Being that is the source of that ‘Big Bang’.  Look up the prime mover concept for an understanding as to why. 

5.  Homosexual marriage as a right:  The line of argument that homosexual’s are being denied their civil liberties is patently false.  Someone is denied their civil liberties when they are denied something that others can partake in for some reason outside their control.  Now, homosexual marriage does not fit in this category, because the current law does not treat a homosexual man any different than it does a heterosexual man.  The difference is not in the person, but in what is recognized as a valid marriage.  There are many things that preclude a valid marriage in our country: Person’s cannot be related as siblings or parent/child, persons must be of appropriate age (laws of consent), person must be of opposite sex, person’s cannot be presently in a valid marriage (polygamy), both persons must choose freely and be of sound mind to do so.  Now, all of these regulations on marriage treat all persons equally.  The drive to legalize homosexual marriage is a drive trying to codify in law a sexual sentiment, not gain civil liberties of an excluded class of people.  Even uneducated African American ladies knew this much.  As an obviously very educated man, you should be able to realize this, and stop using the ‘Civil liberties’ approach.  It just doesn’t hold water.

Now back the very original topic.  The day of prayer.  It’s obvious that in a pluralistic state, where many people of different religions pray differently, and have different concepts of prayer, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a federal day of prayer where all citizens who have belief to come together to acknowledge their shared humility before something greater than themselves to which they pray.  As an example, we could also consider White Supremacy as a religion (albeit highly misguided), they are not obligated to celebrate on Martin Luther King Jr’s day.  It would be unconstitutional to obligate them to do so.

In Christ,

Doorman

Doorman, I can not believe I have ot argue these kind of common sense things to someone who clearly wants to be more impressive then he actually is.

Point 1: Completely off subject and nothing but a dog and pony smoke shield. Regardless of whether the forfathers had confessional ties means absolutely nothing and contributes nothing to the conversations whatsoever. Obama is black so everything law he makes must be because he wants to further the black cause. This makes no sense whatsoever and clearly not for inteligent debate.

Point 2: Again, the typical response by instilling fear and hate into the hearts of people and relating homosexuality to bestiality, pedophelia… blah blah blah. Again. Nothing more then a disgusting ploy. Which can be answered by any elementary student with half a brain.

Let me break it down for you in a big red crayon shall I. Each of these things you mention all have on think in common that homosexuality does not. Want to guess? Probably not, as you completely missed it which ever so blantently highlights the underhanded tactic this is.

Drumroll please….. Each one of those has an unwilling participant. Where a participant be it an animal child, woman or man. Where these absolutely have nothing to do with homosexuality with two conscenting adults.

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are an intelligent person and could not have simply overlooked this tiny mistake in your logic.

So I am left to believe only one thing. That this is a clear and disgusting attempt to incite fear, and anger and cause a direct relationship between homosexuality. This is a underhanded and disgusting tactic in civil discourse. Shame on you.

Point 3: I addressed this in a post earlier and I will not be subject to a cat and mouse game with you sir. I stated I will not bring religious discussion into the course of this by quoting bible verses. I will simply point out that your references are completely wrong and when taken out of context can be applied to anyones point. So please respect my decision as it was intended to respect your beliefs and not turn this into a scripture discussion.

Again however, you miss the central point which is once again.
In caps so you might get it:

YOUR RELIGION IS NOT THE ONLY ONE.

Regardless of your belief system I have proven 10 fold by now that you cant apply anyones religion to the discourse of civil law. To do so would be a violation of everyones freedom and in fact FORCE your religion down the throats of everyone else.

Seeing as you seem so keen on this subject lets discuss this a little further. So allowing gay marriage would act upon your perceptions of your belief system. Clearly forcing your religion down my throat.

But to give me my rights as another human being does what to you? Forces my agenda down yours? How so? Exactly what does this do to you. Nothing Absoultely nothing. But you keep hinging your bigotry behind your religion. I am sure that will work well when you face your maker.

Point 4: see response to point 3

Point 5: I can answer that entire line of argument in one relation.
Not so long ago we had different water fountains, schools and bathrooms for black people. So what was all the fuss about. They had the same rights.

A little common sense would do you some good.

And the last point. Simple, I dont even have to answer it you did in the last scentence please re read and post something of meaning next time ok?

A couple of clarifiers to my comments.

My comment “Even uneducated African American ladies knew this much.” Was a reference to the fact that a vast majority of African American ladies voted for Prop 8 in California.  The point being is that their wisdom of what consitutes a valid marriage showed through, regardless of their level of education.  When I read it, it sounded different than what I meant.

In section 2 I say “All of these differ from physiologically compatible sexuality in that they are sexual acts, between two willing persons who can complete the sexual act as is natural for the use of the sexual organs. “

I should have said, “All of these differ from physiologically compatible sexuality (heterosexuality) in that they are NOT sexual acts between two willing persons who can complete the sexual act as is natural for the use of the sexual organs. “

IT has become all to apparent during the discourse of this conversation that you are all simply out of material. All to evident by relating homosexuality to pedophelia and bestiality. Again refer to china where there is no gay marriage but people are still marrying inanimate objects.

