Discussion:
Obama will appeal Day of Prayer ruling
(too old to reply)
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
2010-04-24 15:40:21 UTC
Permalink
- - -

Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.

Obama, due in large part to the success of
the Republicans in combining religion with
politics to gain political power, has likewise
dabbled in religious tap-dancing to try to
prop up religious notions of worship and
prayer and "religion as good" regardless
of how much harm results from religious
faith.

Obama, as much as I admire him for his
progressive stances on many issues, his
anti-intellectual attempt to garner favor
from religious sympathizers is a sad com-
mentary on how leaders are tempted to
play the religion card for political gain
regardless of the anti-humanism which
is deeply embedded in all major religious
faiths, and regardless of the absolute and
total futility of depending on magic beings
for anything.

Oh sure, when it comes to seductions and
threats, religion has been invested with
a vast amount of treasure and blind faith,
but it is *not* the role of government to
in any way, shape, or form, support or
prop up that role, or those notions, all due
disrespect to Obama's and Bush's efforts
to do so.

- - -
April 23, 2010
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/04/23/obama_will_appeal_day_of_prayer_ruling/
- - -

Excerpt:

The Obama administration said yesterday
it will appeal a court decision that found
the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.

US District Judge Barbara Crabb in Madison
ruled last week the National Day of Prayer
that Congress established 58 years ago
amounts to a call for religious action.

The Justice Department said it will challenge
the decision in the US Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. The notice
came after about two dozen members of
Congress condemned the ruling and pressed
for an appeal.

The case was brought by the Freedom From
Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group
of atheists and agnostics who argue the
National Day of Prayer violates the separation
of church and state. Its co-president Annie
Laurie Gaylor said she was disappointed in
the decision to appeal.

"I would have expected something better
from a legal scholar,'' she said, referring to
President Obama's background as a law
professor.

Her group planned to launch an online peti-
tion praising Crabb's decision and asking
Obama, the principal defendant in the law-
suit, to "leave days of prayer to individuals,
private groups and churches, synagogues,
mosques and temples.''

The administration had argued the law sim-
ply acknowledges the role of religion in the
United States.

Congress established the day in 1952 and
in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the
day for presidents to issue proclamations
asking Americans to pray. An Obama spokes-
man has said the president plans to issue a
proclamation for the upcoming prayer day,
May 6. Many other state and local officials
typically follow suit.

The Justice Department signaled it would
appeal not only Crabb's decision on the
merits of the case but also her ruling last
month that the defendants had the standing
to bring the lawsuit in the first place.

...

- - - end excerpt - - -

- - -

€ - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - €

~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://prohuman.net
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
j-rod
2010-04-24 17:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.
Obama, due in large part to the success of
the Republicans in combining religion with
politics to gain political power, has likewise
dabbled in religious tap-dancing to try to
prop up religious notions of worship and
prayer and "religion as good" regardless
of how much harm results from religious
faith.
Obama, as much as I admire him for his
progressive stances on many issues, his
anti-intellectual attempt to garner favor
from religious sympathizers is a sad com-
mentary on how leaders are tempted to
play the religion card for political gain
regardless of the anti-humanism which
is deeply embedded in all major religious
faiths, and regardless of the absolute and
total futility of depending on magic beings
for anything.
Oh sure, when it comes to seductions and
threats, religion has been invested with
a vast amount of treasure and blind faith,
but it is *not* the role of government to
in any way, shape, or form, support or
prop up that role, or those notions, all due
disrespect to Obama's and Bush's efforts
to do so.
- - -
April 23, 2010
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/04/23/obama_will_appeal_day_of_prayer_ruling/
- - -
The Obama administration said yesterday
it will appeal a court decision that found
the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.
US District Judge Barbara Crabb in Madison
ruled last week the National Day of Prayer
that Congress established 58 years ago
amounts to a call for religious action.
The Justice Department said it will challenge
the decision in the US Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. The notice
came after about two dozen members of
Congress condemned the ruling and pressed
for an appeal.
The case was brought by the Freedom From
Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group
of atheists and agnostics who argue the
National Day of Prayer violates the separation
of church and state. Its co-president Annie
Laurie Gaylor said she was disappointed in
the decision to appeal.
"I would have expected something better
from a legal scholar,'' she said, referring to
President Obama's background as a law
professor.
Her group planned to launch an online peti-
tion praising Crabb's decision and asking
Obama, the principal defendant in the law-
suit, to "leave days of prayer to individuals,
private groups and churches, synagogues,
mosques and temples.''
The administration had argued the law sim-
ply acknowledges the role of religion in the
United States.
Congress established the day in 1952 and
in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the
day for presidents to issue proclamations
asking Americans to pray. An Obama spokes-
man has said the president plans to issue a
proclamation for the upcoming prayer day,
May 6. Many other state and local officials
typically follow suit.
The Justice Department signaled it would
appeal not only Crabb's decision on the
merits of the case but also her ruling last
month that the defendants had the standing
to bring the lawsuit in the first place.
...
- - - end excerpt - - -
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://prohuman.net
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
The leaders of AU are christians that know the dangers of mixing
religion and government.

