Good politics are usually "balanced".

By being mature enough to listen to everyone who has something meaningful to say about an issue, it's easier to decide, afterwards.

Well I wont offer any evidence for my opinion since the author chose not to use any for his but I dont see the tempest in a teapot here. I do not see Dobb's statement (a person I rarely agree with BTW) as a desire to silence Christians per se - he doesnt even mention Christians by name if the author's copy is accurate. Even if he had said that Christians are unduly influencing the political agenda in the USA, how could you argue with that? Look at the tax advantages "churches" get to amass vast wealth and then project that wealth upon money-hungry politicians with the expectation of something in return. The Pat Robertsons of the world do not have a religious agenda in my POV. His, in particular, is a political one because he always talks politics to his "flock". Maybe this is what Dobbs is on about.

The Separation clause exists to avoid theocracy. I believe that spiritual belief is no one's business and is a HIGHLY personal issue. Personal beliefs do not belong on the stump - period. It is highly possible to govern a country at all levels regardless of the moral basis of your personal ethic - philosophical or spiritual. Our politicians should be judged by their actions anyway - not the hot air they spew to get this or that group to vote for them.

What office did Jesus run for? Exactly.

The Separation clause exists to avoid theocracy."

That's not all it exists for Sparky.

It also exists so that private citizens will not be forbidden from expressing their religion in public. Something the ACLU fails to understand.

So we need to expressly permit freedom of speech and a Separation of Church and State in order to publicly express our religious views?

Methinks thou art redundant and without context on the Separation doctrine...

....Sparky.

I almost let this go without comment but I hope you can name some examples where the ACLU sued to stop public expression of religious views that did not involve state-owned or state-run or state-funded activities or real property.

Hell, JB, what's wrong with you?

Silencing the opposition is a good tactic.

Look how well it's working for Hugo Chavez.

I say silence everyone who doesn't toe the line, then keep moving the line.

I was about to complement Mr Bambenek for having the restraint not to fling the ACLU into the mix, but then Arch had to weigh in with that oh-so-predictable misconception.

The ACLU is perfectly well aware of the constitutional prohibitions against both a state establishment of religion, and of the restriction of free religious expression. It has frequently taken up cases to do with both issues.

It's hardly surprising that it is usually to be found on the secular side, since most contemporary attempts to infringe or ignore the First Amendment come from fundamentalist Christians.

Two points.

1) The sole evidence of the conspiracy against Christians in this article is an indirectly related comment made by Lou Dobbs.

A little victim playing perhaps...

2) Before the government does "something about shutting up those damn Christians who keep expressing their points of view" it first has to stop subsidizing it's view. Christians are using their tax-free status to subvert private businesses in areas unrelated to the free practice of religion. A recent series of articles in the NY Times covered such tax-exempt "religious" activities ranging from amusement parks, to private day care, to multimillion dollar retirement homes in "religious communities". None of these PRIVATE BUSINESSES have anything to do with the free practice of religion except perhaps having Christian in their names. Taxing these PRIVATE BUSINESSES cannot be construed as preventing the free exercise of religion. This MULTI-BILLION dollar subsidy of CHRISTIANITY in America must end. Once this happens (and when more than one man in all of Congress publicly admits his atheism) we can start talking about government oppression of religious views.

Oh and one other philosophical correction. Your inclusion of agnosticism with other religions is redundant. Agnosticism an epistemological term indicating a lack of absolute knowledge about god's existence. An agnostic may be atheist, islamic, jewish or christian. In fact, some of the most famous religius philosophers in history were agnostic (Kierkegaard, etc.) as are many radical religious groups today (the faith ALONE types).

For practical purposes, most people that say they are agnostic are also atheist, whether they think they are or not.

Most people think atheism means you know god does not exist. This is a fallacy. In fact, atheism etymologically has nothing to do with the existence of god. It just means you don't practice a religion. There is actually no term for people who claim to know god does not exist (probably because so few people are that arrogant/stupid) but the term that has been invented to describe such people is "strong atheism."

