High Court: Schools can screen speeches on religion

you may do to recall as well, many faith-based organizations enjoy 501(c)(3) status because of your own high-minded "separation" doctrine. =D LOLz it's not bout being all things to all men, just about reducing all men to 'one' thing, no? ...your "thing"...whatever that is...could even be a number or a chip in your head before it's all over and done, such that none can buy or sell without it. ;) now there's a state-imposed religion we'll see soon enough I'm sure, that will insist on no other interpretations or dissent, kinda like Hitler's Nazism re-envisioned, updated optimo, maximo...

Are you ready? =D it might cost your head, or the state living in it as you'd feared of the Living God!

thanks for stating the anti-Xstianity the bigots nourish to heart's content for hate and ongoing "legal" discriminations clearly no one else but bigots care to pursue. They afford not even token economy to people of religious beliefs in public life. Their "secret" purpose is exclusion by your cowed acquiescence. Always has been. That's why they're are some of the sincerest assholes you'll ever meet for that kind of protected bigotry. They're not smarter or more "law-abiding" by any stretch of the imagination, because they lack faith, but they like to think so cuz they like to look good to everyone else. Unforunately, they're stupid and high-minded ass wipes making complaints where most of the regular public could give a real practical damn for the peace that is already here in pluralistic acceptance of different faiths...even in public life. My advice?...do what this girl did...tell them off and what to do with their own stick still stuck.... They're unquestioned stupidity shouldn't have to matter for their own insecurities and fear...because, just like the rest of us, if they don't like it, they simply don't have to believe. How simple is that? As simple as any legal disclaimer, used in more "tolerant" industries today, yet, it's much too simple for their simple-minded bullshit they wanna make of you and me.

I like Cheer for doing my laundry...but you like Tide? And you know there's a sale? Ah, good enough...for you perhaps. Not sure about me, but I won't bitch just because you put in it in the newspaper for all of us to see; but some asshole out there might try because he's so godamn selfish and self-entitled to his weak views which might sweep away any sense he has of himself to be so pathetic if he should be told there's more than one way to wash his soiled stinking shorts that he still puts on unconsciously everyday. Maybe that's really what they really try to hide even though it's so obvious even in impassioned denials for "legalism" that represents no people, just their "principle" of exclusion. ;) I think people matter. More than policy, more than inconvenience, and more than the stupidity we're obliged supposedly to accept for our own better judgements.

Secularism is no God, but they wish it was, and treat it as inviolate. VIOLATE this shit. Please. =)

Echoz , what is so wrong about waiting for people to come ask you about your religion . Shouldn't good works be enough of an advertisement ? If it really is THE way people will be guided by God to seek it out . Why such an persistent invasive marketing strategy ? I guess some belief systems threaten death and eternal damnation because they themselves doubt it . If one was truly confident , little convincing need be done . What I know of marketing is , things get advertised that people would not normally buy or have good reason not to .

I wonder, should we have waited, despite so much disagreement lacking consensus in this country to discuss "Iraq" in a similar "controversial" fashion? Should we wait until preferential status-quo ignorance is ready? Hmmm.. Not even the gays think that's a good way to go about things.

the free expression of another's own personal faith in a pluralistic society (even using the novel idea of disclaimers so that you don't again intentionally mistake it's your precious "government" trying to "establish" any worldview other than secularism, but simply another's free right you might think to suppress for any more selfish utility to yourself...the VERY reason for FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION) shouldn't rest on any insidious preference to complete "status quo" ignorance.

Disagreed, we can still agree and debate what's important and progress...Iraq, faith, the next model of Sony Playstation...whatever.... we're adults, I'd choose to believe with bigger views for bigger ideas than ourselves, even if we choose not to embrace them personally...like homosexuality for instance...We can still "talk" about it...still "discuss" it, right? ;) And I won't tell you to shut up...just that I might disagree. =) No harm, no foul. that is, unless it's your party and you wanna cry. =D

civil disobedience is sometimes patriotism for sure.

You mean you would have forced a religious speech on all your high school peers just to spite some administrators trying to take the first amendment of the constitution seriously?

