Taking back the Supreme Court from secular extremism

[Pendragon_6]

By Michael J. Gaynor
Sep 6, 2005

Taking back the United States Supreme Court from secular extremism is near! Secular extremists realize it. And they are furiously preparing to do their worst (which is considerable) to resist a return to the religious devotion of the people who founded America and drafted and ratified its Constitution.

The decision banning Ten Commandments displays in courthouses was 5 to 4. And Justice O'Connor was one of the 5.

President Bush will appoint justices who believe in following the Constitution instead of amending it in the guise of interpreting it.

The secular extremists, frustrated by the failure of their last two presidential candidates to win and President Bush now being constitutionally entitled to nominate two United States Supreme Court Justices, plan to ignore the Constitution's ban on religious tests in a fierce, but hopefully futile, attempt to block the confirmation of Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States and then any other nominee ready, willing and able to fulfill the constitutional other to support the Constitution instead of the legal doctrine of stare decisis, which the secular extremists now rely on to preserve their judicial coup of foisting a so-called neutrality between religion and irreligion on government.

In Full
Mich News (http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_9370.shtml)

[Little Bit Farm]

What i think Bush ought to do is find the strictest constitutionalist he can find, and pick that person for O'Connors position. This will make the Libs squirm, and they'll be so busy fighting the evil conserative judge, they'll let Roberts slip in unnoticed. He also just might manage to sneak the Conservative in too, after the libs all but swallow swords to stop him, and if he doesn't then he can always go with a different plan later.



Little Bit farm

[maxparrish]

Let me restate why I REALLY REALLY REALLY like Janice Rogers Brown:

From my other post(s)

Janice Rogers Brown

Age: 56.
Experience: Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California, Court of Appeals.
Philosophy: Conservativism/constructionism.

A fantastic choice. "Brown is a self-described conservative who as a young single mother once called herself so leftist as to be almost Maoist... as a judge, she has written sharp opinions that opposed affirmative action, that supported a state law requiring girls younger than 18 to notify their parents before getting an abortion, and that advocated using stun guns in a courtroom to control an unruly defendant. She has strongly supported property rights and describes herself as someone who looks to the intent of the framers of the Constitution when making decisions. Some have criticized her for writing dissents and opinions that personally attack other justices...

Brown has attracted as much attention for her speeches as for her legal decisions.

In recent years, she has described New Deal legal precedents as "the triumph of our socialist revolution," and two months ago, she told a Connecticut group of Catholic legal professionals that "there seems to have been no time since the Civil War that this country was so bitterly divided." She also said that "these are perilous times for people of faith" and that there's a social cost to pay "if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud."

I would dream the dreams of saints if Bush nominated her. But I don't think he's got the will to reach out that far...look for a stealth II of moderate temperment.

[ExcessiveEntropy]

By Michael J. Gaynor
Sep 6, 2005

Taking back the United States Supreme Court from secular extremism is near! Secular extremists realize it. And they are furiously preparing to do their worst (which is considerable) to resist a return to the religious devotion of the people who founded America and drafted and ratified its Constitution.


Your post is all good and well, except for the fact that the founding fathers weren't very religious (though many believed in a God, just not the Christian one), and certainly were not christian.

[Republican_Legion]

Your post is all good and well, except for the fact that the founding fathers weren't very religious (though many believed in a God, just not the Christian one), and certainly were not christian.


thats a load of BS , you and the liberal democrats have used that "jefferson was atheist" crap to convince us to join ur BIGOT ATHEIST group .

[ExcessiveEntropy]

thats a load of BS , you and the liberal democrats have used that "jefferson was atheist" crap to convince us to join ur BIGOT ATHEIST group .

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -Adams

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." -Ben Franklin

"The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." -Lincoln

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." -Jefferson

[Republican_Legion]

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=11780&highlight=signs+liberal

[ExcessiveEntropy]

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=11780&highlight=signs+liberal

The fact that you couldn't refute those quotes only proves me right, and you wrong. Try to attack my argument instead of me from now on.

[Republican_Legion]

The fact that you couldn't refute those quotes only proves me right, and you wrong. Try to attack my argument instead of me from now on.

your quotes are BS and read right out of IIDB so why dont you go back to IIDB where you belong troll ! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Troll_01.jpg

[ExcessiveEntropy]

your quotes are BS and read right out of IIDB so why dont you go back to IIDB where you belong troll ! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Troll_01.jpg

The quotes are perfectly authentic, and I have never heard of IIDB in my life. Now that you mention it, I might as well google it. Must be a decent site if you hate it so much.

I got most of the quotes from here: http://www.zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/FoundingFathers/

Though I have seen them on multiple sites.

