How much harder do we need to fight for religious separation?

I have several friends on Facebook who are devout Christians and will occasionally post statuses reflecting such. This one was posted not too long ago, copied verbatim:


I am proud of Gov. Perry in Texas standing up for prayer for our American Leadership. A seven hour praying crowd of 30,000! Wonder what this country would be like if all of the State leaders held prayer like that?


I know what's going to be discussed in regards to this, but I can't help but ask what your opinions are. I firmly believe in separation of church and state, but how can that happen when prayer rallies are being held by politicians?

Views: 124

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I can read Danish just fine. :)

Just have a test for anyone who wants to get in: A six pack of beer, a pack of bacon, a smørrebrød, a pastry, and ritual burning of the Swedish flag while chasing it all down with 'en lille en'. ;)

But in seriousness, Denmark is pretty much only accepting asylum seekers and quota refugees - people who don't want to come and don't integrate well - and leaving out economic immigrants which usually fit right in and provide a boost to the economy.

It is because we are such a sentimental people - we want to help the people that really needs it the most. If we start allowing all highly educated people in there will be all sort of accusations of discrimination and elitism... it is not an easy balance to keep. One day it will change in favour of highly educated I'm sure but not right now just before an election.

lmao, Im sorry I shouldnt laugh, but that is really funny.  And Sad and Sick ...

I was not disagreeing that it's a right. (Though I would prefer to call it a privileged myself.) What I'm trying to get at is pretty much the question originally posted, and everyone insisting that people "should be free to use their rights" doesn't seem to be a very good answer. It seems like every time a discussion comes up regarding constitutional rights Americans always believe their constitution is somehow 'the best in the world' and the privileges provided is 'God given' and 'unimpeachable'. It's like a skipping record and with the current state of affairs thinking new thoughts - instead of insisting on rights - might be a solution. The alternative, which is seeming more and more likely, is social chaos.

As for politicians being honest that is a job requirement. Lying politicians should be impeached while bullshitters should be called out.

I think this is a problem all over the world. Unfortunately it appears to be an American only forum, therein lies the first problem. Some problems need to be tackled globally. 

Personally, I think that being confrontational can only have a negative impact on atheists. As long as I can be an atheist, I don't give a flying **** what it says on the currency or if a rabbi opens a session of Congress or if some idiot recites a prayer at an official function.


I'm not advocating laying low. We should say what we think in terms of our views on religion, but as soon as we go to court to keep some 17 year old girl from including some prayer material in her graduation speech (as was in the news a few months ago) or objecting to a creche scene on the lawn of a public school, we are doing what the Tea Party succeeded in doing recently: polarizing everyone involved. And hasn't THAT turned out well?!!!

I think that as the Governor of Texas he should not held it or held it in the name of Texas, now say he was at his church and was doing the same things I would have no problem. But my main problem with all of this is that the main sponsor of this prayer rally is a group of Christians who actually believe that the 1st amendment is ONLY for Christians. This is just preposterous to have a governor, some one who is suppose to uphold not only the Texas constitution but the US Constitution, to align himself with these kind of people. On a side note, may I add that there were actually other Christians protesting the event if you did not know. So we must remember that not all Christians are like this but more than ever should be.

Where i  come from religion became the ultimate power over politics which controls everything in my home country, which is Iraq. After the invasion America gave power to Islamic parties and they gave power to Islamic militias. They forced their religious customs and rituals on society, if they suspect you they just kill you.

What makes things even worse that the Iraqi police and military forces are doing the same. Many times I got troubles at checkpoints just because i don't look religious, for example i was listening to Mozart in my car, i should've known that Mozart is a SIN in Baghdad.

Of course you can't say that you are Atheist there, they will kill you at once. You have to be careful and smart all the time just to survive their religion.

In a way I have elaborated on that subject because you can't imagine the truth there. What i want to say is that separation of politics and religion is something essential for any nation to move on and for society to be civilized and peaceful. Also to show you a simple part of what's happening on the other side of world and how politicians there are making a religious state built with blood while the cradle is still burning.


That is a truly worrying story and I truly hope the next generation will fare better.

May I ask why Mozart is concidered uncouth in Baghdad, and which piece in particular you were listening to? Does it also apply to all classical music of European origin?

Perhaps they have a friendlier attitude against Prokofjev, Tsjajkovskij and Wagner ;)

"I'm sorry america's foreign policy was hijacked by centralized banking in 1913 and the military industrial complex we developed during world-warsI&II."

Welcome to alternative history month...

"Our people were warned about it but have remained easily manipulated and completely sold on american manifest destiny."

Up until around the end of the 19th century manifest destiny was an Imperialist policy. Most Americans today mean it in the terminology of Wilson.

"Our military has been bullying sovereign nations and working with world banking interests to undermine political, cultural and economic stabilities around the world."

And alternative history month continues...

"The method has been the same every time: destabilize, buy out, loan, inflate, repeat.
I believe that a large portion of the american people have finally been able to become driven and educated enough about this to make effective change."

Welcome to Soviet historical revisionism.

"We've done so much irreparable damage as a nation to the world and to ourselves that even if we make immediate changes to our government policies it will take a few generations to effect permanent change."

It usually does. In fact, it will take around 2-3 generations for full effect of today's reforms to have outplayed their effects, which is incidently about 1 lifetime.

"There will be more suffering and ignorance but the artificial nation building is going to stop, the illegal occupations are going to stop and regulations will be reduced enough to allow people to help one another."

Suffering and ignorance will never stop. It will take at least another few hundred years before the US has anything which resembles a "nation". What is the difference between 'illegal' and 'legal' occupations, as per your personal terminology? People are best at helping themselves. Don't see what it has to do with US foreign policy...

"Fiscal necessity has dictated it be true."

And the sky is blue and water wet. It's not exactly a firm argument for or against anything.

"We can no longer afford to continue on as we have."

I think Aristoteles first made this argument, and he was wrong. Still not correct today.

"Sell one aircraft carrier"

Most likely buyer is a more militaristic government than the American one. I'd prefer if you'd scuttle them for artificial reefs and not start arming 3rd parties.

"The possibilities are endless when the american government stops being imperialist douche-bags and lets us effect real positive change in the world."

So you mean pretty much what they have been doing since the end of the indian Wars..?

"I'm an optimist"

That's not optimism. Or realism. You are a pessimist not seeing the forest for all the trees. :-)



© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service