Somehow, I doubt that's the approach you would've taken allhater.

Actually Saladin, you are correct about that, I would never force my religion onto anyone else. Those that believe, believe and those that dont.....dont. Its a personal choice.

Thanks for smackin me in the head and waking me up, its been a long day.

again...nobody complained at the event. No one was forced into anything. And no one cried like Saladin. =P

My pleasure allhater, it's easy to get lost in the Orwellian diarrhea that comes from Fundies on religious issues.

Orwellian?...that's right! =D I forgot! Jesus, not George, musta wrote that book? lol I think Jesus must've divinely inspired Ray in Farenheit 451 as well when he wrote "What traitors books can be! You think they're backing you up, and they turn on you. Others can use them, too, and there you are, lost in the middle of the moor, in a great welter of nouns and verbs and adjectives."

Oh yeah but it was Jesus who warned us about Big Brother telling us what to do, how to do it, and who to believe in and when we're "allowed" to believe in Him, as long as He fits in a beaker, and won't interrupt a 30-second attention span.. =) Completely "orwellian" I suppose... =P lol

The Orwellian aspect is coming from the girl, who's arguing for "religious freedom" when that is in fact the exact opposite goal she has in mind here.

Religious freedom, for her, is, as spoken so eloquently by Colbert, "the many paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior."

and I still wonder why you'd find it "offensive" or take it as an "establishment" or "endorsement" of government by some wild interpretation only because of the fact, essentially, you'd only simply disbelieve in those 'many paths'...it rather should be no more offensive than if someone actually believed in Buddha as The Man of that hour for everything he's done in her life...*shrug* I don't have to believe it, nor am I forced to. So why do you make the constant mistake to say you're being made to? it's silly. And I simply would never make the mistake in my own mind to think that person was speaking for anybody but himself, certainly not the state of Wherever...another practical understanding often over-looked for the technicality of a generally public and agreed procession. I seriously doubt anyone would say that graduation was a particularly relgious event either. *shrug* My humble opinion...

It isn't that serious, it's not even that big of a slippery slope.

It's the fact that she's trying to make this the position of the public school by refusing to write an apology saying that it was her views and not there's.

She's purposefully trying to incite war against a secular state, it's part of the larger forced-prayer and creationist movements. Literally, just turn on your tv and go to Pat Robertson's channel or watch the movie Jesuscamp, you'll see right away why I have no tolerance for this kind of behavior.

It seems nice and cute, but that's not the goal at all. It's all linked to this House on K street, Jesuscamp, hyper-right wing Fundamentalism which is seeking to solidify its influence and implant itself in government.

and again...who's the idiot that would this girl wrote her graduation speech to represent the school and not her own views in the first place? Who's testing common sense for stringent stupidity? You are. You won't find consensus to save your ass that this girl wrote that speech to represent her school. An apology is needless.

Only pharisees strain at a gnat to swallow a camel. Here you see it.

She was chosen on behalf of the school to speak for graduation.

Obviously, no one actually who's actually there thinks that the school told her to say that stuff, but it could easily be misconstrued that way by someone who didn't know.

Look, here's the bottom line.

There was no need to say that stuff, it's inappropriate and it's a breech of the first, regardless of the fact that in real life it's trivial.

She was asked to NOT put that stuff in her speech BY the school, who didn't want their message being misconstrued.

She did it ANYWAY, KNOWING that they were sensitive about the issue and not caring.

Then, when they asked her to write a letter to show that those were her views and not the school's, she SUED them.

How can anyone but this girl be seen as the aggressor?

Your metaphor is err, foreign to me. But the person making a big stink over nothing is clearly this girl, who sued her school because she wanted it to be their official message.

only Saladin, no one else makes the "miscontruing" mistake you keep assuming. not one attending the event complained, But still I'd like to know you how think "it could easily be misconstrued that way by someone who didn't know" again because as the facts are, those who didn't know, didn't bother to bitch like some think they should "know" to do apparently =P crying for missed opportunities perhaps lol

I'd 2hellinwait for you any day of the week! Dayummmm... hello to you! ;)

These days, being "politically incorrect" is the way to get attention, we haven't reached that point at all.

