can we completely separate church and state?


 Religions > Atheism > can we completely separate church and state?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 2

1
 

2
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "catch of the day"
Date: 18 Feb 2004 12:21:23 PM
Object: can we completely separate church and state?
how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?
for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher? one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?
would a poster of the pope be okay? after all, besides being a
religious leader, he has contributed to fighting communism and
spreading the message of equality and justice--political
matters--around the world. also, in a school with a large
polish-american population, couldn't the pope be regarded as a
national hero just as other ethnic groups have their own heroes?
or, how about a poster of the abolitionists who were fanatical
christians, whose idea of slavery being immoral was basically derived
from the bible?
or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.
or, how about showing 'it's a wonderful life' on public television
when its message is clearly religious, with a man being saved by an
angel?
or, how about state subsidized schools(which includes nearly all
private universities to some extent) offering majors in theology?
.

User: "JTEM"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 10:01:30 PM
"catch of the day" <fishingxnet@hotmail.com> wrote

how do you completely separate church and state where
religion has been a part of the larger cultural or
political movement?

We don't have to. It's the fact that we try, continuously striving
for perfection that makes us great.
It took us 100 years to get "Slavery" right, even longer for
women and the vote, and we've yet to master "Equality."
But as long as we keep trying...
.
User: ""

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 19 Feb 2004 12:43:54 AM
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:01:30 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:


"catch of the day" <fishingxnet@hotmail.com> wrote

how do you completely separate church and state where
religion has been a part of the larger cultural or
political movement?


We don't have to. It's the fact that we try, continuously striving
for perfection that makes us great.

It took us 100 years to get "Slavery" right, even longer for
women and the vote, and we've yet to master "Equality."

But as long as we keep trying...




Good point.... There isn't purity anywhere, and we will always be
fighting to keep religious fanatics from taking the government - that
war is hot now - hopefully we can get back on track with a different
administration on inauguration day.
drift
.


User: "Susan Cohen"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 04:41:31 PM
"catch of the day" <fishingxnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d100c106.0402181021.4379a48a@posting.google.com...

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?

for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher?

If his message was reigious, yes.
If it was political, no.
one

could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

Not in what he wanted, in what he was doing.


would a poster of the pope be okay?

Nope. No religious leader.


or, how about a poster of the abolitionists who were fanatical
christians, whose idea of slavery being immoral was basically derived
from the bible?

Once again, their activities were not religious but political.


or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.

No, not really.
Scientific factors create things.


or, how about showing 'it's a wonderful life' on public television
when its message is clearly religious, with a man being saved by an
angel?

You mean on government supported television?
It could be argued that it shouldn't be.
Fine w/me.
Otherwise, tv isn't supported by the government.


or, how about state subsidized schools(which includes nearly all
private universities to some extent) offering majors in theology?

That's not promoting religion in a religious context; it's studying them
from anthrolpological POVs.
Susan
.

User: "Denis Loubet"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 03:53:51 PM
"catch of the day" <fishingxnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d100c106.0402181021.4379a48a@posting.google.com...

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?

With guns, if necessary.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
User: "Susan Cohen"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 04:43:03 PM
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Kq6dnZVRnYuoQq7dRVn-ig@io.com...


"catch of the day" <fishingxnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d100c106.0402181021.4379a48a@posting.google.com...

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?


With guns, if necessary.

& here I stupidly answereed every single point.....
Your answer is extremely superior to mine.
Susan
.
User: "Denis Loubet"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 06:08:44 PM
"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XTRYb.22756$5W3.9237@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...


"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:Kq6dnZVRnYuoQq7dRVn-ig@io.com...


"catch of the day" <fishingxnet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d100c106.0402181021.4379a48a@posting.google.com...

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?


With guns, if necessary.


& here I stupidly answereed every single point.....
Your answer is extremely superior to mine.

I'm nothing if not practical! ;-)
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.



User: "Bill, The Avender"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 19 Feb 2004 04:43:17 PM
In alt.atheism on 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800,

(catch of the day) wrote:

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?

Simple. Eliminate religion. :-)
HTH,HAND! :-D

for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher?

If he was gestated, born and lived his entire existence in a church,
doing nothing but speaking about Gawd(TM) and The Bilebull(TM),
perhaps. However, preachers are usually also human beings.

one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

There was, at least in some contexts and in some audiences. Perhaps
even most. How does that support the idea that a poster of him is a
state endorsement of the man's religion? He made it obvious what his
religion was, but he didn't make it obvious that his message was
limited to those of his flock and those alone.

would a poster of the pope be okay? after all, besides being a
religious leader, he has contributed to fighting communism and
spreading the message of equality and justice--political
matters--around the world. also, in a school with a large
polish-american population, couldn't the pope be regarded as a
national hero just as other ethnic groups have their own heroes?

If you honestly believe in the above, then you don't know much about
the pope. You probably also believe Mother Theresa was a human saint.

or, how about a poster of the abolitionists who were fanatical
christians, whose idea of slavery being immoral was basically derived
from the bible?

The idea of slavery was _itself_ supported with the Bible. Virtually
everyone at that time was a radical Christian by today's standards.
That they convinced themselves into believing that the Bible supported
their particular views in no way means their views were exclusively
Christian.

or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.

They're not in the constitution and have no legal authority in the
U.S. So what have they to do with this particular issue?

or, how about showing 'it's a wonderful life' on public television
when its message is clearly religious, with a man being saved by an
angel?

Public television can show whatever it likes within the confines of
the law. It's not illegal to believe in angels, and hopefully never
will be. The comparision is invalid.

or, how about state subsidized schools(which includes nearly all
private universities to some extent) offering majors in theology?

