| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carol Lee Smith" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2004 01:22:11 PM |
| Object: |
One Nation Under Secularism |
One Nation, Under Secularism, by Susan Jacoby
Published: January 8, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/opinion/08JACO.html?ex=1074142800&en=6766d98e5d8a4ad1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
-----excerpt-------
In Campaign 2004, secularism has become a dirty word. Democrats,
particularly Howard Dean, are being warned that they do not have a chance
of winning the presidential election unless they adopt a posture of
religious "me-tooism" in an effort to convince voters that their politics
are grounded in values just as sacred as those proclaimed by President
Bush.
On one level, the impulse to capitalize on the religiosity of Americans
can be seen as transparently, and at times comically, opportunistic.
---end of excerpt-------------
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: One Nation Under Secularism |
08 Jan 2004 03:45:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:22:11 -0600, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu>
wrote:
One Nation, Under Secularism, by Susan Jacoby
Published: January 8, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/opinion/08JACO.html?ex=1074142800&en=6766d98e5d8a4ad1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
-----excerpt-------
In Campaign 2004, secularism has become a dirty word. Democrats,
particularly Howard Dean, are being warned that they do not have a chance
of winning the presidential election unless they adopt a posture of
religious "me-tooism" in an effort to convince voters that their politics
are grounded in values just as sacred as those proclaimed by President
Bush.
On one level, the impulse to capitalize on the religiosity of Americans
can be seen as transparently, and at times comically, opportunistic.
---end of excerpt-------------
I would suggest the candidates stress the diversity of this great
nation, the US of A, focusing on freedom of religion and explaining
how the separation of church and state acknowledges religion and keeps
it free and prevents the government from telling the citizens how or
who to worship.
Then follow up by explaining how the absence of such separation of
church and state led to the rise and downfall of the Taliban.
You cannot win if you offend the 86% of voters who say they are
religious. Bush won by falsely coddling them. We can't let that happen
again.
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "El Rayo-X" |
|
| Title: Re: One Nation Under Secularism |
08 Jan 2004 04:08:21 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:45:44 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:22:11 -0600, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu>
wrote:
One Nation, Under Secularism, by Susan Jacoby
Published: January 8, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/opinion/08JACO.html?ex=1074142800&en=6766d98e5d8a4ad1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
-----excerpt-------
In Campaign 2004, secularism has become a dirty word. Democrats,
particularly Howard Dean, are being warned that they do not have a chance
of winning the presidential election unless they adopt a posture of
religious "me-tooism" in an effort to convince voters that their politics
are grounded in values just as sacred as those proclaimed by President
Bush.
On one level, the impulse to capitalize on the religiosity of Americans
can be seen as transparently, and at times comically, opportunistic.
---end of excerpt-------------
I would suggest the candidates stress the diversity of this great
nation, the US of A, focusing on freedom of religion and explaining
how the separation of church and state acknowledges religion and keeps
it free and prevents the government from telling the citizens how or
who to worship.
Then follow up by explaining how the absence of such separation of
church and state led to the rise and downfall of the Taliban.
....and try to avoid having the discussion veer towards why some
religions aren't "allowed" to use sacraments other than wine, like
rastafarians smoking weed, or native americans using peyote, because
then you'll have to deftly sidestep the minefield of what constitutes
a government approved religion. Usually, scanning the back of the room
while asking "Any other questions?" followed by a glance at your
wristwatch and checking off your handlers with a nod signals the end.
Then a simple "God bless America!" wraps it all up nicely.
You cannot win if you offend the 86% of voters who say they are
religious. Bush won by falsely coddling them. We can't let that happen
again.
drift
El Rayo-X
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: One Nation Under Secularism |
09 Jan 2004 06:06:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:08:21 GMT, (El Rayo-X) wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 16:45:44 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:22:11 -0600, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu>
wrote:
One Nation, Under Secularism, by Susan Jacoby
Published: January 8, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/opinion/08JACO.html?ex=1074142800&en=6766d98e5d8a4ad1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
-----excerpt-------
In Campaign 2004, secularism has become a dirty word. Democrats,
particularly Howard Dean, are being warned that they do not have a chance
of winning the presidential election unless they adopt a posture of
religious "me-tooism" in an effort to convince voters that their politics
are grounded in values just as sacred as those proclaimed by President
Bush.
On one level, the impulse to capitalize on the religiosity of Americans
can be seen as transparently, and at times comically, opportunistic.
---end of excerpt-------------
I would suggest the candidates stress the diversity of this great
nation, the US of A, focusing on freedom of religion and explaining
how the separation of church and state acknowledges religion and keeps
it free and prevents the government from telling the citizens how or
who to worship.
Then follow up by explaining how the absence of such separation of
church and state led to the rise and downfall of the Taliban.
...and try to avoid having the discussion veer towards why some
religions aren't "allowed" to use sacraments other than wine, like
rastafarians smoking weed, or native americans using peyote, because
then you'll have to deftly sidestep the minefield of what constitutes
a government approved religion. Usually, scanning the back of the room
while asking "Any other questions?" followed by a glance at your
wristwatch and checking off your handlers with a nod signals the end.
Then a simple "God bless America!" wraps it all up nicely.
Very true. I'd suggest freedom doesn't have "government approved
religions" and promise change in how we handle substances that enhance
the mood, any vague suggestion against making people criminals for
enjoying their sacraments should do, with refocus on freedom, and
combatting real, harmful crime, giving law enforcement real targets
and real tools, rather than shunting them into denying us our civil
rights, to be shot at for nothing. And "May America be Blessed" should
do. Or, just "Bless America and all Americans." Gotta be inclusive.
You cannot win if you offend the 86% of voters who say they are
religious. Bush won by falsely coddling them. We can't let that happen
again.
drift
El Rayo-X
drift
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: One Nation Under Secularism |
08 Jan 2004 04:27:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:22:11 -0600, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu>
wrote:
One Nation, Under Secularism, by Susan Jacoby
Published: January 8, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/opinion/08JACO.html?ex=1074142800&en=6766d98e5d8a4ad1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
-----excerpt-------
In Campaign 2004, secularism has become a dirty word. Democrats,
particularly Howard Dean, are being warned that they do not have a chance
of winning the presidential election unless they adopt a posture of
religious "me-tooism" in an effort to convince voters that their politics
are grounded in values just as sacred as those proclaimed by President
Bush.
It is truly pathetic.
When I first heard the expression "American Taleban" I thought they
meant these guys - not John Walker Lindh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: One Nation Under Secularism |
09 Jan 2004 06:10:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:27:05 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:22:11 -0600, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu>
wrote:
One Nation, Under Secularism, by Susan Jacoby
Published: January 8, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/opinion/08JACO.html?ex=1074142800&en=6766d98e5d8a4ad1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
-----excerpt-------
In Campaign 2004, secularism has become a dirty word. Democrats,
particularly Howard Dean, are being warned that they do not have a chance
of winning the presidential election unless they adopt a posture of
religious "me-tooism" in an effort to convince voters that their politics
are grounded in values just as sacred as those proclaimed by President
Bush.
It is truly pathetic.
When I first heard the expression "American Taleban" I thought they
meant these guys - not John Walker Lindh.
It sure looks as if the current administration leans heavily to one
widely accepted religion and is making law based on it. We now have
faith based PRISONS sorry for shouting but that one called for it. How
much further do we have to slide the slippery slope before any
encounter with the feds is tied to religion!!
drift
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
