YT: Do You Believe in a Secular America?

[Brian]

http://youtu.be/MUmxzJI86VQ

[Herculoid Poirot]

I want to believe!

[RavenEye]

I BELIEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great video. I'm curious about his book now. :)

[void()]

Always thought it was as that's what is espoused constitutionally. Church & state are separate or ought to be. Recently the push has been that America is strictly a Christian nation. If one disagrees they are told Christianity founded America. Factually though, America has no established religion. And there are far more documents backing that up than the America is a Christian nation fables.

[Jobelorocks]

Well I certainly don't want religions to interfere with the state and sure as hell don't want the state to interfere with religions (within reason, obviously we shouldn't allow human sacrifice or anything). The problem is many who want a "secular" America also want religious institutions to go against their religious beliefs (like when Obama was trying to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions). I am all for freedom and against suppression.

[goldenfinger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2UEqHGbh0wI

Can it be made more clear.

[wry123]

Peaceful coexistence between religion/secularism would be the goal. Both may learn something valuable, if both sides can truly listen (and not judge).......that hasn't happened in a while, has it? If forced to choose, however, secularism is the way for me.

[goldenfinger]

Always thought it was as that's what is espoused constitutionally. Church & state are separate or ought to be. Recently the push has been that America is strictly a Christian nation. If one disagrees they are told Christianity founded America. Factually though, America has no established religion. And there are far more documents backing that up than the America is a Christian nation fables.

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

[Brian]

The problem is many who want a "secular" America also want religious institutions to go against their religious beliefs (like when Obama was trying to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions).

I'm not sure I completely agree with that assessment JR. I don't know about catholic hospitals being asked to perform abortions or not (can you share the details?), but any time I have seen secularists require hospitals or schools or church organizations to do something against their will it is because they have overstepped their bounds - they are trying to be both a church (with doctrine-sanctioned discrimination) and a public organization (where discrimination is not permitted by law). And the motivation for the latter is usually for the $$$.

The issue of birth control for employees of catholic hospitals is a good example. They are taking public $$$ as part of the national plan to control health care costs for employers and try to build some efficiency (including preventative medicine methods) into the US health care system (the most expensive, and inefficient in the world as measured by cost/results). They can't turn around and say "we are a church - we are exempt from the regulations". If they are exempt from the regulations then they are exempt from the money. And perhaps they shouldn't even be running hospitals if they feel they are exempt from so much health regulations.

What if a local mosque opened a dry cleaners and put a sign in the window that says "We do not serve Jews". Would that be good for the community? I don't think so. There must be limits on doctrine-inspired discrimination by church-run businesses and organizations.

I am willing to grant some leeway to churches and their business arms, but as organizations in a society that has decided some of their doctrine is immoral, unjust and illegal, they have to be willing to acknowledge that and respect the law.

- Drew :paw:

[DuckiesDarling]

Drew, as far as Catholic hospitals... there was a huge push to merge a lot of the hospitals in Louisville with Catholic Healthcare, the caveat, the hospitals could not perform abortions or tubal ligations, vasectomies, hysterectomies because of the problem Catholics have with preventing reproduction. It's still something they are struggling with and many people who are in need of the surgeries as they have more kids than they can provide for now are having to find hospitals that don't belong to the Catholic Healthcare group.

Obama wanted the hospitals to provide all services regardless of religious beliefs, it was his belief healthcare should not be mandated by religion but my medical professionals.

As for the video... it's interesting but there is a lot of religion involved in many things American. It's on our money "In God We Trust", it's in our pledge "I pledge alliegience to the flag of the United States of America, one nation under God" but we do have a separation of church and state. There was a famous court case with an athiest up in arms because the Ten Commandments were posted in a school, the courts agreed with her and the Ten Commandments were removed. There are many different school systems here and in the Catholic systems they mix religion heavy with education. But in public schools that receive federal funding they are not allowed to mix religion with education beyond educating about the religion itself.

[void()]

Yes and there is still controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust) over those. Agreed we use democracy and majority rule, there is also a clause which grants consideration to the minority. Some see the motto on money as the state establishing a religion. I myself do but choose not to be overly militant or vocal over the issue. It would not change for many of the same reasons I do not vote. Accepting something does not imply one must like it, or agree with it.