If Obama did not appeal this ruling he would be crucified by the
christians.

http://www.au.org/

JAM
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
2010-04-26 14:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by j-rod
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.
Obama, due in large part to the success of
the Republicans in combining religion with
politics to gain political power, has likewise
dabbled in religious tap-dancing to try to
prop up religious notions of worship and
prayer and "religion as good" regardless
of how much harm results from religious
faith.
Obama, as much as I admire him for his
progressive stances on many issues, his
anti-intellectual attempt to garner favor
from religious sympathizers is a sad com-
mentary on how leaders are tempted to
play the religion card for political gain
regardless of the anti-humanism which
is deeply embedded in all major religious
faiths, and regardless of the absolute and
total futility of depending on magic beings
for anything.
Oh sure, when it comes to seductions and
threats, religion has been invested with
a vast amount of treasure and blind faith,
but it is *not* the role of government to
in any way, shape, or form, support or
prop up that role, or those notions, all due
disrespect to Obama's and Bush's efforts
to do so.
- - -
April 23, 2010
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/04/23/obama_will_appeal_day_of_prayer_ruling/
- - -
The Obama administration said yesterday
it will appeal a court decision that found
the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.
US District Judge Barbara Crabb in Madison
ruled last week the National Day of Prayer
that Congress established 58 years ago
amounts to a call for religious action.
The Justice Department said it will challenge
the decision in the US Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. The notice
came after about two dozen members of
Congress condemned the ruling and pressed
for an appeal.
The case was brought by the Freedom From
Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group
of atheists and agnostics who argue the
National Day of Prayer violates the separation
of church and state. Its co-president Annie
Laurie Gaylor said she was disappointed in
the decision to appeal.
"I would have expected something better
from a legal scholar,'' she said, referring to
President Obama's background as a law
professor.
Her group planned to launch an online peti-
tion praising Crabb's decision and asking
Obama, the principal defendant in the law-
suit, to "leave days of prayer to individuals,
private groups and churches, synagogues,
mosques and temples.''
The administration had argued the law sim-
ply acknowledges the role of religion in the
United States.
Congress established the day in 1952 and
in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the
day for presidents to issue proclamations
asking Americans to pray. An Obama spokes-
man has said the president plans to issue a
proclamation for the upcoming prayer day,
May 6. Many other state and local officials
typically follow suit.
The Justice Department signaled it would
appeal not only Crabb's decision on the
merits of the case but also her ruling last
month that the defendants had the standing
to bring the lawsuit in the first place.
...
- - - end excerpt - - -
- - -
€ - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - €
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://prohuman.net
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
The leaders of AU are christians that know
the dangers of mixing religion and government.
If Obama did not appeal this ruling he would
be crucified by the christians.
http://www.au.org/
JAM
Obama, clearly able to put together an
intelligent case in opposition to notions
held by many christians (as evidenced
by his removal of the embryonic stem
cell research ban), no doubt could use
that same intellectual capability when
confronting other widely held christian
advocacies, like "In God We Trust" on
money, "one nation under God" in the
pledge, and the National Prayer Day.