@#s 9,10:

Good points, all, PETI.

Just one small addendum:

ALL religions receive the tax exemptions, not just the christian ones; and most have moneymaking enterprises, particularly nursing/retirement homes and other social services.

As usual, your writing is completely over-the-top, with as much factual basis as your belief system.

It's the religious fundamentalists who most often try political manipulation and machinations to achieve a favored political result, such as prayer in school, display of commandments, etc. (And it's Christians who have decided that everyone outside their point of view is going to burn in hell;now THAT'S un-American!)

And as "pleaseexcuse..." has accurately pointed out, these great Christian exemplars use tax-exempt money and property to lobby(and line their pockets)with.

I challenge you to really name one "pundit" who has "insisted Christians need to be silenced for the sake of our nation", as you claim in your lead paragraph.

You, and others who really believe an American Christian theocracy would be superior to a secular government but don't have the fortitude to out and out say so, are trying to re-write the New Testament and the Constitution, so that Caesar HAS to render under God.

I challenge you to really name one "pundit" who has "insisted Christians need to be silenced for the sake of our nation"

Well, he did mention Lou Dobbs, but he's putting words in his mouth. He's taking what Dobbs did say - that he's concerned about inappropriate ecclesiastical influence on the running of the government - and twisting it so that his remarks look like the vanguard of a conspiracy to silence Christians.

Read the piece that this article links to, then go back and read Mr B's own second paragraph. It's clear as crystal that Dobbs is in no way suggesting that Christians should be silenced.

archie: "It also exists so that private citizens will not be forbidden from expressing their religion in public. Something the ACLU fails to understand."

how many times are we going to have to point out all of the times that the aclu has protected freedom of religious expression before you give it up? how many times? you've been pointed towards the link, we've even listed off several examples but you still think the aclu is against religion... are you really that thick?

as for the rest of this drivel... if the "opposition" is "silenced," how come the religious right and christians in general are one of the most powerful political forces in america? all you're saying is that we can't disagree with your politics if our disagreement stems from your religion, which means you are silencing us, not the other way around.

Amen.

While I'm not particularly religious (don't tell my grandmother) I don't generally look at religion with extreme cynicism. It's an imperfect institution created by man. I think that the suspicion - if not outright hostility - people have is with fundamentalism.

However, we should be careful here. There are many responsible and thoughtful Christian phliosophers that can offer interesting insights into contemporary issues. One need only to read 'First Things' to see how impressive - and relevant - it can be. So when one posits the position presented here I think of this and not necessarily only the skewed side of Christian thought.

There is room for all thoughts and ideas.

It is crystal clear that Mr. Arch has no idea what the ACLU is or does and is unwilling to learn. He has now made this assertion about a half-dozen times on various topics. Someone points out that the opposite is true, and then he stops posting.

So here we go again: Go to aclu.org and read about the cases they have been involved in, please, Mr. Conservative. You will see that they fight for the side YOU ARE ON in EVERY SINGLE case regarding religious free speech issues.

Zing are you really that thick?

How many fucking times does it have to be explained to you that the few cherry picked cases you cite where the ACLU actually sided with a Christian are just window dressing aimed at creating the appearance of fairness and objectivty that hides a true agenda that would make Castro himself say "lighten up and have a cigar man."

I don't need some dumbass like you telling me they sky is green when I can clearly see it is blue zing.

depending on where you are at, the sky might be green. just depends.

as for the aclu and christianity, if the aclu is just trying to project fairness and objectivity, who are they trying to project it to? you? christians? y'all still don't get it, so why would they bother... unless they really are trying to be fair and objective... or unless they really just trying to protect the freedom of expression, christian or not?

I don't need some dumbass like you telling me they sky is green when I can clearly see it is blue zing.

Arch, you're back! Good evening to yez.

Actually, the sky can be green and indeed a number of other colors, given certain atmospheric and/or electromagnetic and/or observing conditions.

