texas votes red ... again.

[west20th]

It was made tongue in cheek, but since you didn't get that...

I don't think I'm that rock. But hey, thanks for being so sweet!

Heeeey gurl. Luv your new pic. I hate Nancy too 'ya know, don't know why, she just not OUR kind 'ya know. And those two cute little cartoon thingies drinking kool-aid and rolling on the floor. TO DIE FOR! Soooooo Cuuuuuuuute!!!!!! Toodles.

[TheNiche]

Part of me says to leave this alone, but the mischievous me says to ask. So, DO tell. Just what IS the religion of "secularism", and why is it the most dangerous one of all?

I'm not sure why it is so dangerous myself, but I can back up Parrot on this one. It is a religion. Just as much as science can be a religion to many people, and just as easily as any of the other traditional religions would qualify under the term.

Without going too deep into the philosophy of the matter, a religion is anything that requires faith. Given that it is impossible to completely and correctly describe the nature of the universe (or any seemingly-minute aspect thereof) in any finite way, the only plausible conclusion is that the only certainty that can exist is that we are uncertain.

[RedScare]

I'm not sure why it is so dangerous myself, but I can back up Parrot on this one. It is a religion. Just as much as science can be a religion to many people, and just as easily as any of the other traditional religions would qualify under the term.

Without going too deep into the philosophy of the matter, a religion is anything that requires faith. Given that it is impossible to completely and correctly describe the nature of the universe (or any seemingly-minute aspect thereof) in any finite way, the only plausible conclusion is that the only certainty that can exist is that we are uncertain.

While atheism could be considered a religion of sorts, agnosticism less so, secularism is in no way a religion, or even a form of religion. Secularism is simply the absence of religion. Getting out of bed in the morning is a secular activity. Raising one's arms in prayer is a non-secular activity. The US government, as required by the Constitution, is supposed to act in a secular manner. It is required to neither foster religion in any way, nor to suppress it. It is assidiously neutral on the subject of religion. Secularism is no more a religion than a referee at a sporting event favors one side over another. A secular government protects religion from persecution by favoring none of them.

This is not a hard concept to understand, except by those who wish to use the government to promote their favored religion (i.e. Christianity), and those, usually in the majority, who do not see the harm (again, Christianity). One never sees Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists or other members of minority religions advocating for a non-secular government. Only members of the majority religion advocate for such. If one wishes for others to believe that their religion is deeply personal, and not trivial, it is incumbent upon them to recognize that followers of other religions (or none at all) may believe that THEIR religion is deeply personal to THEM, and not trivial.

The framers of the Constitution recognized this undeniable truth. In fact, they believed so strongly in a secular government being the only representative government to ALL Americans, that they made the prohibition of establishment of religion the very first Amendment, equal to freedom of the press and assembly, and ahead of the cherished right to bear arms.

Aside from wondering why in the world a Christian would WANT government to interfere with his or her religion, I mostly wonder why Christians care. I can only surmise that they are so insecure in their faith as to feel the need for the government to validate it, or perhaps they are envious of non-religious persons having too much guilt-free fun, and so wish the government to stamp it out, or, worst of all, they are simply un-American in their unyielding attempts to trample that most cherished of Constitutional rights, the First Amendment. Most likely, however, it is simply the wish of the majority to impose their will on the minority, without thought or care that the Constitution is precisely what makes the US different, and it's dismantling is what will spell the demise of the very Republic they claim to defend.

[TheNiche]

Getting out of bed in the morning is a secular activity.

Try telling either an extreme nihilist or an extreme mystic that getting out of bed is non-religious. There is always an element of faith...faith in your existence, faith that the floor that you will step upon is not an illusion but a solid surface that will support you, faith that the world that you are about to engage in exists as you see it with every construct intact. Deconstruct each of those notions (among every other) and all that you are left with is uncertainty.

You went on to discuss how secularism applies to government. Although interesting from a historical viewpoint, it isn't really relevant to my point.