N.B. Regarding my signature, spiritual does not imply having any religion. I'm a secular humanist who believes in hope. Love can be said to be a spirit. The young man whom is quoted certainly had a lot of love as evidenced in him painting, doing what he loved. We all could benefit from being loving.

[Jobelorocks]

I'm not sure I completely agree with that assessment JR. I don't know about catholic hospitals being asked to perform abortions or not (can you share the details?), but any time I have seen secularists require hospitals or schools or church organizations to do something against their will it is because they have overstepped their bounds - they are trying to be both a church (with doctrine-sanctioned discrimination) and a public organization (where discrimination is not permitted by law). And the motivation for the latter is usually for the $$$.

The issue of birth control for employees of catholic hospitals is a good example. They are taking public $$$ as part of the national plan to control health care costs for employers and try to build some efficiency (including preventative medicine methods) into the US health care system (the most expensive, and inefficient in the world as measured by cost/results). They can't turn around and say "we are a church - we are exempt from the regulations". If they are exempt from the regulations then they are exempt from the money. And perhaps they shouldn't even be running hospitals if they feel they are exempt from so much health regulations.

What if a local mosque opened a dry cleaners and put a sign in the window that says "We do not serve Jews". Would that be good for the community? I don't think so. There must be limits on doctrine-inspired discrimination by church-run businesses and organizations.

I am willing to grant some leeway to churches and their business arms, but as organizations in a society that has decided some of their doctrine is immoral, unjust and illegal, they have to be willing to acknowledge that and respect the law.

- Drew :paw:

I think that religious organizations should be free to have hospitals and such if they like and the hospitals that they own should be done under their rules. In the eyes of Catholics abortion is murder of an unborn child. For the government to force them to perform murders (in their eyes) is preposterous. There were laws being pushed to force religious run hospitals to perform things which go against their teachings. Also if a Catholic was an ObGyn they would be forced to perform abortions or loose their job. That is flat out wrong.

It is way different saying that they won't serve someone of a certain group. That isn't the case. They are refusing to perform certain services or sell/give out certain product, not refusing to serve people of certain groups. Catholics won't provide abortions for anyone, but at Catholic hospitals they will treat anyone. It isn't a matter of discrimination on the part of the Catholics, but a matter of conscience.

As a Catholic I think I should be free to be an ObGyn if I wanted to and not be forced to perform abortions which go against my religious beliefs. That is religious discrimination. It is unfair and wrong. If the person wants an abortion they should simply go to a Planned Parenthood or a secular-run or a different religions hospital (that is okay with abortion) if they want one. There are plenty of options.

It would be like forcing a Jewish restaurant to serve pork even though they run the restaurant and it goes against their religious beliefs. It doesn't make sense. A religious group should be free to run any sort of business they want and also be free to choose what services or products they will or will not provide. It is a thing called freedom.

[Long Duck Dong]

I tend to agree and disagree, jebol..... I agree with the fact that religious based groups and outfits should not be forced to conduct themselves outside of their beliefs..... however that being said, I also do not believe that any person in a professional / medical role ( and other roles ) should have the right to deny other people access to services or medical supplies on the grounds of belief....

in auckland, NZ, there was a issue that arose with a female catholic pharmacist that went to court and won the right not to fill prescriptions for birth control for women... and that was all good and well.... the trouble was that no other option was provided or available for women that wanted to use birth control, as the nearest pharmacy was 27 miles away ( travel distance ) and despite the fact that a petition started over the fact that it denied women, reasonable access to medical care as stated under NZ law, their cries fell on deaf ears......

a simple alternative was for another pharmacist to be taken on to fill the prescriptions for the women, but the female pharmacist refused on the grounds that it was still allowing females to act in a manner that went against the catholic females beliefs..... strangely enuf, 6 months later, she was out of a job.... a sudden loss of the majority of customers to the pharmacy was the cause......

one of my ex friends is a christian doctor and he is known for telling patients to go to church and pray for healing rather than seek medical treatment from him as some of the prescriptions they need, go against his beliefs and while he legally can not deny them the medicines and treatments, he makes it clear that he objects to prescribing them to people.......

