plz comment, or is this too good for you evoulution scientists guys. hehehe…

Can you explain to me what the non-religious arguments are for abortion and gay marriage? If they really exist, I have yet to hear one, and remember, the argument cannot invovle any type of morality or religious argument of any king.

In general: I am an agnostic, but I support the freedom of religion. The problem I have noticed is that it is Christians or “Christianists” that are always making the noise, with Muslims starting to come in at a close second. You hear things from the Catholics, the Jews, and various other groups, but it’s mostly Christianity that is always in the news, and it is traditional Judeo-Christian values that saturate our society and are starting to saturate our government. That is annoying, if not dangerous.

Not only does it offend me because I do not share those beliefs, it offends me that others who belong to different religious groups have to put up with it as well, as if Christianity has a corner on the market, and their religions don’t matter. I have friends of various faiths who feel that unless they start making a scene, they will be ignored, and Christian beliefs and values will be thrust upon them, and they, being the type of mature adults who do not wish to make a scene, believe this to be unfair. I agree, and that is why separation of church and state is so important.

It should also be noted that all Christianists are not created equal. As I’ve pointed out before, most Christianists at least pay lip service to working within the framework of the Constitution (which is why comparing most Christianists to Islamic supremacists is silly), but only a small subset of Christianists, the so-called Reconstructionists, expressly advocate a social order based entirely upon Biblical law.

Actually, if you look at the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Document,” you will see that ID is more than an opinion — it’s the first step in a plan to replace naturalistic science with a different, religiously-driven “science” by people who believe that, Christianity is under assault by naturalistic models of the universe.

That aside, where does this “teach the controversy” approach stop, though? ID is about as popular among biologists as Holocaust revisionism is among historians. Will we see a time where children are taught:

“Some say that the belief that Nazis killed six million Jews during their reign is a fabrication, others disagree.”

This also comes from the creationism vs. evolution argument–one spot where Christians go over the line here is the idea that we need a ‘Creation Museum’ where nothing is shown to be more than 4,000 years old is insane. Intelligent Design, as a concept, is perfectly acceptable and reaction to it is overdone–it’s an opinion, and should be taught from both sides. As in–some say ‘ID’ explains the universe, others aren’t sure or believe it to be simply random events evolved from the Big Bang. No harm done on either side.

Total averison to spirituality is a way for the far left to further remove itself from the mainstream of American politics.

There are many excellent points raised and belifs professed (or not) in these responses and that is a good thing. Aside from the polarized opinions (based in “that’s not what I was taught” mentalities) this is one of the best posts I have seen in terms of reasonable discourse on a discordant issue(?).

I find it interesting that the post was informative about (5) important items and almost all of the responses have been in regard to #2. Newt hit the Motherlode on emotion(which he has always been good at doing.

I have never been a Newt fan, but I have always had emmemse resoect for his intellect. I would now offer my thoughts regarding his intent and my opinion(s)

1. Does the ACLU go over the top? Absolutely
2. Is the ACLU a vital entity to our culture and Government? Absolutely
3. Do the Christianists (hate the term) go over the top? Absolutely
4. Do the Agnostics and Athiests go over the top? Absolutely

Freedom to practice (or not) religion SHOULD mean exactly that and nothing more. It has no place as the basis for writing law (as demonstrated by the few religious right whakos who attempted to impose their religious convictions on the legal system relative to Shaivo. In short, they gave us a demonstration of the difference between “practice” and “imposition”.

There is nothing wrong with symbology. Christians founded this country to escape the secularity of other Christians. Their original inclusion of symbology in governance is historical and there never was a reason for Athisests to demand that they remove that symbology.

Anyone who is derailed by someone else’s celebration of belief (or non-belief) is weak of conviction and demonstrates that weakness by attempting to impose their alleged rights on others. They need to get a life, so to speak.

The ACLU has structural issues that contribute to their bi-polar application of the laws, but that is minor in scope when you consider a landscape without watchdog status.

I think that all symbology could be integrated into the American landscape to be inclusive of the diversity of religious beliefs ;)

1. Courthouse facades could include the Ten Commandments for the Christians, a little fat guy for the Bhuddists, a question mark for the Agnostics, and a great big Uh-Uh for the Athiests …. everyone gets a symbol.

2. A statue of Newt could be installed on the lawn with a #2 sculpture in close proximity.

Sorry for the humor, but we as a culture seem to bend and twist in the winds on this religion thing, which is what I think the founding fathers envisioned. It is nothing to get excited about. When one faction imposes, the other balks … democracy in action.

