WTF???

[Entropist]

I should also point out something that just came to mind. Even if the constitution doesn't need interpretation, and the founding fathers never meant for there to be a "separation of church and state", that doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea, or that we shouldn't strive to accomplish it.

This is a point that I find puzzling about US Americans... the Declaration and Constitution are important documents, but it is not sacred writ, and the Founding Fathers (look, I capitalized that even) are not infallible gods. And yet many of us refer to the Constitution JUST LIKE the Bible and as if Washington, Jefferson, et al were like Moses, Joshua, and so on.

The idea of the various freedoms that are proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are worthwhile and important, but they are not simply BECAUSE those documents say so. I am unable to muster that sort of reverence myself. In THAT context, I don't give a damn what Jefferson or Franklin thought.

[AngryBiker]

I'm all for secularism. I don't see our govt. 'forcing' religion anywhere. With all due respect, it seems to me that you guys are swattin' butterflies.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot then: Every day your child has to go to school to recite this: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Would you be OK with that?

You can replace "Allah" with "Yahweh," "Christ," "Buddha," "L. Ron Hubbard" or "no god." All of these alternatives are a violation of separation of church and state, including "no god." That's the whole point of secularism (which, incidentally, is not synonymous with atheism): the state cannot invoke any religion, nor can it prohibit citizens (as citizens) from holding and practicing their own personal religious belief (or lack thereof). It is a two-edged sword. Secularism simply means the government must butt out.

Where the government fails to do so, it should be challenged. And atheists are not the only ones that do this.

L. Ron Hubbard. I love it. There is no provision of separation of church and state. If there is, kindly point it out to my ignorant @$$. I don't need to be educated on the meaning of secularism. At the risk of sounding belligerent myself, many of you atheists come off as a bunch of arrogant pricks. BTW, there's not a whole lot of difference betwixt you an d I.

---

I should also point out something that just came to mind. Even if the constitution doesn't need interpretation, and the founding fathers never meant for there to be a "separation of church and state", that doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea, or that we shouldn't strive to accomplish it.

This is a point that I find puzzling about US Americans... the Declaration and Constitution are important documents, but it is not sacred writ, and the Founding Fathers (look, I capitalized that even) are not infallible gods. And yet many of us refer to the Constitution JUST LIKE the Bible and as if Washington, Jefferson, et al were like Moses, Joshua, and so on.

The idea of the various freedoms that are proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are worthwhile and important, but they are not simply BECAUSE those documents say so. I am unable to muster that sort of reverence myself. In THAT context, I don't give a damn what Jefferson or Franklin thought.

.\

All right, I'll roll with you on that. All I was looking for was intelligent discourse. Thank you for that.

[Paul the Human]

At the risk of sounding belligerent myself, many of you atheists come off as a bunch of arrogant pricks.

And no theists or deists ever do, though? Ha! Arrogant pricks are everywhere.

BTW, there's not a whole lot of difference betwixt you an d I.

True. You believe in a supernatural being and I don't. Other than that... we probably differ on a lot of things.

[AngryBiker]

Angrybiker, have you ever heard the term "projecting?" You accuse people of being belligerent (I believe that is what you said.), of taking umbrage and of being obstinate. In doing so, you have described your presence in this thread. I would venture to guess that if you took your holier-than-thou attitude down a notch, you would find a better developed conversation. As it stands, I have no wish to discuss this topic with you. I'm sure that doesn't bother you in the slightest, but it would be nice to have a normal conversation about this.

Oh, and answer Adrian's frigging post, would you?

Sorry, Honey. Even though I have a lot of time on my hands I don't live next to the computer. I did answer Adrian's post and it turns out that we have a lot in common. I am not 'holier than thou', I am 'live and let live.' If you don't want to have a conversation, that's fine with me. You are the one doing the projecting here. You fail psych 101. Get a grip.

[Entropist]

At the risk of sounding belligerent myself, many of you atheists come off as a bunch of arrogant pricks. BTW, there's not a whole lot of difference betwixt you an d I.

I am an arrogant prick, but not on account of being an atheist.

There is no provision of separation of church and state. If there is, kindly point it out to my ignorant @$$. I don't need to be educated on the meaning of secularism.

"Separation of church and state" is simply shorthand for various provisions for it in the US Constitution and the First Amendment (the Establishment and Free exercise clauses, "no religious test," etc.). Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_...ted_States

[AngryBiker]

At the risk of sounding belligerent myself, many of you atheists come off as a bunch of arrogant pricks.

And no theists or deists ever do, though? Ha! Arrogant pricks are everywhere.

BTW, there's not a whole lot of difference betwixt you an d I.

True. You believe in a supernatural being and I don't. Other than that... we probably differ on a lot of things.

LOL, mea culpa.

---

At the risk of sounding belligerent myself, many of you atheists come off as a bunch of arrogant pricks. BTW, there's not a whole lot of difference betwixt you an d I.

I am an arrogant prick, but not on account of being an atheist.

There is no provision of separation of church and state. If there is, kindly point it out to my ignorant @$$. I don't need to be educated on the meaning of secularism.

"Separation of church and state" is simply shorthand for various provisions for it in the US Constitution and the First Amendment (the Establishment and Free exercise clauses, "no religious test," etc.). Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_...ted_States

Kindly read the document and point out to me where is says so.

[Tiberius]

I should point out before things get out of control; insults and personal attacks are not allowed here. That applies to both sides.

[chasm]

Booooo...

[AngryBiker]

Apparently you are ignorant of all the cases the ACLU has taken to court on behalf of Christians as well.

The first amendment is quite simple, but obviously understanding nuance is a rare ability, especially among US Americans... The violation of the first amendment can swing in two different directions, both of them equally bad:

Scenario 1:
A teacher at a public (i.e. taxpayer funded) school leads a class in morning prayer. The teacher is an employee of the state. The teacher is in violation of the first amendment because as a representative of the state she is establishing her religion in the classroom (even if she allows other students to sit out of the prayer).

Scenario 2:
A student at a public school is privately praying over his lunch in the cafeteria. A teacher comes over to him, asks him what he is doing. He says he is praying. The teacher then says you cannot pray here. Again, the teacher is in violation of the first amendment, being a representative of the state. The teacher (and by extension, the state) has no say in the student's beliefs or lack thereof.

The ACLU has gone to court over BOTH scenarios, and things similar to it.

That you fail to grasp this very simple concept means you either (a) fell asleep in civics class or (b) had a crappy civics teacher (probably a coach).

All of which is irrelevant to the original question. You read far more into the document than was written. I'm sure that it makes you feel intellectually superior.

Sorry if I seem to be going all over the place. This forum is difficult to navigate for the 1st time user.

[Paul the Human]

I'm sure that it makes you feel intellectually superior.

That kind of arrogant baiting is what Adrian was talking about. You can make your points and/or counter the points of others without inflammatory comments, which seem intentionally designed to instigate a round of flaming. That's called 'trolling', and you'll find that it's not very welcome here.