Oh, Christ!

Dec 30, 2008 23:15

This is just stupid:
President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation drew one kind of protest. Whether the evangelical pastor offers the prayer in the name of Jesus may draw another. At George W. Bush's 2001 swearing-in, the Revs. Franklin Graham and Kirbyjon Caldwell were criticized for invoking Christ. The ( Read more... )

obama administration, united states, religion

Leave a comment

Comments 7

jordan179 December 31 2008, 07:04:02 UTC
Indeed. I'm an atheist, raised Jewish, and I am utterly horrified at the idiotic behavior of American atheists, in going out of their way to try to antagonize the majority religion, a religion which for the most part does little to atheists to deserve this animosity. A tiny minority which tries to piss off the vast majority, and a peaceful vast majority at that, is stupid.

American Muslims have the excuse of believing that Allah has decreed their global supremacy.

What's the excuse of American atheists?

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

jordan179 January 2 2009, 14:07:26 UTC
Well, it is true that atheists in America are disfavored. But a smart (dare I say "bright") atheist would realize that behaving with direct hostility toward "fun" manifestations of religion like Christmas and patriotic ones like the invocation to prayer in legislatures is not going to improve the image of atheists in the minds of believers -- do we really want to be known as anti-American killjoys?

A smart atheist would also consider the alternatives to America or to Christian-leaning countries in general? Europe and the Anglosphere, both of which are rapidly being dhimmified by an aggressive, terrorist Islam? An Islam which takes a far more hostile attitude toward atheists than does modern Christianity?

I'll take Christian America any time, thank you!

Reply


sp23 December 31 2008, 14:31:20 UTC
This is again a case where the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is completely perverted to mean that religion should not be mentioned or exercised by any public official, and where "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is completely ignored.

Reply

julietvalcouer December 31 2008, 16:31:00 UTC
Somewhere, Tom Jefferson is probably kicking himself for coining the phrase "separation of church and state" in a totally non-official document.

Reply

sp23 December 31 2008, 16:33:36 UTC
Yes, because that phrase - which, as you pointed out is not part of the Constitution - has also been perverted by people trying to push their anti-religion agenda down the American people's throats.

Reply

Separation of Church and State juliet_winters January 1 2009, 00:43:24 UTC
What I believe it meant to the Scots-Irish people and Roman Catholic people shouldering arms in the Revolution is that neither set would be responsible for paying taxes to the State Church as had been the case up to that time.

Reply


tjlane January 1 2009, 00:52:06 UTC
Amen!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up