It has also become blatently clear that most of you are completely inable to discuss in common civil ways. Put simply I could tell you the earht is round, point to all the evidence that states such. I could sail around the globe with you and yet you would find a way to deny it. I am simply wasting my time energy and common sense in an area where this is none.

Most of you have completely given up any common sense what so ever and replaced logic with faith. And for that I pity you. You have my scincere hopes and honest feelings that one day you will be able to see beyond the shroud of your ignorance and unvail the common sense reality that exists around you. This will be my final post and I leave you with one of my personal favorite quotes.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”  Gandhi.

My email is above if anyone wishes to continue the conversation.
Im afraid this is simple a lost cause.

Doorman, I will lastly reply to your post as it came in before mine.

My comment “Even uneducated African American ladies knew this much.” Was a reference to the fact that a vast majority of African American ladies voted for Prop 8 in California.  The point being is that their wisdom of what consitutes a valid marriage showed through, regardless of their level of education.  When I read it, it sounded different than what I meant.

Honestly, all I can say is that is a lot of back peddling to hide the fact that you blatently called most black woman uneducated.

I find that repulsive to think you would bring that kind of bigotry into a civil conversation and yet more proof of why I need to leave.

Good day to you sir.

Lynus;  May God hold you in the palm of his hand.  My thoughts and prayers are with you.  Please keep me in yours.  Thanks.

Hello Lynus,

Point 1.  It makes all the difference in how the context intent and understanding of the constitution.  When you read Shakespeare, do you not have to understand his ‘worldview’ and the context from where he was writing to understand his meaning?  The same applies to the Bible as well as the Constitution.  Words can only be clearly understood when you understand the intent of the person who spoke them.  In many cases, their meaning is plane, but sadly, many groups throughout history take the written word, and attempt to distort it by ignoring the obvious intent of the person who spoke them.  Let’s take slavery.  It’s obvious that when the constitution was first written, many of the legislators that passed it were not thinking of Black Men when they agreed to the bill of rights.  This is just a point of historic fact.  Now, this ill was rectified by an Amendment thank God.  There has been no amendment regarding religion that changed us from a pluralistic state to a Secular state.  Again, this is a point of historic fact.  And I was not referring to the individual confessional ties of the framers of the Constitution, but to the established religions of some of the original 13 states. 

From Wikipedia: 
“The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. “

“The controversy surrounding Establishment Clause incorporation primarily stems from the fact that the Establishment Clause was intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments of religion that existed at the time of the founding (at least six states had established religions at the founding[10]) – a fact conceded by even those members of the Court who believe the Establishment Clause was made applicable to the states through incorporation.[11]  Critics have also argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to incorporate only individual rights found in the Bill of Rights; the Establishment Clause - unlike the Free Exercise Clause (which critics readily concede protects individual rights)[12][13]  - does not purport to protect individual rights.[14]”

Now, how do you read this such that People of religious persuasion are not allowed to promote, advocate and use as a public guiding principle idea’s that have some religious basis? 

Point 2.  You said “Drumroll please….. Each one of those has an unwilling participant.”  Wrong!  So you say that there has never been a 14 year old girl or younger that was not a willing participant in a sexual relationship with an older man?  Just because the girl is willing, doesn’t make it right. Consent between adolescent siblings…. Adult child and parent…. Try again.  I can’t say much about the willingness or lack thereof for animals.  It’s too gross to ponder.  You seam to think that all that is required for something to be right or wrong is consent.  Welcome to Atheistic nihilism friends.  With consent and comfort as being the only standards of what’s right in Atheism’s eyes, no wonder it leads to the destruction of human society.  Of course, with Atheism, it almost always becomes the ‘consent of the educated or elite as well as their comfort’.  It’s evolution of the fittest after all.

Point 3.  I could argue against the legitimacy of homosexual acts purely on the physiological and biological facts of human sexuality.  Do you want to discuss form this method.  I can gaurantee the scientific evidence on human sexual physiology is with me on this one. 

My last sentence was “It would be unconstitutional to obligate them to do so. ”  This could be applied to the day of prayer.  It wouldn’t obligate anyone.  Neither does Thanksgiving, or Christmas or Mothers Day, or a host of other nationally recognized holidays.  That fact is, your line of reasoning against a National day of prayer would also require you to oppose all of these other nationally recognized holidays.  You see, the government has the right to declare certain days as set aside for particular of it’s citizens, as long as it doesn’t require anything of anyone.  Do you get it now??? 