I have the view point that my beliefs are my beliefs, I should not be allowed to limit or deny any other person, a service on the grounds that my beliefs forbid it..... so I have the opinion that if I was in the situation that I would not provide a service, then its my responsibility to ensure that a person has reasonable access to a person that will.... as my beliefs are my beliefs, but a persons right to fair and unbiased professional help / support should not be infringed upon.....

so yeah, I agree that catholic hospitals should be free to act as they see fit within reason..... and I agree that denial of service to a person is a grey area..... but I will admit to being curious if a catholic hospital would refuse to do a emergency abortion if lives were at stake and there was no other option available...... I am thinking of a issue I once read about in a foreign country with a ectopic pregnancy that had led to internal bleeding in the female and the surgeon refused to perform a emergency foetal removal on the grounds of religious belief... as a result the female died and as far as I know, the surgeon was harshly dealt with by the medical profession in his own country, I can not remember the religion of the surgeon but I am pretty sure it was not catholic.....

[Jobelorocks]

P.S. It doesn't work in other situations to say you can't work in a certain field if you have these religious beliefs, or you have to do something against your religion to keep your job. Why should it be the case with this. A Jew shouldn't have to work or have their business open on Sabbath. Mormons shouldn't be forced to sell or provide things with alcohol or caffeine. Christians of many different groups and many other religious groups for that matter, should not be forced to provide abortions. Especially when in their view it is murder. Also they should be able to own medical facilities just like any secular group can.

[Long Duck Dong]

I wonder how it would apply to secular people that are anti abortion and are told that its part of their job to provide that services..... it begs the question as what protections are in place for secular people with non religious beliefs, that are also expected to provide a service they disagree with

[Jobelorocks]

I wonder how it would apply to secular people that are anti abortion and are told that its part of their job to provide that services..... it begs the question as what protections are in place for secular people with non religious beliefs, that are also expected to provide a service they disagree with
I don't think they should have to either. If someone believes something is wrong, they shouldn't be forced to do it despite whatever their religious or non-religious status is.

[tenni]

Jobel
I agree that a person(individual) should not be forced to do certain things based upon their religious beliefs. However that is different from an institution receiving government funding for a certain service. The institution must provide services that are funded by the government if state and church are separate.

Where I live we have two school systems. One is Catholic(Roman) and the other refers to itself as the Public school system. In fact, this separating Catholics from the rest of the school system was created to keep Catholics (Irish Catholic actually) from the main stream power base which co incidentally was British Protestant whether Anglican(Church of England) or Presbertian (Church of Scotland) back historically when the country colony was created. This separation included smaller funding for more than a hundred years for those who sent their children to the Catholic (called Separate school system btw) schools.

After over 125 years, the number of citizens who were Catholic and using the Separate school system (as it became known) was creeping to majority all while government funding was less than the Public education system (still mainly protestant Christian with some Jews and a smatering of Hindus Buddhist etc). Equal funding was then instituted by the government. Since then other "religions" (Jews, fundamentalist Christian, Islamic etc. ) began to demand funding if the Catholics had it.

The Separate Catholic education system may not deny any child from attending though. They have found ways of not hiring too many non Catholics though as teachers. The curriculum is the same although they are permitted to add a Catholic context to the curriculum. This has created issues over the Gay Straight clubs coming into conflict with mandated government education about providing access for GLBT students to such activities in the provinces schools. It has not yet reached a point where the government intervenes to control the Catholic system to insure that this policy is followed. It might and I suspect similarly about Catholic hospitals and abortion. I believe that abortion must be available in a community. If a Catholic hospital refused to provide abortion there must be hospitals within the community that do provide abortion otherwise the Catholic hospital must provide state paid abortion(we have universal health care but your country may not get that aspect)

It is a bit of a mess but the historical discrimination should not be dismissed imo until the same 125 years pass. Other provinces were less rigid and discriminatory and many have now correct these historical state church issues by changing the two education public funded systems. My province lags. Quebec has a similar problem but it also involves language and state funded schools to blur the issue.