Rush Limbaugh can get on the air and say all 1.2 billion practitioners of Islam are cultists and that our streets aren't safe because we freed black people from slavery.

And he can say this because of that infamous catchphrase that wipes away all the guilt...

"Now I know our politically incorrect friends aren't going to like to hear this but..."

If you're a racist dumbfuck or a good "Christian soldier," no amount of hiding behind that conservative talking point is going to save you.

The left does go too far in its PC nonsense, but if you think that's a good excuse to take us back to the 1950's people are going to call you out on that. And it doesn't have anything to do with being PC.

Rush doesn't say things like that. Hide your dislike a little better.

lolwut?

It's all he says, he yammers about it at least once an hour. I could pull up a dozen examples from him, Savage and Beck if you really needed proof.

But I know you don't, my point is completely sound and you know it. They do that shit all the time, it's part of their game. It's part of how they rile up their audience.

You could pull up whatever you want, it wouldn't come close to what you're implying. Because if you go off and lift transcript words while totally ignoring context and how it is said....I can do the exact same thing with Jon Stewart.

No, you can't. Because there's no trend towards anything that you can demonstrate.

And on the contrary, right-wing shock jocks do that shit on a daily basis. It's the crux of the appeal of their show, they intentionally try to piss people off and say ridiculous things well beyond any sense of decency or claim for the truth.

But if you reject evidence entirely, it becomes kind of useless to try and illustrate that to you huh?

Keep your head in the sand if that makes you more comfortable, I won't waste my time trying to get you out.

You're not good with geography, because that is not where I'm located.

We haven't reached that point luckily, because the Supreme Court made the right decision.

Although Fundamentalism maybe destroying the U.S., it still is delegated to a loud minority and not the majority of the populace.

There wouldn't be an issue nor a martyr if people didn't get all sensitive over someone talking. They didn't have to listen and she held no political office....it was harmless. Well that is unless those people who hear such words are easily offended.

Yeah, they should've just bent over and took it instead. What right do they have to maintain their reputation?

Of all the people JJ, I know for sure that you would be on the opposite side if an atheist did this.

Do atheist stand outside a port authority screaming words from a book? I ignored that man for the 30 minutes I stood there....

....oh wait it wasn't just any book....it was the bible.

The moment you actually advocate rights for a religion is the moment I by your bogus "fairness" you claim to protect.

Errr I dunno what you want me to do, I'm not a lawyer. I can't take your rights to court.

But I would if I could! I would defend someone's religious freedom if it was taken away I can guarantee you that.

I know it doesn't sound like much over the internet, but do you remember that story about that British lady who asked that patient for prayer and then got fired?

I was totally on that lady's side, she didn't deserve the treatment she got for offering prayer. I thought that was a load of crap.

Is that good enough for you? I don't know what you're expecting of me.

That is a moment of good in a sea of negative.

I've already said that I think she did a stupid thing. But a stupid thing isn't always a harmful thing and it isn't always something that is against the law even if the School whines about it.

Just like a think billboards with stupid atheist sayings are not wrong and people shouldn't complain about them----

I believe that people should be fair towards all no matter what they believe. Fairness matters more than anything.

Well nobody thinks things should be unfair on principle.

But we all have different definitions of what fair is and what party has committed offense that is unfair.

You think it's unfair that she was punished for this speech, I think it's unfair that she subjected everyone to a sermon inappropriately at a public event when no one else tried to do that.

the difference is that you can walk out. You can not listen. She cannot just get her diploma because it was being ransomed. The punishment was vindictive not applicable.

No, you CAN'T just walk out, it's your god-damn graduation!

If I was in a pizza parlor or a Harry Potter fan club meeting, I could just walk out.

But clearly, no one is going to walk out of their own graduation because one person is acting like an asshole. If anything, the asshole should be taken out.

And the punishment she received was very modest, write a letter that says these are YOUR views and not the School's. And she refused to do that, literally forcing her opinion as being the school's and not her own.

