Friday, April 16, 2010

It Must Seem Like the World is Ending to the Fanatical Believers

Earthquakes, volcanoes, meteor showers, global warming -- and now...

The National Day of Prayer is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Yes, believe it or not, the Congress-approved NDoP has been ruled by a Federal Judge to violate the Lemon Test, the 39-year-old landmark case that set the precedent and three-pronged requirement to determine legitimacy of a law or decision when touching on religious matters.

Especially after the massive hype over yesterday's "Tea Parties", where the scalding mugs of teabagged hosts whipped up a frenzy of hysteria over government involvement in things they feel shouldn't be regulated - like caring for the sick, housing the homeless, taking in the orphans and providing safe, clean, reliable food and water to all. You know, all those evil, socialist, demonic things that no "True Christian" would want to see.

I can't wait to listen to the talking heads explode with indignant anger and pumped-up piousness. I can only imagine the tears that will be streaming down the face of Glenn Beck and his cronies. I just know this is going to be appealled to the highest court -- and unless the religious right gets some sort of Divine Miracle, it's going to be confirmed.

And the great part is, many of the arguments used to promote and "justify" the NDoP are the same ones that have been cited in support of the "Under God" clause that was added to the Pledge and "In God We Trust" on our money. Take note, godly believers - NOT ONE OF THESE THINGS WAS ENACTED BY THE FOUNDERS!! In fact, all three were started during war, and pushed almost exclusively by prominent religious groups as a means of separating the "righteous" from the "godless enemy".

Oh, and that whole "tradition" argument that many have tried to claim? You know, the one that goes "but we've been doing it since the founding, so it must be good." Try substituting "slavery" for "prayer" and see if you can justify your morals with that. Good luck with that.


Winston Smith said...

Chuck, of course it was ruled unconstitutional.

This is only the beginning, as the 21st century will probably be dominated by atheists.

But we had a taste of what it would be like in the 20th century; I don't think its going to be pretty.

If you are seriously trying to tell me that atheists in power would not try to ELIMINATE religion, not just SEPARATE it, then you are kidding only yourself, pal.

Chuck Lunney said...

Hi, Adam (or Andrew, or Goldsmith, or whoever you want to be this week).

Funny how you rant against atheists, but didn't bother to even read for comprehension my post.

What, in my post, do you think indicates that this was a ruling BY or FOR atheists? Or where I said, in in any way, that the government should "eliminate" religion?

Quite the contrary, actually. Religion does serve a purpose, and it can be a reasonable source of cohesiveness and community, as long as it remains non-government. The problem (which you seem hellbent on ignoring) is when a government decides to either overtly or tacitly support a specific type of religion of belief.

Freedom of religion means the government shouldn't EVER have anything to say about how, when, where or what religionists believe (unless they interfere with or threaten others in some way - which then falls under the civil enforcement and legal standards of the government). Knowing that this is a pluralistic society, made of of people who believe in many different gods (or none at all), means that no effort at all should be made to appease or affront ANY of them. The idea of a NDoP, "under God", "In God We Trust", etc is a direct assault on that precious freedom, because it signifies a government endorsement of a monotheistic, Judeo-Christian religion.

If you think otherwise, please present some cogent, logical, reasoned argument. Insults and nonsense will just get you laughed at.

Winston Smith said...

Looks like you started with the insults, pal.

That said, I am glad you admit that religion serves a purpose.

If nothing else, it is a counterbalance to the state.

So, YOU learn to read before your famous temper flares up...I said this is only the beginning.

You know good and well what is coming down the pike! LOL!

Chuck Lunney said...

What insults? If you don't like my comments about idiocy and the ignorance of the talking heads (and creationists), then don't bother reading my blog. Period, end of story.

I don't see religion as any sort of "counterbalance" to the state, but as a legitimate support and community structure for individuals. The problems arise when that community becomes too invasive and overbearing on the rest of the culture, to the detriment of all.

As to whether this is "the beginning" or not -- the Goldstein rabble started this long ago, and the insults arise far more often from you and your comrades than anything I write. You sabotage and spam blogs and news sites, then brag about "shutting them down". Great example of free speech and open access, isn't it?

Threaten and bluster all you like. I'm certainly not worried about a couple teenagers with internet access. Even your "glorious leader", Jim Christensen, thinks little of your antics.

If, at any point, you actually want to discuss the content of my actual postings, rather than off-topic rants and insults, feel free.