I am in complete agreement with you hardliner. But I'm sure others will take exception to those beliefs.

Buehler? Buehler?

In the same way that atheism is misportrayed as an equivalent "belief" to theism, attempts to keep theistic statements like "In God We Trust" and Bible quotations out of government are portrayed as anti-religion, when in fact they are not.

.

I'd be the first to join protests if someone wanted to write "there is no God" into the Constitution.  But that is *NOT* the same thing as keeping religious bias out of public law.  And teaching the fact of evolution is *NOT* the same thing as teaching that "there is no God."  No matter how many times the pro-theist side may lie about it.

.

Conservatives are so often het about "privatizing" this or that.  The First Amendment (and humanists) just seek to privatize religion.  Period.

I believe our greatest threat is global terrorism, which is fueld by extreme Muslim theocracy.   Everything else pales by comparison. 

But other ideological threats are every bit as real.  Any ideology, whether religious or anti-religious can become problematic when it is mixed with politics.

Ironically, those secular humanists who most vehemently object to things like the 10 Commandments, manger scenes and the like on government property, seem to want to mix their secular humanism (a secular humanism they proclaim with religious zeal) with government.  They are in, a sense, doing what they most protest against---- mixing their godless religion with politics. 

As for secular humanism, its potential for posing a threat depends on how many folks out there are organized enough and zealous enough to force it upon the rest of society.  As long as the secular humanist activists are disorganzed and in a state of desuetude, the threat is minimal.  Ironically enough, extreme right-wing, fundamentalist conservative zealots set in motion an equal and opposite reaction when they make divisive statements.  Extremism breeds extremism.  The notion of "tolerance" taken to the extreme usually manifests itself in intolerance towards conservative Christians. 

Once again, the theocracy we should be most concerned with is the theocracy that fuels global terrorism. 

Okay -- but you're still merely asserting and assuming the threat of secular humanism.  I want to see it explained and substantiated.

Exactly what is this threat?  What do we risk losing or suffering?  (And notice that I didn't raise this topic on Easter.)

Edit:  I'm glad to see you come around to my usage of the word "extremism."  We previously disputed its propriety.

I think global warming is a far more serious threat than any posed by terrorist activity.

.

BLT neatly illustrates my earlier point by equating keeping religious dogma out of government, with imposing its opposite.

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

"And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the Star Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

In 1864, the words were shortened to "In God We Trust" and applied to a newly designed two-cent coin.

I've been meaning to blog about a piece I read in Time not too long ago about the year 1848.  It helps to look at our modern times with a longer term view.  But the religious fervor which originally created the motto "In God We Trust" to replace "E Pluribus Unum" is nothing new to our country. 

http://www.time.com/time/pr...

Miraculous new communications technologies have suddenly appeared, transforming everyday life. Everything is moving discombobulatingly fast. Globalization accelerates. Wall Street booms. Outside San Francisco, astounding fortunes are made overnight, out of nothing, by plucky nobodies. The new media are scurrilous and partisan. Marketing spin and advertising extend their influence as never before. A fresh urban-youth subculture has emerged, rude and vibrant, entertainment-fixated and violence-glorifying. Christian conservatives are furiously battling cultural decadence, and one popular sect insists that the end days are nigh. Ferocious anti-immigration sentiment is on the rise. Both major American political parties seem pathetically unable to deal with the looming, urgent issue of the day. Insurgents practicing asymmetrical warfare have, practically overnight, threatened to bring down the political order of Western civilization. And the President has tapped into patriotic rage to invade a poor desert country, having dubiously claimed that the enemy nation represents a clear and present military danger to America.

A decent thumbnail sketch of the past decade, sure--but also, as I was repeatedly flabbergasted to discover while researching my new novel, which takes place from 1848 to 1850, a perfectly accurate reckoning of the late 1840s as well. And while it's an excellent parlor game to point out the resonant particulars--history really does rhyme, if not repeat itself--I've also become sincerely convinced that that mid--19th century moment is, more than any other, when modern American life really began. The future--that is, our present--came into sight. The way we live now is the way we started to live then.

Great post~ America #2, citizens standing shoulder to shoulder with other Americans,each different ,yet unified by freedom, that is my vision when I say the pledge or see the flag .I also agree with the timing issue~ remember when  President Bush announced "the crusade"? Wow talk about bad choice of words..unless one meant to inflame that part of the world.. When you choose to advocate is part of your message~ this particular weekend may have not been the wisest choice, just as invoking the crusades was not so smart.

 I see it this way: it is not any specific -ocracy,any-ism, or any religion that threatens us or anyone else. It is warped individuals that will use anything,harm anyone to achieve their goals

Secularism is the absence of religion, not a religion in and of itself.