[Pendragon_6]

Your anti-Christian, anti-God, hatred is all too visible, troll. You've come to disrupt, scold, lecture, and enumerate our (according to you)failings.

Best crawl back to your hell-hole and get used to it, eternity is a long time to ponder what an ass you've been.

[JohnSteel]

Your post is all good and well, except for the fact that the founding fathers weren't very religious (though many believed in a God, just not the Christian one), and certainly were not christian.
Some of the Founding Fathers weren't very religious. Others were. Also Lincoln wasn't a Founding Father.

IIDB is the form that can be found at http://www.infidels.org/

[ExcessiveEntropy]

Your anti-Christian, anti-God, hatred is all too visible, troll. You've come to disrupt, scold, lecture, and enumerate our (according to you)failings.

Best crawl back to your hell-hole and get used to it, eternity is a long time to ponder what an ass you've been.

Anti-Christian? Please quote the post where I said I hated, or was against Christianity. I was not trolling, just pointing out a factual error in the OP. By the way, thanks for your fire-and-brimstone ad hom, it gave me a good laugh.
You claim I have hatred, yet you condemn me to hell... Ironic to say the least.


Some of the Founding Fathers weren't very religious. Others were. Also Lincoln wasn't a Founding Father.

IIDB is the form that can be found at http://www.infidels.org/

Indeed. Although Lincoln wasn't a founding father, he is another influential president that many claim to be Christian. Thanks for the link.

[Warlady]

Pendragon would you please read this and interpret it? It doesn't make any sense.

The secular extremists, frustrated by the failure of their last two presidential candidates to win and President Bush now being constitutionally entitled to nominate two United States Supreme Court Justices, plan to ignore the Constitution's ban on religious tests in a fierce, but hopefully futile, attempt to block the confirmation of Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States and then any other nominee ready, willing and able to fulfill the constitutional other to support the Constitution instead of the legal doctrine of stare decisis, which the secular extremists now rely on to preserve their judicial coup of foisting a so-called neutrality between religion and irreligion on government.


Jefferson wrote that letter but he later changed his mind.

"The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. " -- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson just did not want a theocracy form of government. Neither do I. We've seen what happens to governments with that form of government but he did believe in freedom of religion. He just didn't want what happened to England to happen to America where the church ruled over the people. But American government and our Constitution and laws was most definitely formed based on Christian principles.

[Pendragon_6]

Quote:
The secular extremists, frustrated by the failure of their last two presidential candidates to win and President Bush now being constitutionally entitled to nominate two United States Supreme Court Justices, plan to ignore the Constitution's ban on religious tests in a fierce, but hopefully futile, attempt to block the confirmation of Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States and then any other nominee ready, willing and able to fulfill the constitutional [other-misspelling] ORDER to support the Constitution instead of the legal doctrine of stare decisis, which the secular extremists now rely on to preserve their judicial coup of foisting a so-called neutrality between religion and irreligion on government.__WarLady

M'Lady:

I think it means that the dems will do anything to block the Presidents nominee's. Also found a misspell [underlined] that changes the meaning of this verse. Have no idea what " stare decisus" means. Anyone good in Latin?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers wrote the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to protect religion from government interference as well as to prevent the government from establishing a national church. Many of our early settlers, including my ancestors who came here in the 17th Century (as early as 1634), came here because they wanted to practice the religion of their choice and did not want to be forced into the Church of England. That was the background for the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

[Federal Farmer]

The Founding Fathers were a mix of beliefs and faiths. John Witherspoon was what most here would call a true Christian; he signed the Declaration of Independence, was a member of the Continental Congress, and was president of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton), called at that time "a seedbed of the revolutionary spirit," where he taught many of the Republic's future leaders including James Madison.

Stare decisis-the doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice.

[ExcessiveEntropy]

Pendragon would you please read this and interpret it? It doesn't make any sense.



Jefferson wrote that letter but he later changed his mind.

"The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. " -- Thomas Jefferson


Jefferson was more a deist then anything. The god he referred to was not a Christian one.

[Pendragon_6]

Stare decisis-the doctine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice.__Federal Farmer

FF:
Thanks for that info.

[TempestTossed]

"Secular extremism" is a silly phrase. I get the image of foaming-at-the-mouth terrorist who suicide bombs a Ten Commandments monument in a court house for the cause of religious neutrality in the government.

[Maggie_T]

"Secular extremism" is a silly phrase.

But I'm sure you believe in the existence of "Religious right extremists." That is not at all a silly phrase, righ TT?

