"It seems perfectly O.K. for secularists to impose their secular views on America, such as, say, legalized abortion or gay marriage. But when someone takes the contrary view, all of a sudden he is trying to impose his view on you. And if that contrary view happens to be rooted in Scripture or some kind of religious belief system, the very public advocacy of that view becomes a violation of the U.S. constitutional order.

What nonsense. The campaign against certainty is merely the philosophical veneer for an attempt to politically marginalize and intellectually disenfranchise believers. Instead of arguing the merits of any issue, secularists are trying to win the argument by default on the grounds that the other side displays unhealthy certainty or, even worse, unseemly religiosity."

There was a March 24th, 2004 Slate article by Dahlia Lithwick which you should read. It's about the Supreme Court case over the Pledge of Allegiance last year. The guy who made this constitutional challenge represented himself, and got applause during the proceedings.

Epilogue: the Supreme Court ultimately rejected the challenge; however, they did not reject it on the merits, but rather on a technicality (the case was made on behalf of the man's daughter, and after an unhappy divorce he was not her full legal guardian - therefore the court decided that he had no right to challenge on her behalf).

Check it out. It's a really good article.

Charles Krauthammer is, after all, surely part of today's Greatest Generation! The ones who saw through the idea of rational, free inquiry, and secular based government of the people (instead of its righful place as part of "God"). Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Monroe at al were really just trying to "politically marginalize and intellectually disenfranchise believers."

Wow. As they say, Mine Eyes Have Seen The Glory and it is Charles Krauthammer and Loogy. Thank you oh wise one(s).

If it makes you feel better. I'm completely against gay men getting abortions!

While "enlightenment principles" were certainly instrumental in the founding, so too was a respect for the right of communities to set their own standards. For instance, Virginia and Maryland had established religions in the 18th century. The First Amendment was drafted as a restraint on Congress, not states.

And is it any less of an imposition on someone's beliefs when the ACLU comes into a town which is happy to have a creche on its townhall lawn and says "no"? Or when the Supreme Court makes up a right to abortion without any textual support in the constitution and says to communities with a different idea, "you lose".

No one's going to haul you off to church against your will. But the idea that the left gets to prevail on all cultural issues without approval of the electorate is what's causing the backlash. Hey, I'm for the right of gays to marry, but I don't think my belief should win when 70% of the country disagrees with me.

I'm completely OK with your campaign for certainty. Preach against gay marriage. Raise and spend money advertising against the practice. Forbid people who are gay and married to join your church. Just don't use the force of government to intrude upon the rights of gays. Religion is good; religious views imposed by the force of government is bad.

Abortion is an entirely different discussion as it basically comes down to "At what point does life begin?" There are valid points on each side of the argument.

Republicans aren't supposed to side with the swaying of the masses. They're supposed to do the right thing regardless of any beliefs held by themselves or a majority of the electorate. We suffered a Civil War for that principle. If true Republicans still existed in America's leadership, and if they still truly acted on behalf of the good of the nation instead of their own proprietary beliefs, we could have a good thing going.

Disallowing same-sex marriage, to pick a hotbutton topic, intrudes on individual rights. Allowing same-sex marriage intrudes on no one's rights. Where's the argument? The Constitution doesn't protect beliefs, it protects rights.

The idea that religions are being picked on with these issues is a bizarre notion. These are cases of a religion imposing its beliefs on the government, not the other way around. |The Left| is attempting to prevent losses of liberty. When |The Right| wins on these so-called cultural issues that it has increasingly chosen to fight, we the people lose.

Ah, baseball blogging...

The point is "forcing one's viewpoint" is only allowed one way.

If a person has a viewpoint and he also is a religious person, then his view is considered "less than" regardless of his reasonable ideas and arguments.

To use an exaggerated example: In a society, one person (non-religious) says it is okay to shoot down UFOs. Another person (who also is religious) says it is immoral to shoot down UFOs. The first person will latch on to religion of the 2nd and say "don't force your views/morality on me." Culture does not allow the 2nd person to respond "don't force your views". The 2nd person is summarily dismissed because of religion without hearing reasons for the 2nd person's viewpoint.

Scott said: "I'm so uncomfortable about any fundamentalist religious ideology being dictated to me or any other person."

Likewise the religious person is uncomfortable with any fundy-atheist ideology being dictated to him or her or any other person.

I can't expect a Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu to live as if their beliefs are not real. Why follow a religion if you don't believe it?

But that's your ultimate point, isn't it?