[Brian]

I think that religious organizations should be free to have hospitals and such if they like and the hospitals that they own should be done under their rules. In the eyes of Catholics abortion is murder of an unborn child. For the government to force them to perform murders (in their eyes) is preposterous. There were laws being pushed to force religious run hospitals to perform things which go against their teachings. Also if a Catholic was an ObGyn they would be forced to perform abortions or loose their job. That is flat out wrong. I am not sure it is that black and white... what if a woman required an ambulance, and (as I believe is the guideline/rule in the US) was taken to the nearest Emergency Department that has room - but it happens to be part of a catholic hospital. Is this woman entitled to ALL emergency medical services she chooses, or is she now under the restrictions of fundamentalist catholicism? I think she should have access to all procedures necessary to save her life and quality of life - if that means an emergency abortion then so be it. If the catholic church cannot do that then they should not be in the hospital business.

The freedom of churches is not, and cannot ever be, absolute in my opinion, it must be balanced with other rights and freedoms - especially when they foray into the public realm, such as providing hospital services as part of a coordinated national health care system.

I also think it is prudent to look at the slightly bigger picture... It is not just an irrelevant fact that the catholic church's rules are disproportionately bad for women. For example, the church has no rules restricting access to Viagra - curious because it hard to imagine most Viagra users taking it to make babies - let's be real, 99.9% of the time it is being taken for a better sex life (for men). And yet the church remains curiously silent on this kind of Viagra use being anti-doctrinal - how grotesquely hypocritical. All the abrahamic religions, catholicism and islam in particular, view female sexuality in a way that has been proven time and again to be unscientific, harsh, unfair to women (compared to the rules for men), harmful to women, and in fact harmful to society as a whole. So how far should a society bend to accommodate the "freedom" of these organizations? If these were good organizations I would be willing to bend even more than I am willing for them, but these are NOT good organizations for health, women and society. These organizations have not earned a lot of leeway in my opinion.

- Drew :paw:

[tenni]

My question to the people down south is that you have on your money "in God we Trust". I understand that it may be argued that it doesn't necessarily have to be a Christian god but that is just a slippery statement imo. You also have statements (I think) that have been made (as well as my country) about having been founded on Judea Christian values (ie Christmas is a national holiday). How is this rectified as a separation of Church and State with such practices being so long standing?(same argument for my country may be made)

[Jobelorocks]

I don't think you know what Fundementalist Catholicism actually believes. They do not believe in elective abortions. If you need a medical procedure to save your life and one of the side affects happens to be an abortion, so be it. It is a tragic thing, but Catholics believe in those situations, you have no choice. You either loose one life or both.

Also even as a practicing Catholic you are allowed to use the pill in certain circumstances. You can use it if you are using it to treat a medical condition. People don't understand or know what is really taught by the Catholic Church and then make assumptions that they are freaking nuts.

[Brian]

Fair enough JR, but I think my main point still stands. There are no absolute rights in a society/community. Every person (or church's) rights and freedoms must be weighed against other person's (or church's) rights and freedoms.

Just as a civil society does not allow churches to discriminate absolutely by say, putting a sign up at their thrift store, "No Transactions With Jews Permitted", so too should we not allow them absolute exemption from all employer and health care regulations that might be anti-doctrinal. A balance must be struck. And in fact I believe a balance is more or less in place. I bet if we added up all the times church's accept some restrictions on their doctrinal desire to discriminate there would be many indeed. It is just that once in a while a bishop with a political streak tries to make hay out of a minor issue. The birth-control-for-employees issue is a good example - the church is indirectly paying for that birth control one way or another, and always will be - if not through wages, then through the insurance company they are doing business with. Then again we are all paying for it really, since the church is subsidized by all of us through their tax exempt status.

It is just balance. The freedom of religions to discriminate is not, and can never be, absolute in a civil society.