Majors in theology are fine. In fact, it's generally fundamentalists
who fight _that_ sort of thing tooth and nail, because a legitimate
course in theology treats all theologies as being objective equals.
Theists tend to _hate_ anything that doesn't treat their particular
religion as "heads and shoulders above all the rest". There are, of
course, plenty of teachers who have a heavy and apparent bias. But as
long as the course is intended to be objective, and that teacher
adheres to those standards, it's not even slightly inappropriate.
It's when such teachers abuse their position to promote their own
specific religion that problems arise. I think most people can agree
with this, at least if they think about a teacher promoting some
religion other than their own.
If you're speaking of a major in _Christian_ theology, or _Muslim_
theology or some other specific religion, however, you either won't
find that being state funded, or you'll be finding someone fighting
such funding tooth and nail.
--
L8r,
Bill
/\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~*
"Is not the epitome of narcissism to
quote one's self?" - Me
/\~*`-\|~/.`\*=`~\/|.-`\=~`/\.|*-`\~*
.
User: ""

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 20 Feb 2004 01:13:15 AM
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:43:17 GMT,
(Bill, The
Avender) wrote:

In alt.atheism on 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800,


(catch of the day) wrote:

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?


Simple. Eliminate religion. :-)

HTH,HAND! :-D

for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher?


If he was gestated, born and lived his entire existence in a church,
doing nothing but speaking about Gawd(TM) and The Bilebull(TM),
perhaps. However, preachers are usually also human beings.

one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?


There was, at least in some contexts and in some audiences. Perhaps
even most. How does that support the idea that a poster of him is a
state endorsement of the man's religion? He made it obvious what his
religion was, but he didn't make it obvious that his message was
limited to those of his flock and those alone.

would a poster of the pope be okay? after all, besides being a
religious leader, he has contributed to fighting communism and
spreading the message of equality and justice--political
matters--around the world. also, in a school with a large
polish-american population, couldn't the pope be regarded as a
national hero just as other ethnic groups have their own heroes?


If you honestly believe in the above, then you don't know much about
the pope. You probably also believe Mother Theresa was a human saint.

or, how about a poster of the abolitionists who were fanatical
christians, whose idea of slavery being immoral was basically derived
from the bible?


The idea of slavery was _itself_ supported with the Bible. Virtually
everyone at that time was a radical Christian by today's standards.
That they convinced themselves into believing that the Bible supported
their particular views in no way means their views were exclusively
Christian.

or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.


They're not in the constitution and have no legal authority in the
U.S. So what have they to do with this particular issue?

or, how about showing 'it's a wonderful life' on public television
when its message is clearly religious, with a man being saved by an
angel?


Public television can show whatever it likes within the confines of
the law. It's not illegal to believe in angels, and hopefully never
will be. The comparision is invalid.

or, how about state subsidized schools(which includes nearly all
private universities to some extent) offering majors in theology?


Majors in theology are fine. In fact, it's generally fundamentalists
who fight _that_ sort of thing tooth and nail, because a legitimate
course in theology treats all theologies as being objective equals.
Theists tend to _hate_ anything that doesn't treat their particular
religion as "heads and shoulders above all the rest". There are, of
course, plenty of teachers who have a heavy and apparent bias. But as
long as the course is intended to be objective, and that teacher
adheres to those standards, it's not even slightly inappropriate.
It's when such teachers abuse their position to promote their own
specific religion that problems arise. I think most people can agree
with this, at least if they think about a teacher promoting some
religion other than their own.

If you're speaking of a major in _Christian_ theology, or _Muslim_
theology or some other specific religion, however, you either won't
find that being state funded, or you'll be finding someone fighting
such funding tooth and nail.

Nicely stated, Bill!
drift
.


User: "Douglas Berry"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 04:30:23 PM
Lo, many moons past, on 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800, a stranger called
by some
(catch of the day) came forth and
told this tale in alt.atheism

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?

for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher? one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

Yup. But if yopu are honoring his work as a leader, his religious
feelings are not important.
any wat, Dr, King never spek of exclusion, but of inclusion. I
suggest you read his speeches.

would a poster of the pope be okay? after all, besides being a
religious leader, he has contributed to fighting communism and
spreading the message of equality and justice--political
matters--around the world. also, in a school with a large
polish-american population, couldn't the pope be regarded as a
national hero just as other ethnic groups have their own heroes?

No, because the Pope delievers and explicitly religious message to a
single religious group.

or, how about a poster of the abolitionists who were fanatical
christians, whose idea of slavery being immoral was basically derived
from the bible?

Since the message was social, rather than religious, yes.

or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.

Or the act of conception and birth. I was "created" in the fall of
1965 when a lucky sperm met an egg in a Fallopean tube. Ten months
later (I was way late) out popped me. Equal in every way to every
other human on the planet.

or, how about showing 'it's a wonderful life' on public television
when its message is clearly religious, with a man being saved by an
angel?

I've never seen that film on PBS. But it's considered a classic film,
and I like it.

or, how about state subsidized schools(which includes nearly all
private universities to some extent) offering majors in theology?

That's a gray area.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.

User: "Meteorite Debris"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 02:21:39 PM
On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800 the ET form known as catch of the
day<fishingxnet@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.

No it connotes the IPU you stupid fool because nothing can be created
without the unseen pink one's involvement. Look around you and
everything you see is evidence of his majesty.
What is this silly god of which you talk?

--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.
User: "Therion Ware"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 03:39:25 PM
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:51:39 +1030 in alt.atheism, Meteorite Debris
(Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au>)
said, directing the reply to alt.atheism

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800 the ET form known as catch of the
day<fishingxnet@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.


or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.


No it connotes the IPU you stupid fool because nothing can be created
without the unseen pink one's involvement. Look around you and
everything you see is evidence of his majesty.

"his" majesty. "HIS"?
HEresy. Someone call the inquisition immediately.

What is this silly god of which you talk?

--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
User: "Meteorite Debris"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 04:45:15 PM
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 21:39:25 +0000 the ET form known as Therion
Ware<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.



On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:51:39 +1030 in alt.atheism, Meteorite Debris
(Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au>)
said, directing the reply to alt.atheism



On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800 the ET form known as catch of the
day<fishingxnet@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.


or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.


No it connotes the IPU you stupid fool because nothing can be created
without the unseen pink one's involvement. Look around you and
everything you see is evidence of his majesty.


"his" majesty. "HIS"?

HEresy. Someone call the inquisition immediately.