Um...that's republican government's founding principle, responsiveness to the wishes of the majority. The one exception to this principle you site is the Civil War. First, it's not clear that the government was not responding to the will of the majority (which afterall elected Lincoln). But even if the government was standing on principle against the will of the populace, are we going to fight a civil war over every disagreement or should we defer to the political system in which compromises are generally worked out (for instance, give it a few years, and civil unions will be accepted as a stable compromise).

What I said about abortion and gay marriage was not that one position or the other was correct, but that the left/libertarian/secular side wishes to impose its view of how society should be structured without regard to whether the population agrees with its position.

Bigot: A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

Well, let's see, Scott Long, do you meet this definition, based upon the article you wrote a few weeks ago on Fundamentalist Islam? I think so. You may not ascribe to a particular faith, being atheist, however, you do have views in matters of religion and you do believe they are "unquestionably right." You believe that Islam is oppressive, that Muslims are backwards, and all the other nonsense you wrote in your previous article that you ascribed to Muslims' religious beliefs. You also trashed the opinions of those who opposed your beliefs as unreasonable as long as, and here I'm going to paraphrase you, Muslim countries don't recognize Israel. And you completely shut down when people suggested alternate causes for problems in the Middle East or other Muslim countries, or when people pointed out that you were wrong about some of your so-called facts, such as that all Muslim men cut off the clits of Muslim women. So yes, you are a bigot because you believe your views regarding religion, specifically Islam, are unquestionably right, and that anyone who has contrary views is incorrect. And this all based on your readings of Bernard Lewis and three Muslim friends. I wonder if these alleged friends even exist. Why don't you share your wonderful article on Fundamentalism with them and then count how many Muslim friends you have. Anyway you slice it, you are a bigot because you think your views on religion, etc... are right and those of others wrong. This has nothing to do with whether or not you think your group, in terms of race, is better than other races. That's tangentially related, if at all. This has to do with religious views, and not race. In terms of religious views and thoughts, you are a bigot. No one commented on your views regarding race, but you're likely a bigot on those grounds too – I'm sure it will come out soon enough.

Finally, I wanted to comment on your last comment to me where you stated that I should go out and help Muslim people if I truly believe and stand for what I say. You made the assumption that I am here out of comfort or choice and that if I can't stand it here I should just leave. Well, first I wanted to let you know that I think there are many great things about America, but that doesn't mean that it's a perfect place to live. Nor does it mean I should just up and leave. It's quite difficult when your whole life and education have taken place in a certain environment and culture to just one day up and decide to leave to help out a cause you do believe in. There are many great things I can do here and have done here and plan to continue to do here. I've also spent time abroad in the Middle East working with refugees and human rights so that people who are not as fortunate as I am can have a better chance for a more fulfilling life. And by fulfilling, I don't mean filling up on crappy fast food. In fact, I see that as an insult to the great fortune that has been bestowed on many American people – to piss it away by eating fried lard and dying young. And I don't stay here b/c of all the yummy fast food. I don't even eat fast food, and I'm a vegetarian. So don't make unfounded assumptions. My future will involve helping Muslim people, as I mentioned I am only just starting out. And I don't have to leave the US in order to do so. I think that attitude of "love it or leave it" is really ignorant and backwards as it is an attitude that abhors change and progress. Instead of trying to fix problems and improve, you would have me leave the US b/c I criticized certain aspects of American culture. Well, that seems contradictory for someone who professes to be a liberal.

Oh please, go somewhere else with that claptrap. Let's see...Adams, Madison, Lincoln, gulp Reagan, certainly 43, even Clinton is a religious man. Your views and the others like Krauthammer are disregarded because you can't argue them on the merits of THIS country's history and founding. Loogy, you really need to get with the program, the religous right has been fostering this vote for years. Why do you think they all of a sudden came into power? I'm all well and good that people are religious - hell I am on certain days. But you can't use religious arguments to throw away basic rights in this society.

Please, stop with the "I'm religious so no one listens to me" thing. Hell, academia is full of theists who are the springboard for the future of this country. How do you reconcile that?

Oh and btw, that's what it always comes down to with believers doesn't it: We don't want atheists dictating our world either, dammit! The point is that OUR CONSTITUTION was founded on the principle that the government couldn't force any religion. If you understood your history you'd understand why the framers went in that direction.

Todd S: completely agree with your first paragraph, disagree totally on your second. Why is abortion any different? Why is someone's body a "different" individual right? Certainly life is valuable, but so are our troops, presumably Iraqis' lives, and no one would argue that taking OBL's life wouldn't be a good idea. The only reason abortion as an issue is different is because the right has done a beautiful job of making it a wedge issue to curry votes. That's it.

yasy343: well, shoot, where to start?