His failure to do so marks him as a co-
conspirator with those who seek to deny
and end the separation of church and
state.

His intellectual reasoning skills are missing
in action when it comes to religion, not
only on separation of church and state
issues, but on the very nature of his reli-
gious faith itself. Of course, he shares
that MIA characteristic with all of his
fellow believers, from the fundamentalists
to the theological thinking heads that use
every trick in the book to try to prop up
the notions of magic beings and magic
places.

Lacking anything in the way of evidence,
they seek to aid religions and religious
faith through tearing down the wall of
separation of church and state and making
government a de facto adjunct of at the
very least, a deistic God (with implied sup-
port for the vast array of God-associated
entities and religions in play).

When it comes to religion, Obama and his
his fellow believers (of all religious stripes)
are intellectually vacuous.

- - -

€ - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - € - €

~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://prohuman.net
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
Ron Peterson
2010-05-02 04:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by j-rod
If Obama did not appeal this ruling he would be crucified by the
christians.
Judge Hamilton, an Obama appointee, may be hearing the case. He has
ruled that "Jesus" can't be used in a secular prayer, but "God" or
"Allah" can be.

--
Ron
Lord Calvert
2010-05-02 20:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by j-rod
If Obama did not appeal this ruling he would be crucified by the
christians.
Judge Hamilton, an Obama appointee, may be hearing the case. He  has
ruled that "Jesus" can't be used in a secular prayer, but "God" or
"Allah" can be.
Could you tell me just what precisely a "secular prayer" is? If it is
a prayer whose content is determined and enforced by government, then
the wording wouldn't be relevant. Simply having big-government dictate
and compel a religious standard would be sufficient to make any such
prayer an unconstitutional expansion of government power and an attack
on the theological independence of our nation's houses of worship.
Government simply is neither competent nor empowered to make such a
determination for all Americans. Any conservative who truly supports
limiting the power of government will tell you that.

Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology

"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless
the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no
place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known
without trying to make their views the only alternatives." -- Sen.
Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)
Jack
2010-05-02 20:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Calvert
Post by j-rod
If Obama did not appeal this ruling he would be crucified by the
christians.
Judge Hamilton, an Obama appointee, may be hearing the case. He  has
ruled that "Jesus" can't be used in a secular prayer, but "God" or
"Allah" can be.
Could you tell me just what precisely a "secular prayer" is?
Meditation.
s***@teranews.com
2010-05-06 21:31:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Calvert
Post by j-rod
If Obama did not appeal this ruling he would be crucified by the
christians.
Judge Hamilton, an Obama appointee, may be hearing the case. He  has
ruled that "Jesus" can't be used in a secular prayer, but "God" or
"Allah" can be.
Could you tell me just what precisely a "secular prayer" is?
No such animal. A prayer, or whatever label you change it to, is to a
presumed entity outside humanity which is superstition {Religion}.


[]
Christopher A. Lee
2010-05-06 21:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@teranews.com
Post by Lord Calvert
Post by j-rod
If Obama did not appeal this ruling he would be crucified by the
christians.
Judge Hamilton, an Obama appointee, may be hearing the case. He  has
ruled that "Jesus" can't be used in a secular prayer, but "God" or
"Allah" can be.
Could you tell me just what precisely a "secular prayer" is?
No such animal. A prayer, or whatever label you change it to, is to a
presumed entity outside humanity which is superstition {Religion}.
Actually there is.