[nmainguy]

While atheism could be considered a religion of sorts, agnosticism less so, secularism is in no way a religion, or even a form of religion. Secularism is simply the absence of religion. Getting out of bed in the morning is a secular activity. Raising one's arms in prayer is a non-secular activity. The US government, as required by the Constitution, is supposed to act in a secular manner. It is required to neither foster religion in any way, nor to suppress it. It is assidiously neutral on the subject of religion. Secularism is no more a religion than a referee at a sporting event favors one side over another. A secular government protects religion from persecution by favoring none of them.

This is not a hard concept to understand, except by those who wish to use the government to promote their favored religion (i.e. Christianity), and those, usually in the majority, who do not see the harm (again, Christianity). One never sees Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists or other members of minority religions advocating for a non-secular government. Only members of the majority religion advocate for such. If one wishes for others to believe that their religion is deeply personal, and not trivial, it is incumbent upon them to recognize that followers of other religions (or none at all) may believe that THEIR religion is deeply personal to THEM, and not trivial.

The framers of the Constitution recognized this undeniable truth. In fact, they believed so strongly in a secular government being the only representative government to ALL Americans, that they made the prohibition of establishment of religion the very first Amendment, equal to freedom of the press and assembly, and ahead of the cherished right to bear arms.

Aside from wondering why in the world a Christian would WANT government to interfere with his or her religion, I mostly wonder why Christians care. I can only surmise that they are so insecure in their faith as to feel the need for the government to validate it, or perhaps they are envious of non-religious persons having too much guilt-free fun, and so wish the government to stamp it out, or, worst of all, they are simply un-American in their unyielding attempts to trample that most cherished of Constitutional rights, the First Amendment. Most likely, however, it is simply the wish of the majority to impose their will on the minority, without thought or care that the Constitution is precisely what makes the US different, and it's dismantling is what will spell the demise of the very Republic they claim to defend.

Well said. A great expansion on my claim that secularism is not a religion. Clearly drugs have not allowed me to expand on my response as clearly as Red has.

[dbigtex56]

Red Scare, when you can lose the smug attitude, and be more respectful of people who disagree with you, I would be absolutely happy to talk to you more about it, and answer your questions, if you really are interested.

Don't listen to her, Red! I like your smug attitude!

[RedScare]

You went on to discuss how secularism applies to government. Although interesting from a historical viewpoint, it isn't really relevant to my point.

Well, since the thread was about secularism and government, your point is not relevant to the thread.

[TheNiche]

Well, since the thread was about secularism and government, your point is not relevant to the thread.

It was a tangent, yes. However, your philosophy of government is built upon my tangent, and you have not adequately reconciled the matter.

But don't bother trying. It can't be. That's my point.

[jmancuso]

It is NOT incorrect, RedScare. The Amendment pertaining to Seperation of Church and State was to protect people from being executed or jailed for not practicing a state-sponsored faith. It gives freedom of religion to everyone in this country.

I'm sorry, but that's just EXACTLY what it was for.

BTW, we ALREADY have a theocratic state--it's a religion called "secularism", and it's the most dangerous one of all.

*edited to add* The Northwest Ordinance, Article III

it was to protect religion from the government and the government from religion.

secularism dangerous? theocratic? LOL! secularism is what distinguishes us from iran and saudi arabia and not having religious dogma forced onto those of us who don't want it.

[KinkaidAlum]

While atheism could be considered a religion of sorts, agnosticism less so, secularism is in no way a religion, or even a form of religion. Secularism is simply the absence of religion. Getting out of bed in the morning is a secular activity. Raising one's arms in prayer is a non-secular activity. The US government, as required by the Constitution, is supposed to act in a secular manner. It is required to neither foster religion in any way, nor to suppress it. It is assidiously neutral on the subject of religion. Secularism is no more a religion than a referee at a sporting event favors one side over another. A secular government protects religion from persecution by favoring none of them.

Aside from wondering why in the world a Christian would WANT government to interfere with his or her religion, I mostly wonder why Christians care. I can only surmise that they are so insecure in their faith as to feel the need for the government to validate it, or perhaps they are envious of non-religious persons having too much guilt-free fun, and so wish the government to stamp it out, or, worst of all, they are simply un-American in their unyielding attempts to trample that most cherished of Constitutional rights, the First Amendment. Most likely, however, it is simply the wish of the majority to impose their will on the minority, without thought or care that the Constitution is precisely what makes the US different, and it's dismantling is what will spell the demise of the very Republic they claim to defend.