More importantly, and I saw no reference to it here, is how we present the American face to the rest of the world. We are a country that professes freedom. We are true believers in democracy as OUR form of government. We are IMPOSING that belief in other parts of the world. We should be leaving that decision to the those folks. Religious zealots and terrorists who TRY to impose their beliefs on us through violent acts should be responded to in strong fashion, not invited into the democratic fold. Democracy is homegrown …. created by those who CHOOSE it. Democracy is not, nor will it ever be, a deliverable product to another land, which is the reason that individuals all over the world choose to come HERE.
Perhaps Newt should have ad a #6 in his talking points list.

My problem with religion in the public square is the same one that has made separation of church and state so important; when the religion is associated (either implicitly or explicitly) with the goverment and thus is seen as the goverment giving its blessing to that religion over other religions.

The “Christianists” (I never used that term before but I’m starting to like it) seem to forget that many of the religious people who came to America to escape persecution were being persecuted by other Christians. And I fear that that is what is happening today; the “Christianists” are not just persecuting non-Christian religions but also Christians who are alarmed by their words and their actions (I happen to be one of those alarmed Christians).

Thousands of people have been martyred to practice the Christian faith. In millions of churches across this nation, pastors passionately exhort their flocks to make Christ the center of their lives, to take to heart and live by every word of the Bible. Eternity is at stake.

I’m not a believer. But if faith wanes, it won’t be the fault of the ACLU, or the five or ten percent of the people here who find displays of religion offensive. It won’t be because courts ban crosses on public property.

It will be because the believers lacked passion, lacked commitment, and their message lacked relevance.

I thought Christians were supposed to persevere in the face of obstacles. Instead they’re scared of their own shadow, and want to blame everyone but themselves for their failure to keep the message alive in their own community.

My message to Newt and all who agree with him: if you want Christianity to flourish, grow a goddamned spine and invigorate the churches from within, and stop being a bunch of whiners begging for the governement to make up for your deficiencies.

You know, you’re right about the local chapters of the ACLU causing most of the silliness. I too am glad they are around. I just feel my money is better spent elsewhere these days. I wonder if the ACLU has or would consider having a program that lets donors earmark their money to go to specific initiatives. I should look into that.

BTW: You know in your heart he’s pandering.

Newt? Pandering? I’m shocked you would say such a thing… ;-)

Still, it doesn’t make his ideas any less intriguing. I especially like his guest worker idea that deposits a certain, non-trivial portion of their income they make here in a savings account that they can only claim if they go back to their own country. That is a brilliant idea.

Blue laws, mandating that all businesses be closed on Sundays.

Bans on dancing and other “immoral” behaviors.

Sodomy laws, as well as the selective enforcement of such laws.

Abortion I’ll grant you. But many of the same groups also argue against contraception.

As for the secular arguments against gay marriage, every debate I’ve ever been in eventually devolves to religion or bigotry, because it comes down to a belief that homosexuality is immoral. Barring evidence of actual intrinsic social harm, such a belief requires religious roots.

I respect that belief, but such belief is not by itself enough to justify legal discrimination.

The ACLU does occasionally follow a principle off of a cliff. But on balance I’m glad they’re around.

I’ve occasionally wondered if part of their problem is their structure, with dozens of independent state chapters. Much silliness, it seems to me, comes out of a handful of the chapters.

What negatives does religion bring to society that a hyper-secularism would cure?

And, since I will likley find myself mentioning it later, I will mention it now–some of the most brutal ideologies of the 20th century were secular.

Does the bible say, “thou shalt not commit abortion?” Does the constitution vow to uphold the inalienable rights to “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and marriage defined as the union of any two peoples regardless of gender?”

Why are abortion and gay marraige always framed as a blurring of church and state, when perfectly rational, secular arguments can be made to support the “Christianists” position? Who cares if most abortion aponents are religious. So were all the original women’s sufferage organizations and as well as MLK.

The ACLU is an odd organization. They have indeed helped out a lot of relgious groups and yet they have often interpreted separation of church and state so broadly that they have gone after what I think are perfectly acceptable displays of religion. I stopped contributing about a year ago because I felt they had become too dogmatic on the issue.

But I’m no ACLU hater–which is probably why the remark didn’t seem gratuitous to me when I wrote it.