Will these be the cardinals in the pink robes?
--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.


User: "The Plasmatron"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 04:26:54 PM
In alt.atheism Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote:

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800 the ET form known as catch of the
day<fishingxnet@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.

No it connotes the IPU you stupid fool because nothing can be created
without the unseen pink one's involvement. Look around you and
everything you see is evidence of his majesty.

Uh, I'm thinking that you might want to apologise to Her hornedness.
Praise be unto Her. She has been known to gore people for less after all.

What is this silly god of which you talk?

--
The Left Reverend Plasmatron at hotpop com
"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think"
- Niels Bohr
.
User: "Meteorite Debris"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 04:43:53 PM
On 18 Feb 2004 22:26:54 GMT the ET form known as The
Plasmatron<plasmatron@sickof.spam> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.

In alt.atheism Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote:

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800 the ET form known as catch of the
day<fishingxnet@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.



or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.


No it connotes the IPU you stupid fool because nothing can be created
without the unseen pink one's involvement. Look around you and
everything you see is evidence of his majesty.


Uh, I'm thinking that you might want to apologise to Her hornedness.
Praise be unto Her. She has been known to gore people for less after all.

A female IPU? Such HEResy.
--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943
.


User: "Diederik"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 21 Feb 2004 01:41:39 PM
Meteorite Debris <epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a9e6d55fb6e973c989d27@news.optusnet.com.au>...

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800 the ET form known as catch of the
day<fishingxnet@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.


or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.


No it connotes the IPU you stupid fool because nothing can be created
without the unseen pink one's involvement. Look around you and
everything you see is evidence of his majesty.

HER majesty. Infidel.
Diederik

What is this silly god of which you talk?


--
To reply remove *THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet -
Evil Atheist Conspiracy
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/

Shhh. Be very quiet, I'm hunting automorons. Heh heh.

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov

Fingerprint for PGP Keys at key server or go to
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
RSA - 71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
DSS - 9217 21A9 9C3F EB0B E302 AD0E 69C5 0F06 402E 0943

.

User: "raven1"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 05:11:45 PM
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 06:51:39 +1030, Meteorite Debris
<epicurus1@*THE_ANTI-SPAM_SHIELD*optusnet.com.au> wrote:

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800 the ET form known as catch of the
day<fishingxnet@hotmail.com> sent a radio signal across the vast
expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.


or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.


No it connotes the IPU you stupid fool because nothing can be created
without the unseen pink one's involvement. Look around you and
everything you see is evidence of his majesty.

Err, her pinkness was quite female, last I heard!


What is this silly god of which you talk?

.


User: ""

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 19 Feb 2004 12:38:08 AM
On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800,
(catch of the
day) wrote:

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?

Sarcastically, attach lot's of helium balloons to the church building
so it hovers, and doesn't physically touch the earth.


for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher? one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

If it was to laud his civil rights campaign, ok.

would a poster of the pope be okay? after all, besides being a
religious leader, he has contributed to fighting communism and
spreading the message of equality and justice--political
matters--around the world. also, in a school with a large
polish-american population, couldn't the pope be regarded as a
national hero just as other ethnic groups have their own heroes?

To say "here's the leader of the Catholic church" - ok. Not if the
message is "here's the leader of America's religion"

or, how about a poster of the abolitionists who were fanatical
christians, whose idea of slavery being immoral was basically derived
from the bible?

To illustrate a point, maybe, to push religion, no.


or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.

Semantics. Too general for me to think up a comment on.

or, how about showing 'it's a wonderful life' on public television
when its message is clearly religious, with a man being saved by an
angel?

It's peoples choice to watch it, change the channel or turn off the TV
and do something productive.

or, how about state subsidized schools(which includes nearly all
private universities to some extent) offering majors in theology?

As long as public money (taxes) doesn't go to teaching religion, OK.
Let people tithe to their own church if they are going to tithe.
drift
.
User: "catch of the day"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 19 Feb 2004 12:03:08 PM
wrote in message news:<vik830tndtvv1f4fal66vo8b4nnao029sl@4ax.com>...

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?


Sarcastically, attach lot's of helium balloons to the church building
so it hovers, and doesn't physically touch the earth.


for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher? one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

If it was to laud his civil rights campaign, ok.

but what if some extreme atheist reads it as religious propaganda
since martin luther king was a preacher who often spoke of god?


would a poster of the pope be okay? after all, besides being a
religious leader, he has contributed to fighting communism and
spreading the message of equality and justice--political
matters--around the world. also, in a school with a large
polish-american population, couldn't the pope be regarded as a
national hero just as other ethnic groups have their own heroes?

To say "here's the leader of the Catholic church" - ok. Not if the
message is "here's the leader of America's religion"

but what if the people read beyond the intention. for example, suppose
a school puts up an illustration of buddha or the pope to honor the
CULTURAL or HISTORICAL contributions of those figures but the parents
of some children refuse to see it anything other than religious
propaganda despite the original intentions?


or, how about a poster of the abolitionists who were fanatical
christians, whose idea of slavery being immoral was basically derived
from the bible?


To illustrate a point, maybe, to push religion, no.

but what if people looking at the poster ignore the point being made
and only see the religion?
.
User: ""

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 20 Feb 2004 01:10:09 AM
On 19 Feb 2004 10:03:08 -0800,
(catch of the
day) wrote:

drift@lost.net wrote in message news:<vik830tndtvv1f4fal66vo8b4nnao029sl@4ax.com>...

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?


Sarcastically, attach lot's of helium balloons to the church building
so it hovers, and doesn't physically touch the earth.


for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher? one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

If it was to laud his civil rights campaign, ok.


but what if some extreme atheist reads it as religious propaganda
since martin luther king was a preacher who often spoke of god?


would a poster of the pope be okay? after all, besides being a
religious leader, he has contributed to fighting communism and
spreading the message of equality and justice--political
matters--around the world. also, in a school with a large
polish-american population, couldn't the pope be regarded as a
national hero just as other ethnic groups have their own heroes?