This last paragraph is so spot on it's scary. I laugh every time I read the section in the paper where it asks the "man/woman on the street" political questions. Yesterday's had to do with the ballot initiatives and why people were in support of or against measures such as stem cell research, banning gay marriage, and banning all abortions except for when the woman's life is declared to be in danger. Almost all of the people answered that it was important for the majority to speak up and create the laws that the rest of the people would have to follow. Lots of folks threw around the "activist judges" charge. Good thing we weren't doing this 40 years ago or else we still might have Jim Crow laws, public lynchings, no child labor laws, and a host of other things.

[Parrothead]

Interesting to see everyone's responses. Even west20th's usual lame attempt at...uh...is that sarcasm? Yeah.

I have to disagree with anyone who says secularism isn't a religion...by definition, black is the absence of all color--but it's still a color, isn't it?

[nmainguy]

black is the absence of all color--but it's still a color, isn't it?

No. It's achromatic.

[westguy76]

That man is a GREAT AMERICAN !

You can thank Strayhorn for messing things up for you. Strayhorn got the female vote, Kinky got the pothead vote. Not that there is anything WRONG with being a pothead.

If any of you can not be objective enough to admit that George Bush is a great American than that says alot about you, In my humble opinion

[RedScare]

I have to disagree with anyone who says secularism isn't a religion...by definition, black is the absence of all color--but it's still a color, isn't it?

This is a poor analogy. Black as a color is the combination of all other colors. Black as a light source is the complete absebce of light. There is no color if there is no light.

I do understand where you are trying to go with this argument. However, "secularism" is improperly used by those who support government endorsement of Christianity. Certainly, atheists support a secular government. However, that does not make secularism the religion of an atheist, any more than theocracy would be the religion of a Christian. It is merely an improperly applied buzzword in a buzzword laden political landscape, just as conservative, liberal, activist and other words are used to typecast varying viewpoints, usually incorrectly.

There are far more Christians who support a secular government than non-Christians. The reason is simple. When government is invited into your home, it brings it's bad habits as well as it's good intentions. Religion in the US has clearly thrived without government intervention. Do you really want the now majority Democrat Congress deciding what is good for religion?

NOTE to westguy: Objectively, I believe Geirge Bush to be the worst president in the last 100 years. Think of me what you will.

[houstonmacbro]

If any of you can not be objective enough to admit that George Bush is a great American than that says alot about you, In my humble opinion

i don't think anyone would question that gwb is a good (not great in my opinion) american. i think he sincerely believes what he believes ... which is admirable.

however, i think a large part of the populace disagrees with him. they voted as such on tuesday to show their displeasure and their disagreement.

THAT is the disconnect.

[sevfiv]

If any of you can not be objective enough to admit that George Bush is a great American than that says alot about you, In my humble opinion

just out of curiosity: if someone was subjective and decided that bush was not a great american, then what exactly, in your opinion, would it say about that person?

[westguy76]

This is a poor analogy. Black as a color is the combination of all other colors. Black as a light source is the complete absebce of light. There is no color if there is no light.

I do understand where you are trying to go with this argument. However, "secularism" is improperly used by those who support government endorsement of Christianity. Certainly, atheists support a secular government. However, that does not make secularism the religion of an atheist, any more than theocracy would be the religion of a Christian. It is merely an improperly applied buzzword in a buzzword laden political landscape, just as conservative, liberal, activist and other words are used to typecast varying viewpoints, usually incorrectly.

There are far more Christians who support a secular government than non-Christians. The reason is simple. When government is invited into your home, it brings it's bad habits as well as it's good intentions. Religion in the US has clearly thrived without government intervention. Do you really want the now majority Democrat Congress deciding what is good for religion?

NOTE to westguy: Objectively, I believe Geirge Bush to be the worst president in the last 100 years. Think of me what you will.

yeah but he may be a better american than anyone on this board, not that that is saying a lot ,jj. Hey thats cool if you think that as long as you keep it in perspective is all i'm saying.

sevfiv- I would think that person is not judging him on the right charachteristics or in the right perspective relative to what he has accomplished in service for our country. I think he is in a position that deserves respect and I appreciate his Ideals and convictions and and share a lot of them. I can appreciate differing opinions and criticisms but not blind slander based on ignorance. There are plenty of people on this board i disagree with but i respect most of them for their thoughful conclusions.