Lynus, you are obviously well read and educated, but there is no doubt that though you are blessed with knowledge, you seam wholly deficient in wisdom.  And I don’t mean this in just a spiritual sense.  You have taken the knowledge you have, and used it in ways that are totally contrary to common sense.  You seam to be a person that comes up with your opinions first, and then looks for ways within your educational repertoire to justify your preheld beliefs.  This is highly unreasonable.  I would have more respect for your arguments if you just stated that your belief in homosexuality was based upon an inspired belief and part of your faith.  Because within the bounds of reason, homosexuality is merely a sexual sentiment which makes a person desire to use their sexual faculties in ways that it’s obvious are not central to their purpose.  You might as well argue that the mouths primary purpose is to chew on fingernails, or the foots primary purpose is to paint.  Just because these things can be done with these parts of our body, doesn’t mean that is their primary purpose.  For someone to give up eating because they feel more compelled to chew their fingernails would be considered a psychological disorder by any reasonable person.  The same can be said for Homosexuality.

Doorman

Lynus, I am sorry to say I have to agree w/ Doorman.  Please tell me it has not escaped your notice that this once great country began its downward spiral with the onset of secularism sometime in the late 50s.  Before then it was run for 150 years by people of various Christian denominations.  You seem to have missed that when I said we need make sure our country’s foundation and guide remains Christianity not that we need to have any one denomination of Christianity rule.  If our country continues down this path it will lead to our ruin as mentioned by others.  Mary has already made this plainly clear in her messages at Medjugore.  Maybe you are willing to call Mary wrong, but I’m not.

Lynus, I am sorry to say I have to agree w/ Doorman.  Please tell me it has not escaped your notice that this once great country began its downward spiral with the onset of secularism.  Before then it was run for 150 years people of various Christian denominations.  You seem to have missed that I said we need make sure our countrys foundation and guide remains Christianity not that we need to have any one denomination of Christianity rule.  If our country continues on this path it will certainly lead to our demise.  Mary has said as much in her apparitions in medjugoje.  Maybe you are willing to call Mary wrong, but I’m not.

Doorman, First off, if we are going to continue this discussion I highly suggest you keep comments about “uneducated black woman” from the discussion. I absolutely under no circumstance will tollerate that kind of blatent bigotry.

Moving on…

Your entire first point is negated by your very statement. You convieniently went off on a tangent about the first part of your statement and completely ignored the second. Lets recap shall we.

QUOTE
2) the preference of one religion over another.
END QUOTE

That very point is the entire problem here. Government can not and will not elevate one religion over any others. If you paid close attention to the statement made by the judge in reference above you would ses she clearly used this as the primary point.

Did you even take a look at the chart I submitted earlier? 16% roughly, of americans have no religion. That in its very right constitutes the goverments withdrawel from any religious endourcement ANY!

Now to assume there will be an endorcement to cover All of the christian denominations, what cerimony would you have the president have in his home? Would that be Catholic Protistan, Jewish, Islamic…. for fear that any one would break the very rule you set forth in your statement.

I would also suggest a long look at the American History Archives in the Library of Congress. I fear you simply draw assumptions.

QUOTE
“Each one of those has an unwilling participant.”  Wrong!  So you say that there has never been a 14 year old girl or younger that was not a willing participant in a sexual relationship with an older man?  Just because the girl is willing, doesn’t make it right. Consent between adolescent siblings…. Adult child and parent…. Try again.  I can’t say much about the willingness or lack thereof for animals.  It’s too gross to ponder.  You seam to think that all that is required for something to be right or wrong is consent.
END QUOTE

I agree on the gross to ponder but I absolutely disagree that athiest montra is “Consent and Conform” In fact the two are mutually exclusive to each other. The very “Consent” argument dictates that as long as two people do what they will without hurting anyone negates the “conformity” aspect. I believe you miss the confomity point completely. You want everyone to conform to a “christian” mentality. Do you not? That would be in complete contriduction to the christian nihilism. My way or the highway. You can not in all seriousness expect to play the confomity card from the horse you hail upon?

QUOTE
I could argue against the legitimacy of homosexual acts purely on the physiological and biological facts of human sexuality.
END QUOTE

Because if we were to follow your thought process and allow you to dictate what is “normal” then you would be in for a rather rude awakening. FRankly put, Keep your religion out of my bedroom. Ok?
I will have you know that you keep claiming the biological penis = vagina for point of what is concidered your “normal” WEll I am afraid the honest reality is that if it were concidered normal then just about 90% I would guess of civilization is doomed. Oral sex, Anal Sex. Both female and male. LEsbian sex requires no penetration at all. However most males practice stimulation using oral and other parts of the body. So you dear sir are on the wrong. Are you ready to tell everyone in america that they are not allowed to be married unless they only have intercourse in the missionary position? This entire point is laughable at best. Im sorry but the reality is simple.

I fear, you, like most Christians are hung up on the sexual nature of a homosexual relationship. You seem to think its ok to tell people what they should do or not do in the privacy of thier own home. Well Unfortunately most straight men would not stand for that so on this argument you have no ground. Remove the sexual aspect of the conversation and you are left with what? Two consenting happy loving people who want thier relationship recognized by federal law.