[Eagle1]

to the original post: right, the libs are terrified of someone telling them that something might be wrong, now we wouldnt want anyone to have any guilt now would we.

to the diversionary topic: many founding fathers were ministers. many were orthodox. many were freemasons. to suggest that they were athiests is ignoring the facts. this has been a christian country since its inception, and that is the only reason we countinue to be strong and stay ahead of europe.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

ExcessiveEntropy:

"The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." -Lincoln

:unsmile: Born in 1809, Abraham Lincoln is not one of the founding fathers, nor did he ever serve on the Supreme Court.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

TempestTossed:
"Secular extremism" is a silly phrase.

:grin: Redundant, too.

[queue]

From a partial transcript (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit(tj090207))) of a letter (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj1&fileName=mtj1page028.db&recNum=190&itemLink=/ammem/mtjhtml/mtjser1.html&linkText=7) from Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush of April 21, 1803.
Dear Sir,--In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798--99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.

[TempestTossed]

But I'm sure you believe in the existence of "Religious right extremists." That is not at all a silly phrase, righ TT?Absolutely. Secularism by its definition and nature is either inclusive of all belief systems or exclusive of all of them. It is hard to imagine secular terrorists or secular revolutionaries. There can be militant atheists and militant Christians, but militant secularists just seem absurd.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Unfortunately, to the Left, secularism, along with its twin, atheism, has become the religion of choice that leftists are attempting to impose on the American people through the courts, especially the Supreme Court. That's one of the main reasons why it's necessary for those of us who believe in the Constitution to take back the Supreme Court.

[TempestTossed]

Unfortunately, to the Left, secularism, along with its twin, atheism, has become the religion of choice that leftists are attempting to impose on the American people through the courts, especially the Supreme Court. That's one of the main reasons why it's necessary for those of us who believe in the Constitution to take back the Supreme Court.If this country were a majority-atheist country who believes that this nation was founded on atheist principles, minority Chrisitans would be closely partnered with secularism. Christians would strongly object to "one nation under no gods" in the pledge of allegiance. They would object to the slogan "trust no religion" on the the currency. They would fight a harder fight that atheists are fighting today in the name of secularism. Christians would want the government to be secular, just as the constitution is secular. If you read the constitution, you will notice that there are no mentions of God, gods, Almighty, Creator, Lord, Jesus, or anything like that, either in the affirmative or the negative sense. There are two allusions to religion, and both of them are restrictive. Don't fool yourself into thinking that secularism is a religion. There are no holy books of secularism, no authority figures of secularism, no moral systems of secularism, no cults of secularism, no churches, prayers, priests, rituals, or tythes of secularism.

[queue]

From the Constitution of the Unites States of America (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html): Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, Which is the fancy way of saying A.D. or Anno Domini (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Anno_Domini), but it is in the Constitution.

[ExcessiveEntropy]

From the Constitution of the Unites States of America (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html): Which is the fancy way of saying A.D. or Anno Domini (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Anno_Domini), but it is in the Constitution.

It was a common phrase that was used and still is used. How does the translation of this into English show the endorsement of religion?

[queue]

I did not say that it did. I was showing the the word "Lord" does appear in the Constitution.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:moo: Which is more than we can say for "separation of church & state".

[TempestTossed]

I'll be darned.

[aaron11]

*snickers

[Bluemoon_Rising]

If this country were a majority-atheist country who believes that this nation was founded on atheist principles, minority Chrisitans would be closely partnered with secularism. Christians would strongly object to "one nation under no gods" in the pledge of allegiance. They would object to the slogan "trust no religion" on the the currency. They would fight a harder fight that atheists are fighting today in the name of secularism. Christians would want the government to be secular, just as the constitution is secular. If you read the constitution, you will notice that there are no mentions of God, gods, Almighty, Creator, Lord, Jesus, or anything like that, either in the affirmative or the negative sense. There are two allusions to religion, and both of them are restrictive. Don't fool yourself into thinking that secularism is a religion. There are no holy books of secularism, no authority figures of secularism, no moral systems of secularism, no cults of secularism, no churches, prayers, priests, rituals, or tythes of secularism.

You know, Tempest, in those instances where you have been misunderstood or have perhaps unfairly received more than your fair share of hostility, I've sometimes defended you. But you really can be a damn fool at times.

Seeing as how you recognize no divinity to which you may turn and give thanks, you need to find a way to bend over backwards and kiss your ass, thank the stars, praise ants, lay with unicorns, grovel in the dirt a bit or perhaps bray at the moon in thanks to the historical circumstance that most of the Founders were Christians, that most of the population of England and America during the critical decades leading up to and following the founding of this nation were Christians. Perhaps you can thank your belly button that Judeo-Christianity informed Anglo-American classical liberalism. For you may be certain that the SECULAR EXTREMISTS and the RABID EGALITARIANS of the Continental European Enlightenment never achieved anything close to what the Brits and Americans did politically. And atheists have never conceived of or built any political system that did not begin with the letter "t" for "totalitarianism."