BIG MYTH.

Maybe it's not technically a religion, but many approach it as a religion, and the differentiation becomes extremely difficult to establish when they start to force their agenda on Christians. 

Sage, I'd also note that America #2 is what has long attracted immigrants to brave hardship to come here.  They weren't coming to join in a de facto official religion or culture -- they made their daring trips to enjoy our freedoms and opportunities.

(Debates over illegal immigrants -- please do it somewhere else.)

Seculars are not trying to force anything but upholding the Constitution. Yes there are those that add ridicule of the religious but the point remains. Seculars are also ridiculed every day. In fact, they are told that they will suffer eternal torture for wanting to uphold the guarantees of our forefathers.

The 'agenda' is to keep religion out of politics. Why do people have a hard time understanding that?

Ostensibly yes, antiextremist.  One of the things that makes this "religion" so dangerous is the subtle manner in which their message is introduced.  

If  zealous secular humanists are  the ones "protecting the constitution," the only religion you will find them complaining about is Christianity.  If a zealous secular humanist is the one doing the telling, you must look for euphemisms and code words that reflect their dogma.  Have you ever read the humanist manifesto?  That's the humanist Bible. 

Baloney, BLT.  (Sounds like a really terrible sandwich.) 

.

What a zealous secular humanist will do is oppose *ANY* attempt to governmentalize religion.  The fact that they *ONLY* seem to target Christians in this regard is due to the fact that *ONLY* Christians try to do this on a regular, relentless basis.  Fireman seem to have a particular antipathy for arsonists, but that doesn't make them equivalent to arsonists.

.

Like *THIS* particular sleeper cell of potential terrorists discovered recently in the federal government.

http://www.dailykos.com/sto...

I still haven't heard this allegedly overwhelming "danger" explained.  An explanation is what I seek here.  Bakodon gave me a reading assignment, but Doc is live at the keyboard and seems conscious of some grave danger.

I would like to have it explained to me.

Secular humanists tend to get more emotional about Christianity, because they are attacked daily by some of Christianity's less becoming self-appointed spokespersons.  It's natural to acquire a sore spot after a few hundred years of ongoing irritation.

I agree that this sore spot often sends the priorities of the most activist-minded secular humanists far afield, injecting an implied hostility to religion that, I think, shouldn't be there.  But that still doesn't explain the alleged danger of secular humanism itself.

The fact that they *ONLY* seem to target Christians in this regard is due to the fact that *ONLY* Christians try to do this on a regular, relentless basis.

Most of what is characterized by zealous secular humanists as "governmentalizing religion" are simply efforts to protect public policy from the influence of the "religion" of secular humanism.   

I still haven't heard this allegedly overwhelming "danger" explained.

The more zealous secular humanists are allowed to impose their dogma on the public, the farther away we all move from a culture of life.  Abortions are increasingly becoming later and later in their terms, thanks to the dogma of zealous secular humanists who cry "It's my body!" without any consideration at all for the father's wishes, and for the developing body within. 

The same could be said for Physician Assisted "Homicide."  Many individuals have experienced phases of their diseases in which they just wanted to die, only to discover at some other point, that their condition improves and they are grateful that they didn't end their lives in the nadir of their illness.   Suffering sucks, but in many cases, there is much personal meaning and many spiritual insights that can be gained through the process.  Physicians eager to assist patients in ending their lives often take advantage them when they are in no position to assess the value of their own lives, and in doing so, they rob the person of some great personal and spiritual treasures. 

.

And I'm not sure what the hell you're trying for with your second post there. Are you saying that there should be religious counseling for people before they obtain an abortion or physician-assisted suicide? Do we no longer trust a medical diagnosis without a spiritual one to go along with it? What would that do to your own profession? You have to have a priest in the room at all times to take people's confessions, or to perform exorcisms? Short of keeping religion entirely out of government, where does it end with you? Where's the "brightline" separation between "acceptable" governmental religion and unacceptable?

Baloney again, BLT. 

.

"Culture of life" is itself a buzzword for "restricting women's right to abortion."  A true "culture of life" would be mobilizing against the war in Iraq and the attempted war in Iran.   It would extend health coverage that actually shows concern for children *AFTER* they are born.  It would butt out of private medical decisions like the Terri Schiavo case.  It would celebrate the HPV vaccine, birth control and condom use as life-enhancing miracles.

.

There is absolutely nothing in the Humanist Manifesto or "agenda" which keeps you from practicing your beliefs even if it were to be fully implemented.  There is everything in the Christian agenda which would keep a humanist from practicing his beliefs.  The two stances are not equivalent, and that is why you find opposition to Christian interference with the government:  they're the ones pushing, not us.