To say "here's the leader of the Catholic church" - ok. Not if the
message is "here's the leader of America's religion"


but what if the people read beyond the intention. for example, suppose
a school puts up an illustration of buddha or the pope to honor the
CULTURAL or HISTORICAL contributions of those figures but the parents
of some children refuse to see it anything other than religious
propaganda despite the original intentions?



or, how about a poster of the abolitionists who were fanatical
christians, whose idea of slavery being immoral was basically derived
from the bible?


To illustrate a point, maybe, to push religion, no.


but what if people looking at the poster ignore the point being made
and only see the religion?

There are some people who live in the extreme, far from reality.
There's nothing we can do about them.
A man with a good record of 15 years was fired for one slipup: he said
the word monkey. It had to do with photography, like saying cheese to
get a positive facial expression for the picture, and some black
people were offended. Despite apologies this otherwise good man got
fired for one perceived lapse. That's extreme.
President Bush exhibits a pattern of deception and lied our way to a
war we are not winning for reasons that will never be clear, yet half
the voters are swooned into supporting him. That's extreme.
When are people going to look past the ***** and see what's really
going on?
But I dream too much. Drat.
drift
.

User: "Yang, AthD h.c."

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 19 Feb 2004 12:33:37 PM
On 19 Feb 2004 10:03:08 -0800,
(catch of the
day) wrote:

drift@lost.net wrote in message news:<vik830tndtvv1f4fal66vo8b4nnao029sl@4ax.com>...

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?


Sarcastically, attach lot's of helium balloons to the church building
so it hovers, and doesn't physically touch the earth.


for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher? one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

If it was to laud his civil rights campaign, ok.


but what if some extreme atheist reads it as religious propaganda
since martin luther king was a preacher who often spoke of god?

What if MLK doesn't care about your extreme rightwing religious agenda
and only care about social justice?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -543 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
User: "club that would have you as a member"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 20 Feb 2004 02:32:40 PM


eacmole@SPAMmail.com (Yang, AthD (h.c.)) wrote in message news:<40350156.3504515@news.cox.net>...

On 19 Feb 2004 10:03:08 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

drift@lost.net wrote in message news:<vik830tndtvv1f4fal66vo8b4nnao029sl@4ax.com>...

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?


Sarcastically, attach lot's of helium balloons to the church building
so it hovers, and doesn't physically touch the earth.


for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher? one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

If it was to laud his civil rights campaign, ok.


but what if some extreme atheist reads it as religious propaganda
since martin luther king was a preacher who often spoke of god?



What if MLK doesn't care about your extreme rightwing religious agenda
and only care about social justice?

i'm just saying it could be read anyway by anyone. the fact is mlk
did rely heavily on religious values and the spiritual community to
push for civil rights. indeed, the foundation of his values was
essentially religious, not secular.
besides, one can argue that mlk has become something of a religious
icon in this country, sacrosanct, beyond criticism, hailed more as a
prophet than a mere political activist.
similarly, though marxism isn't a religion, it was practiced as a
religion, and guys like lenin and mao became gods. same with the
iconography of che guevara.
if we should practice the separation of church and state, perhaps we
should also keep religiosity from statecraft; otherwise, jesus and
muhammad will simply be replaced by castro, mao, marx, and martin
luther king who is not scrutinized like everyone else but treated like
a holy saint by our POLITICAL culture. what's the point of taking god
out of politics when man makes himself god?
.
User: "Bill, The Avender"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 21 Feb 2004 02:00:50 AM
In alt.atheism on 20 Feb 2004 12:32:40 -0800,
precious_mineral_frogule@hotmail.com (club that would have you as a
member) wrote:


eacmole@SPAMmail.com (Yang, AthD (h.c.)) wrote in message news:<40350156.3504515@news.cox.net>...

On 19 Feb 2004 10:03:08 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

drift@lost.net wrote in message news:<vik830tndtvv1f4fal66vo8b4nnao029sl@4ax.com>...

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?


Sarcastically, attach lot's of helium balloons to the church building
so it hovers, and doesn't physically touch the earth.


for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher? one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

If it was to laud his civil rights campaign, ok.


but what if some extreme atheist reads it as religious propaganda
since martin luther king was a preacher who often spoke of god?



What if MLK doesn't care about your extreme rightwing religious agenda
and only care about social justice?


i'm just saying it could be read anyway by anyone. the fact is mlk
did rely heavily on religious values and the spiritual community to
push for civil rights. indeed, the foundation of his values was
essentially religious, not secular.

It's called "motivational speaking". He knew his audience. He may
have used religion to stir up support, but it was not a religious
agenda. There is absolutely no way that assertion can reasonably be
made. Religious agendas tend to try and pressure people into
accepting their religion, and exclude other religions. Non-Christians
were not excluded from participating in the events MLK launched. If
it were a Christian religious agenda, this would not have happened.

besides, one can argue that mlk has become something of a religious
icon in this country, sacrosanct, beyond criticism, hailed more as a
prophet than a mere political activist.

True, one could. But why would they since it's so obviously false?

similarly, though marxism isn't a religion, it was practiced as a
religion, and guys like lenin and mao became gods. same with the
iconography of che guevara.

Your equivocation is meaningless to your argument. Not a single
syllable of the above supports anything else that's been stated thus
far regarding such a position. You might just as well be singing Mary
Poppins' glossolalia. You know - "Super cali-fragilistic
expialadocious" type stuff.

if we should practice the separation of church and state, perhaps we
should also keep religiosity from statecraft;

Ummm... Could you rephrase this? "Religiosity" I understand on its
own, and I can sort of figure out "statecraft". But if you're using
the same definitions I know, then the above is meaningless drivel. I
assume that's not the case from your POV, so any elaboration would be
most helpful.

otherwise, jesus and
muhammad will simply be replaced by castro, mao, marx, and martin
luther king who is not scrutinized like everyone else but treated like
a holy saint by our POLITICAL culture. what's the point of taking god
out of politics when man makes himself god?

What's the point of lying about man making himself a god when no such
thing has ever occurred? In fact, we've been considering ourselves
less and less "god-like" as time goes on. We don't own this place, it
own us, and we're finally starting to realize that. We've realized we
only live on one teensy, tinsy little speck of dust in an
incomprehensibly vast cosmos to which we have no apparent
significance. Where's the "god-hood" in that? We are the rulers of
our own destiny to the degree that the world around us will allow, but
that in no way equivocates to anything even remotely similar to a
"god" as most god believers describe them.
Don't equivocate your arguments. You only end up discrediting
yourself. You have something to say that you feel is meaningful, and
perhaps it is. But when you keep saying that being a fan of a recent
historical figure is exactly equal to worshipping that person as a
god, or that admiring other humans means we worship each other (or
ourselves) as gods - any reasonable person can look at such lies and
realize that you haven't really put much thought into your position.
You're reacting on knee-jerk conditioning fostered by your church, not
with any statements of substance. It's a dishonest tactic that is
exactly equal to a lie and will only end up biting you in the *****.
Please accept that as an attempt at constructive criticism & not a
condemnation. I'm not merely trying to find fault, I'm trying to help
you understand how _not_ to address people if you want them to even
consider your position. Your approach thus far is a real turn off to
anyone who isn't already in the choir, and such tactics will get you
nowhere.
--
L8r,
Bill
~*.**~.**.*~*.**.~**.*~.***.~*.**~.**.*~*.**~
The early bird gets the worm. The early worm,
on the other hand, just gets eaten.
~*.**~.**.*~*.**.~**.*~.***.~*.**~.**.*~*.**~
.
User: "club that would have you as a member"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 21 Feb 2004 02:08:03 PM
(Bill, The Avender) wrote in message news:<403c0b29.34415325@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...

In alt.atheism on 20 Feb 2004 12:32:40 -0800,
precious_mineral_frogule@hotmail.com (club that would have you as a
member) wrote:


eacmole@SPAMmail.com (Yang, AthD (h.c.)) wrote in message news:<40350156.3504515@news.cox.net>...

On 19 Feb 2004 10:03:08 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

drift@lost.net wrote in message news:<vik830tndtvv1f4fal66vo8b4nnao029sl@4ax.com>...

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?


Sarcastically, attach lot's of helium balloons to the church building
so it hovers, and doesn't physically touch the earth.


for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher? one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

If it was to laud his civil rights campaign, ok.


but what if some extreme atheist reads it as religious propaganda
since martin luther king was a preacher who often spoke of god?



What if MLK doesn't care about your extreme rightwing religious agenda
and only care about social justice?


i'm just saying it could be read anyway by anyone. the fact is mlk
did rely heavily on religious values and the spiritual community to
push for civil rights. indeed, the foundation of his values was
essentially religious, not secular.


It's called "motivational speaking". He knew his audience. He may
have used religion to stir up support, but it was not a religious
agenda. There is absolutely no way that assertion can reasonably be
made. Religious agendas tend to try and pressure people into
accepting their religion, and exclude other religions. Non-Christians
were not excluded from participating in the events MLK launched. If
it were a Christian religious agenda, this would not have happened.

okay, so you're saying it would be okay for a politician to rely on
religious themes in the manner of martin luther king as long as it's
motivational and not exclusionary? so, it's okay for the principal of
a school to give a speech to the student body peppered with references
to god and allusions to the bible as long as she's being motivational
and not trying to convert non-believing students? so she can say,
'look, we are all fellow human beings, jews and gentiles and atheists.
after all, jesus did say we should love our fellow man. jesus died so
that we can all get along, etc and let's remember, ALL of us. after
all buddha and muhammad said...'. this okay? it's essentially
motivational.
also, how can you say king's morality was not religious? pagan beliefs
don't embrace the notion of equal brotherhood of mankind. isn't it a
moral/spiritual affront to pagan students to have king's
christian-derived values spread throughout the school? the morality
of king was essentially christian. secular beliefs range from marilyn
manson to communism to nazism; they come in 31 flavors of morality,
some universalist, some particularist. king's universalism was
derived from christianity. it was effective primarily because it
exposed the hypocrisy of white christian populace which preached
brotherhood of man while practicing separation and discrimination of
the races. so king was appealing to the religious sensibilities of his
audience, he was playing on their spiritual hypocrisies. also, his
non-violence was essentially christian. though inspired by gandhi, we
have to remember that gandhi's philosophy was an outgrowth of pacifism
which was a secularization of christian values.
if most americans were not christians but secularists like nazis with
their coldblooded belief in racial superiority or communists who
believed in using violence to any extent to create a classless
society, how far would king have gotten? king's message worked only
within a society that embraced christian values. what king did was to
teach people not only to embrace but practice the values of jesus the
savior they claimed to worship. so, you can't separate king and his
movement from religion. if white america was made up of pagan vikings
or was of the aztec faith, king's universalist message would have had
no power whatsoever. it grew out of christianity and played to
christianity.
also, if you're saying king merely played to the audience, then you're
saying he was just an opportunistic politician. so, had most americans
being devil worshippers, king would have played the devil card? would
he have argued for equality of races on the basis that blacks can be
just as evil as whites?

if we should practice the separation of church and state, perhaps we
should also keep religiosity from statecraft;


Ummm... Could you rephrase this? "Religiosity" I understand on its
own, and I can sort of figure out "statecraft". But if you're using
the same definitions I know, then the above is meaningless drivel. I
assume that's not the case from your POV, so any elaboration would be
most helpful.

neither nazi germany, north korea, maoist china, or stalinist russia
was officially religious. they were not theocracies in the strict
sense. however, for all practical purposes, these states proffered
their leaders to the populace as gods: infallible, invincible,
all-knowing, omnipotent. lenin was theoretically just another comrade
among the working man but in reality of soviet politics he was beyond
criticism. he was worshipped. you could end up with a bullet in the
back of your head or sent to a gulag if you dared to criticize lenin.
communism became a form of neverending inquisition to damn and destroy
the unfaithful. it's all in 1984 by orwell.
there is some of this with martin luther king. criticize him the wrong
way and you can be labeled a 'racist', shunned by colleagues as a
social leper, and have your career destroyed. you can't criticize the
legacy of che guevara in cuba. secular states can practice politics
religiously, with quasi-spiritualist vigor and dogmatism... which is
why separation of church and state is not enough. we need to separate
religious aura from the political sphere because masses easily fall
under sway of charismatic demagogues, and demagogues are never
satisfied with worldly power. north korea and cuba are nominally
secular states but only in theory. in practice, they are communist
theocracies.
saddam hussein was lauded for keeping religion out of politics; on the
other hand, he made himself god, which was just as dangerous.


otherwise, jesus and
muhammad will simply be replaced by castro, mao, marx, and martin
luther king who is not scrutinized like everyone else but treated like
a holy saint by our POLITICAL culture. what's the point of taking god
out of politics when man makes himself god?