Our government, like the Constitution, is a secular instrument. It has always been a secular instrument. In the common sense, there is nothing inherently religious about the socio-political proposition that God -- not the state -- is the Source and Guarantor of human rights and dignities! What the hell is wrong with you? The Constitution -- the Constitution! -- can be rendered to mean anything at all separated from that THEO-POLITICAL principle.

There is absolutely NOTHING unconstitutional about the government being made to acknowledge and abide by the dictates of that THEO-POLITICAL principle.

There is nothing inherently unconstitutional about the Pledge of Allegiance; there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about the affirmations of God's moral and political authority over the state on our currency. There is nothing unconstitutional about the Declaration of Independence or about the fact that until recent decades, beginning for the most part with the RABID, SECULAR EXTREMISM of the Warren Court, justices historically interpreted the Constitution in terms of the principles outlined in that founding doctrine. Hello!

Why do you bother wasting our time with your nonsense about being a libertarian when you incessantly conjoin yourself with those who, as a result of their conscious, premeditated efforts to divorce the Constitution from that doctrine, have systematically brought on more and more collectivism; rabid egalitarianism; government-empowering, so-called civil rights protections against fundamental liberties?

No such thing as secular extremism?! What the?!

How about the abject failures of the rabidly secular political experiments of Continental Europe -- from the comrade-kiss-the-state's-ass French Revolutionary Republic to the communism of the Soviet Union? State worship! Communist North Korea -- state worship! The socialist democracies of Europe and Canada -- state worship! The communist Republic of China -- state worship!

There are no holy books of secularism, no authority figures of secularism, no moral systems of secularism, no cults of secularism, no churches, prayers, priests, rituals, or tythes of secularism.

LOL! No holy books, eh? Let's see: The Communist Manifesto, Das Capital, Mein Kamph, The Humanist Manifesto, The Origins of the Species, Beyond Good and Evil, Moses and Monotheism. . . . No figures of secularism, eh? Let's see: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jong-Il. All of these are or have been worshiped like gods. No cults of secularism, eh? State cults have abounded throughout history! LOL! No “churches, prayers, priests, rituals, or tithes of secularism”, eh? How about schools and welfare programs and official unions and government doles and bureaucrats of every description and salutes and obedience-or-else? How about taxes, taxes, taxes . . . and don’t forget, more taxes.

Christians would want the government to be secular, just as the constitution is secular.

What the?! Just how is it that Christians want the government to be anything but a secular instrument?

How does the insistence that the government abide by the dictates of natural law and the laws of nature’s God -- the fundamentals of classical Anglo-American liberalism -- violate anyone’s rights, let alone the terms of the Constitution?

Just how in the hell do you figure a government can be religiously neutral when it is infested with collectivist/socialist institutions in terms of their very existence and/or in terms of their administration?

How the hell do you figure that secularism and secular are synonymous terms?

How in the hell can YOUR concept of separation between church and state -- the statist, socialist, collectivist, Continental European’s concept, by the way -- be religiously neutral?

Indeed, just how the hell does any institution whatsoever exist in an ideological vacuum? That’s a neat trick. I’ve never seen that one. It seems to only exist in the minds of big fat logical fallacies with legs.

Like CPrince, you’re no libertarian. You’re a list of issues that are allegedly libertarian. You’re a collection of slogans and policy positions informed by no particular principle or system of logic whatsoever. You’re all guesswork, sentimental emotionalism and make believe; actual outcomes utterly allude you. You’d have yourself and everyone else in chains if given the chance, and you’d wonder just how the hell it happened. “But I thought . . .” “What happened?” LOL!

I keep waiting for one of you libertarian wannabes to engage a real libertarian in the classical sense -- namely, me -- in a real discussion of terms and actual practices and outcomes. . . .

You've never once gotten beyond the ABCs on this board.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Why do you bother wasting our time with your nonsense about being a libertarian when you incessantly conjoin yourself with those who, as a result of their conscious, premeditated efforts to divorce the Constitution from that doctrine, have systematically brought on more and more collectivism; rabid egalitarianism; government-empowering, so-called civil rights protections against fundamental liberties?

No such thing as secular extremism?! What the?!

How about the abject failures of the rabidly secular political experiments of Continental Europe -- from the comrade-kiss-the-state's-ass French Revolutionary Republic to the communism of the Soviet Union? State worship! Communist North Korea -- state worship! The socialist democracies of Europe and Canada -- state worship! The communist Republic of China -- state worship!

