<p>So, today is better than at anytime in US history from a theism versus secularism perspective? In other words, you would not argue that we have deviated from what the original founding fathers created and that we have been in a constant march toward secularism. So why the feeling that secularism is potentially losing the battle? Based on your assertion that there has never been a better time than today, you have a history of over 200 years of success against religion. And yet you still want more.</p>
<p>I know what is really bothering me…back to the question of Harriet miers. When it’s just prayer in school, it’s no problem. When it’s freedom for all religions…that’s great. With the current takeover of the government…it’s getting to be one religion that is all powerful AND now we have a Supreme court justice from that ONE special religion chosen to go for a seat on the bench, BECAUSE SHE IS A BELIEVER IN THAT RELIGION. …as stated by the President. Alarm bells are going off in my mind and it should be in everyone else’s mind. It all starts so small, a prayer here, an election won by religious money there…and the government is now “unofficially” a Christian conservative one. If you aren’t scared you should be. It was a quiet coup d’etat, but it’s almost over.</p>
<p>Sorry, but your fear is unfounded. As I said above, there has been a 200+ year assault on religion, with the secularists continully winning. The secularists have moved this country completely away from its founding philosophy and there are militants like yourself who are demanding more. Can you not understand the perspective of the losing side to say - enough is enough?</p>
<p>Laura, </p>
<p>as a non-Christian in america I do not feel oppressed, I haven’t spoken to any other people of my faith who have.</p>
<p>If you are basically conservative, but not Christian, you may be on the “winning” team. We’ll see in a few years what that means… Certainly you say “people of my faith” so you are religious. There are many of us who are not, so it’s true, but you live in NJ. You might have missed the post before, when someone who was Jewish was speaking about the anti semetic remarkes their child heard while going to school in Texas. You may never have felt it while living in the Blue states, but the government will start to reflect the mores and customs of the red states and you may well feel the bite… Coming soon to a state near you…no abortions, no morning after pill, no rights for treatment with stem cells, no rights for gays…legislated by a more and more religious government. I live ina blue state and I’m aok, but with a Meirs on the bench, I know I’ll start to feel it. Conservatives are big talkers about states rights, but only if you agree with them!!!<br>
Funding father, sometimes you do talk such twaddle. What 200 year battle? This country was founded so there would be freedom of religion and no official religion. When have we have been fighting for and against religion for 200 years? I do believe religions have been fighting each other for centuries all over the world!!! Crusades, Ireland etc…But I didn’t hear of any war in the US called the 200 year religious versus the Non-religious war! Don’t even try to tell me that most religious groups are pacifists…unless you’re speaking about the Quakers. Considering how much you believe in religion, you are unbelievable mean spirited on this site and not accepting of other’s views and opinions. Is it this wonderful acceptance of others that you want the government to emulate. I’m not looking to ban any religion in the US, I just don’t want it shoved down my throat nor instituted in MY government.</p>
<p>Laura50,</p>
<p>Did you have a similar outrage that John Roberts is Catholic? His wife is a member of Catholics for Life. Or is he okay because he attended certain schools, i.e. Harvard?</p>
<p>Harriet Miers is just one of nine votes. Further, there is a large sentiment within the population that the coup d’etat happened many years ago when the court legislated from the bench and taking the debate about certain topics, i.e. abortion, out of the hands of the people and legislature(s). That is why the abortion issue is much less contentious in Europe. For an interesting read on this see:</p>
<p>“Rights Talk” by Mary Ann Glendon, Professor Harvard Law School</p>
<p>I believe this is one of the reasons that these nominations are so contentious. The court is now viewed as a super legislature not a court interpreting the constitution.</p>
<p>Eagle, </p>
<p>There is a big difference between a devout catholic (Roberts, for example) and a conservative evangelical like Myers. And, I suspect, if you’d dump your rhetoric, you’d know it.</p>