Google for definition legal prayer and you get...

prayer n. the specific request for judgment, relief and/or damages at
the conclusion of a complaint or petition. A typical prayer would
read: "The plaintiff prays for: 1) special damages in the sum of
$17,500; 2) general damages according to proof [proved in trial]; 3)
reasonable attorney's fees; 4) costs of suit; and 5) such other and
further relief as the court shall deem proper." A prayer gives the
judge an idea of what is sought, and may become the basis of a
judgment if the defendant defaults (fails to file an answer).
Sometimes a plaintiff will inflate damages in the prayer for publicity
or intimidation purposes, or because the plaintiff believes that a
gigantic demand will be a better starting point in negotiations.
However, the ridiculous multi-million prayers in smaller cases make
plaintiffs look foolish and unrealistic.
Post by s***@teranews.com
[]
p***@hotmail.com
2010-05-06 21:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lord Calvert
Post by j-rod
If Obama did not appeal this ruling he would be crucified by the
christians.
Judge Hamilton, an Obama appointee, may be hearing the case. He  has
ruled that "Jesus" can't be used in a secular prayer, but "God" or
"Allah" can be.
Could you tell me just what precisely a "secular prayer" is?
"Dear god or gods or whatever, please save me from your fucking
followers."

Sorry, Rich..couldn't resist! Carry on.

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Rick
2010-05-07 21:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Lord Calvert
Post by Ron Peterson
Post by j-rod
If Obama did not appeal this ruling he would be crucified by the
christians.
Judge Hamilton, an Obama appointee, may be hearing the case. He has
ruled that "Jesus" can't be used in a secular prayer, but "God" or
"Allah" can be.
Could you tell me just what precisely a "secular prayer" is?
"Dear god or gods or whatever, please save me from your fucking
followers."
Sorry, Rich..couldn't resist! Carry on.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
You prayed, now the deity is going to Want You!
The WhistleBlower
2010-05-06 22:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
YOU WILL MEET WITH YOUR FATE
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.
Obama, due in large part to the success of
the Republicans in combining religion with
politics to gain political power, has likewise
dabbled in religious tap-dancing to try to
prop up religious notions of worship and
prayer and "religion as good" regardless
of how much harm results from religious
faith.
Obama, as much as I admire him for his
progressive stances on many issues, his
anti-intellectual attempt to garner favor
from religious sympathizers is a sad com-
mentary on how leaders are tempted to
play the religion card for political gain
regardless of the anti-humanism which
is deeply embedded in all major religious
faiths, and regardless of the absolute and
total futility of depending on magic beings
for anything.
Oh sure, when it comes to seductions and
threats, religion has been invested with
a vast amount of treasure and blind faith,
but it is *not* the role of government to
in any way, shape, or form, support or
prop up that role, or those notions, all due
disrespect to Obama's and Bush's efforts
to do so.
- - -
April 23, 2010
 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/04/23/obama_will_appe...
- - -
The Obama administration said yesterday
it will appeal a court decision that found
the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.
US District Judge Barbara Crabb in Madison
ruled last week the National Day of Prayer
that Congress established 58 years ago
amounts to a call for religious action.
The Justice Department said it will challenge
the decision in the US Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. The notice
came after about two dozen members of
Congress condemned the ruling and pressed
for an appeal.
The case was brought by the Freedom From
Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group
of atheists and agnostics who argue the
National Day of Prayer violates the separation
of church and state. Its co-president Annie
Laurie Gaylor said she was disappointed in
the decision to appeal.
"I would have expected something better
from a legal scholar,'' she said, referring to
President Obama's background as a law
professor.
Her group planned to launch an online peti-
tion praising Crabb's decision and asking
Obama, the principal defendant in the law-
suit, to "leave days of prayer to individuals,
private groups and churches, synagogues,
mosques and temples.''
The administration had argued the law sim-
ply acknowledges the role of religion in the
United States.
Congress established the day in 1952 and
in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the
day for presidents to issue proclamations
asking Americans to pray. An Obama spokes-
man has said the president plans to issue a
proclamation for the upcoming prayer day,
May 6. Many other state and local officials
typically follow suit.
The Justice Department signaled it would
appeal not only Crabb's decision on the
merits of the case but also her ruling last
month that the defendants had the standing
to bring the lawsuit in the first place.
...
- - - end excerpt - - -
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
 http://prohuman.net
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
haiku jones
2010-05-06 23:02:07 UTC
Permalink
wrote:> - - -
 YOU WILL MEET WITH YOUR FATE
And who will not?