You make the mistake of assuming they want your blessing or bliblical marriage Unfortunately your assumption would be DEAD wrong.

QUOTE
My last sentence was “It would be unconstitutional to obligate them to do so. ”  This could be applied to the day of prayer.  It wouldn’t obligate anyone.  Neither does Thanksgiving, or Christmas or Mothers Day, or a host of other nationally recognized holidays.  That fact is, your line of reasoning against a National day of prayer would also require you to oppose all of these other nationally recognized holidays.
END QUOTE

And this comes on the heals of telling the homosexual population that their marriage could not be federally recognized because it would obligate the church to perform the marriage. Do you deny the hypocricy in your statements. Even after being told hundreds of thousands of times that the law dictates that no christian church can be forced to perform anything outside of thier belief system. When they siimply dont care about your biblical marriage. They were asking for the federal laws. You cast that aside and on the chance that somehow you are going to mysteriously obligated to do something. Pot, this is kettle.

QUOTE
homosexuality is merely a sexual sentiment which makes a person desire to use their sexual faculties in ways that it’s obvious are not central to their purpose.  You might as well argue that the mouths primary purpose is to chew on fingernails, or the foots primary purpose is to paint.  Just because these things can be done with these parts of our body, doesn’t mean that is their primary purpose.  For someone to give up eating because they feel more compelled to chew their fingernails would be considered a psychological disorder by any reasonable person.  The same can be said for Homosexuality.
END QUOTE

It is much more then a sentiment. I can also relate homosexuality to being left handed. Brown eyes instead of blue blonde hair instead of black. A simple variation of sexual preferance but again you miss the point that it is much more then that. Its about two consenting adults in a loving caring relationship that should be afforded the same rights as the counterparts. And if you believe for a second that it is a psychological disorder (which I might add I find highly offensive) then I submit that any straight man who has anal sex, has oral sex is left handed with brown eyes and black hair is also psychologically damaged. Oh and anyone who hates spinach. I think they make pills for that right?

I jest in order to lighten the mood but I also think it does a great job of pointing out the nature of what it is you are saying.

Kirry.

I submit to you china. Whose social and economic growth has been substantial in the last 100 years. Yet their belief system is completely in contradiction with yours. How would you explain that? If the lack of the Christian god will be the downfall of society as we know it how to you explain other cultures who don’t believe in it?

I had a much better response but the page refreshed and I lost it. This is the bridged version.

Hello Lynus,

Please don’t Feign insult regarding my comment on African American woman.  I did a follow up clarifying my comments.  I am adamantly NOT racist, and would have no problem personally marrying or having any of my children marry a spouse (of opposite gender of course) of any race, with a strong preference for a faithful practicing Catholic.  Race is simply a non-issue to me.  My comment was to point out that the large majority of Uneducated African American Women in CA voted for Prop 8, contrary to the liberal sense that they viewed Homosexuality as similar to race with regards to discrimination.  They have the good and wise sense to see the difference, as did many Uneducated and Educated African American, Hispanic, White, Asian, women and men.  If this doesn’t clear it up for you, I’m not sure what will.

You very conveniently quoted just the part you agreed with.  How typical.  The reason I quoted the entire thing, was to show there is still a running disagreement in the legal world about the exact way to interpret the Establishment clause.  Unlike you, I was trying to be honest by presenting the entire quote and not just the parts the support my own beliefs on the topic.  Also, it’s clear that the Establishment clause, as shown in the Wiki Quote, was not passed to preclude State establishment of religion.  Furthermore, it’s clear that as was understood by the framers, an Establishment of religion meant to set forth a as the norm a set of religious beliefs as the State beliefs.  When there is recognized a day of prayer, it is so amorphous to include all prayer, even atheistic ‘centering’ prayer.  It was intentionally worded so that it did NOT establish one religion over another.  To make the argument that there are two religions, belief and unbelief, is so ignorant, as to almost be laughable.  It’s like saying that a scientist was establishing a new branch of science because he stated that water was wet.  You have to be either a committed anti-religionist or just delusional to believe that a federal recognition of a day of prayer for all religious believers amounts to any sort of establishment of religion.  Should Earth Day also be expunged from the federal calendar because their are pagans who worship the earth as Gaia?  Please get out of your little box of atheistic hate towards all believers and admit that belief in prayer is held by a large number of religious believers all over our country and world.  To recognize their prayer in a national Holiday in no way establishes any one of these religions as the state religion.  Please tell me you get this…

Regarding how the President himself recognizes publicly his own personal prayer, that is up to him.  If we ever vote in a Jewish man as President, I would only expect he would celebrate the day of prayer in a Jewish way. 

You said “I absolutely disagree that athiest montra is “Consent and Conform”

I never said that “Consent and Conform” were the Atheist Mantra.  You must have misread me.  If you want to paraphrase what I said, you could state that I inferred that “Consent and Comfort” were he Atheist mantra.  Comfort and Conform are different words with different meanings.  I will assume you just misread what I said.

