Views: 519

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I know what you mean.  When Santorum makes accusations about Obama basing his 'agenda' on 'phony theology', somebody really needs to step up to the microphone here and say that it's not the President's ROLE to use theology when making policy decisions affecting the entire country. I hope somebody asks Mr. S to explain the concept of Separation of Church and State so he can blunder all over the place and make himself look even more foolish.

Believer and non-believer, religiously affiliated, and religiously unaffiliated ...we're all American citizens here, Rick, whether you like it or not.  (Rick's got a wacky sense of Christian entitlement but doesn't seem to have the sense to cool down the moralistic rhetoric!)

Aren't you being a bit naive or overlooking something?  The Santorums of this world have worked hard in the past ten or so years to prove up their theory that the wall of separation is a "myth."  They claim that the founders were Christian (when, actually, some were Christian; others were Deists at most).  This allows them to claim that the Declaration's "endowed by their Creator" is a reference to the Christian god.  They also claim that Jefferson was misquoted when he spoke of the First Amendment as the embodiment of the wall of separation.  Dumbass Christers come along and argue that there is no mention of the wall of separation in the Constitution, which is akin to their claim that there is no right of privacy in the First Amendment (in ploys to overturn or at least legislate against, Roe v. Wade). Santorum doesn't need to "explain" the wall of separation: he argues against it.  The founders are rolling in their tombs.

I liked what Matt Dillahunty said about this.  The trinity doesn't appear in the Bible either, but people accept it.

They did after the Council of Nicea in 323 (I think it was).  First, they slaughtered all of the followers of Arius, who disagreed with the part about Jesus "made flesh."  The trinity is pure dogma, made up by the Church.

Now Santorum is 27 points ahead in Texas. The Real 'mericans have finally found their man. He may well win the nomination.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9094263/US-el... 

And I thought G. W. Bush was as bad as it could get.

It is said that the Obama people are welcoming a chance to go one on one with Santorum, as they feel he is much less electable than Mutt Rumney (or is that Rumney's mutt -- the one on the top of the car).  If Mutt Rumney is unelectable, I shudder to think what the electability of Santarium is.  Probably not much.  A backlash is brewing among Texas independents who know we shouldn't change presidents in the middle of a recovery and were fooled into voting again for Gov. Rick Perry when he refused to debate the Dem ex-mayor of Houston: now, we know why.

That saddened me.

News flash about Brother Santorum:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/santorum-says-obamas-faith-n... 

So it appears that Obama is OK in his milquetoast Christianity, but what's not OK is that he dares to make un-Christian pronouncements such as that our natural resources are limited and should be used with circumspection.  Also, says Brother Santorum, prenatal screening is suspect, because it encourages abortions.

Next we'll hear that learning mathematics is immoral and should be banned, because the bible claims that pi = 3.0, and them evil good-fer-nuthin' math geeks say otherwise.  So, federal funding for mathematics education should be terminated.

In India, attempts have been made to curtail the practice of prenatal screening (by, e.g. ultrasound) because women there do not want to have female babies.  This is not a religious decision, since, in a primarily polytheistic nation, women are honored as reflections of the Goddess (Kali, Parvati, et al.).  No, they abort female babies because women are considered worthless or nearly so, the male being the prized sex due to a variety of factors.  One problem is the dowry system.  When a family marries off a female child, they pay dearly.  But your point is mostly well taken.

My theory is that Obama is at best an agnostic.  I don't think anyone of his intelligence really believes all that myth and superstition.  But he has to bring up his girls, and even intelligent people think that going to church Sundays at least keeps the children from growing up to be serial killers; besides, he has to appeal to a wide variety of people to get elected.  So you go through the motions. It is phoney, yes, but necessary.

WOW! I googled "scotus religion" and saw a list of resources, including

www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

where I saw a list of church/state cases, short summaries of the issues decided, and places to look if I want to read the court's decisions. The Torcaso case was among them.

Google suggested searching on "scotus religion and morality".


RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service