LOL! No holy books, eh? Let's see: The Communist Manifesto, Das Capital, Mein Kamph, The Humanist Manifesto, The Origins of the Species, Beyond Good and Evil, Moses and Monotheism. . . . No figures of secularism, eh? Let's see: Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jong-Il. All of these are or have been worshiped like gods. No cults of secularism, eh? State cults have abounded throughout history! LOL! No “churches, prayers, priests, rituals, or tithes of secularism”, eh? How about schools and welfare programs and official unions and government doles and bureaucrats of every description and salutes and obedience-or-else? How about taxes, taxes, taxes . . . and don’t forget, more taxes.



Brilliant stuff.


What the?! Just how is it that Christians want the government to be anything but a secular instrument?

How does the insistence that the government abide by the dictates of natural law and the laws of nature’s God -- the fundamentals of classical Anglo-American liberalism -- violate anyone’s rights, let alone the terms of the Constitution?


And again, outstanding.



I keep waiting for one of you libertarian wannabes to engage a real libertarian in the classical sense -- namely, me -- in a real discussion of terms and actual practices and outcomes. . . .

You've never once gotten beyond the ABCs on this board.

He never had anything to contribute. Most of it was parroted from other sites where freakshows congregate and what did originiate from him was like the packing material you would use to send your shit 7 day ground on UPS.

But, now you know and you have no further excuse.

[TempestTossed]

Bluemoon, I apologize for the delay.

I believe that you are a bit too hasty to judge. We do not have the same definitions for "secularism." I do not equate atheism with secularism, and the "communist" totalitarian regimes do not count as secularist in my book.

Let's get our terms matching up. I'll use the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism):
Definition

Secularism means:



in philosophy, the belief that life can be best lived by applying ethics, and the universe best understood, by processes of reasoning, without reference to a god or gods or other supernatural concepts. Secularism in this sense was coined by George Jacob Holyoake and is one of the precursors of modern secular humanism.
in society, any of a range of situations where a society less automatically assumes religious beliefs to be either widely shared or a basis for conflict in various forms, than in recent generations of the same society. In this sense secularism is linked to the sociological concept of secularization and may be upheld as an academic thesis, rather than advocated as a desirable state of affairs.
in government, a policy of avoiding entanglement between government and religion (ranging from reducing ties to a state church to promoting secularism in society), of non-discrimination among religions (providing they don't deny primacy of civil laws), and of guaranteeing human rights of all citizens, regardless of the creed (and, if conflicting with certain religious rules, by imposing priority of the universal human rights).
Secularism can also mean the practice of working to promote any of those three forms of secularism. It should not be assumed that an advocate of secularism in one sense will also be a secularist in any other sense. It is also important to remember that secularism does not necessarily equate to atheism; indeed, many secularists have counted themselves among the religious.

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jong-Il and all those jokers don't count as secularists in my book. Their governments took a strong stance on religion--the prohibition of it. In those systems, there was no separation of church and state.

Suppose you disagree with this definition of secularism, that is OK. Let us not argue over semantics. But when I use the word "secular" or "secularism," and I say that there are no secular extremists, you will know what I mean.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Bluemoon, I apologize for the delay.

I believe that you are a bit too hasty to judge. We do not have the same definitions for "secularism." I do not equate atheism with secularism, and the "communist" totalitarian regimes do not count as secularist in my book.

Recently, I've consciously used a bit of drama to quickly draw folks out; that's all. My primary interest here goes to the appalling ignorance of a number of so-called libertarians on this board who inexplicably support the creation of a whole new regime of civil rights protections on the basis of sexual behavior -- legislated morality -- and mistake the political goals of the Constitutionalist Party and the conservative-libertarian base of the Republican Party, for example, with theocracy. The former goes to an inexcusable lack of intellectual depth and imagination regarding actual outcomes against the distinctions between official and unofficial sanctions, between governmental action and inaction, between civil rights protections and fundamental liberties. Advancing civil rights protections beyond those recommended by nature -- beyond those immediately tied to necessary political action -- is anathema to classical liberalism and most especially so to libertarianism! The latter error goes to an extreme secularism that applies a concept of separation of church and state that would make government's collective institutions, especially its public education system, the state's church!

It is these sorts of secular extremism against the expression of fundamental liberties about which the author, others and I are talking.

I don't equate atheism and secularism either. And the Christians that some thoughtlessly make out to be theocrats, the kind of folks who built this decidedly non-theocratic nation, do not advocate that the government be anything other than a secular instrument. When has American ever been a theocracy? Answer: never. What sort of persons advanced the socio-political philosophy of classical Anglo-American liberalism? Answer: Christians and those Deists who applied the socio-political implications of Judeo-Christianity's basic theological propositions and moral-ethical principles to natural law.