"Culture of life" is itself a buzzword for "restricting women's right to abortion." 

That's your biased way of framing it.  Rather than a restriction of women's rights, I look at is as the liberation of future women, the protection of the lives of future women (and men) and a liberating of fathers who are too often excluded from providing input.  Sure they don't feel the physical pain the way a woman does, but if you invest in something, shouldn't you have a say in the outcome of that investment? 

The prevailing fight right now is between the "religion" of secular humanism and the religion of Judeo-Christianity.  Both groups are vying for their respective dogma to be the dogma that is ultimately written into law.  That's why we need moderates and anti-extremists in government to protect us from the zealots in both camps. 

The true reason for Christian opposition to secular humanism is the inherent realization on the part of theists that they cannot compete on a level playing field.   Without government mandate of their status they will lose adherents and debates.  Without writing their codes of conduct into law, they cannot make a case for following precepts that puts forth a benefit from the divinely-inspired rulebook.

.

That's the true message of "In God We Trust" on the courthouse wall:  that nagging recognition that they don't.

BLT, you want to deny my biased view of "culture of life" and replace it with your biased view.  Why should I do that? 

My biased view includes the freedom for you to practice yours. 

Your biased view seeks authority to deny mine.

I do that so others can plainly see that you're not showing the whole picture. 

Without government mandate of their status they will lose adherents and debates.  Without writing their codes of conduct into law, they cannot make a case for following precepts that puts forth a benefit from the divinely-inspired rulebook.

I disagree.  That may be the case for zealous secular humanists, but Christians have something else to fall back on---the possibility of spiritual renewal throughout the land.  People are hungry these days for just such a spiritual renewal.  When the spirit of God is poured out all over the land, there will be a change in people's hearts and in people lives.  Christians will no longer have to feel that without government, they are engaged in a lost cause. 

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, then will I hear from heaven, and... will free their land." 

And neither are you showing the whole picture.  You fail to acknowledge that any law allowing abortion will not mandate it.  You fail to acknowledge that any law allowing birth control will allow you to forgo it.  You fail to acknowledge that any humanist "manifesto" inherently allows freedom for its opponents to practice other ways.  That's What It's For.

.

Ah, you're using the dreaded "I know you are but what am I" defense. 

.

I say it again: 

Christians who want to mandate the Ten Commandments' display in public buildings do not believe in them. 

Christians who want "In God We Trust" inscribed on city council walls, don't trust in Him.

Christians who want their church's restrictions on conduct written into the laws of the land do not believe they can persuade on the merits of their case.

Christians who feel they are engaged in a lost cause in spreading their faith, don't believe their pious mutterings about God answering prayer.

.

It's not faith vs. doubt.  It's knowledge vs. doubt.  The activist Christian base has only doubt.

If they're "hungry" for spiritual renewal BLT, why does religion need the government's help?

Well, sometimes God can work through the hearts of our government leaders, using their God-given gifts of discernment to recognize when some group or person is raising a legitimate church/state separation issue, and when they are simply using the issue as a smokescreen in order to push their own dogma onto the rest of us. 

Christians who want to mandate the Ten Commandments' display in public buildings do not believe in them. 

Christians who want "In God We Trust" inscribed on city council walls, don't trust in Him.

Christians who want their church's restrictions on conduct written into the laws of the land do not believe they can persuade on the merits of their case.

Christians who feel they are engaged in a lost cause in spreading their faith, don't believe their pious mutterings about God answering prayer.It's not faith vs. doubt.  It's knowledge vs. doubt.  The activist Christian base has only doubt.

You actually make a pretty good point with these lines.  Christians do need to remember that God is ultimately in charge and that what happens to this country is ultimately in God's hands.  Sometimes, however, God chooses to work through moderate conservative Christians blessed with the gift of discernment, to prevent secular humanist bullies from forcing their agenda on the rest of us.  

"The more zealous secular humanists are allowed to impose their dogma on the public, the farther away we all move from a culture of life.  Abortions are increasingly becoming later and later in their terms, thanks to the dogma of zealous secular humanists who cry "It's my body!""

That's a start, Doc...  But upon further analysis, that is not any particular fault of secular humanism.

Abortion is a unique issue that is defined more by the concept of philosophical personhood than religion vis a vis secular humanism.

Most secular humanists, I think, will make room for restrictions on abortion at and after the point in gestation when philosophical personhood begins.  I think agreement can easily be found that this point is when the unborn baby has developed a rudimentary consciousness, awareness of suffering, aversion to suffering, and -- even if extremely slight -- a conceptual relationship between past experience and thoughts of the future.  That point, whenever it exactly is, surely arrives when the baby is still in the womb.