Haiku Jones
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.
Obama, due in large part to the success of
the Republicans in combining religion with
politics to gain political power, has likewise
dabbled in religious tap-dancing to try to
prop up religious notions of worship and
prayer and "religion as good" regardless
of how much harm results from religious
faith.
Obama, as much as I admire him for his
progressive stances on many issues, his
anti-intellectual attempt to garner favor
from religious sympathizers is a sad com-
mentary on how leaders are tempted to
play the religion card for political gain
regardless of the anti-humanism which
is deeply embedded in all major religious
faiths, and regardless of the absolute and
total futility of depending on magic beings
for anything.
Oh sure, when it comes to seductions and
threats, religion has been invested with
a vast amount of treasure and blind faith,
but it is *not* the role of government to
in any way, shape, or form, support or
prop up that role, or those notions, all due
disrespect to Obama's and Bush's efforts
to do so.
- - -
April 23, 2010
 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/04/23/obama_will_appe...
- - -
The Obama administration said yesterday
it will appeal a court decision that found
the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.
US District Judge Barbara Crabb in Madison
ruled last week the National Day of Prayer
that Congress established 58 years ago
amounts to a call for religious action.
The Justice Department said it will challenge
the decision in the US Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. The notice
came after about two dozen members of
Congress condemned the ruling and pressed
for an appeal.
The case was brought by the Freedom From
Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group
of atheists and agnostics who argue the
National Day of Prayer violates the separation
of church and state. Its co-president Annie
Laurie Gaylor said she was disappointed in
the decision to appeal.
"I would have expected something better
from a legal scholar,'' she said, referring to
President Obama's background as a law
professor.
Her group planned to launch an online peti-
tion praising Crabb's decision and asking
Obama, the principal defendant in the law-
suit, to "leave days of prayer to individuals,
private groups and churches, synagogues,
mosques and temples.''
The administration had argued the law sim-
ply acknowledges the role of religion in the
United States.
Congress established the day in 1952 and
in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the
day for presidents to issue proclamations
asking Americans to pray. An Obama spokes-
man has said the president plans to issue a
proclamation for the upcoming prayer day,
May 6. Many other state and local officials
typically follow suit.
The Justice Department signaled it would
appeal not only Crabb's decision on the
merits of the case but also her ruling last
month that the defendants had the standing
to bring the lawsuit in the first place.
...
- - - end excerpt - - -
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
 http://prohuman.net
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
Joe Bruno
2010-05-06 23:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.
Obama, due in large part to the success of
the Republicans in combining religion with
politics to gain political power, has likewise
dabbled in religious tap-dancing to try to
prop up religious notions of worship and
prayer and "religion as good" regardless
of how much harm results from religious
faith.
Obama, as much as I admire him for his
progressive stances on many issues, his
anti-intellectual attempt to garner favor
from religious sympathizers is a sad com-
mentary on how leaders are tempted to
play the religion card for political gain
regardless of the anti-humanism which
is deeply embedded in all major religious
faiths, and regardless of the absolute and
total futility of depending on magic beings
for anything.
Oh sure, when it comes to seductions and
threats, religion has been invested with
a vast amount of treasure and blind faith,
but it is *not* the role of government to
in any way, shape, or form, support or
prop up that role, or those notions, all due
disrespect to Obama's and Bush's efforts
to do so.
- - -
April 23, 2010
 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/04/23/obama_will_appe...
- - -
The Obama administration said yesterday
it will appeal a court decision that found
the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional.
US District Judge Barbara Crabb in Madison
ruled last week the National Day of Prayer
that Congress established 58 years ago
amounts to a call for religious action.
The Justice Department said it will challenge
the decision in the US Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. The notice
came after about two dozen members of
Congress condemned the ruling and pressed
for an appeal.
The case was brought by the Freedom From
Religion Foundation, a Madison-based group
of atheists and agnostics who argue the
National Day of Prayer violates the separation
of church and state. Its co-president Annie
Laurie Gaylor said she was disappointed in
the decision to appeal.
"I would have expected something better