I fail to see how the school was doing wrong here, they have a right to uphold their reputation and to punish someone who broke their rules.

You don't always have to punish people when they do something wrong. You choose your battles and the school should have let it go. What did they gain from this? They already had negative attention as is...and I would get up and walk out. I don't care if it were my graduation or mother's funeral. I don't have to listen.

They punished her because they specifically asked her not to do this and she did it anyway, and then when they asked for an apology and a clearance of their name she sued them.

She's the aggressor here, no one else.

She's not the adult. She's not an adult until she's old enough to drink.

Saladin calls this girl an "aggressor" And what a mello-dramatic crap that is. It stinks like something Saladin left indeed. Y'know, if you could cool enough to feel an old lady has right to call for prayer (that incidentally you wouldn't believe in either), then this girl can make a simple invitation to the Person of Jesus Christ that you won't have to believe in either. And your emotional state remains the same. Not this hypersensitive freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion..

What did you make of my suggestion for legal disclaimers that make sure any views expressed in these kinds of "secular public only" aren't stupidly mistaken as state-sponsored endorsements or establishments of religion per se? Should be rather attractive to you I would think for all strictly legal considerations and world of "what if" fantasy scenarios where hundreds of people don't actually complain...

any brief but tasteful open invitation to faith is not a "aggressive" assualt on anyone, and despite legal bullshitting we shouldn't tolerate the gagging.

Yeah, according to you.

I don't tolerate that shit, sorry that you feel differently. I think they made the right decision.

And considering that she both instigated the event AND sued the school, she's clearly the aggressor.

Aggressive is when they say you can't have your diploma when the expression of faith was a totallly separate issue you like to keep confusing. Aggressive is when some guy beats the hell outta ya not cuz you refused his faith, but because you take it as a excuse for a fight. ;)

Your post was so pathetic you had to recommend it yourself.

Breaking the rules and then suing your school isn't aggressive? lol, ok.

Your irrationality is readily evident, I won't bother to deal with someone who willfully deludes themselves to connect their arguments.

And what if everone in the school needed the crapper at the same time too? Would that really pose a legal problem for you too? As evidenced I'm sure with the speeches, there was no breakdown of the sort. Thanks Saladin. The alternative is to respect where people are however you find them and respectfully recognze differences like a real sport. That's what you could imagine instead. Thanks for playing.

Uh guess what genius, everyone DOES get a turn with the bathroom. So there's no problem there.

And bathroom rights aren't covered by a specific first amendment clause, which makes it a little different.

Yes, respect double standards wherever we find them instead of just allowing everything or allowing nothing, that makes sense.

Try again.

well good Saladin, maybe the light of that "genius" (err...common sense) you should turn on a different issue. If everyone has a "god-given" right to the bathroom, as it were, perhaps they have a right to believe they'll know how to use it as it personaly suits them as well..one at a time, even by your "good" graces...apparently. We all, after all, do know how to share the crapper decently with eachother, don't we? It's a good thing we don't have people telling us yet that if we care to use a crapper, it better be in a certain way with a certain number of sheets, for a specified amount of time...or else Saladin's problem constipation takes effectively frivolous legal action.

Yes, because saying only Christians can use the bathroom is clearly the American way, true freedom if ever we saw it.

The lack of cognitive dissonance here is astounding.

You're not advocating for religious freedom here, you're advocating for theocracy. No one else is having an issue here except you, who seem to think it's your god given right to shit wherever you want.

show me where I've advocated anywhere in this thread a Xstian only political establishment, or better yet, see yourself for what you are...someone who thinks his world view can't be compromised by the intimidating threat he may deem of others. You yousefl could be projecting your own weakness and intolerability onto Xstians, if you care to be objective with yourself. It's a possibility worth exploring for such ongoing angst perhaps..if that's fair. As often as you blindly blanket Xstians as hiding behind a "conservative" right, which I personally don't see applying to me even in faith or politics--I hated ALL the lies, demo and rep--i see you hiding behind cheaper technicalities to the dignity of all personal values on the table for all to see. I fear you may cheapen the discussion however, dilluting it for "what ifs" that I think the public will manage with better grace than you may actually care to muster for such a disinteresting topic to you. That's my view. I could be wrong about your position, but *shrug* I don't think I am about my own positive expectations that the public handles this much differently and with more objective tact as witnessed at the event, as it actually happened.