You Quoted:  “So you dear sir are on the wrong. Are you ready to tell everyone in america that they are not allowed to be married unless they only have intercourse in the missionary position? This entire point is laughable at best. Im sorry but the reality is simple. “

True or False:  Human sexual organs have the purpose of human procreation, with pleasure as a side affect for the enjoyment of procreation? 

Obviously True.  Now, how a male and female work together in the act of love before the act of sexual consummation is often referred to as ‘Foreplay’ or ‘Sexual arousal before intercourse.  This is elementary.  Two males and two females are Sexually incompatible.  They are no more sexually compatible than a man is compatible to his own body sexually.  Can’t you see that, or are you so willfully blind, you just refuse to see that. 

Regarding Same Sex relationships.  I personally have Same Sex relationships, they just are not sexual.  I have men that I love very much and care for.  Men I speak to about intimate details of my life.  We are close, but we are not sexual.  I love them, but we are not sexual.  Do you get it?  HomoSEXuality is about SEX with a person of the same Gender.  Duh!  If I were not married, I would be happy to share an apartment or home with a Man for whom I was very close and whose company I enjoyed.  I would never expect my relationship with this man to have the same affect, benefit or value to society as a married relationship.  A married relationship between a male and a female (I shouldn’t even have to say that but people are very confused right now what marriage is) has the invaluable and distinct nature of producing new life, rearing and educating that life in a place which brings together Male and Female as equals.  The two halves of human society come together as one, to produce new life.  That is wholly unique from anything any two men or any two woman can have.  If you don’t think it’s unique, why don’t you become a sheep farmer, and only have male or only have female sheep.  We will see how successful your farming experiment is.  Homosexuality isn’t another ‘flavor’ of person, it’s a person that has a depraved idea about their own sexuality.  Look, it’s obvious that people who have bulemiua are sick.  They have a demented sense of their own physiological digestive systems.  If you don’t want to get it, you won’t get it.  It’s really elementary and basic, but go ahead and remain delusional.  I just don’t have time to explain to a person why a circle is round.

You said:  “And this comes on the heals of telling the homosexual population that their marriage could not be federally recognized because it would obligate the church to perform the marriage.”

Do you think that any marriage between Consenting adults should be recognized federally?  I dare you to answer this question.

You said: “Do you deny the hypocricy in your statements. Even after being told hundreds of thousands of times that the law dictates that no christian church can be forced to perform anything outside of thier belief system.”

Would you agree that the law would obligate Catholics to treat homosexual couples just as married couples with regards to adoption, contrary to their beliefs.  Is this obligating them against their beliefs?  So who is the hypocrite?  Again, not portraying the entire story to promote your own agenda.  Typical.

You said:  “It is much more then a sentiment. I can also relate homosexuality to being left handed. Brown eyes instead of blue blonde hair instead of black. A simple variation of sexual preferance but again you miss the point that it is much more then that. Its about two consenting adults in a loving caring relationship that should be afforded the same rights as the counterparts.”

I will agree with you that it’s more than a sentiment.  It’s certainly an incredibly strong compulsion.  But there are many unhealthy compulsions that are contrary to the nature of people.  With regards to it being like hair color, eye color etc.  That’s just absurd.  We know those to be genetic.  Multiple Genetic Scientists have been looking for the ‘homosexual gene’ or some genetic marker and have failed miserably.  In fact, they are fairly certain now that it is not in any way genetic, more so than preference for Spinach or Broccoli is.  I will grant you one thing from your statement above.  I am not opposed to ‘Civil Partnerships’ and I will tell you why.  I can imagine situations where there are two old widowed ladies who live together and want to pull their resources and protect one another in a civil relationship.  Or a community of people.  I think it could be treated very similarly to a non-profit organization, but setup for very small groups.  I think this would be not comparable to Marriage, since marriage has a very special an important place in our society yesterday, today and for the future.  The same cannot be said for homosexual relationships (at least nowhere near to the same level).

Lynus, obviously we will disagree.  I can tell you are very angry for your sense of betrayal of the Church with regards to your personal or your friends sexual difficulties.  I can only say that I personally know how difficult sexual issues can be to deal with, especially when they approach the level of compulsion and addiction.  I will sincerely pray for you.  I hope someday you can do the same for me.

In Christ,

Lynus, 
I am not saying a country cant be economically successful.  I think we have sold our souls for the prosperity we have.  “you cannot serve two masters, God and mammon.  You will love the one and hate the other”.  Our country switched from serving God to serving ourselves and greed has created success.  I do not believe that China is a good example.  Since the onset of their economic success their moral culture has also taken a downward spiral.  Do you know they have forced abortions in this country?  Women are pulled kicking and screaming into abortion clinics and have their unborn children murdered while they cry.  China is not a good example.  Are you not aware?  May countries, China and the US included, have sold out for purposes of greed rather than God. 
As is obvious, life without God is possible but not lived to its fullest.  We are denying future generations the fullness of life.