(The typical claims of leftists -- who in fact do not espouse the Anglo-American view of separation between church and state, by the way, but that of the Continental European tradition -- that the Founding Fathers were Deists, as if that’s supposed to be of some decisive historical significance, are tiresome. They only expose their ignorance, the fact that they are brainwashed ninnies with no first-hand historical scholarship of their own -- seeing as how (1) most of the Founders were Christians and (2) The Anglo-American view of separation between church and state has nothing to do with the mystical aspects of Judeo-Christianity, but with the practical, socio-political applications of its moral and theological worldview. On that point, the only thing that matters is that the overwhelming majority of those who embraced the Anglo-American tradition of liberalism -- Christians and Deists alike -- were united! 18th-Century Anglo-American Deism is Judeo-Christianity without the mysticism. It’s Judeo-Christianity’s political ramifications that matter here, not its spiritual claims!)

On the other hand, historically, the sort of secular, political extremism described in the above and atheism do tend to go hand and hand, don‘t they? Either God is the Source and Guarantor of fundamental human rights and liberties or the State is. Atheists who truly care about liberty, who have at the very minimum two brain cells left to rub together, should have no problem going along with that basic premise, as the former in practical terms merely means that human rights and liberties cannot be amended or altered or suspended by the state, while the latter means that they can be redefined or abolished at whim, as they routinely are in socialist and communist nations. There is no in-between, no room for compromise here. I have little patience for knuckleheads who cannot comprehend that Judeo-Christianity is the only religion in history from which one may extrapolate certain socio-political principles and safely apply them to government without creating a theocratic state, safely apply them and provide for the individual liberty of all -- whether one be a believer or not!

Your fundamental rights are not trampled, Tempest, by the acknowledgement of this basic theo-political proposition in the Pledge or on our currency. They are not trampled by the presence of Ten-Commandment monuments on public turf, which merely proclaim God’s ascendancy over nature and the state, enumerate the fundamentals of respectable human conduct and rightfully acknowledge the historical tenets from which this nation’s socio-political values were derived.

Federal judges who order the removal of such monuments or displays from public grounds and buildings are tyrants. Such actions constitute direct violations of the intent of the First Amendment, which emphatically prohibits Congress -- the federal government -- the power to “make any law” that prohibits the religious expression of the several states and the people thereof. Further, the Constitution does not provide the federal courts the power to meddle in affairs that legitimately reside within the jurisdiction of legislative bodies at the federal and state levels. The key word here is legitimately. Naturally, legislative actions which directly violate fundamental liberties or go beyond the constitutional boundaries of legislative power are subject to judicial review.

Declaring the presence of certain types of monuments and displays unconstitutional -- especially when they are inarguably consistent with this nation’s political traditions and historical heritage -- simply because some are offended -- typically the very same bastards who would impose a collectivist despotism if only -- is petty-ass, micro-management bullshit! Such actions are obviously directed at the systematic erasure of pertinent historical and political ideals and values from the American landscape and the American consciousness by Johnny-come-lately, socialist swine. It’s not about promoting or preserving anyone’s rights!

Why any libertarian worth his weight in coin, whether he be an atheist or not, would conjoin himself with such heavy-handed, Orwellian actions on the part of the federal government in affairs that are so obviously a matter of local tastes and customs -- for crying out loud! -- is beyond insanity!

That which makes the American Republic unique in the world, makes it hands-down the freest nation in the world, goes to the influence of Judeo-Christianity’s moral and theological ethos on its socio-political institutions -- both public and private. The degree to which this influence prevails in nations is the degree to which freedom prevails in nations. The nations of the Western World -- the historical center of Christendom -- are inarguably the freest on the face of the earth, and America is the freest of them all because she is also the most religiously Christian of them all. The much more secularized nations of Europe and Canada have squandered much of their religious inheritance on the state, and it is America’s historical religiosity that silly ass liberals and more and more libertarians are calling theocracy.

I have no problem with your academic definitions of secularism proper. When I talk about secular extremism, I'm talking about secular humanism, a political doctrine, akin to religious fanaticism, which emphasizes collective rights over individual liberty, socialism over laissez-faire, state-imposed morality over religious liberty: in short, the collective will over individual decision and action.

in government, a policy of avoiding entanglement between government and religion (ranging from reducing ties to a state church to promoting secularism in society), of non-discrimination among religions (providing they don't deny primacy of civil laws), and of guaranteeing human rights of all citizens, regardless of the creed (and, if conflicting with certain religious rules, by imposing priority of the universal human rights).