- Drew :paw:

[æonpax]

Well I certainly don't want religions to interfere with the state and sure as hell don't want the state to interfere with religions (within reason, obviously we shouldn't allow human sacrifice or anything). The problem is many who want a "secular" America also want religious institutions to go against their religious beliefs (like when Obama was trying to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions). I am all for freedom and against suppression.

It was actually "birth control" as religiously sponsored health facilities are not required to perform abortions, per subsequant lower court rulings involving Roe V Wade. However, this birth control issue in itself was blown out of proportion.

Obama issued an "Executive Order" mandating that all institutions, including religious ones, who receive federal funds, must provide contraceptive coverage as part of their insurance plans. This only applies to those institutions that take federal money, even indirectly. If a Catholic university accepts federal Pell Grants, the order still applies to them. Simply put. From here however, it gets pretty convoluted and politically overblown. Obama did back down and offered a compromise which pleased no one but the onus of any religious institution paying to provide contraceptives, was removed.

Now among the legal challenges to this would have involved both the "Establishment Clause" and "Free Exercise Clause" of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. There has always been a raging ideological debate on this.

Personally, I believe we are a secular nation and should remain that way.

[Jobelorocks]

It was actually "birth control" as religiously sponsored health facilities are not required to perform abortions, per subsequant lower court rulings involving Roe V Wade. However, this birth control issue in itself was blown out of proportion.

Obama issued an "Executive Order" mandating that all institutions, including religious ones, who receive federal funds, must provide contraceptive coverage as part of their insurance plans. This only applies to those institutions that take federal money, even indirectly. If a Catholic university accepts federal Pell Grants, the order still applies to them. Simply put. From here however, it gets pretty convoluted and politically overblown. Obama did back down and offered a compromise which pleased no one but the onus of any religious institution paying to provide contraceptives, was removed.

Now among the legal challenges to this would have involved both the "Establishment Clause" and "Free Exercise Clause" of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. There has always been a raging ideological debate on this.

Personally, I believe we are a secular nation and should remain that way.
I was not talking about the recent issue at all. It was a several months ago that Obama was trying to force all hospitals including religious ones to provide abortions. Either they had to or they had to shut themselves down, or the government would. Then the Catholic bishops in the U.S. said they would shut down all Catholic hospitals if this was pushed through. Obama then suggested that the gov. would buy these hospitals, but the Catholic bishops would rather shut them down and have them no longer be hospitals then for there then to promote what they believe is murder.

I thought it was unfair for the gov. to try to force Catholic Hospitals, or any religiously owned Hospitals to be forced to provide abortions when they believe they are murdering children. If the government was forcing your business to do something that you saw as murder, or be shut down, I don't think you would stand for it either. No sensible person or group would.

[æonpax]

I was not talking about the recent issue at all. It was a several months ago that Obama was trying to force all hospitals including religious ones to provide abortions. Either they had to or they had to shut themselves down, or the government would. Then the Catholic bishops in the U.S. said they would shut down all Catholic hospitals if this was pushed through. Obama then suggested that the gov. would buy these hospitals, but the Catholic bishops would rather shut them down and have them no longer be hospitals then for there then to promote what they believe is murder.

I thought it was unfair for the gov. to try to force Catholic Hospitals, or any religiously owned Hospitals to be forced to provide abortions when they believe they are murdering children. If the government was forcing your business to do something that you saw as murder, or be shut down, I don't think you would stand for it either. No sensible person or group would.

I honestly never heard that. Source?

[darkeyes]

I was not talking about the recent issue at all. It was a several months ago that Obama was trying to force all hospitals including religious ones to provide abortions. Either they had to or they had to shut themselves down, or the government would. Then the Catholic bishops in the U.S. said they would shut down all Catholic hospitals if this was pushed through. Obama then suggested that the gov. would buy these hospitals, but the Catholic bishops would rather shut them down and have them no longer be hospitals then for there then to promote what they believe is murder.

I thought it was unfair for the gov. to try to force Catholic Hospitals, or any religiously owned Hospitals to be forced to provide abortions when they believe they are murdering children. If the government was forcing your business to do something that you saw as murder, or be shut down, I don't think you would stand for it either. No sensible person or group would.