TFD>> Oh please, go somewhere else with that claptrap. Let's see...Adams, Madison, Lincoln, gulp Reagan, certainly 43, even Clinton is a religious man.

Clinton? In name only. You can't tell me he is much a believer.
Is a man or woman religious if they don't attempt to follow the tenets of that religion?

TFD>> Your views and the others like Krauthammer are disregarded because you can't argue them on the merits of THIS country's history and founding. Loogy, you really need to get with the program, the religous right has been fostering this vote for years. Why do you think they all of a sudden came into power?

The religious are in power? Huh???
Certainly "W" doesn't put them in power.
- 70 percent of Nebraskans vote against gay marriage and one judge overturns it.
- A high student is not permitted to where a personal t-shirt that says "abortion is wrong", yet the school can promote abortion.
- an elementary student is not allowed to read the bible during his free-time recess.

Doesn't sound like "in power" to me.

TFD>> Please, stop with the "I'm religious so no one listens to me" thing.

See you want to shut me up! (joke)

TFD>> Hell, academia is full of theists who are the springboard for the future of this country. How do you reconcile that?

Universities ??? The professor who tells his students, "any religious persons won't be one after you leave my class". Or the professor who throws the bible out the window and says "I hope no one believes that crap."

Acadmia - the bastion of liberalism.

TFD>> Oh and btw, that's what it always comes down to with believers doesn't it: We don't want atheists dictating our world either, dammit!

So we have divergent views. So what?

>> The point is that OUR CONSTITUTION was founded on the principle that the government couldn't force any religion. If you understood your history you'd understand why the framers went in that direction.

Jefferson's "wall of separation" is part of an address he made in Connecticut and not in the Constitution. He didn't want to eliminate religion. He was a Deist himself. The Constitution states "freedom of religion" and *not "freedom FROM religion"

Of course, you can be against abortion or gay marriage for ethical or moral reasons other than religion. Further, because a moral or ethical position is based upon religious teaching does not make a law enshrining such a position unconstitutional. The civil rights act is precisely such a law. We allow the government to outlaw racial discrimination even though it is telling us what to do based on a majoritarian view of morality.

Now, back to our continuing "discussion". You jump to conclusions, I'm guessing because you have little understanding of secular humanism. I'm agnostic, not atheist. Big difference, check it out.

My initial post focused on certain elements of the Muslim faith which are restrictive. I also mentioned Amish and in later comments, Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as being backward. I never said all Muslims, and as I have written before, I only mentioned Egypt and it's disgusting record in regards to mutilating it's girls. The link I gave backed up my story.

It was not fair of me to mention that you should back up your talk and go help other Muslims in places not as good as where you live. I apologize for that and respect that you have worked abroad with refugees. In regards to the fast food comment, your defintion of bigot would sit right on your vegatarian ass, as you label Americans as a bunch of unhealthy eating pigs, when you know that more women in the US eat nutritionally, than there are women in Egypt who still have their joy buttons.

You are obviously a bright, feisty woman, but you have no sense of humor. Don't worry, I'm not going to stereotype all Muslims as having this defect, as all 3 of my Muslim friends have not been cursed with the same genetic defect that you have.

Tyranny by the majority is something the Constitution tried to avoid.

And I do not go around judging how much a believer someone is - please do not so with Clinton. Judge not...and all that.

And I'm so glad you paint Universities with a broad brush - yet bristle when people paint Fundamentalists with the same brush.

"Um...that's republican government's founding principle, responsiveness to the wishes of the majority."

The founding principle of republics is to act for the common welfare. This is absolutely not the same as being beholden to popular opinion. Only indirectly in the U.S. are elected representatives responsible to the majority, through democratic elections every 2, 4, or 6 years. And that's only the Executive and Legislative branches - the independent Judicial branch is utterly republican in nature. These elements are expressly designed to avoid making our government subject to popular whim, allowing them to make potentially unpopular decisions that also happen to be good ones. Kind of 'eat your vegetables, they're good for you.'

As far as Lincoln goes, you're right - he was elected (and re-elected, to his surprise) and therefore it could be argued that he was responding to the will of the people when he acted. I find that "mandate" style of argument unconvincing, but it's at least a valid point. But we're obviously not going to have a civil war over every disagreement on any given issue, and I certainly wasn't delivering a diatribe against compromise. My point was in that instance a Republican president, interpreting the law of the land, did what was right because he saw no compromise for basic human rights. And in that extreme case there were bloody consequences.

