The Separation of Church and State

[SkinWalker]

I must agree.

 

bigot A. n.

 

1. a. A hypocritical professor of religion, a hypocrite. b. A superstitious adherent of religion.

 

2. A person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, or ritual.

 

Source: Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed) 1989.

[rccar328]

bigot:

 

1. a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

 

Well, you've got you're religious bigots & your anti-religious bigots...but that's nothing new around here.

[SkinWalker]

bigot:

 

1. a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

 

That may apply to some, but not to me. I'm completely willing to revise my position on religion should anyone religion demonstrate evidentially that its claims are correct and valid. To date, all religions have failed miserably to do so. It, therefore, cannot be called "bigotry" to reject unhealthy thinking but, rather, "reason."

[Tinny]

Abiogenesis has done the same for me.

[Kurgan]

Another notion of people comparing atheism to a religion could be the limited view of someone on the sidelines listening to activists. The blathering of some atheist anti-religious nut might sound similar to somebody as the blathering of the anti-atheist religious nut. If one is trying his darndest to convert you to his "right" way of thinking and you don't want to, then this isn't an uncommon reaction to have.

 

Being an atheist doesn't mean a person is necessarily intolerant, it's simply a stereotype, much like the intolerant christian stereotype that gets bandied about. I guess when I think of it, it's not so much that one HAS an opinion or even that one expresses it, it's more in how chooses to express it and how one interacts with others in relation to it. So at least on a very basic level, we're all bigotted or intolerant in some way, unless we're mindless drones who have no thoughts about anything!

 

Oh and TK, the issue of a flat earth (a round earth theory comes as early as Aristotle I think) and the heliocentric/geocentric controversy are completely seperate issues.

 

The RCC has accepted that the earth is not the center of the universe for centuries, the apology was to Galileo's harsh treatment, including his illegal condemnation (he was not guilty of "heresy").

 

A quick rundown of some ways in which the Bible appears to indicate a flat earth (interpreted literally, one would come to conclude the ancient writers assumed this to be fact, as many other ancient cultures did) and/or geocentrism: here. Of course the vast majority of those who use the Bible today admit that the ancients simply didn't know what we know now and interpret it as poetry and metaphor. Reading literally, one can also come up with the Big Bang from the Bible (references to God "spreading out the heavens as a tarp" repeatedly), a global ("the whole world" "all flesh") or a local flood ("the ends of the earth" = continents). The reason "contradictions" arise is because you have different writings by different people from different time periods all put together and then being called "this and this are the words of God." But in rabbinical thought at least, such a thing is not seen as contradiction, it's merely different ways and voices coming at the ultimate questions and mysteries of life within a certain framework. It's definately not a scientific view (at least not the conclusion, anyway). Much of the cosmology in the Bible we know not to be literal (for example "stars" are not always stars, they are sometimes angels, as it was a common ancient astrological view that the luminaries in the sky were either spirit beings or inhabited worlds.. or else holes in a giant canopy through which divine light shone, not giant balls of burning gas bigger than the earth, like our sun that were just really far away).

 

And to those who say we don't use symbolic language anymore, one of the greatest modern examples is the phrases relating to a person's "heart" (when we really mean their "mind" or emotions). And people can have "gut reactions" and other absurdities, just because that's how people often talk. Anyway, I'm rambling now... the point is that some people run into difficulty because they have a doctrine of "the bible alone" which would logically prevent them using other materials to interpret the bible such as comparative history and literature to see just how things could be interpreted. But few people I think really adhere to even this doctrine, even if they don't admit it.

 

It's alright to be skeptical, but most wiki's are accurate.

As accurate as anything else on the internet written by non-experts!

It's only as accurate as its edited to be... and it will never be complete, which doesn't mean its completely useless of course.

 

big·ot P Pronunciation Key (bgt)

n.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

 

[which is the same wording used by my copy of The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd Ed. 1997.

 

bigot

 

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

 

in·tol·er·ant P Pronunciation Key (n-tlr-nt)

adj.

Not tolerant, especially:

Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.

Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

 

intolerant

 

adj 1: unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion [ant: tolerant] 2: narrow-minded about cherished opinions [syn: illiberal]

dictionary.com

[SkinWalker]

The good thing about the OED, and the reason I refer to it over lesser sources, is that it cites the earliest known and intended uses of a word. You can't beat the OED for definition and origin. All others simply cater to colloquialism and mistaken usage.

[Kurgan]

Origin is very important, but common usage arguably defines a language (at least in the long term). After all, if you're speaking the english language in public and say the word "gay," unless you're quoting some old Christman carol, everybody assumes you mean "homosexual"* even though that's not the word's origin. It is part of the design philosophy of dictionaries of course whether go this way or that.

 

*though among certain young people and internet kiddies, it's commonly used as a synonym for "sucks" (ie: worthless). Online to avoid confusion with homosexuality, some have taken to altering the spelling to "ghey."