Relative to what I've said then, the highlighted portion of the definition becomes a matter of degree, don't you think? Carried to an extreme, political secularism is tyranny.

Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Jong-Il and all those jokers don't count as secularists in my book. Their governments took a strong stance on religion--the prohibition of it. In those systems, there was no separation of church and state.

Indeed. And the socialist democracies of Europe and Canada do not separate church and state either. Their public institutions actively promote the secular humanism of pagans and atheists, as they limit/sanction the religious expressions of Judeo-Christianity in the public sector. In short, they do not go so far as to outlaw the practices of Judeo-Christianity as much as they simply do not afford it the same respect and pretend that the gibberish of paganism and atheism are not religious in nature. So go the “theocracies” of collectivist systems of government. The religious liberty of Christians is solely confined to the private sector in the nations of Europe . . . but that does not prevent their governments from alleviating them of a certain portion of their income to pay for the privilege of having little or no say over what the government does in the public sector. Christians who actually practice their faith are second-class citizens in Europe. Typically, the Christians who most adamantly refuse to be reduced to the same status here in America are the ones whom leftists accuse of being theocrats. The thugs -- the true “theocrats” -- who would gladly take my tax dollars to spend on their condoms and on the promotion of their worldview in the public schools, for example, as they simultaneously oppose educational choice, should best understand what I’m about as I strive to ram their values right back down their throats, along with a healthy dose of my own values, of course. It’s only fair. After all, a little reaping of what one sows against the obvious demands of reality, against the obvious demands of a genuine separation between church and state, and against the requirements of the First Amendment for all, is called for.

Further, and I beg to differ, communist states do not prohibit religion; they simply prohibit the practice of those religions that do not line up with the tenants of their dogma.

That's called moving beyond the ABCs of conventional terms and definitions, beyond academics, beyond the jingoisms of petty tyrants, and getting back to the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition and its view of natural law and the separation of church and state.

Secular systems of thought have never separated church and state, only the socio-political ramifications of Judeo-Christianity have ever demanded that. Indeed, secularists tend to always talk about separation in terms of protecting the state from the church. LOL! Hello! It’s the church and the right of the people to freely express and practice their religious values in the private and in the public sectors that need to be protected from the state.

Suppose you disagree with this definition of secularism, that is OK. Let us not argue over semantics. But when I use the word "secular" or "secularism," and I say that there are no secular extremists, you will know what I mean.

And now perhaps you'll know what I mean.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

:grin: Redundant, too.

:thumb:

[Federal Farmer]

For that post, Bluemoon, you just won my vote as Poster of the Month. Excellent!

[Pendragon_6]

Blue:

You should write a book! Bravo!

[aaron11]

Bravo BlueMoon!

[Wyatt_Junker]

Whether we're talking about 'In God We Trust' on our money, a granite stone 10 Commandment monument in a Federal court, the swearing in under oath or 'under God' in the pledge....

...all these things are mostly holdover cultural attaché. Artifacts from a museum, the American museum, if you will. Not only are there no liturgies inside courtrooms, neither do atheist banktellers cry everytime they handle IGWT money as some kind of hideous violation of their 'rights'. And to pretend that it is a violation is simple MSM-inspired vaudeville.

The plaintive whine of today's designer atheism is a product of the overall ethos of the baby boomer generation. A generation used to customization where everything is yuppie specific. A spoiled demographic that has now fooled itself into believing that customization is an inherent right in everything. And why shouldn't they? The world has revolved around them ever since they discovered that they could hold America hostage to collectivised guilt over the Vietnam War like a screaming child that doesn't want to eat its peas and whose parents finally gave in, a kind of social extortion. They have tasted the fruits of their stubborness and the world has capitulated again and again, first by declaring that the longhairs didn't have to serve and then by pulling out altogether giving them even more of a false sense of righteous indignation by granting them 'a victory'. The media has been in their camp ever since. The pledge is no different. They think that if they scream loud enough or long enough that, again, America will cave.

This is the society in which we live, full of trend driven whiskies, art-deco lino, synthetic prescription drugs tailor made right on down to a geriatric's troubling jalapeño popper fart that chafes his rectum. And this has also bled into our politics. A kind of dangerous me-ism that puts customization in front of everything else as a kind of premier virtue of virtues whether its gay marriage, smoking bans or using the courts to outlaw 'under God' in the pledge because... because yuppies don't like anchovies on their pizza. They want their pizza not only anchovey-free, but free of all pesticides, made with real organic wheat-free arrowroot meal, lathered with an authentic marinara sauce drizzled with cold pressed, imported Sicilian olive oil and garnished with sundried tomato, goat cheese and mini bell peppers from the Yucatan peninsula.