Its easiy remedied Jobe... they dont wanna do what the law allows they dont have to... they either do as is asked or swim without the aid of any government support of any kind.. personally, if what u say is true, I think Obama should have nationalised them and run them as public health hospitals providing the full range of services expected of them... let them try and shut them down.. once they are government owned it becomes academic.. they did that in the 1940s when they set up the NHS in the face of great opposition from many quarters (mainly the medical profession itself) and it has and does work imperfectly but brill..

..and if America, as much of it is, is so scared of socialised medicine and a properly publicly funded health service, though for the life of me I have never understood why, and prefer hospitals owned by the non government sector it isnt that difficult to put each hospital or group of hospitals out to tender outlining what criteria they expect and range of services to be provided and allow bids to take over and run the business and make a few mill for a few more elite nobs.. of which the relevant religious institution would be exempt from bidding for obvious reasons...

[Jobelorocks]

I honestly never heard that. Source?
It happened quite a while ago. I remember it being all over the news and talked about even in my Mom's protestant Church as well as my Parish. It would take some time to look up. A while back it was as big as the story as the contraception thing is now. It may be hard to find at the moment because it is an older story that involves abortion and I keep on finding the recent thing.

Ah, now I remember it was called FOCA the Freedom of Choice Act.

[_Joe_]

Always thought it was as that's what is espoused constitutionally. Church & state are separate or ought to be. Recently the push has been that America is strictly a Christian nation. If one disagrees they are told Christianity founded America. Factually though, America has no established religion. And there are far more documents backing that up than the America is a Christian nation fables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli


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 tranquility, 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.

[void()]

Yeah, knew of that a long while back. Think I even linked to it here before.

[12voltman59]

I do very much believe in the idea that America is a secular country.

It really gets me that it is a popular thing among the fundamentalist and evangelical strains of far right christianity, they have set out to do some revisionist history regarding the Founding Fathers, trying to paint them as being their sort of christians, but when you really look at the true nature of the Founding Fathers----they were all products of "The Age of Enlightenment."

As such, while they surely believed in a creator, in "God" but they were not hard dogmatic followers of any single religion and really didn't think that one needed to be such. Many of the bunch like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and others were members and students of "mystical societies" like the Rosicrucians, I would not be surprised to find that fundy christians consider the Rosicrucians to be "Satanic" in nature.

When it comes to the concept of "Separation of Church and State," the Founders really should have specifically put such language directly into the Constitution, so that it would be "specifically enumerated" as Constitutional scholars like to say about such things.

Instead, they sorta did whimp out on the matter for some reason and while it was pretty clear to nearly everyone but a fundy christian or "an original intent" Constitutionalist type that the Founders did want such a thing to be part of our government's makeup.


When it comes to personal behavior and one's individual lives and how people structure their lives--contrary to the BELIEF of many Christian leaders, not just the more hardcore ones---it is totally possible to structure and live a very moral, upstanding life without having a belief in God and not basing one's moral codes and such from the teachings of a supposed God---some of the most upstanding and moral people I have ever known have been very fervent and strong agnostics and atheists and I sure have known my share of dirty rotten scoundrels when it came to things like being true to their wives and in their business dealings and general dealings with others who claimed to be "Good Christians" or whatever religion--some were even ministers and priests--so being a "person of God" does not make one some kind of superior human being and being someone who has doubts about the existence of God or those who even say there is categorically no God an automatically "bad person"--its like what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr said about "race"--you have to judge a person on the quality of their character---not on things they claim to be.

(Of course, the corollary of each type is true as well---roughians on the agnostic/atheist side and good folks on the Christian one so it runs both ways--NO ONE has a lock on good or bad behavior!)

[darkeyes]

oi u lot.. its not diffult ya kno.. all ya need to do is say yea or nay... alla this waffle.. tee hee..

I kno.. from lil ms chatty drawers thats rich.. will shurrup an leave yas 2 it... kissie

[æonpax]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

FYI - While the treaty a good ancillary document to bolster an argument in regards to the US being secular, it carries no more legal weight than the Declaration of Independence. This is to say, it's just not in the Constitution. The same applies to the Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in regards to separation of church and state.