But seriously: I refer you to my comment #8. The fact that most cases the ACLU undertakes are against Christian incursions on the secular state is not an indication that they are frothing liberal hyenas: just as the fact that most of those killed by the US military in Iraq are brown-skinned Muslims does not indicate that the US armed forces are a bunch of homicidal religious extremists.

...just as the fact that most of those killed by the US military in Iraq are brown-skinned Muslims does not indicate that the US armed forces are a bunch of homicidal religious extremists.

Are you sure?

Clavos, re Dr D: "...just as the fact that most of those killed by the US military in Iraq are brown-skinned Muslims does not indicate that the US armed forces are a bunch of homicidal religious extremists.

Are you sure?"

Pretty sure. I'll get back to you right after I've found out what this big green Humvee is doing in my driveway... And is it me, or is that lieutenant wearing a white hood?...

John

I don't know if you are a Christian. I am. I can happily say that no one is silencing me or has ever attempted to.

Reading your regular contribution of articles, it seems as though no one is silencing you either.

What Christianity is, is a personal relationship based on the grace that was granted by Jesus Christ by dying on the cross for me. A forgiveness for ME by Him for MY transgressions. It is a love for ME by Him.

What that has to do with any political situation in the United States of America in 2007 is weird. In the most repressive place on the planet, still no one could stop me from accepting the message of Christ. It is internal and very personal. Its emotional and psychological (spiritual).

If you are saying that people don't want to let people who are Christians tell them what to do with their lives simply BECAUSE they are Christians, i would have to say, I don't either. You have no authority biblically or otherwise. Thinking you do is just weird and thinking so demonstrate a spiritual immaturity.

The truth is that Christians have lost their way and have lost their focus. Wagging fingers at society is not what we are commissioned to do.

Simply using the title Christian does not make your engagement a Christian one. The group that you are writing about is are not a Christian group John, they are a political organization. They are control freaks who happen to be Christian individuals and will do whatever it takes to get their way including using their personal faith to force their way on people.

None of that is Christ like.

Politicians used Christians on the right and convinced them that they were part of a great movement to win America for God. It was a ploy John; one that was thought out and planned during Regan's time. The paranoia was planted by spin doctors, just like all of the other fears that the Republican fearful have. They are just planted just to get your vote.

There is not attack on Christians. There is simply fatigue of people who use their faith to try and control others.

Dr. D,

And is it me, or is that lieutenant wearing a white hood?...

I dunno, do you wear one often?

Zedd, hypocrisy is present in all forms of religious faith. And you're right, the extreme form of it is really political - and profiteering. But and however....

I think what the good man is alluding to is that Christian thought in general (as practiced and professed by moderates) and not only the fundamentalists' point of view.

The question is simple (and we had a similar debate on a talk radio show here in Canada): Does religion have a place in public secular discourse regarding the issues of today?

The answer should be yes. Not all Christians (Jews, Muslims etc.) have lost their way and many have some very intelligent and important things to say. If listening to a couple of crackpots is a small price to pay to get to hear the good people then I am willing to pay for it. Remember, if we silence the political religious fanatics then we also silence the ones who truly mean well.

In fact, some evangelicals (who are not to be confused with fundamentalists) have very sound notions of foreign policy that aligns itself with what we term liberalism.

Alessandro

I don't know "WHO" religion is. People have a place in secular discourse about current events.

You see the problem is with theology for Christians. For us, Christianity is personal. A shaping of your own life. A constant deep search of your intent and a pursuit of your purpose.

I cant envision how that would spill over into public discourse about current events.

I understand thinking that because of my spiritual journey I have come to certain conclusions about the world and those conclusions influence my political views as do things like my up bringing. I as an individual think that things should be done this way.... and I will vote accordingly.

But saying that what informs my spiritual journey (religion) should be taken into consideration when YOU make decisions about your life, is crazy at best.

Theologically, there are not favored sin to be dammed more. There is also no good people, we are all flawed.