QUOTE
Please don’t Feign insult regarding my comment on African American woman.
END QUOTE

I feign no insult. There were many ways to make the point you choose using “Uneducated African American woman”
To further the cause if you had even bothered to feel the slightest disrespect which you obviously did by trying to back pedal you would have cited the source. Which I will point out you have yet to do. Typical.

QUOTE
How typical.  The reason I quoted the entire thing, was to show there is still a running disagreement in the legal world about the exact way to interpret the Establishment clause.  Unlike you, I was trying to be honest by presenting the entire quote and not just the parts the support my own beliefs on the topic.
END QUOTE

Actually, as I stated, you quoted then ignored.

QUOTE
Also, it’s clear that the Establishment clause, as shown in the Wiki Quote, was not passed to preclude State establishment of religion.  Furthermore, it’s clear that as was understood by the framers, an Establishment of religion meant to set forth a as the norm a set of religious beliefs as the State beliefs. 
END QUOTE

Exactly why I said you should read up on the Library of congress information. As I stated as well as you have above that it is unclear what the framers had in mind but putting it into context would to you well. It gives us wisdom and insite. As we have both agreed that taken things out of context “bible versus for instance” the true meaning is completely lost.

QUOTE
When there is recognized a day of prayer, it is so amorphous to include all prayer, even atheistic ‘centering’ prayer.  It was intentionally worded so that it did NOT establish one religion over another.  To make the argument that there are two religions, belief and unbelief, is so ignorant, as to almost be laughable.
END QUOTE

Actually it is not. As I cited source above that 16% of americans identify as having no religion.
Therefore prayer is notated with a course of faith, would you not agree? Therefore, a goverment endorcement of prayer is elevating the remaining percentage of american citizens above that 16% Therefore the logical course of action is to withdraw from government endorcement.

Now add to that the previous comment about “what cerimony shall the presidant have in his home” I might add, a comment you seem to blatently try to ignore and dodge (Badly at that).. Again, Typical

QUOTE
It’s like saying that a scientist was establishing a new branch of science because he stated that water was wet.  You have to be either a committed anti-religionist or just delusional to believe that a federal recognition of a day of prayer for all religious believers amounts to any sort of establishment of religion.
END QUOTE

Again you fail to grasp that prayer only applies to the establishment of a religion.

Listen, frankly, I dont know how else to explain it. I have made it as simply as I can yet you deny the points.

I suspect you would do well to read this article:
I believe it explains my frustration with your logic.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/update-on-the-creation-wars

It also VERY accurately and logically explains the problems you face.

QUOTE
Should Earth Day also be expunged from the federal calendar because their are pagans who worship the earth as Gaia?  Please get out of your little box of atheistic hate towards all believers and admit that belief in prayer is held by a large number of religious believers all over our country and world.  To recognize their prayer in a national Holiday in no way establishes any one of these religions as the state religion.  Please tell me you get this…
Regarding how the President himself recognizes publicly his own personal prayer, that is up to him.  If we ever vote in a Jewish man as President, I would only expect he would celebrate the day of prayer in a Jewish way.
You said “I absolutely disagree that athiest montra is “Consent and Conform”
I never said that “Consent and Conform” were the Atheist Mantra.
END QUOTE

Im sorry you used the word nihilism instead. Semantics.

QUOTE
You Quoted:  “So you dear sir are on the wrong. Are you ready to tell everyone in america that they are not allowed to be married unless they only have intercourse in the missionary position? This entire point is laughable at best. Im sorry but the reality is simple. “
True or False:  Human sexual organs have the purpose of human procreation, with pleasure as a side affect for the enjoyment of procreation?
END QUOTE

Here we go with the typical rprocreation argument. So not only are you ready to negate the marriages of anyone who doesnt have sex in “what you call the normal way” You err in a typical way easily pointed out with those who cant not procreate. should those marriages be null and void as well.

So who else should we continue to take rights away from. Keep going, your actually making my point for me. Who is next?

QUOTE
Obviously True.  Now, how a male and female work together in the act of love before the act of sexual consummation is often referred to as ‘Foreplay’ or ‘Sexual arousal before intercourse.  This is elementary.  Two males and two females are Sexually incompatible.
END QUOTE

Wrong, you see them as incompatible. We have talked about this already. Your definition of compatible.. Actually, you would be surprised to learn that many bisexuals will argue that “Gay sex” is much more enjoyable then “straight sex” Logic being simply that someone with the same equipment knows how to handle it better. Duh!

QUOTE
They are no more sexually compatible than a man is compatible to his own body sexually.  C people who have bulemiua are sick.  They have a demented sense of their….........
END QUOTE

Blah Blah Blah…. Again completely fascinated by the sexual aspect. Again. One more time, Maybe it will stick this time however I doubt it. What happens sexually between two people is none of your business. If you are so interested in it then I would seek counsiling as you may be gay. Duh!