[west20th]

If any of you can not be objective enough to admit that George Bush is a great American than that says alot about you, In my humble opinion

Hmmmm. A great a American who lied about keeping Rumsfeld on to the end of his term when he knew full well he was out the door. I'm glad he did dump Rumsfeld but what was his motivation for handling the firing so badly?

[Mark F. Barnes]

This is a poor analogy. Black as a color is the combination of all other colors. Black as a light source is the complete absence of light. There is no color if there is no light.

I do understand where you are trying to go with this argument. However, "secularism" is improperly used by those who support government endorsement of Christianity. Certainly, atheists support a secular government. However, that does not make secularism the religion of an atheist, any more than theocracy would be the religion of a Christian. It is merely an improperly applied buzzword in a buzzword laden political landscape, just as conservative, liberal, activist and other words are used to typecast varying viewpoints, usually incorrectly.

There are far more Christians who support a secular government than non-Christians. The reason is simple. When government is invited into your home, it brings it's bad habits as well as it's good intentions. Religion in the US has clearly thrived without government intervention. Do you really want the now majority Democrat Congress deciding what is good for religion?

NOTE to westguy: Objectively, I believe Geirge Bush to be the worst president in the last 100 years. Think of me what you will.

Good Morning your Smugness. She was actually a little closer in analogy with her original post, yet the pendulum swung back the other way and she changed it from white to black knocking her completely off base.

Interesting to see everyone's responses. Even west20th's usual lame attempt at...uh...is that sarcasm? Yeah.

I have to disagree with anyone who says secularism isn't a religion...by definition, white is the absence of all color--but it's still a color, isn't it?

...AND IT'S THE MOST DANGEROUS CRAYON!

Problem with this is white actually contains all the colors of the visible spectrum and is sometimes described as an achromatic color, like black (per nmainguy which is spot on correct), that has high light brightness, but it has no hue. A big problem with white though is in order for it to appear white the ambient light must be white light, or else the white will appear the color of the light. Where as black is unaffected because of the absence of all light reflection.

Now the concept of secularism being a religion is beyond me. In terms it is absolutely an oxymoron by mere definition. Secularity is the state of being absolutely free from religious or spiritual qualities. From there the definition of religion got skewed to be anything involving faith and so on and so forth. But then she comes back claiming this next statement was tongue and cheek when she's called out on it:

It is NOT incorrect, RedScare. The Amendment pertaining to Seperation of Church and State was to protect people from being executed or jailed for not practicing a state-sponsored faith. It gives freedom of religion to everyone in this country.

I'm sorry, but that's just EXACTLY what it was for.

BTW, we ALREADY have a theocratic state--it's a religion called "secularism", and it's the most dangerous one of all.

*edited to add* The Northwest Ordinance, Article III

Yet this being "tongue and cheek" she tries to reinforce it with a link to The Northwest Ordinance of 1787,and it sounds actually argumentative, so I wonder if someone has actually hacked her screen name and is posting things in her behalf, which would be a lot easier to understand. Because the more I read the more it seems like two separate people in conflict and internally contradictive. Or it could be easily explained as she's slinging BS out there and gets called on it and in her haste to try and recover, just digs the hole deeper and falls back in it, when it would be easier to just admit not knowing what you're talking about and leave it at that. Funny thing about trying to sound intelligent, you have to have some subsistence to support it or you come off sounding worse than if you'd just stick to what you know. I guess this is a mystery we may never figure out. Mania, perhaps, let's just hope it was a hacker.

[west20th]

Or it could be easily explained as she's slinging BS out there and gets called on it and in her haste to try and recover, just digs the hole deeper and falls back in it, when it would be easier to just admit not knowing what you're talking about and leave it at that.

Bingo.

I've heard that argument before (secularism as a religion) on one of the AM talk shows. They didn't explain it there either, just kind of threw it out there. Probably where she picked it up from.