[void()]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Cite: http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html



no law respecting an establishment of religion

Understood to mean America's governing body can not establish a national religion. Meaning further we are not nor will not be a Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Pegan, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, or any form of religious indoctrination nation. Seems clear we are secular.

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And oh yeah, we can go stand outside Capitol Hill, the White House and bitch and gripe about the food, the weather, shitty job conditions, losing our homes, not having a chance to have a home, or whatever. You however now apparantly cannot dance at the Jefferson Monument. Not quite sure I understand why you cannot, sure there's some reasonable explaination.

You know, I think the next time I get hemmoroids I'm going to D.C. to complain to POTUS personally. The POTUS has to come outside sometime. I can yell across the way to them.

"These hemorrhoids are your fault! You need to quit giving me hemorrhoids! I don't pay you to do that!"

Because truth be told, every government employee, agent, worker is an employee of the people. We all pay their wages, we all ought to start really firing off how we feel about them wasting our money. I mean hemorrhoids, seriously, why have we not explored and educated our nation to not be bothered by hemorrhoids? We would remain an undisputed super power if we rid the world of hemorrhoids.

"Let's go to America, they have a cure for hemorrhoids! Let's be extra nice to America, maybe they'll share the cure for hemorrhoids."

In case no one guess what burns my bum, it's hemorrhoids of course. *grin*

[IanBorthwick]

P.S. It doesn't work in other situations to say you can't work in a certain field if you have these religious beliefs, or you have to do something against your religion to keep your job. Why should it be the case with this. A Jew shouldn't have to work or have their business open on Sabbath. Mormons shouldn't be forced to sell or provide things with alcohol or caffeine. Christians of many different groups and many other religious groups for that matter, should not be forced to provide abortions. Especially when in their view it is murder. Also they should be able to own medical facilities just like any secular group can.

Fact, if they are in a Vocation that possibly comes in conflict with their beliefs and compromises the job or care they are paid under law and with the understanding of taking remuneration FOR the things they do not wish to compromise, THEY are the issue and not the job and need to take themselves OUT of the equation. For all the reasons you mentioned, these people need to stop making themselves forcible impediments to the system they claim to want to be a part of. Private Practice comes to mind immediately.

None of the things you named excuse a person from rational, critical thinking.

[elian]

The American colonies were more or less used as a place the King of England could put people he did not like, but America was also adopted by many immigrants looking for freedom, including freedom from religious persecution. Therefore I do not believe in a totally secular America, however I do believe in a strict separation of church and state.

I believe that the ability to hold individual beliefs in a variety of spiritual traditions while still being able to come to together as a community was one of the things that used to make this country admirable, it's one of the reasons that I am proud to be Unitarian. Unfortunately resources have become scarce and over the last ten years polarization seems to have a terrible hold over us - at least in the popular media.

[jamieknyc]

The leading legal authority on the subject of separation of church and state is the Supreme Court decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman and the cases that follow it.

[jamieknyc]

As one of my professors in law school used to say, you're entitled to your opinion, but it ain't the law. Employers are not allowed to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion any more than on race, gender or national origin.

[darkeyes]

As one of my professors in law school used to say, you're entitled to your opinion, but it ain't the law. Employers are not allowed to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion any more than on race, gender or national origin.

Doesn't stop them tho, Jamie, does it? Being discriminated against illegally and proving there was illegal discrimination are two entirely different things....

[jamieknyc]

I know British law differs, but in the United States, once the plaintiff has made allegations of discriminatory action, the case goes to a jury, and juries of course are made up of employees. Employers have learned to cover their ass by keeping detailed personnel files documenting any grounds they have to fire or discipline employees, but these cases are costly to defend and a major headache for employers.