most ironically to your position, no one there felt moved enough to be deprived or forced or coerced, with as much fervor as I'm sure some of us do with your gag orders on personal faith in public life. Shame to be in bondage to such unrealized fears as you try to conjure unrealistically in my view.. Yet that's your tact, and your style that reminds me so much of the neocons you love to condemn as if they were all legitimate Xstians by "convenient" extension/projection. Perhaps you think Xstians can't respect you or value you even if you don't accept "their" faith. I'm sure you're a likable intelligent person IRL so I don't think most Xstians would think to treat you much different from anyone else.

There're a lot of people I know aren't practicing Xstians, and they are very good and close friends to me...You might think twice about Xstians in that regard perhaps if it's any consolation.

I posted this before that other post where I realized you weren't solely advocating for just her.

On that note, this conversation was essentially overblown nonsense on my part. Although my original post makes sense.

Saladin, if you honestly take the invitation to faith as such a despicable thing as "bending over and taking it" I wonder who in the hell would actually wanna give it to you even for sex. More evidence of the constant "misconstruing" Saladin likes to personally make for things clearly not intended. That's what you call reprobate and clearly despicable.

is stricly a conservative phenomenon? from your "liberal" "accepting" "tolerance for all" "secular" "humanitarian" pov? I see. I have a bridge in brooklyn some people have probably already tried to sell you...

oh and saladin why don't you ask before you pretend to speak for me specifically "people like...and echoz" no, actually i don't believe in "forced" prayer. Do it if you like, not if you so choose. We should have the Freedom to choose. And respect each other's choices insofar as we care to honestly stand by them, without fear of recrimination or reprisal for what worldview they may take with them to the classroom, irrespective of your approval for it certainly. And Not to be told what you think is "forced" when it clearly doesn't have to be, except by extremist exclusionary hypocrisy.. It wouldn't trouble most students if some prayed or if some studied for the upcoming quiz! I bet enough could reasonably and respectfully do both in a real sense of dignity that apparently threatens and eludes you as an adult.

Was that supposed to be a response? Because it wasn't.

You've been dancing around the fact that you wouldn't let someone go up there and say anything in regards to religion, so clearly you're holding a double standard here.

If ya don't, feel free to correct me. Let me know if you think she should've been up there telling people to accept Mohammed as their prophet.

And in case you didn't know, voluntary prayer groups, private praying or thanking god in your speech is just fine.

There is a difference between professing your belief in a faith and openly using your speaking event as an advertisement for your church.

why would you make yourself an obvious liar? perhaps when you said "you wouldn't let someone go up there and say anything in regards to religion" you completely disregarded previous statements in this thread where I've stated I would have been no more "offended" as you are, if she'd said something like Buddha was her best bud and could I buy you dinner sometime after this gig? lol ...And as when you said "using your speaking event as an advertisement for your church" when she did no such thing. Did you she give you an address? Or did she basically just make an acceptable show of her faith.

again...as I'm not a liar...I'll opt for the facts and the truth in the latter, and not feign self-righteous indignation like it was real legal matter that made the world shudder... heh. no doubt my answers will sting your sensibility because I don't serve your prejudice nor bow to your for it.

Forgive me, I didn't notice you said you'd be ok with other religious people getting up there and saying that. That changes the issue entirely.

Look, to me, this issue is as simple as this.

I'm sure you know about that nice thing called the constitution which (theoretically anyway) is supposed to guarantee us certain rights.

Along with freedom of religion, there's also the establishment clause. The establishment clause prevents the government from endorsing any one particular religion so as to create a wall between church and state.

To me, that means religion can do whatever the hell it wants in the private sector but has to stay the fuck out of the public sector.

It can't erect monuments on public lands, it cannot make our law religious law and it cannot force anyone to follow its mandates or practice its beliefs.