[TJones]

Hmmmm. A great a American who lied about keeping Rumsfeld on to the end of his term when he knew full well he was out the door. I'm glad he did dump Rumsfeld but what was his motivation for handling the firing so badly?

Why didn't he "fire" him the other 2 times Rummy offered his resignation west ? Wake up, Bush didn't lie about anything, Rummy figured out 3rd time would be a charm, and Bush accepted this time. Are you an intern at the White House ? You just seem to have such perspective of the dealings going on there.

[west20th]

Why didn't he "fire" him the other 2 times Rummy offered his resignation west ? Wake up, Bush didn't lie about anything, Rummy figured out 3rd time would be a charm, and Bush accepted this time. Are you an intern at the White House ? You just seem to have such perspective of the dealings going on there.

Bush announced a week ago Rumsfeld was in for the duration of his term. Yesterday he annouced that they jointly decided he must go and instantly his replacement is there. You mean to tell me this all happened and was decided yesterday? You can't find a replacement and have him ready for such an important position in less than a week. It is pretty clear when Bush gave his "rummy, your doin' a hell of a job" type endorsement last week he knew he was already out the door. Thus he lied. He should have just said nothing in regards to Rumsfeld's tenure last week. Speaking of keeping his mouth shut. How stupid did he make himself look by saying he didn't expect these election results. Again, best to say nothing.

And no I'm am not now or ever was an intern. I turned it down. That Foley guy creeped me out and I had my doubts about Rove

[TJones]

Bush announced a week ago Rumsfeld was in for the duration of his term. Yesterday he annouced that they jointly decided he must go and instantly his replacement is there. You mean to tell me this all happened and was decided yesterday? You can't find a replacement and have him ready for such an important position in less than a week. It is pretty clear when Bush gave his "rummy, your doin' a hell of a job" type endorsement last week he knew he was already out the door. Thus he lied. He should have just said nothing in regards to Rumsfeld's tenure last week. Speaking of keeping his mouth shut. How stupid did he make himself look by saying he didn't expect these election results. Again, best to say nothing.

And no I'm am not now or ever was an intern. I turned it down. That Foley guy creeped me out and I had my doubts about Rove

Being a Page and being an Intern are a little different in scale. Anywho. I don't believe the Pres. wouldn't have someone else in mind if one of his staff were to die of a heart attack. Govt. always has people waiting in the wings. Don't kid yourself. COnsider yourself lucky that the ex-CIA spook was ready and willing.

BTW, Red, my two cents on the whole "secularism" deal. Your boy, Austin Cline, says that "secularism" has religious origins.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/reli...eligorigins.htm

[RedScare]

BTW, Red, my two cents on the whole "secularism" deal. Your boy, Austin Cline, says that "secularism" has religious origins.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/reli...eligorigins.htm

Of course it has religious roots. That does not make it a religion. In fact, it's religious roots explain how the people came to appreciate the EXCLUSION of religion from the operations of government.

[TJones]

Of course it has religious roots. That does not make it a religion. In fact, it's religious roots explain how the people came to appreciate the EXCLUSION of religion from the operations of government.

I think some aethists and agnostics use their beliefs or "faith" as a crutch as most Christians use "faith" the bible and church as one. So in effect they use it as their form of religion, isn't being Athiest an acknowledged faith based orginization ?

[RedScare]

I think some aethists and agnostics use their beliefs or "faith" as a crutch as most Christians use "faith" the bible and church as one. So in effect they use it as their form of religion, isn't being Athiest an acknowledged faith based orginization ?

I wouldn't know. My atheism is a product of my own thought and research, and my own conclusions that the traditional view of a god and a heaven and hell have no rational basis. These views were formed in part from my religious upbringing, in direct contradiction to most Christians' belief that atheism is a product of religious ignorance. Even if I did believe in a higher power, I believe that organized religion is merely another form of government control over people, in this case, a government without borders.

I suppose that there are atheist groups that formed to share common views. I do not belong to any, nor do I look for any. However, a group of atheists gathering to discuss common views is no more evidence of a religion than a group of accountants or Texans fans or homeowners would be.

