Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Bush threatens secularism
Washington Times ^ | April 14, 2005 | Julia Duin

Posted on 04/15/2005 5:09:20 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe

The Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a press release Sept. 13, 2001, calling the September 11 attacks by Islamist terrorists "the ultimate faith-based initiative."

The release went on: "Religion is not the answer, it is probably the problem."

And: "Prayer had its chance on September 11 and it failed."

September 11 "should have clinched the idea this is a naturalistic universe," group leader Mr. Barker says. "To stand by and do nothing makes God an accomplice. If He exists, why are we worshipping this monster?"

The fight against God and for abortion rights appear intertwined for Mr. Barker's mother-in-law, Mrs. Gaylor. She was born in 1926 in Tomah, Wis. A biography posted at the group's Web site, www.ffrf.org, says her mother died when she was 2 and her father, a farmer, found religion "embarrassing." She graduated as an English major from University of Wisconsin in 1949 and was married the same year.

After raising four children, Mrs. Gaylor, in 1972, founded the Women's Medical Fund, which has helped 14,000 poor women obtain abortions. In 1975, she published a book "Abortion Is a Blessing."

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cnim; irreligiousleft; secularism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201 next last
To: Raycpa

Oh so now you're espousing multiculturalism, too?


101 posted on 04/15/2005 9:59:06 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
Apparently you do not accept that State officials were included in the 'religious test' portion of Article VI.

Did I express an opinion? My post was sourced. Argue with them.

102 posted on 04/15/2005 10:00:08 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
officials sworn to support the Constitution are not free to make law based on or 'influenced' [caused] by any of the establishments of specific religions.

That is completely false, and to restrict anyone from legislating because of their religious morality is a "religious test" forbidden by the Constitution.

103 posted on 04/15/2005 10:01:26 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: risk
[ I don't understand your point. ]

True you don't...

104 posted on 04/15/2005 10:03:14 PM PDT by hosepipe (This Propaganda has been edited to include not a small amount of Hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Could you try to explain?


105 posted on 04/15/2005 10:04:11 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: risk
So you're saying that the tyranny of the majority wins here, which is exactly what we're fighting when we resist the inanity of the ACLU

The ACLU has never had the majority on their side. They do not operate by encouraging legislation which they want, instead they make a legal end-run around popular representation by encouraging unconstitutional judicial activism, which is precisely how the meaning of the First amendment has been twisted into "freedom from religion."

106 posted on 04/15/2005 10:04:57 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

But the ACLU tries to drum up massmedia support, making a lot of noise, and pretending to have widespread agreement among the populace that they're right about everything. In any case, the majority can have an impact on the legal climate, but it certainly shouldn't be imposing its religious views on anyone out of strength.


107 posted on 04/15/2005 10:07:42 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: risk

You still haven't cited any contemporary constitutions that proclaim states as being Christian. Do they exist?


http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm



State Constitutions that Discriminate Against Atheists

Arkansas State Constitution, Article 19 Section 1 ("Miscellaneous Provisions")
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.

Maryland's Declaration of Rights, Article 36
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefore either in this world or in the world to come."

Massachusetts' State Constitution, Article 3
"Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."
Comment: Apparently Non-Christians are not "equally under the protection of the law".

Mississippi State Constitution. Article 14 ("General Provisions"), Section 265
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

North Carolina's State Constitution, Article 6 Section 8
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Pennsylvania's State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

South Carolina's State Constitution, Article 4 Section 2
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."
Note: If you continue reading you will find that (in Section 8) the Lieutenant Governor must also meet the same qualifications as the Governor.


Tennessee's State Constitution, Article 9 Section 2
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas' State Constitution, Article 1 Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."


108 posted on 04/15/2005 10:07:57 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

I see nothing about establishing Christianity in those clauses. References to Christianity are seen in some, but they aren't exclusive or such. I see discussion of the almighty, but no sectarian distinctions. These are not establishment clauses.


109 posted on 04/15/2005 10:10:56 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: risk
Oh so now you're espousing multiculturalism, too?

Its my Christian nature to hate hate.

110 posted on 04/15/2005 10:11:09 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

I'm very happy for you and your joyous convictions. However, I am not prepared to drink the multiculturalist Koolaid.


111 posted on 04/15/2005 10:16:06 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: risk
These are not establishment clauses.

I agree, but they do preference Christians exclusively as leaders.

112 posted on 04/15/2005 10:16:09 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
I might have missed something, but they preference believers in God for leaders. They have advice for Christian behavior and activities for Christians. I didn't see anything about preferring Christians per se.
113 posted on 04/15/2005 10:18:33 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: risk
However, I am not prepared to drink the multiculturalist Koolaid.

God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son.

If Jesus died for the whole world, he died for the "multiculturalist's" too. To hate them is to deny Christ's sacrifice.

114 posted on 04/15/2005 10:18:41 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

You claim that it's hate to want to limit the number of people coming into the country. I say it's defense of my own people. It's up to you how you want to interpret that, but I'm not a hating kind of a person. I do love my own people enough to consider their needs above people who are outside of this country.


115 posted on 04/15/2005 10:20:25 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: risk
but they preference believers in God for leaders.

Correct. I assumed that Christians are the majority so therefore this mostly references Christians but you are correct. Anyone who claims belief in God would seem to only eliminate atheists while allowing satanists.

116 posted on 04/15/2005 10:22:34 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: risk
Your hate was in reference to the concern that dollars might get spent by a muslim.

As for the immigration issue, God clearly commands us on how we should treat aliens and it doesn't include treating them like criminals. I know I'm a minority on this but my understanding of the bible says we cannot treat them differently than we treat ourselves.

117 posted on 04/15/2005 10:25:11 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
I read what you posted, but apparently you do not agree with the clear words of Article VI.

" -- but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. -- "

Offices including:

"--- The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; -- "

Apparently you do not accept that State officials were included in the 'religious test' portion of Article VI.
Why is that?

Did I express an opinion?

You have been arguing that States can use religious tests as qualifications for offices, have you not? -- Deny your argument is an 'opinion' if you must, but I don't get the 'why'.. Why do you want religious tests for officials?

___________________________________

My post was sourced. Argue with them.

No thanks, sourcing doesn't make arguments. Logic works best.

118 posted on 04/15/2005 10:29:20 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

So you're saying that we're forced to keep the gates to American immigration wide open by the Bible? I don't believe it. I don't think we should all be subject to your personal convictions on this matter, either.


119 posted on 04/15/2005 10:32:40 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The 1st Amendment quite clearly restricts our legislators from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion".
Agreed, religious men are free to "influence" [urge/induce], but officials sworn to support the Constitution are not free to make law based on or 'influenced' [caused] by any of the establishments of specific religions.

That is completely false, and to restrict anyone from legislating because of their religious morality is a "religious test" forbidden by the Constitution.

Any religious test is forbidden to qualify for an office, but after attaining office, the official must support the Constitution, - including the 1st Amendments restrictions on the various 'establishments' of religions.

120 posted on 04/15/2005 10:37:55 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson