Ten Commandment Monument removed

[abelcainsbrother]

You could've just said, "Ray Comfort", and I wouldn't have bothered clicking the link.

These days it seems like people tend to identify themselves as "Christian" rather than stating their denomination like they once did. That opens the door for all kinds of people to make statements beginning with "As a Christian I always/never/think/believe/know..." and ending with a bunch of idiotic gobbledygook. That must be incredibly frustrating for the rest of you.

P.S. Ray Comfort

It is an atheist myth that Christians want a Christian theocracy in America,it is just not true. The whole idea for America and freedom came from the freedom Jesus gave us all. This is why America is a Christian nation. The Christian theocracy Catholics once had was not based on the bible or real Christianity and this is why America has always been a real Christian nation. Edward has the freedom to reject Jesus,mock him,mock Christians,etc and he knows he will not be forced to change because America is a Christian nation because of the freedom Jesus gave us all to believe in him or not,this does not mean America is perfect.Countries like China are secular nations.

[edwardmurphy]

First off, yes, there absolutely are Christians who want the US to be a theocracy. It's not an atheist myth, it's a fact. They aren't the majority of Christians, but they certainly exist.

Second, the idea of America came from guys like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Paine, not from Jesus. I have no idea where you came up with that nonsense. For the record, grandstanding scumbags pushing idiotic constitutional amendments pointlessly banning sharia law weren't part of that idea.

Third, you don't get to decide who is a real Christian and who isn't. Or if you do, then so do I. Your paranoid xenophobia strikes me as decidedly un-Christian, so I'm tempted to kick you out of the club.

Fourth, when did I mock Jesus? Are you saying that B.W. is Jesus? If not then you're making stuff up. But if I was I'd be free to do so because it's my 1st Amendment right. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

And fifth, countries like the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, and France are secular democracies. China is secular, but it's also a socialist republic, which is double-talk for a totalitarian regime. Secular democracies tend to have freedom of religion written into their constitutions. Totalitarian regimes either ban religion and replace it with worship of the party and the state (USSR, China), or they co-opt it and use it to control the populace and justify their actions (Nazi Germany, Fascist Spain and Italy). There's nothing wrong with secular, provided that it's paired with democratic.

[abelcainsbrother]

First off, yes, there absolutely are Christians who want the US to be a theocracy. It's not an atheist myth, it's a fact. They aren't the majority of Christians, but they certainly exist.

Second, the idea of America came from guys like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Paine, not from Jesus. I have no idea where you came up with that nonsense. For the record, grandstanding scumbags pushing idiotic constitutional amendments pointlessly banning sharia law weren't part of that idea.

Third, you don't get to decide who is a real Christian and who isn't. Or if you do, then so do I. Your paranoid xenophobia strikes me as decidedly un-Christian, so I'm tempted to kick you out of the club.

Fourth, when did I mock Jesus? Are you saying that B.W. is Jesus? If not then you're making stuff up. But if I was I'd be free to do so because it's my 1st Amendment right. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

And fifth, countries like the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Sweden, Norway, and France are secular democracies. China is secular, but it's also a socialist republic, which is double-talk for a totalitarian regime. Secular democracies tend to have freedom of religion written into their constitutions. Totalitarian regimes either ban religion and replace it with worship of the party and the state (USSR, China), or they co-opt it and use it to control the populace and justify their actions (Nazi Germany, Fascist Spain and Italy). There's nothing wrong with secular, provided that it's paired with democratic.

You say there are Christians that do want a Christian theocracy yet it has never happened and this makes it a myth despite that there might be a few Christians who desire that, but if they ever got their way? This would then cease to be a Christian nation and Thomas Jefferson led the fight to put prayer and bible reading in public schools so if you're going to use him as an example then you should be for prayer and bible reading in public schools and prayer and bible reading remained in public schools until the 1960's.

The reason the forefathers you bring up made this into a Christian nation is because of Jesus who gives us freedom and this is why you have the freedom to be an atheist and have the freedom to speak out as an atheist.It is really easy in this country to be an atheist or any other kind of person.

You want to turn America into a secular country like China is what you should be admitting instead of denying it while using the freedoms this Christian nation gives you to be like that.

[RickD]

America is NOT AND NEVER WAS, A CHRISTIAN NATION!!!!
http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_ ... ian_nation

[edwardmurphy]

You say there are Christians that do want a Christian theocracy yet it has never happened and this makes it a myth despite that there might be a few Christians who desire that...

Interesting. So would you agree with the following statement, right?

You say there are Muslims that do want a Muslim theocracy yet it has never happened and this makes it a myth despite that there might be a few Muslims who desire that...

You want to turn America into a secular country like China is what you should be admitting instead of denying it while using the freedoms this Christian nation gives you to be like that.

At this point I'm questioning your literacy, because that's not even close to what I said. Let me put it to you with a bit less language:

Secular + Democratic = Good
Anything + Totalitarian = Bad

Now we apply the formula:

China is secular and totalitarian. That's bad.
Iran is theocratic and totalitarian. That's bad.
The United States is secular and democratic. That's good.

Got it?

[Kurieuo]

Hmm, perhaps Totalitarian is a better term -- for what I'm seeing Western countries that are becoming more and more secularised. But, it isn't necessarily a secular nor religious thing, but rather just humans wanting to make everyone think and be like them.

[EssentialSacrifice]

it isn't necessarily a secular nor religious thing, but rather just humans wanting to make everyone think and be like them.

What is this called K ? .. this is it, nail on the head ... what's the best term on definition ? and ... why is it so important, especially now, when communications and the ability to persuade ... fb, twitter, etc... is now bordering on prolific.