[darkeyes]

I know British law differs, but in the United States, once the plaintiff has made allegations of discriminatory action, the case goes to a jury, and juries of course are made up of employees. Employers have learned to cover their ass by keeping detailed personnel files documenting any grounds they have to fire or discipline employees, but these cases are costly to defend and a major headache for employers.

o a lot Jamie...it differs a great deal.. the law is firmly on the side of companies tho peeps do fight an win on unfair dismissal an discrimination... they dont usually get that much in compensation but it can b the difference between livin haff decently and bein rite up against it... the Tories.. espesh Osborne the Chacellor of the Exchequer want the rules on Industrial tribunals and unfair dismissal etc relaxed even more in employers favour... actually they want them abolished and they want employers to be able to get shot of a worker for any reason whatsoever without any comeback and without even giving a reason... doesnt matter how long u have been working for them... nice peeps huh? Well they try that an ther will b real trouble... EU law holds them back although they are tryin 2 work out deals to get as near to that ideal as they can with other European partners...an they seem 2 b havin some success...1ce again capitalism an its cronies have learned eff all... blame the workers.. isnt that always the way???

The last thing I want to see is blood on the streets... but if they push that one down our throats I dont think they will have to look far for it cos thats exactly wot they will get... unfortunately not every1 in this country share the Fran view of the value of non violent civil disobedience even although it doesnt have that bad a track record...

You lot have ur troubles..we have ours...

[void()]

http://youtu.be/eHo6LihtzFM

Not exactly condoning, suggesting, inciting here. I am venting and blowing off frustration. "Sounds like a good idea."Tired of being made to bear a yoke for others. Tired of having dreams and opportunities withdrawn and then told it is my fault I have nothing. Tired of seeing the same game happen to others.

Frustration says we screw insanity. Insanity in this case is continuing to kick a dead horse and expect different results, still a dead horse at the end of the day. So, if eating the rich gives different results, sure, why not? Optimally borrowing Yo-landi Visser's battle cry.
"Fuck Da System, I Got My Own System."

[jamieknyc]

Actually, hotheads who are itching to fight the police accomplish nothing except to convince the great mass of people that their cause is worthless.

[darkeyes]

Actually, hotheads who are itching to fight the police accomplish nothing except to convince the great mass of people that their cause is worthless.What? Like the hotheads who decided to fight the Crown in 1775 u mean?

[axlton]

I whole heartedly believe America is and should remain secular... Separation of church and state is there for a reason. That reason being so that the government cannot enforce a particular religion or set of religious ideals upon it's citizens. Once religion worms it's way into government the effects are never good. Say goodbye to the constitution, say hello to Leviticus. Law will increasingly become about enforcing religious morality on everyone regardless of what his/her personal beliefs may be. If you want an example look no further than sharia law and the effect it has on countries that adopt it as the basic set of laws for their nation. I certainly don't want to offend any Muslims who may be reading this, However, I feel it does deserve pointing out that governments that adopt religious morality and law tend to have some of the worst human rights records on the book.

[void()]

No need to itch when they come looking for it. No need to itch when they put a gun in your face for no reason.

[darkeyes]

No need to itch when they come looking for it. No need to itch when they put a gun in your face for no reason.

Quite Voidie... and no need to itch when demonstrating peacefully and they come charging at u in riot gear and batons waving.... and charging with mounted police..

[swmnkdinthervr]

As for the video... it's interesting but there is a lot of religion involved in many things American. It's on our money "In God We Trust", it's in our pledge "I pledge alliegience to the flag of the United States of America, one nation under God" .

The religious right makes that case every chance they get when attempting to push their beliefs down everyone's throat. The original Pledge read as follows: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." "Under God was added in 1954, "In god we trust was added to money in 1957...both were added as a knee jerk reaction to the fear of communism!!!

[jamieknyc]

You people are being too dramatic about it. Ninety per cent- plus of Occupy protestors were white, college-educated people play-acting at being protestors, some of whom had fantasies of fighting on the barricades, as if they were characters from Les Miserables. One of the things that took the wind out of the movement was the disillusionment that many supporters had when the real "99%" approved of their ouster from city parks and plazas.

[void()]

Quite Voidie... and no need to itch when demonstrating peacefully and they come charging at u in riot gear and batons waving.... and charging with mounted police..

Exactly. That's when you bean one off a horse, take up the arms they were intending to use on you.
Diplomacy was given a chance, it was met with riot squads, not conversation. One can lead by example and it is fine and well to use every option before violence. A time does come when violence is an option.