Having a political group that bases its platform on christian principles is odd. That means no jealousy, envy, over eating, etc. Their platform were it biblical (Christian), would be insane. Fornication is just as bad as over eating. Falwell was fat as can be. He was guilty of a sin. Should he have been vocal about legislating against specific sins and ignoring the ones that he was weak in?

Infusing religion into political discourse is problematic at best and can only confuse matters.

The only way that i can see it useful is when you are quoting the bible as a you would Plato. However holding up your theology as a measure for society, expecting a response by society to it, is dangerous.

"Infusing religion into political discourse is problematic at best and can only confuse matters."

But what if it doesn't?

Zedd, no one is suggesting we go religious as a means to an end. Just to consider it. Again, there are many Christian intellectuals that offer special insights into contemporary issues that can easily be part of a secular ethos.

Besides, can we truly assume with any confidence that although we are secular we are not influenced by our religious backgrounds and personal spirituality? Some of it has to find its way into legislation, no? Can we both be Christian and secular? Are we not both? Where is that line? Of course, I'm not talking about Noah's Ark type of stuff here. Just so we're clear.

Just musing out loud.

Alessandro,

I am a Christian. I grew up entrenched in the Evangelical world. Can I engage in secular discourse? Alessandro you and I have engage in dialogue sometimes for days on end. The dialogue was secular. While my belief system influences me in a great way, I cant infuse the non universal aspect of it into a discussion with someone who may or may not adhere or even understand that system.

I love Ruvy. He is very impassioned. I respect that a great deal (I only tease him because I'm a silly person). However early on when I first encountered him, he would quote Hebrew scripture to me to convince me of a point, as if that scripture was the foundation from which we SHOULD build our rules of engagement. In some cases it was in Hebrew. I respect Jewish teachings a great deal, however, using them as a premise for our discussion made his point irrelevant to the larger issue that we were discussing (It happened to be the Palestinian issue).

My being a religious person has no bearing on how everyone else should vote. It has an influence on my vote ONLY.

Being a citizen who is an active participant in civic matters has an influence on the outcome of social issues. Christianity is just as relevant as any other thing that has influenced your life, in that participation.

You don't have a political interest group of Dartmouth poli sci grads. Or one of Godfather II or Star Wars enthusiasts. All of things may have had a profound impact in influencing many individuals' lives, including their moral compass, however, it is the INDIVIDUAL (in his completeness) who participates in the political process and the Constitution caters to him only, not his respect for Star Wars for instance.

Again, quoting references from Biblical text or Yoda can be relevant and I think to that extent ones influencing forces can have significance in dialogue. But using the tenets of The Force as a reason for why the nation should go in a particular direction is CRAZY.

Alessandro,

Rereading your post, I think we are saying the same thing.

I however don't think that anyone is ipeding Christians from those conversations. Steven Colbert is a Christian. His satire is a personal statement. There are many Christians who are engaging in public discourse. What is happening is that those who assign their Christianity a brand of political interest group, get highlighted.

Not having to devulge your religion in order to discuss issues is protected also under the constitution.

I love the contributions of Bill Moyers and his analysis of how religion affects the secular world. It was the best that television has EVER been imo. Unfortunately because he wasn't preaching fire and brimstone so he was removed from PBS when the Corportation for Public Broadcasting started looking for and cutting what seemed liberal (intellectual). I don't know if you ever watched that series in your neck of the woods. You would have been enthralled. Not political in any respect but highly cerebral and analytical. It just came at a time when Republicans got dumb and just didn't get anything that wasn't "folksy" or "plain spoken" or about the flag and God blessing America.

And is it me, or is that lieutenant wearing a white hood?...

I dunno, do you wear one often?

Only when I'm snowboarding, but thanks for the commission. I didn't have to go to West Point or anything!

Zedd. I find your assumption that liberal equals intellectual to be offensive. Would u consider William f. Buckley a knuckle-dragging ignoramus?