from a legal scholar,'' she said, referring to
President Obama's background as a law
professor.
Her group planned to launch an online peti-
tion praising Crabb's decision and asking
Obama, the principal defendant in the law-
suit, to "leave days of prayer to individuals,
private groups and churches, synagogues,
mosques and temples.''
The administration had argued the law sim-
ply acknowledges the role of religion in the
United States.
Congress established the day in 1952 and
in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the
day for presidents to issue proclamations
asking Americans to pray. An Obama spokes-
man has said the president plans to issue a
proclamation for the upcoming prayer day,
May 6. Many other state and local officials
typically follow suit.
The Justice Department signaled it would
appeal not only Crabb's decision on the
merits of the case but also her ruling last
month that the defendants had the standing
to bring the lawsuit in the first place.
...
- - - end excerpt - - -
- - -
¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤ - ¤
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
 http://prohuman.net
(Freethinking Realist Exploring
Expressive Liberty, Openness,
Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
~~~
It looks like Obama's Justice Department will sue about this. I hope
so and hope it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. This is an
important and recurring issue and it needs to be decided once and for
all by the highest court.
JohnN
2010-05-07 00:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.
Pathetic that christians have to have the federal government tell them
to pray.

JohnN
Lord Calvert
2010-05-07 00:57:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnN
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.
Pathetic that christians have to have the federal government tell them
to pray.
I guess Christians just hate their churches and want big-government to
be their preacher.


Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
Rick
2010-05-07 21:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnN
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.
Pathetic that christians have to have the federal government tell them
to pray.
JohnN
I didn't think of THAT! Well done.

Hey, that should be "Chistians" with a capital C if you dont' mind!-)
Humaan
2011-06-13 10:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://prohuman.net
I find it curious how secular Humanists seem to dwell on religion.
So much attention gives it more credibility. Why upset those who
we believe to be mistaken? What is the objective?
Religious people themselves point out these arguments are generated
by the unsure.

By all means challenge them on each point that you find.

I have searched the web and found little in the way of convincing argument,
though I remain a fellow traveler so-to-speak.

How do humanists divine good/bad, moral/immoral?
Is it possible for a Fascist to declare a humanist leaning?

Is humanism a political party in the making, a new religion, a lobby group,
or a parlour debating game? Reading some texts I could at least see the
trends going those ways.
huge
2011-06-13 12:11:47 UTC
Permalink
On 06/13/2011 05:43 AM, Humaan wrote:
<snippage>
How do humanists divine good/bad, moral/immoral? <snippage>
Well, instead of _pretending_ that we don't make the determination about
what is ethical ourselves, we just make the determination about it.

Did you believe, somehow, that this could actually affect whether there
is, in fact, a god or not? Let me propose this little experiment for
you: Wish as hard as you can into your left hand; crap into the other.
Get back to us with your findings of which hand gets full first.
Colanth
2011-06-13 12:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Humaan
I find it curious how secular Humanists seem to dwell on religion.
*WE'RE* not the ones trying to illegally force the government to
support our primitive beliefs.
Post by Humaan
How do humanists divine good/bad, moral/immoral?
The same way you define comfortable/uncomfortable. Only people who
have to ask that question need a book to tell them the difference.
--
“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always
convinced that it says what he means” - George Bernard Shaw
Humaan
2011-06-13 13:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colanth
Post by Humaan
I find it curious how secular Humanists seem to dwell on religion.
*WE'RE* not the ones trying to illegally force the government to
support our primitive beliefs.
Post by Humaan
How do humanists divine good/bad, moral/immoral?
The same way you define comfortable/uncomfortable. Only people who
have to ask that question need a book to tell them the difference.
--
“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always
convinced that it says what he means” - George Bernard Shaw
"The same way you define comfortable/uncomfortable."
That's what I feared. Under that definition, almost everyone who thinks
can be called a humanist. Every decision on ethics can be called a
humanist ethic.
Hoping that "good" will just appear when people try to summon it up by
thought will not even narrow down all the likely answers.
The Fascist believes that people are not born equal, and creates a society