[abelcainsbrother]

America is NOT AND NEVER WAS, A CHRISTIAN NATION!!!!
http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_ ... ian_nation

I read the article but disagree with it here is why at the bottom of the US Constitution there are a bunch of signatures and it is signed in the year of the Lord this is ignored to claim it is not a Christian document. Also this article sees the Catholic theocracy as a Christian nation which it was not. also why did Thomas Jefferson lead the fight to put prayer and bible reading in public schools? How can he claim Jefferson was for seperation of church and state when he's the one who put prayer and bible reading in Public Schools? This would be actions contradicting he was for seperation of church and state,actions speak louder than words do. Let me make it clear a Christian theocracy would not be a Christian nation and I think this is what you think of when you think of a Christian nation. Also I do not believe the founding fathers were Christian ministers,etc like is often portrayed but I do not believe they were atheists either.

[Philip]

Ultimately, why does it really matter what the country's leaders believed over two centuries ago? People want to say, "Well, this was our founders' belief or intentions, and so TODAY we ought to have this or that." Really, we, as a nation, are what we are NOW. The sensibilities of our judges, our courts (especially The Supremes) of TODAY determine what we are NOW. Our leaders reflect the majority sensibilities of the 21st century. Some see the constitution as rigid and mostly set in stone, many, increasingly, do not. As for the founders - well, some were Christians, many not. Some were deists, like Jefferson, who was certainly not a Christian! We can't credibly use yesteryear in an attempt to define us today. The founders' intentions and documents just don't have the mass appreciation and respect they once did. Unfortunately. And many - perhaps even a majority - could care less about the beliefs of those grand, old 18th century men.

As for goverment and personal beliefs, EVERYONE in and out of goverment should have a right to express personal beliefs - spiritual or otherwise - as long as they don't try to force them upon others. And the idea that we should expect one's spiritual beliefs to not drive their decisions across a multitude of other areas and issues is unrealistic.

[edwardmurphy]

As for goverment and personal beliefs, EVERYONE in and out of goverment should have a right to express personal beliefs - spiritual or otherwise - as long as they don't try to force them upon others. And the idea that we should expect one's spiritual beliefs to not drive their decisions across a multitude of other areas and issues is unrealistic.

Everyone, in and out of government, DOES have the right to express their personal beliefs when they're off the clock and speaking as private citizens. But if they're speaking as employees, and therefore representatives, of the state they're required to adhere to a separate set of rules, which it's worth noting is something they knew when they took the job. I don't understand why some people find that so onerous.

[Kurieuo]

Including Atheists, right edward?

[edwardmurphy]

Yes.

[Kurieuo]

Your answer surprised me. Pleasantly so.

Normally, Atheists... or to be more correct, Secular Humanists think they have a free pass on their ideology to impose as they see fit. BUT, while such may not have a being like "God", nonetheless such is an ideology on par with religion. People will get just as zealous and extreme over their Humanism as a religious person does their religious beliefs.

BUT, in any case, I personally believe it is a modern myth -- too idealistic -- to think that a person working in job must put their personal beliefs on hold. That is, there is this strange idea born out of "the Enlightenment" that we can come to a particular task in an objective manner... but the reality is, who we are necessarily gets brought to the table. It is unavoidable and impossible to truly detach all our influences from ourselves, even if we could identify every single subjective influence. That's as true for politics, as it is science, as it is philosophy, and even theology or whatever the particular area of interest is.

The post-modern criticism of objective reasoning is, as far as I'm concerned, a potent one (that is, thinking is never objective). And yet, the conclusion (that any rational pursuit is flawed in its ability to arrive at truth) is wrong. It isn't true as an extremely post-modern person would say that everyone's belief is therefore as good as the next person's.

In fact, I think it is precisely our personal beliefs and heart -- our passionate natures -- that drive us to pursue truth and uphold what is right. It is a passional rational nature based in experience that best gets us to truth.

So, I'm of the thought that if the President of the United States is elected by the people, no doubt in large part due to his beliefs, passion and vision of what is good and right for the nation, then he/she should govern accordingly. That, is democracy. The reality is, there is no one who could objectively govern a country. Only a computer or robot could perhaps fit that description, but then, I just can't picture the empathy, love and whole array of emotional.

And you know what, love it or hate it... that's how previous Presidents lead the US, that's how Bush lead the US, that's how Obama lead the US and that's how future leaders will lead the US. Because, realistically, it is impossible for us to leave who we are at the door.

[edwardmurphy]

I have to admit that I've been pleasantly surprised by some comments here as well. It's easy to start picturing people you disagree with as ridiculous caricatures and assume that you know what they're going to say before they say it. I anticipated that I'd see a lot of that here, but apart from one glaring exception that hasn't been the case. I appreciate that.

Regarding other atheists, humanists, free thinkers, and so forth, I've come across a few zealots, but most that I've met have been very reasonable unless they were under attack. And some of them were reasonable even then.

Regarding separating one's personal and professional lives, I think the point is that you're supposed to try. Nobody is expecting perfect objectivity - that's unattainable - but if you make a good faith effort and accept feedback from your bosses and coworkers you'll probably be fine. Frankly, most of the cases that make the news are examples of culture warriors looking to pick a fight.

With elected officials it's a different situation. The president is supposed to tell us what he believes and then demonstrate his beliefs through his actions. Congressmen from conservative socially districts are supposed to push socially conservative agendas - that's what they were elected to do. There is no expectation of objectivity there.