This is essential because it ensures religion stays safe from government interference and ensures the non-religious that churches aren't going to be fucking with them.

Now, in that context, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to see this woman's speech as anything other than the evangelical crusade to get religion INTO government, which they've been trying to do for 30 years now.

If you're not a part of that camp, then I apologize for overreacting to what must seem to you to be a trivia issue.

Why would I care right? Well now you know.

Against her school's wishes, she added in a religious speech to a public event. The principal made her write a letter saying that those were HER views and not the SCHOOL's.

She REFUSED, attempting to FORCE the school to say that those were its OFFICIAL views.

Now are you seeing where I'm coming from? Do you understand why I have an issue with this?

yeah Saladin, I see where you coming from and I honestly don't completely disagree with you on enough of it. You seem pretty level-headed and I can certainly appreciate that even if we don't share "faith" =) But as a casual statement or attesting to personal faith goes and even "cordial" invitations (perhaps, if you must, like all the commercials we're inundated with everyday eveyrwhere we go, that we tolerate with less indignation) I don't think it's a threat to existing democracy or government really to endure respectfully. And I don't feel the need to take it as though the State of ___ of the United States was "forcing" me to accept religion on par with forced labor or the like. I find that over-reaching as to be extremist actually to my tastes. =) I hope you can appreciate that as well as you can for mutual understanding. Thanks.

Well, I gotta admit, I am an extremist on this issue. Sorry if it bugs you, but I'm just not a fan of religion.

I overreact because shit like that bugs the hell out of me. It's an overreaction 60% of the time I'd say, but an overreaction in defense of liberty I think is acceptable in most circumstances.

I appreciate that admission Saladin. Thank you kindly. I mean it's obvious but...I can't say there hasn't been reason in so many "religious" (actually selfish) indiscretions either. I recognize many things done in the name of religion have been stupid and dangerous and irresponsible, but almost no more than what people actually do in their own name, as well, for their own vain glory perhaps as well. Any office or station in life is potentially corrupted. I take solace in my own faith and worldview just like you do for generally the "highest good." But that's also why I think it's important to raise the issue of personal faith and it's expression above that of "religion" per se, as most see it...unfairly in my view if you will permit me.

The way I realistically see it Saladin, you're probably a lot more "moral" than I in many respects and temptations, even despite my "faith", so even more reason I cling to a better infinite grace than I'd find anywhere in this life physically on your planet...I know I'm imperfect, that when I live up to my ideals I feel superior to those who don't and when I don't live up to my ideals that I begin to wonder how useless I am. Funny thing is, none of us ever wants to admit that we live our lives in utter futility, and total meaninglessness. We believe our lives stand for something good. We have to believe there is intriinsic value in the nature of man....a spark of the divine in which we are able to understand and transcend circumstances around us, even when for dying there is no ultimate purpose to it from strictly "secular" perspectives which exclude the possibility for faith despite well-known scientific ignorances (as in dark matter, the Big Bang, the nature of light, quantum mechanics, consciousness, morality, etc.) If there is no God, why should we mean anything? If we are to be nothing why does anything matter at all and why should it?

It's funny Saladin because, if there is no God, then there is no way to say any one action is moral or immoral, only
that "I like this" and then you're in totally subjective stupidity You may say the majority rules, but if the majorityrules to exterminate a minority you have no grounds to say it's wrong! Who has the "right" to say the majoiryt has a "moral" obligation NOT to kill the minority? why should your moral convicitons be obligatory for those in oppression? You see, as Yale law Professor Arthur Leff puts it, "Either God exists or He does not, but if He does not, nothing and no one else can take His place..." We need God for human dignity, or we simply take Him for granted. It's the truth.

Especially when we all fail miserably as a moralists, even the best of us. So I choose a different identity in Christ that I know values you too, and me, when we all fail eachother and ourselves....and even if you don't believe it quite like i might *shrug* Makes my life better, and I think you can believe it.

Actually, not even god saves you from objective moral death.

For in the end, what is god but a tyrant that justifies your own inadequacies? A "lord" to make all the damn uncertainty about life seem "morally objective." Why? What makes god infallible? If you can see the complexity in a decision, what aspect of god erases that? No such thing as magic.