You see, in this country, the infant who screams loudest always wins. And the infant wants it his way, custom. Everything custom, specific, 'unique', imported(because we all know America is low class), one-of-a-kind, special etc. etc.

And this also applies to law. Laws must be designer laws. Laws must be imported in order to have any real relevance. Its like jurisprudence geeked up on high school peer pressure. American law, tradition and customs are undignified hillbilly schmaltz. The yuppie mover and shaker must inform us of his 'brilliance'. Culturally, we have not progressed beyond 1968 nor have we matured beyond Bob Dylan liner notes and wall-eyed Berkley chants.

According to this current power-wielding demographic, America has no history beyond what they (re)make of it. They want to 'customize' America. They want to make America 'cool' and 'sophisticated' like how all those school teachers talk about their trips to Europe during the summer when they ate at 'ristorantes' and sat on 'bidets' that shot a cool stream of water up their scholastic buttholes at 25 fps bruising their paraneums.

They want a new culture because Straw Hat Pizza and Mickey Dee's are beneath them. That's why Starbuck's is so popular. Its a little european vacation everytime you go in there. Poor lighting, earth tones, the sounds of urban jazz coagulates from the Bose speakers, and those faggoty boys known as baristas behind the bar... Its a gay pride parade too.

This is the generation of titillation, the narcissism of an endless parade of Pamela Anderson Lee Rock facsimiles coming to a head. Custom tits. Custom tattoos. Custom tantric sex from Tibet. And... custom law. It isn't about America, its about them.

[aaron11]

I have a custom 25-06 with a LPS 2.5-10x45mm Leupold scope that says they can kiss my angry white american hillbilly ass----

[Bluemoon_Rising]

The plaintive whine of today's designer atheism is a product of the overall ethos of the baby boomer generation. A generation used to customization where everything is yuppie specific. A spoiled demographic that has now fooled itself into believing that customization is an inherent right in everything. . . .

This is the society in which we live, full of trend driven whiskies, art-deco lino, synthetic prescription drugs tailor made right on down to a geriatric's troubling [/size]jalapeño popper fart that chafes his rectum. And this has also bled into our politics. A kind of dangerous me-ism that puts customization in front of everything else as a kind of premier virtue of virtues whether its gay marriage, smoking bans or using the courts to outlaw 'under God' in the pledge because... because yuppies don't like anchovies on their pizza. They want their pizza not only anchovey-free, but free of all pesticides, made with real organic wheat-free arrowroot meal, lathered with an authentic marinara sauce drizzled with cold pressed, imported Sicilian olive oil and garnished with sundried tomato, goat cheese and mini bell peppers from the Yucatan peninsula. . . .

And this also applies to law. Laws must be designer laws. Laws must be imported in order to have any real relevance. Its like jurisprudence geeked up on high school peer pressure. American law, tradition and customs are undignified hillbilly schmaltz. . . .

According to this current power-wielding demographic, America has no history beyond what they (re)make of it. They want to 'customize' America. They want to make America 'cool' and 'sophisticated' like how all those school teachers talk about their trips to Europe during the summer when they ate at 'ristorantes' and sat on 'bidets' that shot a cool stream of water up their scholastic buttholes at 25 fps bruising their paraneums.

They want a new culture because Straw Hat Pizza and Mickey Dee's are beneath them. . . .

. . . And... custom law. It isn't about America, its about them.

Romance, poetry, music, passion (especially passion!), truth, insight, imagination, a child’s sigh, the voice of God, triumph, discovery, risk, utter failure, another sunrise, your heart (your very soul!) stretched out, broken, speechless, quivering in stunned adulation before God [What's he talking?!], even the slightest moment (that infinitesimal speck) of clarity: it all has to go. For crying out loud! Somebody clean this shit up!

It's customized law, customized history, customized values . . . customized experiences. Even truth comes fully-cooked and packaged in assorted flavors. Got a dream? Sucker! Got a whim? Sold! [Will that be cash or plastic?]

[Apollo5600]

Secular extremism" is a silly phrase. I get the image of foaming-at-the-mouth terrorist who suicide bombs a Ten Commandments monument in a court house for the cause of religious neutrality in the government.
Seems pretty accurate, only the atheists haven't gotten to the point of exploding yet.. Ofcourse, I bet many have taken to drinking ever since Bush was re-elected.

[aaron11]

Don't mind TT, dude lives in a bubble. I have never seen some so intelligent so clueless and un-aware at the same time.

TT has customized truth and reason to fit his world veiw.