I don't see atheism or agnosticism as a faith or a crutch. I certainly don't, and I have never met one that does. Perhaps you have not discussed this issue with many atheists, resulting in this incorrect assumption. It probably would not surprise you to hear that, in a country that is 90% Christian, there is not much crutch to be had in being an atheist. It is actually not that easy to be an atheist. It is not for the weak.

None of this has anything to do with the framers' insistence on a secular US government, except to show that their intention was that the government represent not only Protestants, but Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and yes, atheists. The only way to do that is for the government to express no religious preference whatsoever...as well as protect every citizen's right to believe as they choose.

[Parrothead]

This is funny, really. I was merely trying to make a point. Of course a gay man is going to know about color, and atheists are going to know about secularism. I'm not going to defend my points any further, but I do want to say this about the way people behave on this board:

I think it's funny how I express my opinion, and because I am a right-leaning Christian, I get attacked and villified like I'm some kind of idiot, and I don't appreciate that. TJones has his sentiment padded in humor, and RedScare's sentiment is wrapped up in some strange superiority/wisdom complex. I try to just be me--as candid as I can be-- and state how I feel, and each and every time I am shot down by snide comments from the peanut gallery when everyone else here in the inner HAIF "clique" gets winks and smiles and pats on the back for their unbelievably intellectual insight. Puh-leeze. I'm not perfect by any means, I merely have opinions as all of you do, and though they may not be shared by you personally, that doesn't mean you have to make hypocritical comments about my avatar or signature, or my user name, or anything else you presume to know about me, or anyone else here with an opinion that differs from yours.

Stick to what you know, fellas--because it sure as hell ain't politics, and it ain't women, either.

[nmainguy]

I think it's funny how I express my opinion, and because I am a right-leaning Christian, I get attacked and villified like I'm some kind of idiot, and I don't appreciate that.

Stick to what you know, fellas--because it sure as hell ain't politics, and it ain't women, either.

You are actually being corrected when you lie, make up or mis-state facts: ie secularism is a religion [it is not], we live in a theocracy [we do not], black is a color [it is not] etc...

If you don't like being corrected, I would suggest following your own advice by sticking to what you know and stop pretending you know that which you regularly display that you don't.

[west20th]

1. I think it's funny how I express my opinion, and because I am a right-leaning Christian, I get attacked and villified like I'm some kind of idiot, and I don't appreciate that. TJones has his sentiment padded in humor,and RedScare's sentiment is wrapped up in some strange superiority/wisdom complex.

2. , and though they may not be shared by you personally, that doesn't mean you have to make hypocritical comments about my avatar or signature, or my user name, or anything else you presume to know about me, or anyone else here with an opinion that differs from yours.

Stick to what you know, fellas--because it sure as hell ain't politics, and it ain't women, either.

1. Tjones can accept a "sarcastic" reply and send it right back to you w/o getting a twist in his panties. Also, even though I often disagree with him, he usually has actual facts to back his arguments up. Are far a Red goes I think your just a bit jealous that he articulates his points so well. He's a lawyer, what did you expect?

2. They were sarcastic comments not hypocritical.

[KinkaidAlum]

This is funny, really. I was merely trying to make a point. Of course a gay man is going to know about color, and atheists are going to know about secularism. I'm not going to defend my points any further, but I do want to say this about the way people behave on this board:

I think it's funny how I express my opinion, and because I am a right-leaning Christian, I get attacked and villified like I'm some kind of idiot, and I don't appreciate that. TJones has his sentiment padded in humor, and RedScare's sentiment is wrapped up in some strange superiority/wisdom complex. I try to just be me--as candid as I can be-- and state how I feel, and each and every time I am shot down by snide comments from the peanut gallery when everyone else here in the inner HAIF "clique" gets winks and smiles and pats on the back for their unbelievably intellectual insight. Puh-leeze. I'm not perfect by any means, I merely have opinions as all of you do, and though they may not be shared by you personally, that doesn't mean you have to make hypocritical comments about my avatar or signature, or my user name, or anything else you presume to know about me, or anyone else here with an opinion that differs from yours.

Stick to what you know, fellas--because it sure as hell ain't politics, and it ain't women, either.

Maybe when you are feeling attacked, what you are really feeling is a counter attack?

I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that you are this poor ole victim of the evil insiders club when you post things like your first and last paragraph above.