Arch Conservative spewed: "How many fucking times does it have to be explained to you that the few cherry picked cases you cite where the ACLU actually sided with a Christian are just window dressing aimed at creating the appearance of fairness and objectivty that hides a true agenda that would make Castro himself say "lighten up and have a cigar man."

Your assertion that the ACLU does not support Christians is AN OUTRIGHT LIE. Go to ACLU Fights for Christians and be proven wrong. THE ONLY TIME THE ACLU DOES NOT SUPPORT CHRISTIANS IS WHEN THE CHRISTIANS ARE WRONG! Which is OFTEN, when they try to destroy our democratic republic and Constitution.

You half-assed stated: "It also exists so that private citizens will not be forbidden from expressing their religion in public. Something the ACLU fails to understand." Express all you want, but do NOT screw with my government and pervert it into a theocracy.

And is it me, or is that lieutenant wearing a white hood?...

I dunno, do you wear one often?

Only when I'm snowboarding, but thanks for the commission. I didn't have to go to West Point or anything!

You know, Dr. D, between the two of us we've managed to pull at least three interps out of that little exchange.

I'm not sure if that's a sign of intelligence on our part, or weirdness. :>)

Anyway, I was referring to the "is it me" part of your comment.

Count 'em...1...2...3

Lumpy

I am sorry if I gave you the impression that Liberal equals intellectual. I don't feel that way.

I find that when an intellectual dialogue takes place in the public sphere however, some on the right automatically label the participants as liberal without understanding the implications of the discourse. The direction that the conservative party has taken does seem to shut out intelligent people. People that are smarter than us (not people who want power more than we do).

BTW I am neither left or right leaning. I lean towards what I consider to be practicality.

I'm not sure if that's a sign of intelligence on our part, or weirdness. :>)

I dunno, Clavos, but I definitely think it's a sign of extreme creativity on my part. I could have been seeing black helicopters like everyone else, you know. But no, I see green Humvees.

Actually, I was fibbing before. I've never been snowboarding in my life.

Dr. D:

But no, I see green Humvees.

A quick personal anecdote:

I'm severely red and green color blind.

I was in the Army a good six months before I found out the trucks weren't brown.

True story.

I'm severely red and green color blind.

So for you, based on the results of the last presidential election, Florida is a brown state? :-)

(I know, I know, if you had a dollar for every time you've heard that... you'd have $4.)

Dr. D,

LOL (I think).

Actually, it doesn't work that way; it has to do with the extremes of the two colors' spectra: the dark ("olive drab" in Army parlance) green of the vehicles looks brown, but the green of a traffic light (very light green, obviously) looks white (like an auto headlight) to me.

Conversely, dark reds merge to black, light pink is whitish, while purple really looks blue (dark).

I see the middles of the two fairly normally (I think): the green of grass, the red of a fire engine, etc.

I was drafted into the Army, the only service that took color blind people in the sixties.

Now you know more than you ever wanted to about color blindness.

Interesting.

My Dad was also red/green colorblind. He also made it under the radar and into the Army (in the 1940s, in his case).

But I don't think he or anyone else realized he was colorblind until it came up in conversation that he thought our living room three-piece suite was brown. It was green.

Excuse me, I'm kind of fascinated by this: So the only reason you know a 'go' traffic signal is green is because everyone else says it is?

Good question, but no.

I CAN see the red as red, and of course, the yellow; so, if I see the one that's (to me) white, I know it's the green. In principle it's no different than it is for you; I just see it differently.

BTW: so you're father was color blind. Did you know that if you have a sister, and she has male children, there's a 50/50 chance each of those boys is colorblind? The gene is carried by the daughters to their male children.

Women are only color blind themselves if they have BOTH a color blind father AND maternal grandfather, which just happens to be the case in my family. I have one sister, and she came up on the color normal side of the 50/50, but she carries the gene,and her one boy IS color blind.