Of course, I'll see your one example and raise you several instances -- that go without repeating -- where religious dogmatism has been used to devalue and wrongfully extinguish human life.  I'd still like to see someone top 1 Samuel 15.

So, at it stands, the race between secular humanism and Christianity is still nose-to-nose.

dusty, why must you come across as so demanding?  You don't seem interested in any type of bias except that bias that comes from extreme right-wingers.  Pointing you to links or providing you with specific examples would not doing anything to remove those blinders. 

You would go into whatever "citation" I offer with those blinders on and would not see the problems.  If anyone but right-wingers are involved, in your world, they can do no harm.  You seem more concerned about right-wingers than terrorists.   I too, share your concern about right-wingers, but believe that all of your finger-pointing is selective because you only see the wrongdoing that comes from the right. 

Hardliner, you're making an effort to be fair and balanced, I will give you that.  You're making an effort to see both sides.  It's not a huge effort, but it is detectable to the naked eye. 

So without God's determination (or at least guidance), we can't figure out if there's been a violation of the church and state separation BLT?

If you don't believe in God, you will not want to give God credit for the ability of certain human beings to excercise discernment.  To me, discernment is a Godly characteristic that comes from being created in the image of God. 

"Hardliner, you're making an effort to be fair and balanced, I will give you that.  You're making an effort to see both sides.  It's not a huge effort, but it is detectable to the naked eye.  "

Where am I falling short, Doc?  I'll add that to my still substantially unanswered question in the body of my blog post.

>  What are "our institutions?"

> What is "our way of life?"

> How, specifically, does secular humanism threaten either?

> If it indeed threatens either, what about secular humanism makes it worse -- so much worse -- than what it is allegedly trying to supplant?

You are the one who most recently made the claim that I took on in my blog post.  Vague references to "our dogma" -- and vague references to the need to be "protected" from it won't suffice.

I want to know just what this danger is.

Edit:  Here is something that you will find nowhere in the mainstream media: humanists speaking for themselves.

http://www.njhn.org/etff.ht...

Sometimes, however, God chooses to work through moderate conservative Christians blessed with the gift of discernment, to prevent secular humanist bullies from forcing their agenda on the rest of us.  

And sometimes He tells young women to drown their children in a bathtub, lest they go to Hell.  Guess it's all in that "gift of discernment."

.

Once again, bias.  What you call "secularist bullies" I call "people standing up for *THEIR* rights, too." 

Hardliner, it would seem that the "humanist agenda" and the "gay agenda" are very closely related:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-b...

And sometimes He tells young women to drown their children in a bathtub, lest they go to Hell.  Guess it's all in that "gift of discernment."

That's where the gift of discernment comes in.  It allows us to separate the crazy voices from the legitimate ones, like the voice of reason and common sense. 

Okay, dusty, I didn't mean anything personal by my statement that all you see are the wrongdoings by those on the right, and that you don't seem to care about global terrorism.  If this is false, I apologize, but can you really blame me? 

Look at all of the threads you've posted that point fingers at right-wingers?  You only cry "Wolf!" when the wolf's face looks like the face of a conservative.  Show me an example of where I am wrong?

How many threads have you posted that address the biggest danger faced by Americans today----that of global terrorism?  How many fingers have you pointed at the corruption on your side of the political isle? 

If you want to look for how secular humanists are pushing their views on the rest of us, look no further than public schools and college and university campuses:

http://washingtontimes.com/...

BLT, how likely is it that you'll be affected by terrorism?  Much less than that you'll be hit by lightning.  I don't call that "the biggest danger faced by Americans today." 

.

The Washington Times, it has been tirelessly pointed out, is owned by the Moonies and pushes their agenda.  Of *COURSE* liberals dominate the ranks of college professors.  They're *SMART*.

Of *COURSE* they feel that homosexuals should have equal rights.  They're *SMART*.

The article failes to show anyone "pushing their views on the rest of us."

From the article, Doc:

He said it's time they engage in real "diversity" and hire faculty members who reflect the values and "conservatism of Americans at large."

I didn't know conservatives believed in affirmative action.  Now they want us to make a conscious effort to artificially balance academia?  :-)

Are you suggesting that if we had our way, people who are conservative and religious will suffer discrimination and second-class treatment by the government and by employers?

If anyone actually wants to see that, I'll be the first to rush to your aid.

But anyone who wants to see that aren't being true to secular humanist philosophy, any more than Inquisitioners were being true to Christian belief.

Random -- what I think Doc had in mind by posting that article is an argument being made that conservative and religious university staff and faculty are being treated unfairly in the workplace.

If that is the case, it is wrong.  It is also contrary to secular humanism.