What's the point of lying about man making himself a god when no such
thing has ever occurred? In fact, we've been considering ourselves
less and less "god-like" as time goes on. We don't own this place, it
own us, and we're finally starting to realize that. We've realized we
only live on one teensy, tinsy little speck of dust in an
incomprehensibly vast cosmos to which we have no apparent
significance. Where's the "god-hood" in that? We are the rulers of
our own destiny to the degree that the world around us will allow, but
that in no way equivocates to anything even remotely similar to a
"god" as most god believers describe them.

don't you ever read history? you're arguing with the wrong person.
argue with the great tyrants who ruled the 20th century; heaven knows
i'm not one of their apologists. lenin, stalin, mao, kim il sung, pol
pot, castro, mussolini, hitler, ceaucescu, hussein, hirohito with
backing of military officers...
you're telling me they didn't play gods?
why are you bitching at me? did i say we should play god? did i say
most people wanna play god? however, it's true that god wanna-be's
have often taken the destiny of mankind into their hands, not least in
the 20th century. and, it's not just in politics. look at celebrities,
look at how the public not only admires but fanatically worships them.
people abhor a spiritual vacuum. remove god and it fills with non-god
that is worshipped as god. remove dr. king and it fills up with tupac
shakur whose hateful drivel is read almost religiously by his
worshippers. or consider some of the extreme deadheads who followed
the grateful dead as though it's some kind of crusade or quest for the
holy grail.
also, your remark about the teensy speck of dust is religious. you're
describing our reality from a godly perspective. the real truth is
nothing is teensy. what you call the vast universe could be a teensy
dust of an even vaster universe. and what we consider a speck of dust
in the air could harbor infinite number of smaller universes. so we
are both teensy and grand. anyway, most people don't think about our
planet as teensy speck of dust. we live, feel, and act within the
scale meaningful to us. and, for many people a person with a big
mansion is a big important man. a leader of a powerful nation is a
great man. a great artist's work will last forever... though of
course, in the vast panorama of time, what we consider forever is just
a nanosecond. our passions, at any rate, play out in the shere of
human scale.
also, because of the advancement in technology man can play god more
easily than ever before. god isn't merely an omnipotent being of the
universe. for most cultures, god was a being gifted with extraordinary
powers and not necessarily immortal. and man's power has gone far
beyond that of many gods, like zeus. lighting and thunder are nothing
compared to an hydrogen bomb.
also, with globalized culture controlled by a small number of media
moguls and reserved for a handful of handpicked stars in music and
movies, few lucky men have harnessed powers undreamt of by the
greatest tyrants or unimaginable even for the gods in the past.
dionysus never had power to affect people like the moguls of hollywood
or the music industry. so, in this sense, technology has given man the
delusion that he can be godly. actually, the hindus were onto this
long before anyone else, with the notion that the brahmin caste is the
most powerful force in the universe, more so than the gods. modern
techonolgoy has, of course, also helped to democratize culture by
offering more choices and alternatives to the consumer, but based on
the trends of mass psychology that prefer something like Lord of the
Rings movies to far better films by real artists, i'd say religiosity,
the need to feel enraptured and surrender to grandiosity, is alive and
healthy--or unhealthy--still.


Don't equivocate your arguments. You only end up discrediting
yourself. You have something to say that you feel is meaningful, and
perhaps it is. But when you keep saying that being a fan of a recent
historical figure is exactly equal to worshipping that person as a
god, or that admiring other humans means we worship each other (or
ourselves) as gods - any reasonable person can look at such lies and
realize that you haven't really put much thought into your position.
You're reacting on knee-jerk conditioning fostered by your church, not
with any statements of substance. It's a dishonest tactic that is
exactly equal to a lie and will only end up biting you in the *****.

i'm an atheist. been one all my life. my favorite religion is paganism
because it's mainly creative and undogmatic. what are you yammering
about? i was talking about human psychology. also, read up on 20th
century history instead of feeding me your new
age/liberal-leftist/libertarian(unholy mix indeed!) gobbledygook.
also, the examples of buddha, jesus, and muhammad are all the example
we need. they were just men, like you and me. but, people made them
into something other. it also happened in the last century. guys
like hitler, stalin, and mao became gods to their followers. in the
US, because of our democratic institutions we've been able to resist
the rise of a quasi-theocratic state but the feelings toward certain
leaders like malcolm x involves religious psychology than clearheaded
admiration of political figures. when we have a movie like spike
lee's where kids all stand up and yell 'i'm malcolm x', it's not so
much about democratic consciousness as religious passions. it's black
pride as religious fervor, as an article of faith. what started out
as universalist with king can be just as particularist and tribalist
with malcolm x.


Please accept that as an attempt at constructive criticism & not a
condemnation. I'm not merely trying to find fault, I'm trying to help
you understand how _not_ to address people if you want them to even
consider your position. Your approach thus far is a real turn off to
anyone who isn't already in the choir, and such tactics will get you
nowhere.

well, i wouldn't want to be in your choir, either and please accept
that as an attempt at constructive criticism and not a condemnation.
i'm not merely trying to find fault, i'm trying to help you understand
how not to address people if you want them to even consider your
position... did anyone tell you that the biggest turn off is to be
a sniveling, condescending, tightlipped, pompous *****? or does YOUR
religion require such haughty attitude?
.
User: "Bill, The Avender"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 21 Feb 2004 09:27:45 PM
In alt.atheism on 21 Feb 2004 12:08:03 -0800,
precious_mineral_frogule@hotmail.com (club that would have you as a
member) wrote:

Avender@SpamMeNot.com (Bill, The Avender) wrote in message news:<403c0b29.34415325@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...