And your ploy at again trying to add a sickness, illness or depravity to sexual alternative feelings is just fuel to inflame. Simply put, you have ABSOLUTLY no data to backup that up. I would do well to ask you to do research before actually trying to approach me on an intilectual level. Your bigotry is blatently obvious.

Read this and read well, as I will only say it once.
Every accredited university, psycology department and american psychology organization (with some sort of accredited background) has claimed over and over again that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

Your claims have 0 scientific basis so I am left only to assume that as an educated person you bring them in only to inflame. A tactic I have pointed out to you three times now.

If you have nothing better then that to add, I suggest you educate yourself first.

QUOTE
You said:  “And this comes on the heals of telling the homosexual population that their marriage could not be federally recognized because it would obligate the church to perform the marriage.”
Do you think that any marriage between Consenting adults should be recognized federally?  I dare you to answer this question.
END QUOTE

Absolutely but you conveniently trying to lay a trap for me to fall in to. You could not be any more obvious, so I expect a scaulding response to this.
But yes, ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS THAT ARE NOT RELATED.

And the relation like father daughter, cousing. ect… actualy have basis in midecine and science. Because they often produce children at a higher rate for difromity and complications. Again… Duh!

You said: “Do you deny the hypocricy in your statements. Even after being told hundreds of thousands of times that the law dictates that no christian church can be forced to perform anything outside of thier belief system.”

QUOTE
Would you agree that the law would obligate Catholics to treat homosexual couples just as married couples with regards to adoption, contrary to their beliefs.  Is this obligating them against their beliefs?  So who is the hypocrite?  Again, not portraying the entire story to promote your own agenda.  Typical.
END QUOTE

HAHAHAH this one made me laugh, You mean like the boston catholic child adoption agency that claimed fowl… oh boooo hooo. The hypocracy became all to evident. Something you may have actually learned had you done some research. The same organization had ALREADY placed 7 children with same sex couples the years prior to same sex marriage becoming legal in massachusettes.

REally? Please look these things up before approaching me if you expect to have an intelligent conversation.

Typical…..
They claim fowl and fall on thier sword…. oh wowesss me! poor little church being picked on… then the news came to light and all of a sudden no more complaining.

Grow up, the hypocracy was called out and you got caught with your pants down. Be a big boy and accept the fact that you screwed up.

QUOTE
I will agree with you that it’s more than a sentiment.  It’s certainly an incredibly strong compulsion.  But there are many unhealthy compulsions that are contrary to the nature of people.  With regards to it being like hair color, eye color etc.  That’s just absurd.  We know those to be genetic.  Multiple Genetic Scientists have been looking for the ‘homosexual gene’ or some genetic marker and have failed miserably.  In fact, they are fairly certain now that it is not in any way genetic,
END QUOTE

I love the fact that you thru out gay gene even though I didnt. Nice try on that one.

Let me help you out here

Look up Brain Differences by Simon Levay.
Also look up,
Twins, Gay gene.

Then follow that up with the Mustanski Report.
Then look up Elliot S. Gershon, MD, professor of psychiatry and human genetics at the University of Chicago

Then look up the following topics:
Chromosome linkage studies
Sexual orientation and evolution
Pathogenic hypothesis of homosexuality
Epigenetics studies
Birth orderand Homosexuality

I could go on and on and on

Obviously in its simplest form science is now leaning towards several determinig factors of homosexuality. None of which make it a disorder and a disease.

Are you simply running out of material. Because I seem to reach a point that I am just repeating myself now.

Please read this though, I found it to be a clear and concise article
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/update-on-the-creation-wars

Kirry, you make two critical mistakes, Life without God is very possible as a matter of fact if it were not we wouldn’t be here as life existed millions of years before religion.

Secondly by who’s definition of fullness? yours? Isn’t that kind of like using the bible to prove the existence of religion? A bit jaded of an opinion if you ask me.

I had this discussion today with a very nice woman. Where I simply stated that faith or religion on its own basis is not necessarily a problem. Simply put, I don’t care which god you pray to or how hard you pray or what you do with your faith. Really, I don’t care. But when your religion gets in my politics, thats where I take issue.

I am not advocating that religion should be abolished. What I am advocating for is a CLEAR and DISTINCT line between religion and Politics.

QUOTE
Should Earth Day also be expunged from the federal calendar because their are pagans who worship the earth as Gaia?  Please get out of your little box of atheistic hate towards all believers and admit that belief in prayer is held by a large number of religious believers all over our country and world.  To recognize their prayer in a national Holiday in no way establishes any one of these religions as the state religion.  Please tell me you get this…
Regarding how the President himself recognizes publicly his own personal prayer, that is up to him.  If we ever vote in a Jewish man as President, I would only expect he would celebrate the day of prayer in a Jewish way.
You said “I absolutely disagree that athiest montra is “Consent and Conform”
I never said that “Consent and Conform” were the Atheist Mantra.
END QUOTE

HAHAHA I wanted to better answer the earth day analogy as it amused me.
REmoved from the federal calendar. No, But you are comparing apples and oranges in a simple straw man tactic to make your point.