 

 

[French, from Old French.]

Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”

 

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

Of course I can see why holding to this might appeal to you, at least on a certain level.

 

On a lighter note:

 

bigot

 

A person who is religiously attached to a particular computer,

language, operating system, editor, or other tool (see

religious issues). Usually found with a specifier; thus,

"Cray bigot", "ITS bigot", "APL bigot", "VMS bigot", "Berkeley

bigot". Real bigots can be distinguished from mere partisans

or zealots by the fact that they refuse to learn alternatives

even when the march of time and/or technology is threatening

to obsolete the favoured tool. It is truly said "You can tell

a bigot, but you can't tell him much." Compare weenie.

 

[Jargon File]

 

Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2005 Denis Howe

[ShadowTemplar]

"You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much." - Jargon file, The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing

 

Best. Quote. Ever.

[SkinWalker]

Justice Scalia when a Herald reporter asked the conservative jurist his response to people who question his impartiality on matters of church and state. The gesture was made inside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, and was reported to have said, “To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’ ” while making the gesture. That’s Italian for f*** you.

 

Gotta love the underground theocracy that seems more and more to exist in this nation.

[Tinny]

Aye, I hate it when Christians behave contrary to how we're supposed to while still defending only the cultural part.

[StaffSaberist]

Me too.

[Point Man]

So then... following this line of reasoning too far... if marriage is a civil/governmental institution, and the US constitution bans religion from interfering with government...

 

..does that meant that hetero-only marriages are unconstitutional?

Pardon me, but the US Constitution bans government from interfering with religion, not the other way around.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Pardon me, but the US Constitution bans government from interfering with religion, not the other way around.

It prohibits the "mixing" of the two in general, the Pope can't manipulate things in Washington D.C, and the President can't manipulate things in the Vatican (or anyplace more local for that matter).

[Point Man]

It prohibits the "mixing" of the two in general, the Pope can't manipulate things in Washington D.C, and the President can't manipulate things in the Vatican (or anyplace more local for that matter).

Care to quote the passage in the Constitution that says that?

[TK-8252]

Pardon me, but the US Constitution bans government from interfering with religion, not the other way around.

 

Separation of church and state...

 

Care to quote the passage in the Constitution that says that?

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[Point Man]

Separation of church and state...

Not in the Constitution. Comes from Thomas Jefferson's letter to a group of Baptists in Connecticut who were concerned that the government was going to regulate their free exercise of religion.

 

 

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You just proved my point. The First Ammendment, as you just quoted, is about the government getting involved in establishing a State Religion or preventing people from exercising their beliefs. It does not say that religious people can have no influence over the government.

[TK-8252]

Not in the Constitution. Comes from Thomas Jefferson's letter to a group of Baptists in Connecticut who were concerned that the government was going to regulate their free exercise of religion.

 

The concept behind freedom of religion IS separation of church and state. The two are essentially the same thing. You can't have freedom of religion without the separation. This all goes back to the Enlightenment when things came to be secular, like the Constitution, a godless document.

 

You just proved my point. The First Ammendment, as you just quoted, is about the government getting involved in establishing a State Religion or preventing people from exercising their beliefs. It does not say that religious people can have no influence over the government.

 

No, your point was that religion COULD get involved in government, which is not true. No law can respect a religious establishment... that's what it says. Some states in the South (the "Taliban" states that have it on the books that atheists cannot speak in court, etc.) have made efforts to make Christianity the official state religion. And it seems that our current President has tried to put as much religious doctrine in the law as possible... so much for the freedom of religion set forth by our Founding Fathers (who, for the most part, rejected religion), eh?

[Point Man]

This all goes back to the Enlightenment when things came to be secular, like the Constitution, a godless document.

Actually, ancient Israel had it long before the (so-called) Enlightenment. The Judges and then the King were not allowed to be priests.

 

 

No, your point was that religion COULD get involved in government, which is not true.

And where does the First Ammendment say that? It is talking about what Congress can and cannot do, not what churches can and cannot do.

 

so much for the freedom of religion set forth by our Founding Fathers (who, for the most part, rejected religion), eh?

I suggest you take a closer look at the personal letters of the Founding Fathers. You will learn that, despite what the public school history textbooks say, most were men strongly grounded in the Christian faith.

[TK-8252]

And where does the First Ammendment say that? It is talking about what Congress can and cannot do, not what churches can and cannot do.

 

Churches cannot become involved in government... Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. How could churches become involved in government if Congress can't be involved with them, according to the Constitution?

 

I suggest you take a closer look at the personal letters of the Founding Fathers. You will learn that, despite what the public school history textbooks say, most were men strongly grounded in the Christian faith.

 

O rly. I challenge you to pull up some quotes showing so. Because all the quotes *I* have read prove the exact opposite.

 

http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html

http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

 

Read all those quotes... and see if you still believe that the Founders were all good God-fearing Christians!