I did know that, as it happens. I did a biology class a couple of semesters ago where we had lot of fun exploring the characteristics of dominant, recessive and sex-linked genes (attached vs. detached earlobes, widow's peaks, ability to do "taco tongue", hemophilia etc).

I don't have a sister, and my brother has two sons, so I guess I won't get to see how that one would have played out.

Mate, did you study the famous recessive Pommy gene? (inability to run acute angles at high speed whilst holding a rugby ball thanks to poor peripheral vision, or the inability to see a small, leather covered cork ball being bowled at 90mph in your direction. Or Australian colour-blindness: everything's green and gold :)

STM - you Aussies are gonna get stuffed next time!

Sorry mate, I think that's another recessive Aussie gene - not being able to stop ourselves gloating no matter how often we put our hands over our mouths. It just slips out, a bit like a rugby ball held near a white jumper, or a wicket "protected" an English batsman.

Dang ... must ... try ... harder ...

Doc wrote: "But I don't think he or anyone else realized he was colorblind until it came up in conversation that he thought our living room three-piece suite was brown. It was green."

Well, at least that's what everyone THOUGHT. I've often wondered about this after working with a colour expert on a newspaper who was colour blind. See, no one knew for sure did they whether it was actually green or brown, because your old man could've been the true arbiter of colour and everyone else might have been colourblind (Also, I can't believe you had a green bloody lounge. Must have been the 70s - the decade fashion, style and taste forgot. Or was that the 80s?).

Clav wrote: "I CAN see the red as red, and of course, the yellow; so, if I see the one that's (to me) white, I know it's the green".

Mate, that bloody Mexican flag would have you going a bit, wouldn't it? You'd only be able to see the red bit and the thing in the middle. This is yet another reason old boy why flags need Union Jacks in the corners.

I'll take it up with Felipe Calderon the next time I meet with him, Stan. He may have some objection in view of the complete lack of Brit participation in Mexico's history, but I CAN be persuasive, so we'll see.

As to the flag's colors: both the red and the green are middle spectrum enough for me to be able to see them.

My parents discovered my colorblindness when I was twelve and my mother had bought a new couch which was a light, sort of chartreuse color, which I called yellow.

The doctor my mum took me to gave me the Ishihara test, the (circles of multicolored dots, some of which form a number or drawing). I didn't then, and never have since, seen a single thing other than lots of multi colored dots (except for the demo, which everyone sees).

Clav: "I didn't then, and never have since, seen a single thing other than lots of multi colored dots."

Lol. Sounds bloody great, Where can I get some?

LOL. Ya got me y'old bastard!

I re-read my post, and i saw what you mean.

Must have been the editor in you that came out just then...

Sorry old boy ... couldn't resist. My, how we love to have fun here.

I can't believe you had a green bloody lounge. Must have been the 70s - the decade fashion, style and taste forgot.

Close. My parents bought their suite when they got married in '65. Just about the time when all those 'modern' designers were being let loose from art school...

Thinking back, they should probably have just bought a Union Jack suite and been done with it.

"Winning the Debate by Silencing the Opposition"

An excellent plan, and one which seems to have been adopted at BC since a cloud of silence has come over discussion of the misdeeds of the Bush administration.

That's the great thing about BC... if you don't think something is covered enough, you can write your own articles on it.

You do have a writers account, don't you?

No, he doesn't, JB.

Just a whiners account.

I'm whining about excessive articles about Truman and Carter. With some justification.

The current political environment is rich with possibilities, we don't have to go back to the 50s.

So write an article, bliff.

Doc: wrote: "Thinking back, they should probably have just bought a Union Jack suite and been done with it."

Lucky that flag you stole from the corner of ours and used as your own has no green in it.

Excessive articles about Truman and Carter? We've got one article about Carter and Clinton and some comments about Truman. Hardly all that excessive.

Dave

Zedd, little late on my response. You know, I never gave Bill Moyers a chance. Finding time is sometimes hard - but it sounds as though I missed something.