I'm not trying to kill your faith if the basis of it is moral objectivity, god's existence to me has never been the most relevant part of the equation. Because morals are subjective no matter how you look at it.

Objectivity implies fact, a fact is something anyone can verify. Gravity is 9.8 m/s squared, the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776.

But from what objective source can morality come from? How is it measured? How did it come to be? Is it the same for everyone or just humans?

The notion is pretty silly when you think about it for a long time, because you can't answer those questions.

But plenty of subjective things hold meaning, it just means that you're not BETTER than other things because of that meaning.

There can be morality without god because half the laws in the damn bible, even if it is true, were made up by man very clearly.

Human beings are capable of empathy, rationality, enforcing cultural norms and applying their experience to one another. That's all you need for morality. We decide what is moral based on how we want to live, how we want to treat one another.

Now, that doesn't sound as nice as "GOD COMMANDS IT," but it has its own charm that I'll get to.

If god does exist, they've been making it pretty clear so far that we're on our own out here. He/she/it doesn't make any claims to what we should or should not be doing and doesn't interfere in our world in any observable way.

And after studying history for a while, lemme tell ya, pretty much the majority of decisions human beings get to make on this planet are between bad, shitty and evil. Rarely is there actually a chance where a decision gets made that helps everyone that doesn't hurt someone else. Greatness especially never comes without sacrifice from others who are unwilling. That's just the way the world works, scarce resources = shitty decision making, Like that guy the other day who had to choose between his wife and his son, there's no good answer there, it just depends on who you love more.

Ignorance really is bliss in many ways.

Objective morality, other than being demonstrably wrong, often forces you to see the world in absolutes that are, while convenient, utterly untrue. It's nice for building a simple society like a tribe or a city-state though. But beyond that, your culture will become childish and immature.

But recognizing that fact, how do you deal with subjectivity? Well, it's actually not that bad.

Subjective morality allows flexibility, it allows you to figure out exactly how it is we should be treating each other as the times and technology change.

But it's not meaningless just because it isn't true in the same way that a human being's emotions aren't meaningless even though they aren't rational. Your subjective morals reflect what kind of person you actually are, rather than what kind of person you're scared into being.

God or no god, we're all in the same boat. And god or no god, it's you that's gotta make up your mind.

That's my $0.02 anyways.

Humans are capable of that because they were created. What makes you so inquisitive? What gives you that right? Certainly not America or any country in this world. They had zero hand in creating your circumstances of birth. They also didn't have any idea you'd ever exist.

No one gives you a right, that's why it's a right.

In fact, you're free to do whatever the hell you want, regardless of law or common decency.

We weren't "created" to be this way, unless a god somewhere guided our fates. It's very clear that we're just another animal in a vast, uncaring universe. Our intellect is fleeting as are our emotions. By extension, morality cannot be "objective."

And if you can't accept the science, look at it from a religious perspective. Did you ever wonder why god didn't want man to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Didn't it seem kind of arbitrary?

Most people think it represents some sort of loss of innocence, a story about loyalty and rejection.

But think about it, god didn't want man to have that knowledge because they'd be able to recognize right away the failure of god as a morally absolute being. He immediately lost his control over them once they could see for themselves the complexity of decisions.

Man ascribes god to be all-caring, all-knowing and all-powerful, but it's pretty damn clear he's none of those things if he exists. Other than being logically impossible, his own actions have demonstrated him to be little better than the men he claims dominion over.

Wherever you look, the answer just stares you right in the face.

What? Oh don't eat from that tree that "I" specifically stated was like any other tree that is in that garden other than me saying don't eat from it. They didn't gain anything. What they gained was stupid and sin. That tree was no more special than an apple tree you find in the wild. It was only said to be special.

"9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the -----------tree of knowledge of good and evil-----------."