The point you make about the left/libertarian/secular (that's quite a grouping) imposing societal structure, well, that's why church and state are supposed to be separate. Society modifies itself according to its own internal rules - the government isn't in the sociological business. Going back to Lincoln again, he didn't change society - the persistence of Jim Crow laws surely indicated that. What he did do was establish that the government would not interfere with the rights of individuals in its population, and would not allow such interference to be legislated.

Currently, it is |The Right| ( formerly |The Christian Right| ) which is seeking to impose and legislate its own views of societal structure on the government and the rest of the population. In several instances, this faction is seeking to change the law to do this. Dress down the judiciary. Amend the Constitution, even. But society will move wherever it will, regardless. Prohibition springs to mind.

By the way, in your later post (onetimer), I disagree with your reading of the Civil Rights Act. I do not think we 'allowed' the government to outlaw racial discrimination just because a majority felt it was the moral thing to do. Seems to me that the act was explicitly justified by existing law, as racial discrimination artificially and arbitrarily interferes with the right to life, liberty, and happiness.

You know what, Loogy? I've got no sympathy. If you don't like that the cultural war has some collateral damage, you can always sue for peace.

Is it a bad law? So one single person is smarter than 500,000 people?

Smed>> Tyranny by the majority is something the Constitution tried to avoid.

Yet tyranny by the judicial system is okay?
What happened to government for the people by the people? This judge is appointed and has no accountability to anyone - even the person who appointed the judge.

Smed>> And I do not go around judging how much a believer someone is - please do not so with Clinton. Judge not...and all that.

The "judge not" refers to someone's eternal future. It is commonly misapplied. You are correct, I do not know for sure about Clinton, but I can discern(make judgement) from what I know. That is my basis.

Smed>>And I'm so glad you paint Universities with a broad brush - yet bristle when people paint Fundamentalists with the same brush.

There are exceptions everywhere. Feel free to bristle about Univesities. There are plenty of good professors, but I see the Universities as losing much of their focus on teaching and training to be responsible adults. I think a person can agree with that no matter what side he or she stands in this thread.

I object to the broad painting of religious people in the original article because it is simply not true.
Why is it wrong for the religious person to say he disagrees with a gay lifestyle? Why can't the religious person accept the gay person, but not the gay person's lifestyle?

In all aspects of life are people no longer allowed to say what they see as right or wrong?

I'll sign off this thread. Not really figuring I'd convince anyone, but why not put in my perspective? It is a tolerant and diverse culture after all.

Maybe see some of you around the boards at theologyweb.com where there are many agnostics/atheists/religious who will agree or not with you.

Take care

More to your first point, republican governments are not driven exclusively by the views of the populace, but obviously a Senator that acts like a philosopher king, indifferent to the positions of his constituents, will not be a Senator for long (Daschle). Look at the R/D breakdown of the Senate, it is slowly moving towards the red/blue dichotomy (North Dakota seems to be the last bastion of liberal Senators in red states).

Now, I think you're just wrong here: "Society modifies itself according to its own internal rules - the government isn't in the sociological business." Really? Education reform, civil rights legislation, tax policy are all examples of the government modifying society in ways that elected officials believe will make society more just. Government as sociologist, changing societal attitudes.

"Going back to Lincoln again, he didn't change society - the persistence of Jim Crow laws surely indicated that." Really? Blacks were no longer chattel. That his successors sold out reconstruction explains why blacks were still subjugated, but a profound societal change occurred.

"What he did do was establish that the government would not interfere with the rights of individuals in its population, and would not allow such interference to be legislated." He established that citizens no longer had the right to own slaves, overruling the Dred Scott decision. I don't know what you mean that he established that the government can't interfere with the rights of individuals. I guess it depends on what rights you are talking about.

The left/libertarian/secular grouping seems appropriate: they share the view that government has no right to legislate certain views on morality. They seek (and have been quite successful) in enshrining that belief through judicial fiat. Many on the right seek to allow more things to be decided and compromised through the democratic process. It's why many on the right are against the FMA: it would take the issue away from the states and outlaw gay marriage.

I've gone on to long, but I take the position that most things (except rights specifically granted in the bill of rights and the 14th amendment) should be subject to the democratic system. The definition of marriage is one of them, as is abortion. That's certainly in line with the thinking of the founders.

And one person does not make the law wrong. One person is following the law. Many people think that law is unjust because it's poorly worded and too restrictive. I'm sure if the nuances of the law were spelled out then many people would be opposed to the law that they voted for.

