Mike's Wretched Hive of Scum & Villany
The Original
DarkWhiteWolf
AKA Mike In Boise

Blog EntryFreedom from and Freedom of Goes Both WaysFeb 7, '08 11:31 AM
for everyone

As most people that know me understand that I am not religious. However I also do not smoke, do dope, and rarely drink. I say if what you do do don't do does not bother anyone else what does it matter?

Speaking as a secularist, I was actually upset over the court case and challenging God in the pledge of allegiance.  And for an atheists to challenge it?? It would make more sense of a Buddhist or the like to be upset over "God" rather than an atheists. I do not feel it is shoving God down your throat because God is a personal choice and the relationship people have with God is an individual thing. One can simply replace God with a word they feel fits better. One nation under law or something like that. Those that want God can have, one that don't, don't have to either.

I often look at religion like this. I do celebrate Christmas. When I hang up a picture of Santa Claus do I literally think a fat man in a red suit will actually fly around delivering presents? Well no, but it represents giving, family, happiness, self reflection. Same qualities people seek in their religion and relationship with God.

The taking the Ten Commandments out of the courthouse.  To an atheists would it not be the same as a picture of the Tooth Fairy in the court house?  Besides only about 40% of the commandments apply to court. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, & thou shalt not bear false witness. If people did not do those things the court would not be very busy anyway, not much need of a court house to begin with.

Here in Boise we have a big light up cross over looking the city.  Some atheist from Chicago filed a suit over it. That really ticked me off.  He did not even live here, and again as an atheist why would it matter.  We all share the city, and a vast majority what the cross there. They look up on a bad day and see the light both literally and figuratively.  I am happy they found their religion. People need peace, joy, and hope, and the others of the city are entitled to it. It is not a Nazi swastika or a bird flipping finger. It far from offends me, and actually the door to door missionaries have bothered me alot More than a light up cross.

Prayer in school and Intelligent Design are separate issues from the PoA.  Others saying God in PoA is not a prayer, but an affirmation of beliefs of principles of our nation. Those who want God in it, say it as such, those that don't, don't. Neither side needs to force or make a huge deal about something simple.  Freedom of religion is freedom from it, but liek free speech, you do nto have a right to be unoffended. The fools who go looking to be offended to be on the news and make dumb drama, a different story fro a different day.

I hope our country goes back to a live and let live philosophy.

 


3 Comments
lilyiris wrote on Feb 7
I like to think of myself as a live and let live person. Though I consider myself agnostic, not atheist.

Maybe that's where the difference is. Agnostics still are willing to tolerate things they don't necessarily agree with.
crkincalifornia wrote on Feb 7
Great blog. I basically agreed with you especially your sentiments. But you made me think of a few things. My thoughts...I am totally secularist as far as government goes. I have no problem with anyone challenging anything or any of the drama because it helps us rethink our priorities. Because of him sticking his neck out and challenging the constant encroachment of religion into politics many people were able to assess where they stood on the issue. These are people who may not have thought it through otherwise and may have been misled into thinking the combination of religion and politics would be a good thing. In their minds religion is good and politics is good so why not combine them? I think the issues that came to the forefront during this time demonstrated what the average person could and couldn't tolerate as far as the combo of religion and politics and we came to another consensus or at least compromises that we could live with. So I personally had no problem with it at though I agree with you that I usually feel quite tolerant of the prescence of "God" all around me as long as it's not imposed on me in some way. The problem is, there IS a fine line between expression and imposition and people need to know there is a time and a place. We wouldn't let a child start singing and expressing themselves in the middle of class, so why would we let them start praying and expressing themselves in the middle of class? We wouldn't let someone go into congress and start miming or building a sculture, so why would we let them go in there preaching? The person who argues that religious expression is so integral to them as a person that they must be allowed to express it everywhere they are has 1. not read the Bible where it describes the right way to go about it and 2. is on the verge of crossing that fine line between self expression and imposition. It's an imposition to invade the purpose of a meeting and change it to something else. So like if people were having a meeting on water rights and someone else came in there and started talking about building sea walls to stop shore erosion, it would be inappropriate. Interjecting religion into politics is the same sort of thing in my opinion.I personally see the posting of the 10 commandments as religious artistic expression and don't feel it belongs at a building meant to decide the laws of the country. I have no problem with people using the 10 commandments as part of their moral compass. But I've read the Bible and I don't want the entire Bible used as their moral compass because I would not fare well under that system nor would most people I know. So by quoting it by a public building I always have to worry that someone is going to want to take it a step further, maybe not bringing back leper colonies but definitely rolling back women's rights or something like that. So I tend to agree with the atheists on this one most of the time. Anyway, sorry if that was long. That's just what I started thinking about after reading your blog. So great blog. Very thought provoking.
direwolfghost wrote on Feb 7
It is a touchy issue, and it is the most verbal in either camp that seem to bring the most drama. I do see your point of give an inch, they will expect the mile, that is a prove fact of human nature. True there are those who thinking stoning and what ever out dated ideas are just dandy. Rule of majority rights of minority a very fine line, and will offend many other people because they do not get their way.
I am like you an believe in the "Wall of Separation" and find it no myth, the founding fathers meant for it to be there considering what was happening in Europe at that time. The 10 Commandments i nthe federal building I was not as "oh shnit it will hit the fan" about that because public funds do provide federal buildings.
Add a Comment
   
© 2008 Multiply, Inc.    About · Blog · Terms · Privacy · Corp Info · Contact Us · Help