The Second Coming of Christ

[Galvatron]

So what you're advocating is minority rule? No law can be passed if it offends even one person? I'm thinking that would approach anarchy pretty quickly.

I think he's advocating the protection of minoritys' rights against the bigotry of the majority.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Crap. That means we're going to have to eighty-six Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter (not a Federal holiday anyway), Valentine's Day (a Saint), Martin Luther King Jr. Day (a REVEREND), Memorial Day, Flag Day, and Columbus Day. Guess we can keep Labor Day. But other than that, I think we've safely eliminated all the holidays with any kind of religious connections. Just think of all the extra work the government will be able to get done without all those nasty days off!

We wouldnt have to get rid of most of those. Change the name of christmas to YuleTide or Winter holiday

Thanksgiving is not a religious holiday it is a celebration of the early sttelers"friendship" with the natives.

Easter we could probably keep the same most people dont observe it as religious in significance anyway.

St Valentines day same thing here.

MLK day is also civil rights day and has no religious significance.

Memorial day also has no religious sgnificance other than honorig the dead.

Flag day has no religious significance

Columbus day shouldnt be celebrated by anyone because he was a genocidal bastard.

[Durandal]

Yeah, I'm only concerned with me, myself, and I. Whatever happens to family, friends, or complete strangers is of no concern to me because I'm an evil, selfish, hypocritical, bigoted bastard with tunnel vision. Looking out for numero uno, that's me.

Glad you can admit that.

If the only examples of "oppression" you can come up with are that you can't gamble on a Sunday morning with a beer in your hand, go buy a dildo, and then rent a hooker and use it on her, well, I'm sorry that your pursuit of happiness is being oppressed. If that's what it takes to make you truly happy, then I'm afraid that there's not a lot I can do to help you.

You, of course, missed the point entirely. People should be free to do as they please without the government telling them it's wrong because one particular religion says so.

Um, the prayer meetings are only illegal if he forces people to attend.

He is using his government office (literally and figuratively) to practice his religion. That's not allowed. It gives the impression that the government favors one religion over another. And, in the case of the chief law enforcement officer of the land, he should be careful about what he does.

It would also become illegal if someone said, "Oh, you can only hold a Christian prayer meeting. You Muslims (or whatever denomination) are going to have to go somewhere else." And if they're being done on lunch hour, then so what? Besides, you're saying that because someone holds public office they're not allowed to practice their religion? Come on.

They're not allowed to endorse, condemn or comment on religion in any way, no. Ashcroft cannot use his office to practice his religion, because that constitutes a governmental figure endorsing religion. He and all those other assholes are supposed to be public servants. If they're not prepared to serve a public that is made up of many beliefs, then they shouldn't be in office. Period.

Crap. That means we're going to have to eighty-six Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter (not a Federal holiday anyway), Valentine's Day (a Saint), Martin Luther King Jr. Day (a REVEREND), Memorial Day, Flag Day, and Columbus Day. Guess we can keep Labor Day. But other than that, I think we've safely eliminated all the holidays with any kind of religious connections. Just think of all the extra work the government will be able to get done without all those nasty days off!

Thanksgiving has nothing to do with religion. Nor does Columbus Day. Nor does Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Nor does Flag Day. Valentine's Day was invented by Hallmark. I'm sorry if you don't like the idea of the government not officially celebrating Christmas, but that's just too damn bad. You're acting like minor inconveniences change the basic facts. They don't.

This kind of moronic logic was prevalent right after the Pledge decision was made. People were saying, "Well, what about our money!? If this ruling holds, we'll have to change 'In God We Trust", too!" Well, yes, that would be the next logical step.

You should. Whenever a culture begins to believe that one class of people is "inferior" to another, then murder of that "lower" class isn't seen as such a bad thing. Ask people of a certain belief system who lived in Europe a few decades back. THAT is what you should be worried about.

And that's what I am worried about. Atheists' rights are routinely trampled, but no one gives a flying fuck because society is under the delusion that being religious or spiritual is virtuous. If virtually every member of Congress sees atheists' rights as being irrelevant, then how much hope can we have that our views will be represented or respected?

Or how about when, as recently as 50 years ago, atheists were locked up in concentration camps for their beliefs, because all atheists were presumed communists and enemies of the state by the government? You seriously believe that atheists have nothing to worry about?

Hey, I'm borderline libertarian on a lot of that stuff. You want to solicit the services of a prostitute and get high, go for it. Just don't bother me with it or allow the effects to spill over into society at large. What you do in your own home is your business.

Precisely, except that your religion has influenced the government in such a way that what people do in their privacy of their own homes is no longer strictly their business, and they can be punished for victimless "crimes." Don't you see that that's wrong?

Yes, many of the laws currently on the books concerning those subjects are the result of the widely-held religious views of the community majority back when the laws were passed. In my home state, there are still Blue Book laws in effect that say you can't buy liquor before noon on Sundays. People follow the law and just kinda shake their heads. It's obviously not that big a deal, because nobody's campaigned to have the law repealed.

That's because if they did, they'd simply fail. Not being able to buy liquor on Sundays is a form of religious persecution, but the small towns that the law exists in will never change it.

I guess what I'm asking is, do you bump your head stumbling around in the darkness like that? You're obviously out of matches...

Um ... right. At least I don't have my eyes forcibly closed by my religious beliefs.

Oooookaaaaayyyyyy.

Now, answer me this: could the government ever actually be totally neutral towards religion? Would there not inevitably be some laws on the books that would appear to favor one system of beliefs over another?

Who cares? Will society ever eliminate murder? Probably not. Does that change the fact that murder is wrong? No. Is this how you console the parents of a daughter who's just been raped? "Well, in society, it's inevitable that these things will happen, so you shouldn't complain about it."

[Durandal]

I noticed that you used the "tyranny of the minority" argument. That merely confirms what I've been saying. Bigots like you don't care that certain minorities' rights are being violated, so you make up inane little slogans for yourselves like "tyranny of the minority" to justify what's being done, thinking that since America is a democracy, all civil rights are subject to dismissal if the majority wishes it, even though the government guarantees those rights to all citizens.