[Mike Windu]

I suggest you take a closer look at the personal letters of the Founding Fathers. You will learn that, despite what the public school history textbooks say, most were men strongly grounded in the Christian faith.

 

SWEET ACTION! Appeal to tradition/history! Man I haven't had one of these fallacies in a long time.

 

Founding fathers were slaveowners.

 

And where does the First Ammendment say that? It is talking about what Congress can and cannot do, not what churches can and cannot do.

 

Semantics don't work here mate. First Amendment states what Congress can and cannot do yes, and it does not interfere with the operations of a church. However if a Church interferes with the operation of the government that is not Constitutional, thus Congress must uphold the First Amendment allowing equal religion for all. If one religion influences the government then religion is not equal for all.

 

Might I remind you that the word God is not found anywhere in the Constitution for this very reason?

 

By any chance Jimbo, is your name David R. Starr?

 

Webster’s dictionary defines religion as “a system of beliefs and conduct”. Why can atheists have a system of beliefs and conduct (religion), but Christians cannot? I would call this censorship. You want our religion out of government so you can have your own religion in government. But, you forget that this country was founded as “One Nation Under God”! God establishes nations and he established America.

 

Please read the first school textbooks used across our country for the first century of our nation that were published by Noah Webster. Please then decide if you believe that the framers of the Constitution (including Webster) wanted God out of our schools and government.

 

Found this while googling.

[edlib]

There's also the practical problem of just exactly WHO'S version of religion is to get incorporated into our government if we choose to go that route (or perhaps, depending on your point of view, have that path forced upon us...)

 

There are literally hundreds of types of Christianity in this country right now, and several different types of Judaism. And that's just the Judeo/ Christian faiths... I guess anybody not of those faiths is out of luck and will have to be officially disenfranchised and discriminated against by the ruling government for choosing the wrong path to salvation.

 

So... which particular strain of Christianity gets to choose what's best for all of us? Catholics? Baptists? Greek Orthodox? Mormons? Seventh-Day Adventists? Christian Scientists?

 

Seems to me all those groups have some fairly incompatible doctrines with each other, and if one manages to get prominence over the others that will effect how the others get to practice their faiths.

[Point Man]

O rly. I challenge you to pull up some quotes showing so. Because all the quotes *I* have read prove the exact opposite.

Okay, here you go.

George Washington's personal prayer journal

Numerous Founding Fathers

John Adams' National Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer

Samuel Adams, John Hancock, John Jay, et al

 

I think that pretty well shows the faith of many of our Founding Fathers.

 

Oh, and for good measure:

Supreme Court judgement declaring, "This is a Christian nation."

[Datheus]

I think that pretty well shows the faith of many of our Founding Fathers.

 

Don't forget that Deism was quite popular at this time.

 

Besides, so WHAT if the Founding Fathers were Christian? There is plenty of arguing amongst Christian denominations. Do you mean to imply that the Founding Father created this nation solely for Prodestants? The Founding Fathers came to the table hoping to construct a government that represented the People--NOT their god. They weren't interested in setting up a government that served their personal lives or their whims. They wanted a government that could serve the general necessities of all people.

 

 

 

Oh, and for good measure:

Supreme Court judgement declaring, "This is a Christian nation."

 

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/trinity.htm

 

And not only that, but I don't really care what the hell some judge from 1890 thought. What if America woke up tomorrow and everyone was compelled to convert to Buddhism? Would America still be a Christian nation?

 

Times change.

[Kurgan]

It goes back and forth, so knowing the facts helps.

 

People claim all the Founding Fathers were Christians, then somebody else claims none of them were Christians, etc. The truth is some of them were and some of them weren't.

 

Today we can say America is a "Christian nation" in the only sense we can really agree on that is a majority of Americans identify themselves as "Christian." Of course what exactly that means may vary greatly from person to person.

[TK-8252]

Okay, here you go.

George Washington's personal prayer journal

Numerous Founding Fathers

John Adams' National Proclamation for a Day of Fasting and Prayer

Samuel Adams, John Hancock, John Jay, et al

 

I figured you would have your quotes as well... fair enough.

 

 

There was an interesting quiz posted by Skin a while ago... I suggest you take a look at it:

 

http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/ffrfquiz.php

 

I think that pretty well shows the faith of many of our Founding Fathers.

 

According to that quiz: John Adams, John Q. Adams, Millard Fillmore and William H. Taft were Unitarians. Jefferson was a Deist/Freethinker. Harrison, Johnson, Grant and Hayes were not members of a church. Lincoln was a Deist.

 

Oh, and for good measure:

Supreme Court judgement declaring, "This is a Christian nation."

 

Strange, because here's what the United States declared in a treaty with Tripoli, ratified by Congress and signed by President Adams:

 

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity [sic] of Musselmen . . . it is declared . . . that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."