If you think believing in a 2000 year old flying magic carpenter (who’s first miracle was to get already tipsy people totally drunk at a party!) born of a virgin is logical, what’s the point in discussing anything with you? If you think it’s quaint, and that the truth is in the values, not the story of jesus itself, that’s at least a respectable position.

Did you all assume your parents couldn’t be wrong? Have a freak rush of seratonin at the wrong time, associating it with Jesus’ love? Never bother to question the absurdity of the story you were told since birth? Did your parents have to tell you santa wasn’t real? or did you figure that out on your own? How long did it take you to realize that a fat 1000-year old man with flying reindeer wasn’t real?

Does it matter that Constantinople merged Christianity with paganism to make it more palatable for the pagans to adopt? Shouldn’t we ditch the pagan holidays (Like christmas) tacked on to christianity, start honoring the true sabath (saturday – it was changed to sunday because pagans were used to worshiping the sun on sunday)? Or are those details unimportant?

I’d love to get answers to these….

Belief in an afterlife is an invaluable tool in military/guerilla conflicts … hence, on the one hand, suicide bombers buying a ticket to see 72 virgins, and on the other, brave soldiers “fighting for God and country.�

Unfortunately this major incentive for people to put their lives on the line in battle also explains why the world’s leaders think they can take war so lightly.

For instance, here’s a Fox story that states “Service regulations in general prohibit active-duty officers from lobbying for political causes while on duty or wearing their uniforms. The issue of religion in the military is trickier, with regulations seeking to both uphold religious freedom and protect members from proselytizing.”

Nonetheless, I think that doesn’t quite rise to the level of discrimination or coercion.

As for his constitutional “take” — good for him – he should write it on the back of a Denny’s napkin and submit to SCOTUS as an amicus brief for the next 1st Amendment case.

Vague platitudes just don’t cut it and they sure don’t “put the issue to rest.” If in fact he was correct, then we’d need to go ahead and fire all chaplians in the Armed Services. He’s not, he clearly has an agenda and that’s fine – he should represent the aggreived and sue. He won’t though, because he’ll lose. You don’t lose your 1st Amendment rights because you don a military uniform – ridiculous.

As for your admonition on my “insults”, since you invoked Christ and the word “effusive”, I humbly ask your pardon.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said the officers on the video violated military rules by wearing their uniforms while discussing their religious beliefs, giving the appearance of official participation in a religious organization.

As far as religion in our publicly funded organizations, I’m against it. And it’s because it leads to exactly the type of thing you’re seeing with this military story…discrimination begins to happen.

This is why Thomas Jeffersion, although he did believe in God, said there is a clear wall between church and state. Even Jesus purports this same notion when he said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” Also, the cases that have been brought before the courts seek to keep private religion out of the public sector and ceremony. If that’s the source of this divisiveness…well, consider me unswayed by that argument.

Listen, the leaders of wide expanses of the evangelical movement are seeking to subvert our democracy, turn America into a “Christian” nation and have no absolutely no problem stating that outright. Any person who’s been paying attention to the more radical, public elements of this movement knows this already.

And Dos, as a Christmas gift to the site, please quit being so effusive with the insults. It’s counter to everything this site is about, and although I know that’s exactly why you do it in the first place, I really wish you’d cut it out. It’s not funny, it’s just tiring.

But you also misstate the issue. It’s not freedom FROM religion; religion will always flourish in the private sector; no one credible trying to ban it. They’re simply trying to keep the government — OUR government — from demonstrating a preference for one belief or another. “Neutral” does not mean “against.” It simply means that the levers of power should not be used to promote a given religion. Do you disagree?

I’m not on the front lines trying to get God removed from government; I have a life, and I’m not easily offended. But intellectually, I sympathize with those that do. What I do not support is going too far. Religion should not be promoted, but neither should it be suppressed. It is a part of our culture, and its role can be recognized, just as the roles of other groups are recognized.

Reasonable people can disagree over what constitutes a legitimate, recognizable role. I happen to think posting a 12-ton statue of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse crosses the line by a fair margin, not least because the actual legal principles summed up in the Commandments — once you get past the first few, which are all about how to worship God — are common to most cultures and beliefs: don’t murder, don’t steal, obey authority, don’t be a butthead. It’s not like the Commandments were this great legal revelation that nobody else had ever thought of. But I don’t flip out when they’re cited as part of our legal and cultural history.

Such reasonable disagreements, though, are what we should be having, not shrill lawsuits on the one hand and the slightly pathetic sight of a strong majority crying “persecution!” on the other. That’s what you get, though, when both sides take absolutist positions and think the other side is extremist.

And for all that obvious unashamed display of Christianity by our government in our nations’s past, please show me when the United States has ever not had freedom OF religion.

The problem today is that some people believe that government sponsorship of the Christian religion and the death of freedom OF (not FROM) religion will occur if “God” is even mentioned in any reference to our government. Any hint of religion must be completely cleansed. American history shows us that is simply not true.

Christianity was fundamental in American history. It’s our roots and our heritage and a major piece of what still passes for “cultural traditions”. It’s our history – it was good for our country – celebrate it – don’t deny it. That’s what evangelicals are standing up to defend.

Why do so many people have such a problem with the concept of “as much religious expression as you want on your own property and own dime; just don’t use government money or government property?” Government should not support one religion over another, nor should it support belief over nonbelief. It should be for ALL citizens, concentrating on the here and now and leaving the hereafter to private organizations.

Especially because so many of the things we’re fighting about didn’t even exist until scant decades ago. God in the Pledge? 1954, as a reaction to Communism. “In God we trust” on the money? First done in 1864 for some coins, though unevenly. Disappeared from the nickel in 1883 and didn’t show up again until 1938. Paper money? 1957.

Sure seems like the religious folks are the ones who fired the first shot in both cases.

They aren’t the ones suing to remove the word “God” from the pledge or our money, or nativity scenes and crosses from public display, or removal of any and all references to our Christian heritage on public property because some poor individual is upset by it. Those actions by secular progressives are leading the way in promoting divisiveness.

Evangelicals did not start this fight to remove God and Christianity from all things American. Are they expected to roll over and play dead?

When your nuts are roosting in hell and your being sodomized by rampaging gangs of demons

That must be that all loving God I keep hearing about.

As for disbelief in Jesus Christ our Lord and Raisen Savior, Rob: When your nuts are roosting in hell and your being sodomized by rampaging gangs of demons — I want you to look back on your comment and think of what DosPeros told you.

Probligo, my wine-drenched kiwi, you’ve been partying with the Maori

You should be concerned that an organisation such as MRFF even exists. If, as you seem to believe, there is no religious pressure within the Armed Forces, then it would be most unlikely that there would be an “opposition” movement.

I’m still waiting for SOMEONE to tell me what law/regulation these officers broke. The sound of silence is deafening.

How about the law of common sense. Show me one bit of evidence that Jesus lived (outside the bible) then we can talk about how your and my military should be spending it’s time engaging in magical thinking.

You’re hatred for religion and religious people are palpable.

I’m sure Justin tolerates religion way more than I do, and even I don’t hate religion.