based upon that. I am sure some of their theorists believe as hard as anyone
else that they are good and right, just as the ancient Greeks had no
apparent
problem with the existence of slaves.
I am not trying to suggest we need a little book to tell us what is good and
bad.
I do feel that there must be a harder definition of good/moral than is being
propounded.

Cheers.
Colanth
2011-06-14 02:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Humaan
Post by Colanth
Post by Humaan
I find it curious how secular Humanists seem to dwell on religion.
*WE'RE* not the ones trying to illegally force the government to
support our primitive beliefs.
Post by Humaan
How do humanists divine good/bad, moral/immoral?
The same way you define comfortable/uncomfortable. Only people who
have to ask that question need a book to tell them the difference.
"The same way you define comfortable/uncomfortable."
That's what I feared. Under that definition, almost everyone who thinks
can be called a humanist. Every decision on ethics can be called a
humanist ethic.
Children can't understand why all adults make the same decision in the
same circumstance. Don't play with that rattlesnake. Don't walk out
in front of that speeding car. Don't walk off that cliff.

That doesn't mean that the adults are wrong, or that some adult is
going to try to fly (not a sane adult, anyway).

The fact that you don't know why the tide comes in and goes out
doesn't mean there's a god, and the fact that you have no moral sense
doesn't mean that moral people don't.
Post by Humaan
Hoping that "good" will just appear when people try to summon it up by
thought will not even narrow down all the likely answers.
Yet that's all that religion is - hoping that the god you believe in
exists.
Post by Humaan
I am not trying to suggest we need a little book to tell us what is good and
bad.
I do feel that there must be a harder definition of good/moral than is being
propounded.
Is there a "harder definition" or too hot to survive or too cold to
survive? Not to people who have no thermal nerve endings - they need
a "harder definition" of the conditions. Moral people *know* when
something is right or wrong, the same way you know if your head is too
far under water to breathe.
--
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation.
But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have
been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made
them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - John Adams, letter
to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
Humaan
2011-06-14 09:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colanth
Post by Humaan
Post by Colanth
Post by Humaan
I find it curious how secular Humanists seem to dwell on religion.
*WE'RE* not the ones trying to illegally force the government to
support our primitive beliefs.
Post by Humaan
How do humanists divine good/bad, moral/immoral?
The same way you define comfortable/uncomfortable. Only people who
have to ask that question need a book to tell them the difference.
"The same way you define comfortable/uncomfortable."
That's what I feared. Under that definition, almost everyone who thinks
can be called a humanist. Every decision on ethics can be called a
humanist ethic.
Children can't understand why all adults make the same decision in the
same circumstance. Don't play with that rattlesnake. Don't walk out
in front of that speeding car. Don't walk off that cliff.
That doesn't mean that the adults are wrong, or that some adult is
going to try to fly (not a sane adult, anyway).
The fact that you don't know why the tide comes in and goes out
doesn't mean there's a god, and the fact that you have no moral sense
doesn't mean that moral people don't.
Post by Humaan
Hoping that "good" will just appear when people try to summon it up by
thought will not even narrow down all the likely answers.
Yet that's all that religion is - hoping that the god you believe in
exists.
Post by Humaan
I am not trying to suggest we need a little book to tell us what is good and
bad.
I do feel that there must be a harder definition of good/moral than is being
propounded.
Is there a "harder definition" or too hot to survive or too cold to
survive? Not to people who have no thermal nerve endings - they need
a "harder definition" of the conditions. Moral people *know* when
something is right or wrong, the same way you know if your head is too
far under water to breathe.
--
I wish you had read my posts.
Part of what I have posted says that there are differing views on what is
good and moral.
Put another way, there is no absolute truth.
If one society allows for torture and justifies it because it works, or
another declares Jews Slavs Gypsies, Union leaders etc.,to be less than
human, then where is your "Moral people *know* " getting you?

Our societies are not good and moral by default. We have to understand
where our definitions have emerged from and the context they appeared
in too.
There will never be a situation where all questions can be answered, and
there is always a need for judgment.

Cheers
Colanth
2011-06-14 14:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Humaan
I wish you had read my posts.
Part of what I have posted says that there are differing views on what is