<p>The reason some of us are fearful of conservative evangelicals is that they, more than most other religious groups in the US, take as an article of faith the obligation to actively promote their views, or as one definition says, “or a commitment to proselytize the unsaved”. Unsaved means ANYONE who has not empraced the evangelical vision, at least in some settings.</p>
<p>So yea, some of us are fearful of Harriet. What would she do, submerge a central tenant of her religious faith in order to meet the needs of the constitution? I doubt it.</p>
<p>I find some of the rhetoric here fascinating, especially those “enlightened” folks that make analogies to communist Russia and Maoist China - as if there’s no difference between a country that accepts ALL religions (OURS!) from those that accept NONE. </p>
<p>Please stop insulting our intelligence.</p>
<p>NMD,</p>
<p>You may not have noticed as you scooted through the posts, but a few posters here have expressed their complete disdain for religion as-such. This attitude does have historical precedent. Moreover, it would be my guess, based on the posts, that there are those here who would very much like to see the death of theismas unlikely as that is.</p>
<p>Theism is always complemented by secularism; one could say it supposes not only its existence but its benefits. Secularism needs no such compliment in the eyes and words of many atheists, including, it seems, some of those posting here.</p>
<p>Theists vary, but the vast majority if not all believe in secular government, they do, however, much as the founding fathers, see religion as a compliment to the virtues of civil government: some more so, some less so.</p>
<p>If you disagree with this complimentary premise from the secular point of view, one often thinks of oneself as highly progressivewhatever that may mean. </p>
<p>If you think that theists in America disagree with this complimentary arrangement, please point out the individual because I am unfamiliar with their views.</p>
<p>Moreover, the OP proclaims:
I assume the insult this represents to your intelligence still has you reeling: I found it quaint, leaving the dignity of my intelligence intact.</p>
<p>Answers…Thanks to Newmassdad on his explanation of the difference in the religions of Roberts and Miers…but wait…there’s more. Roberts replaced a known conservative AND Roberts, no matter what school he went to, had some sort of paper trail and strong credentials. Even though I’m worried about his early memos and his disrespect for woman and minorities and his really weird early views on things. Hopefully he’s a grown up now and will also ignore his wife’s views…she is not on the bench and her view on abortion SHOULD not matter when he deliberates.
Miers has no paper trail…but Dobson and Bush saying Believe in her. Also, she is replacing the swing vote and a woman’s vote, that is something that is so incredibly key to keeping things balanced for decades to come. We could afford to let Roberts go and hopefully see the light of justice for all, but not for this seat. Too darn important to just “trust”. I’m hoping that Bush wants his legacy to be a moderate judge, but the more he begs the right to “trust him”, the more worried I am!
Loved that quote as well from Newmassdad on seeing the difference between government mandating NO religion and freedom for all religions. I very often think that you conservatives think we’re idiots. To each his own search for the truth is what makes American comfortable for all! I wouldn’t want that changed! I just don’t want to be forced to be religious, just because I think it’s AOK for you to practice yours.</p>
<p>Laura50,</p>
<p>So a litmus test for each of the seats? What litmus test is applied to a replacement from Sandra Day O’Connor?</p>
<p>I would note that on the issue of abortion that Justice O’Connor may be the swing vote but not a soid pro-choice vote. In one of her opinions she stated that Roe v. Wade was on a collision course with itself. Should we look for a justice who is just as conflicted?</p>
<p>NMD,</p>
<p>Rhetoric or not, the arguments being made against Meirs make me uncomfortable. It is not that long ago the same arguments were being made against Catholics and Jews and their ability to attend certain schools, i.e. Harvard, or hold certain offices, i.e. the Presidency. Your response shows that perhaps we are over this type of discrimination against Catholics like Roberts but not with Evangelicals.</p>
<p>Hey, the conservatives seem to have a litmus test! Just look at the news!