I would have a problem if the president or government tried to endorse a non prayer day. Because it violates the same sets of rules.

Frankly I could care about as much about what the pagans do as I do the christians. But for the point of your argument I would be 100% behind the government not endorsing non prayer day.

Make sense now?

And you would do well to not refer to my logical and clear thinking as “athiestic hate box” again a ply to insite fear and outrage as I made no claims to being an athiest. So one more time. Stop trying to use the fear card. No one is falling for it.

Doorman, you would also do well to look up the human gnome project. I fear you lack the true understanding of the project. Or the scope of what you are refferring too. It is an enourmous process and science has only begun to analyze all of the data. The mapping is complete but scientists have bearely scrathed the surface to the implications.

But just out of curiousity. What do you think would happen if science actually announced that there was a gay gene?

Would our understanding change at all. Would you finally accept the fact that you were wrong. OR would you start arguing for the “fix” genetically. Imagine what would happen to terminated births, genetic testing and the like if it was actually proven that there was a gay gene. The argument would then be that they are somehow infuirior to “normal” society.

Its a ploy at a loose loose situation. You might do well to logically think it out. You might also begin to understand a measure of caution and dare I say cover up to bring to light such a thing. You may also want to concider the possibility that niether side would want a “gay gene” to be found as the implications are severe and detrimental to the gay society at large.

On a side note anyone “convinced” that the united states is a “christian” country would do well to read the Treaty of Trippoli. Drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797. Article 11 clearly states

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Link for reference:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Lynus;  A lot of interesting verbalism but lacking in wisdom and content.  Full of Modernism and lacking in substance and depth.  Very shallow from a philosophical point of view.  Your train of thought is lacking in moral substance.

Lynus;  Did you ever hear of political diplomacy and expediency? “Treaty of Trippoli”, a poor example pertaining to true Christian beliefs.

Im sorry John, I must have missed the day where they explained what “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” could have alternately meant.

And right now John, I would be careful throwing the word moral around. Tends to leave a few with a bad taste in their mouth.

John, I cant help but notice key phrases in your comments.
Modernism… Shallow… Philisophical… Moral Substance

Now in the interest of being honest but not lumping up everone into one category I can say with all certianty that when these types of terms begin to linger into a conversation one finds himself in discussion with a “older” member of society.

So assuming for a moment that you are old enough to remember.. Can you not recall the same being said about certian other members of society. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, JFK… I certianly remember eading about such words directed at that. At some points the concepts were so “radical” were so “modernistic” that some found them offensive and lacking “wisdom”.

Well if history is a testiment to that kind of thinking then im afraid I must take that as a compliment. History obviously looks at such people with envy and gratitude and I would be utterly blessed to ever be heald up to the light with such amazing people.

I also find it rather strange being a student of human natre that how many elderly are part of the larger segment of christianity. Not intended to be an insult but merely a fact. I like to refer to this as the 11th hour syndrome. Where fear of the unknown scares one literally into faith.

A wise man once told me. Those who seek god at the 11th hour often find him at 10:45.

I also find a very large segment of the republican population falls into this same group. From what I can tell typically because of the “life was simple back then”.. and certianly no one could deny that. But like the inevitable sunset and sunrise, evolution falls before us. You can take one of two sides. The side that rises to the occasion or the one grasping futilly at the past. I think you will find in your life that those that you seek the approval from and those who will maintain your way of thinking often snark at you in dark corners as the “old guy with no grasp of reality”. Its insulting yes, however gaining favor with those who you wish to carry on your legacy often fails to those who do not change with the times.

My great grandfather owned slaves and was an out spoken gentlemen of the past that believed segregation was going to be the downfall of society. He left in the wake of his passing utter disgrace. We do not speak often of him. A bigot thru and thru… I guess my point is simple. In 50 or 100 years what side of history will you appear to be on and what legacy do you leave your children. I certianly hope not to be my great grandfather.

:)

ooops I meant “reversal of segregation”
Ad please forgive the typos.

Lynus;  My compliments to you for a restrained response.  I have admiration for your intellectual capabilities.  You are correct about my age, I am sixty six years young.  Please, don’t sell your great grandfather short.  He was a man of his times as was Jesus
Christ who did not condemn slavery.  Moral, we should never hesitate to throw that word around because a good number of people are sadly lacking in Morality (you noticed, I said people).  Interestingly you should mention, JFK, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks.  Of these three people I would have to rank as #1 Rosa Parks, #2 Martin Luther King, #3 JFK.  Lynus, I have no 11th hour syndrome, Ive been searching for the truth since my teenage years and I am still searching.  Change is difficult especially as you get older.  I have found my home in the Catholic Church with all its humane frailties.

John, Your words are very appreciated. Thank you.
Unlike some I have met I suspect you will do well. At 60years old if you can admit to still trying to find the truth then you are an inspiration to most.