good and moral.
Yes - religibots each have their holy books telling them different
things. Moral people all agree. It's like temperature - a red hot
piece of steel is too hot to be comfortable, a piece of dry ice is too
cold to be comfortable, there's no disagreement. Unless one has no
temperature-sensing nerve ending.
Post by Humaan
Put another way, there is no absolute truth.
Of course not. Whether eating a zebra is moral or not is relative to
whether you're a lion or a zebra.
Post by Humaan
If one society allows for torture and justifies it because it works
torture is immoral, whether "one society" allows it or not.
Post by Humaan
or another declares Jews Slavs Gypsies, Union leaders etc.,to be less than
human, then where is your "Moral people *know* " getting you?
Moral people know the difference. That you can't tell the difference
without a book telling you is an indication that you're amoral.
Post by Humaan
Our societies are not good and moral by default.
Societies aren't in the class of things that have morality (or lack of
it). Out thoughts are neither wet nor dry, so claiming that our
thoughts aren't wet is meaningless noise.
Post by Humaan
Qe have to understand
where our definitions have emerged from and the context they appeared
in too.
They evolved. The same as our other properties.
Post by Humaan
There will never be a situation where all questions can be answered, and
there is always a need for judgment.
Which is irrelevant to the question of how a person with no
understanding of morals can question morality. (Doing the right thing
because you've been taught that it's the right thing isn't morality,
it's education.)
--
Buddhist to hot dog vendor, Make me One with Everything
Don Martin
2011-06-13 12:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Humaan
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
 http://prohuman.net
I find it curious how secular Humanists seem to dwell on religion.
So much attention gives it more credibility. Why upset those who
we believe to be mistaken? What is the objective?
Religious people themselves point out these arguments are generated
by the unsure.
Of _course_ religious persons would make such a claim. As we see here
daily, the religious are highly defensive about their faith (probably
because of a sneaking realization that their superfriends are only
imaginary) and very threatened by atheists. I cannot see that asking
them for evidence of their beliefs gives more credibility to their
religion, but it certainly _does_ seem to annoy them.

And it is easier for them to sniff "that argument is generated by the
unsure," than to find any such evidence.
Christopher A. Lee
2011-06-13 13:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Humaan
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://prohuman.net
I find it curious how secular Humanists seem to dwell on religion.
We don't. We REACT to it.

Learn the difference.
thomas p.
2011-06-13 15:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Humaan
Post by Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
- - -
Religious sympathizers, so insecure in their
belief in magic beings and magic places,
continually seek to imbue their favorite magic
being with acclaim by trying to combine sup-
port for it and belief in it with government
activity.
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
http://prohuman.net
I find it curious how secular Humanists seem to dwell on religion.
So much attention gives it more credibility. Why upset those who
we believe to be mistaken?
Perhaps you have not noticed that theists go out of their way to post their
assertions to alt.atheism. They ask for our attention, we do not go looking
for them. In other words you have it backwards.


What is the objective?
Post by Humaan
Religious people themselves point out these arguments are generated
by the unsure.
Obviously they are lying.
Post by Humaan
By all means challenge them on each point that you find.
I have searched the web and found little in the way of convincing argument,
though I remain a fellow traveler so-to-speak.
How do humanists divine good/bad, moral/immoral?
Is it possible for a Fascist to declare a humanist leaning?
Is humanism a political party in the making, a new religion, a lobby group,
or a parlour debating game? Reading some texts I could at least see the
trends going those ways.
Try to decide if you want to talk about humanism or atheism.
--
thomas p

I bring you the stately matron Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched
and dishonored from pirate raids in Kiao-Chow, Manchuria, South Africa and
the Philippines, with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of boodle,
and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies. Give her soap and a towel, but hide
the looking-glass.

Mark Twain
Uncle Vic
2011-06-13 16:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Humaan
I find it curious how secular Humanists seem to dwell on religion.
Doesn't it seem to you that if unchecked, religion will take over our
secular government?
Post by Humaan
So much attention gives it more credibility.
Wow! Let's pay a lot more attention to unicorns, so we can make them
exist!

Fuckin' moron.

--
Uncle Vic
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...