In alt.atheism on 20 Feb 2004 12:32:40 -0800,
precious_mineral_frogule@hotmail.com (club that would have you as a
member) wrote:


eacmole@SPAMmail.com (Yang, AthD (h.c.)) wrote in message news:<40350156.3504515@news.cox.net>...

On 19 Feb 2004 10:03:08 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

drift@lost.net wrote in message news:<vik830tndtvv1f4fal66vo8b4nnao029sl@4ax.com>...

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?


Sarcastically, attach lot's of helium balloons to the church building
so it hovers, and doesn't physically touch the earth.


for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher? one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

If it was to laud his civil rights campaign, ok.


but what if some extreme atheist reads it as religious propaganda
since martin luther king was a preacher who often spoke of god?



What if MLK doesn't care about your extreme rightwing religious agenda
and only care about social justice?


i'm just saying it could be read anyway by anyone. the fact is mlk
did rely heavily on religious values and the spiritual community to
push for civil rights. indeed, the foundation of his values was
essentially religious, not secular.


It's called "motivational speaking". He knew his audience. He may
have used religion to stir up support, but it was not a religious
agenda. There is absolutely no way that assertion can reasonably be
made. Religious agendas tend to try and pressure people into
accepting their religion, and exclude other religions. Non-Christians
were not excluded from participating in the events MLK launched. If
it were a Christian religious agenda, this would not have happened.


okay, so you're saying it would be okay for a politician to rely on
religious themes in the manner of martin luther king as long as it's
motivational and not exclusionary?

Where did I say that? Point it out, please. You can't, because I
didn't. :-) MLK wasn't a politician, not in any technical sense of
the word. He was a private citizen and a preacher with quite a lot to
say.

so, it's okay for the principal of
a school to give a speech to the student body peppered with references
to god and allusions to the bible as long as she's being motivational
and not trying to convert non-believing students? so she can say,
'look, we are all fellow human beings, jews and gentiles and atheists.
after all, jesus did say we should love our fellow man. jesus died so
that we can all get along, etc and let's remember, ALL of us. after
all buddha and muhammad said...'. this okay? it's essentially
motivational.

You're delusional if you read any of that in anything I wrote. Try
again, without that big chip on your shoulder this time. :-)

also, how can you say king's morality was not religious? pagan beliefs
don't embrace the notion of equal brotherhood of mankind.

Are you really this retarded? Many pagan beliefs embrace precisely
that. That you can even make such a claim says all anyone needs to
know about how valuable and reasonable your "opinions" are. No
further discourse is necessary. Screw it. Leave that big chip on
your shoulder for all I care. The burden is yours and yours alone.
Twit.
<plonk>
--
L8r,
Bill
~*.**~.**.*~*.**.~**.*~.***.~*.**~.**.*~*.**~
The early bird gets the worm. The early worm,
on the other hand, just gets eaten.
~*.**~.**.*~*.**.~**.*~.***.~*.**~.**.*~*.**~
.
User: "club that would have you as a member"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 22 Feb 2004 03:06:30 AM
(Bill, The Avender) wrote in message news:<403b20e8.37818504@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...

In alt.atheism on 21 Feb 2004 12:08:03 -0800,
precious_mineral_frogule@hotmail.com (club that would have you as a
member) wrote:

(Bill, The Avender) wrote in message news:<403c0b29.34415325@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>...

In alt.atheism on 20 Feb 2004 12:32:40 -0800,
precious_mineral_frogule@hotmail.com (club that would have you as a
member) wrote:


eacmole@SPAMmail.com (Yang, AthD (h.c.)) wrote in message news:<40350156.3504515@news.cox.net>...

On 19 Feb 2004 10:03:08 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

drift@lost.net wrote in message news:<vik830tndtvv1f4fal66vo8b4nnao029sl@4ax.com>...

On 18 Feb 2004 10:21:23 -0800,

(catch of the
day) wrote:

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?


Sarcastically, attach lot's of helium balloons to the church building
so it hovers, and doesn't physically touch the earth.


for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher? one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

If it was to laud his civil rights campaign, ok.


but what if some extreme atheist reads it as religious propaganda
since martin luther king was a preacher who often spoke of god?



What if MLK doesn't care about your extreme rightwing religious agenda
and only care about social justice?


i'm just saying it could be read anyway by anyone. the fact is mlk
did rely heavily on religious values and the spiritual community to
push for civil rights. indeed, the foundation of his values was
essentially religious, not secular.


It's called "motivational speaking". He knew his audience. He may
have used religion to stir up support, but it was not a religious
agenda. There is absolutely no way that assertion can reasonably be
made. Religious agendas tend to try and pressure people into
accepting their religion, and exclude other religions. Non-Christians
were not excluded from participating in the events MLK launched. If
it were a Christian religious agenda, this would not have happened.


okay, so you're saying it would be okay for a politician to rely on
religious themes in the manner of martin luther king as long as it's
motivational and not exclusionary?


Where did I say that? Point it out, please. You can't, because I
didn't. :-) MLK wasn't a politician, not in any technical sense of
the word. He was a private citizen and a preacher with quite a lot to
say.

following your logic that would seem to be the case. you said it's
okay to have a martin luther king poster in the school because the
school can emphasize the motivational aspect of king's message while
disregarding his blatantly obvious religious significance and message.
so logically, you're saying religion is okay in publicly funded
institutions as long as the emphasis is to motivate universalism.
and yes he was a private citizen and a PREACHER. being a preacher was
a big part of what he was. but still you say it's okay to have a
picture of a preacher in the school as long as we emphasize his
motivational politics. so you would have no problem with inviting a
rabbi or priest to give a graduation speech as long as the message is
essentially non-religious? ACLU would still have a problem with that.


so, it's okay for the principal of
a school to give a speech to the student body peppered with references
to god and allusions to the bible as long as she's being motivational
and not trying to convert non-believing students? so she can say,
'look, we are all fellow human beings, jews and gentiles and atheists.
after all, jesus did say we should love our fellow man. jesus died so
that we can all get along, etc and let's remember, ALL of us. after
all buddha and muhammad said...'. this okay? it's essentially
motivational.