Running from an argument is cheap.

I'd rather not legislate morality than have other people morality shoved down my throat. I'm teaching my daughter about peace, love and understanding - not hatred and misguidedness about people who love other people. And I certainly do not want the government interfering with me or my familys most personal decisions.

What check do you believe there should be on the judiciary? If none, why do you believe that the judiciary should be the ultimate decision-maker? Why do you believe that the judiciary is non-ideological and incorruptable?

Let me see if I can elucidate my viewpoint on abortion. Essentially, I look at it as "when do rights begin?" If you believe it is at conception, then an argument can be made that an abortion is akin to murder of an innocent. Now, I'll grant you that you are imposing upon another person's rights at the same time if you protect the fetus. That's what I mean about seeing points on both sides. Hope that clears things up (I'm trying not to advocate either viewpoint with this post).

From the evidence we have, OBL does not appear to be an innocent.

Yasy, I think you're jumping to a lot of conclusions about Mr. Long. I admire the passion in your defense, but I don't think your allegations of bigotry are fair.

I also agree with the idea expressed above that we live in a republic that is designed to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority; however, I realize that may put me in the minority.

No one ever mentions all of the Clinton appointees that were never given an 'up or down' vote by the Republican Senate. Those shenaniagns have been going on for a long time.

And no one mentions 'judicial activism' when the ruling favors the Fox News crowd.

I never said the judiciary was non-partisan nor incorruptable. I said it SHOULD be independent and not beholden to others. Which means that everyone should just shut the heck up and let them do their jobs. Which most of the time they do right - they toss out bad law, even it's bad popular law.

yasy343: I'm getting ready for a trip this weekend so I don't have a lot of time, but suffice it to say because I know Scott and I can tell from your intelligent prose that you two are much closer than you appear. Once you've came down from the immediate, "he's getting to me personally" tirade you've become more readable and cogent. I'll try to post more in this thread early next week if it doesn't become too buried. BTW, I was following your earlier exchange w/Salmon Rushdie so I have the backstory.

Smed: Damn...wise words dude.

Todd S: Word. Hang tight.

onetimer: your post #15 is right on, but unfortunately it is what most of the fundies from today can't do. they can't argue ethics and morality w/o religion. its 'cus they haven't done enough learnin'. (only half kidding.)

until later, peace out.

"Once you've came down from the immediate, "he's getting to me personally" tirade you've become more readable and cogent."

you may be too young to these parts to appreciate how incredibly funny that was. and i swear i did it with a straight face.

This whole thread misses a couple of really basic points.

1 - bigotry is at it's essence an extension of prejudice. not an extension of a perhaps admirable firmness of opinion. It's ignoring all facts in order to reach a generalized conclusion that accommodates a set world view.

2 - there is huge difference between freedom to do something, and freedom to insist others do the same. Understanding the difference is, as demonstrated here, very difficult. To use the clearest cut example, allowing gays to 'marry' doesn't impinge upon society as a whole, and particularly not hetero married folks. Allowing gay marriage isn't forcing anything on anyone until we start rounding up the unmarrieds and sending them to gitmo until they get married.

What the Christian right is trying to do is enforce their morality on gays AND society as a whole in an extremely unproductive way for society as a whole. Insisting on equal protection is not "special rights" it's called insisiting on rights.

Most of you are too young to remember ol' Jim Crow and poll taxes, and poll tests (sadly revived in some GOP states), asking for the SAME treatment, should not be controversial, MUCH less seen as imposing beliefs. I guess at some point Blacks and women wanted to impose their beliefs on the poor white males, just as those frigging biggotted colonies wanted to impose their beliefs on the empire.

Poll taxes are unconstitutional. See 24th Amendment. Poll tests are prohibited by the Voting Rights Act. See South Carolina v. Katzenberg, 383 U.S. 303 (1966). So no, these are being "revived" in GOP states.

"there is huge difference between freedom to do something, and freedom to insist others do the same. Understanding the difference is, as demonstrated here, very difficult."

I understand the difference. I simply think that the constitution gives more room for democratic determination of what "rights" are than you do. It seems to me that if for 229 years, the constitution has not been construed to require states to recognize gay marriage, that's probably a good indication that it does not require states to do so.

Indeed, up until last year, a state could make homosexual sodomy a crime. Bowers v. Hardwick. Now, I think such laws are dumb, and I also think that gays should be allowed to marry (for precisely the reasons you claim). That does not entail that I think the constitution mandates that staes recognize gay marriage. And that's what my statement that you quoted was meant to convey.