"17 But of ---------------------the tree of the knowledge of good and evil------------------, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

You were saying?

and there are other trees. In the new earth I think scripture mentions 12 for the healing of the nations ;)~

I was saying what I was saying. There is nothing special about the tree other than God said do not eat from it. And did they die the very day they ate from it? No. No a 24 hour day. 1,000 years is a day to God and Adam lived 900 and something. So he did die the very day. God knows what he has done and continues to do. What you're stating that God did isn't at all logical, nor does it make much sense. But if you can explain it to make it make sense---that'll be good.

Hahaha, and the religious denial set in even though it came from his own book.

You really -are- hopeless JJ.

You quoting that (which most people already know by heart) doesn't back you in what you were stating. It doesn't say that if you eat it you'll become smarter or more knowledgeable, does it? You need to do more explaining of why you think that works with what you have shown instead of think it proves itself -- cause it doesn't.

It's a testament to the prevalence of psychological projection that you made this post.

Yes, clearly it's us intolerant anti-religious folks who are at fault here.

It's certainly not the Fundamentalists who are constantly parroting this stuff, like so much diarrhea of the mouth, every time they have a public platform.

And your opinions on history and Christianity being the foundation of modern society are utterly laughable.

All the enlightenment thinkers who thought up modern republics and capitalism, Locke, Rousseau, etc., were all highly critical of Christian scripture and establishments, often at direct danger to their own lives.

It's only the Reagan types who retroactively claim Christianity to be the basis for our governmental systems, when in fact most of our modern tenants are in direct conflict with scriptural teachings.

It would certainly explain why Fundamentalists constantly try to force the teaching of their religion in public schools, mandate prayer to their god in schools and have established a long history of attempting to prevent people working on sundays, marginalize Christian denominations they don't like and force statements of faith as a requirement of public office in direct conflict to the constitution.

States are either Secular or they're Theocratic, those are the only two options.

You're either us, or you're Iran.

Luckily, we have a Supreme Court that has recognized that for the majority of our history.

you lack imagination Saladin. The way it actually happened WAS an IS us Americans for real. Quite congenial I'd say. But the bitchers and moaners much like you, try to say it can't be, when in fact, it already happened..and again...without incident: ie. no one complained that government was being undermined or pushing them anywhere. That's YOUR own stupidity undermining your own confidence in your bs government to make sure to your own selfish satisfaction that no one ever threatens your sense of perfect isolationism. The most respectable complaint you have is that you just don't like it. So what...that's how we Xstians deal with it. Why should you be any different or special because you refuse? Any invitation to faith doesn't need your imprematur or government sanction. So I wonder...for your perfect prejudice, like Hitler to Jews, would you put me in jail for this???

Here's your chance Saladin: "I'd like you know that Jesus Christ loves you and values you. Would you like to know more about the faith? I'd encourage you to find out."

And I might hope if you'd be a jerk, that if you'd insist taking that as me telling you to bend over backwards and take it, that you would actually bend over and do it yourself, cuz really really really...I'm not forcing you. ;) It is your sick prerogative at work again.

an exaggeration worth the high price of stupidity

lol good one s0uthc0ast

Right, because atheists fight for religious freedom while Christians work for a theocratic government.

Most of the Fundies in this country want to FORCE kids to -pray- IN SCHOOL.

How exactly is that religious freedom?

What religious freedoms have your types worked for EVER?

You need to look up who went to court to fight for 1st Amendment rights right after 911 and then be silent...because that court case fought for more than just that group who did the fighting.

Ok, who was that?

I mean, what in the fuck are you talking about. Am I supposed to giver reverence to an event that you neglect to mention the name of?

I wouldn't be surprised if this somehow turned out to not be relevant.

You'll have to look it up. Because if fairness is what you are aiming for then you should know who fights for your rights....the exact people you tend to mock their beliefs. You're more afraid of the answer.

what an ingrate. I didn't know that, so I'll thank you personally myself JJ...Thanks.

You are welcome.

relax and be thankful you're not so stupid completely without religion to believe in all the hollywood doomsday movies and previews you've seen without a fraction of the bitch you've made of yourself here =P

Right on! Since it is essentially impossible to give every religion equal time and weight, it is best to leave religion out of the public sphere entirely.

Well said sir !

Stop preaching.