You're delusional if you read any of that in anything I wrote. Try
again, without that big chip on your shoulder this time. :-)

it's not what you wrote. it follows logically from what you've
written. tty to logically prove otherwise. surely you know of 'if and
then' formula in logic.
IF it's okay to promote a religious figure in a publicly funded
institution as long as the emphasis is on his politics, THEN religion
is acceptable in the school as long as it's used to spread correct
political beliefs, as with the case of martin luther king. follows
logically from your argument, no? then,
may not the poster of the pope be hung on the wall to emphasize his
fight against totalitarian communism? why not? as long as we
emphasize the pope's dedication to human rights and democracy against
soviet oppression, why not the pope? or, are you still having
problems with simple logic?


also, how can you say king's morality was not religious? pagan beliefs
don't embrace the notion of equal brotherhood of mankind.


Are you really this retarded? Many pagan beliefs embrace precisely
that. That you can even make such a claim says all anyone needs to
know about how valuable and reasonable your "opinions" are. No
further discourse is necessary. Screw it. Leave that big chip on
your shoulder for all I care. The burden is yours and yours alone.

if by pagan, you mean zoroasterism or buddhism, yes. however, i meant
pagan as in most barbaric or primitive religious systems and they
certainly do NOT embrace universal morality.
.
User: "Susan Cohen"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 22 Feb 2004 11:30:03 AM
"club that would have you as a member"
<precious_mineral_frogule@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:71d42531.0402220106.6107fdf1@posting.google.com...

you said it's
okay to have a martin luther king poster in the school because the
school can emphasize the motivational aspect of king's message while
disregarding his blatantly obvious religious significance and message.

His religious beliefs were never given by him as a message and they were not
made to be significant in his political statements.

so logically, you're saying religion is okay in publicly funded
institutions as long as the emphasis is to motivate universalism.
and yes he was a private citizen and a PREACHER. being a preacher was
a big part of what he was.

And irrelevent to what he DID - the REASON FOR WHICH HE IS CELEBRATED.

but still you say it's okay to have a
picture of a preacher in the school as long as we emphasize his
motivational politics. so you would have no problem with inviting a
rabbi or priest to give a graduation speech as long as the message is
essentially non-religious? ACLU would still have a problem with that.

No, they absolutely would not.
Susan
.





User: "Yang, AthD h.c"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 21 Feb 2004 02:31:56 AM
On 20 Feb 2004 12:32:40 -0800,

(club that would have you as a member) wrote:

i'm just saying it could be read anyway by anyone. the fact is mlk
did rely heavily on religious values and the spiritual community to
push for civil rights. indeed, the foundation of his values was
essentially religious, not secular.

Which is fine. There is nothing wrong with being religious and
participating in the public sphere.

besides, one can argue that mlk has become something of a religious
icon in this country, sacrosanct, beyond criticism, hailed more as a
prophet than a mere political activist.
similarly, though marxism isn't a religion, it was practiced as a
religion, and guys like lenin and mao became gods. same with the
iconography of che guevara.

Or Reagan? If having a devoted following is a suffiicient definition
of a religion, then Star Trek, N'Sync, bass fishing, and . In fact
everything in life is a religion, thus rendering the word meaningless.
Religion usually denotes something supernatural, unless people
starting seeing visions of MLK in their ice creams, calling him a
religious icon is a bit of a reach.

if we should practice the separation of church and state, perhaps we
should also keep religiosity from statecraft; otherwise, jesus and
muhammad will simply be replaced by castro, mao, marx, and martin
luther king who is not scrutinized like everyone else but treated like
a holy saint by our POLITICAL culture.

As long as you put some persepctive into it. Oskar Schindler is
considered a righteous man by the Israelis, do you think it is an
unfair designaton because hehad a mistress?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -546 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.





User: "Mekkala"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 18 Feb 2004 01:06:33 PM
On Wed 18 Feb 2004 12:21:23p,
(catch of the day)
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:

how do you completely separate church and state where religion has
been a part of the larger cultural or political movement?

for example, if you stick a poster of martin luther king in a public
library or school, is it a violation since he was a preacher? one
could argue that the poster honors his contribution to civil rights,
but wasn't there a strong religious or spiritual component to his
message?

would a poster of the pope be okay? after all, besides being a
religious leader, he has contributed to fighting communism and
spreading the message of equality and justice--political
matters--around the world. also, in a school with a large
polish-american population, couldn't the pope be regarded as a
national hero just as other ethnic groups have their own heroes?

or, how about a poster of the abolitionists who were fanatical
christians, whose idea of slavery being immoral was basically derived
from the bible?

or, how about the words 'all men were CREATED equal', which connotes a
creator or god.

or, how about showing 'it's a wonderful life' on public television
when its message is clearly religious, with a man being saved by an
angel?

or, how about state subsidized schools(which includes nearly all
private universities to some extent) offering majors in theology?

You apparently completely misunderstand what "separation of church and
state" means.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.

User: "Kokolums"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 21 Feb 2004 03:30:28 PM
To completely separate church and state and have freedom of religion,
we need to stop the state from banning religion on public grounds. In
this case, the state is endorsing atheism, which is another form of
religion.
The only way to separate it is to allow people to display and promote
whichever religious symbols they wish on public grounds. If a judge
wishes to display the 10 commandments in his courtroom, he is free to
do so. If he retires, and a new judge wishes to replace the 10
commandments with a star of David, he is also free to do so. Allowing
this total freedom is the only way to truly separate church and state
and ensure religious freedom.
.
User: "JTEM"

Title: Re: can we completely separate church and state? 22 Feb 2004 02:24:07 AM