Also, the evangelicals make their own problems. It is hard to be scared of Jews, they make it very hard to convert! The catholics like to swing people to their view, but are more interested in keeping their flock with them. The Evangelicals are out to Save us all. God help us!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>perhaps you missed the irony in this statement;)</p>
<p>Of course I knew it…I actually do have a sense of humor :-)</p>
<p>secularism - indifference to or rejection of or exclusion of religion and religious consideration </p>
<p>Well, based on advice given an earlier post, I looked it up lots of ORs there, inclusive or exclusive either one I guess. Why should anyone choose the path of secularism. To me it is all about the different facets of faith. We all operate on some basis of faith e.g. I strap a pack on your back and call it a parachute. You accept it and step out of an aircraft at 1200 feet. You did not look in the pack to check it was a properly packed chute, you accepted the chute as an act of faith. The basis of this faith is the fact that the vast majority of such packs are actually chutes that do, for the most part, function correctly. Here is an example of a rational basis for faith. By contrast, when we are young we are handed a very old textbook and told that this is a factual basis for generating the rules for living. Which book you get is almost certainly a function of where you are born and what book your parents read. This is the foundation of religious faith. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as one comprehends the implication of such a foundation. In the face such a reality, and it is the reality of religious faith, it is fully rational to adopt a secularist viewpoint. Of all the ORs above, I particularly embrace the notion of indifference, it best reflecting my religious upbringing which, above all, emphasized tolerance. My indifference is not a statement of disinterest or disrespect, merely a recognition of the shaky foundation on which our differing faiths are based. It is the indifference aspect of secularism that is in trouble, perhaps dying. The only question left in my mind is that if it dies, does it go to heaven , hell or oblivion?</p>
<p>“Your response shows that perhaps we are over this type of discrimination against Catholics like Roberts but not with Evangelicals.”</p>
<p>Eagle, a cute rhetorical twist, to equate a concern with basic tenets of evangelicals with past discriminatkion against catholics. </p>
<p>What is scary is that some folks might actually believe such drivel. Has this come up on some sort of evangelical talk show?</p>
<p>I suppose you’d put fear of a right wing mullah in the same category? Or that Britain was wrong in throwing some conservative mullahs out, practicing religious discrimination?</p>
<p>The truth is that, yes it IS discrimination, just not in the sense you want us to use it. Rather, I’d say discrimination against catholics (or jews for that matter) was/is bigotry - action based on a lack of understanding etc. W/R/T evangelicals, most of us DO understand. I (and my daughter - see above) have lived it. I read and hear it frequently - you may recall the SBC (not the telecommunications firm, rather the Baptist…) "The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution in 1996 calling on its members to “direct our energies and resources toward the proclamation of the gospel to the Jewish people.”</p>
<p>A 1999 prayer guide by the International Mission Board recommended conversion of Jews to Christianity during their High Holy Days"</p>
<p>This is just one example of the difference.</p>
<p>Since when is the president required to replace a swing vote justice with another swing vote justice? Nothing in the constitution mandates this.</p>
<p>NMD,</p>
<p>Not just a rhetorical twist but an actual concern. Is a whole segment of our population excluded because of their religious beliefs?</p>
<p>BTW, the last time I checked almost all the religions would like to convert those of a different faith. Perhaps it is just the manner in which they do it that you object to. </p>
<p>To be clear, Harriet Miers is not who I would have nominated. However, I do find it interesting how some Democrats have no issues with her, i.e. Harry Reid. It is really the evangelical base that is up in arms because she may not be evangelical enough. This discussion would make it seem quite the opposite.</p>
<p>socal05,<br>
While it is true that the president is not required to replace a swing vote with another, over half the population expects it and demands it. If you see a second justice make it into the court in the conservative vain, I’m betting you will see the voters run to the Democrats in the future. The pendulum swings to equilibrium. While you all believe we are going totally to the right, that is really not what most of the population feels. Most people do believe in a woman’s right to choose and stem cell research. Wait for the backlash! I think Bush knows that and that is why he is picking someone not obviously of that persuasion, against the loud complaints of his right wing backers. They might find they win the battle only the lose the big war of wills.</p>
<p>lauras, you are underestimating the not so silent majority in our country. There is no way the voters will “run to the democrats.” Also, I presume if Clinton had to replace Renquist or Scalia, you would expect him to choose a conservative “to keep things balanced for decades to come.” If not, then you are being intellectually dishonest.</p>
<p>Fundingfather says:
Just what is this “assault?” And how are the secularists “winning?” Last time I looked, churches stilled enjoyed fire and police protection, but were exempt from the property taxes which pay for it. Last I looked, having a religion-required day of rest was considered a valid reason for being excused from work on that day. Last I looked, government agencies were still being required to accommodate most deviations from conventional dress and other workplace rules if the desire to depart from those norms was based on religious beliefs. (I could go on, but I think you get the point.)
If that’s what happens when you’re “losing” - what would it look like if you were “winning?”</p>