R. Rex Parris, the Mayor of Lancaster, CA, has said in his State of the City address that daily Christian prayers should be held in City Council meetings. After complaints by Muslim groups, he later explained that people would be able to substitute Jesus for any other deity. But still, he said, "We are growing a Christian community and don't let anybody shy away from that," and that anyone who has a problem with that was just looking for fame.
Free Republic members react. Will they support the separation of Church and State? Will they condemn the Mayor for suggesting Christianity is the official religion of a city a week after a City Council member wrote this on her Facebook page?
This is what the Muslim religion is all about -- the beheadings, honor killings are just the beginning of what is about to come to the USA.
Take it away, Free Republic:
ISLAM...Love it or lose your head!
Coming to a city near you....
If you don’t like it don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out of our country..The country that was found on Christianity not on Muslim murdering..Go away fool..People it is past time to show these fools who is in charge here..Not the terrorist but the American people..
Just economics — growing a muslim community would entail constructing a new terrorist camp just outside town.
I’d agree with a city official not advancing a religion.
Finally! A free Republic member with some sense! Oh, wait, his comment continues:
I’d also agree with a city official calling out Islam for the slimeball joke of a religion that it is.
8 comments:
I actually don't believe in the Separation of Church and State, mainly because "Secularism" has become is own Religion, though most don't call it that and many are offended when I say this. Still, if you "Have no Religion" you tend to define what it means to be nonreligious and that becomes an ideology that then becomes imposed on everyone.I really don't buy the argument that Secularism prevents oppression, as its often caused it. Oppression isnot caused by Religion, but by forcing one group of people to do as you want them to based on your beliefs they don't necessarily share. An Officially Christian Nation, such as the United Kingdom, or Norway, can be pretty tolerant, and officially Secular ones, such as China, can be tyrannical. The real measure is our Freedom, not the official beliefs of the State, and much less of specific individuals.
I'd much rather an open society that allows open acknowledgment of a divers it of beliefs by Government officials than one that is officially secular, and so favours a secular belief system with its own dogmas and doctrines. Then again, I am Libertarian, so if the Counsel wanted Christin Prayers I'd not really have a problem. But I also don't have a problem with Muslim Prayers in a Muslim-dominated City, provided the rights of others to be of other Faiths was respected.
What we see today with the Anti-Muslim sentiments are no different though than in the past when we hated Catholics as a society, or Jews. Its simply that all Muslims are blamed for the actions of a few, and are linked to a perception which is highly biased.
Its the old Us VS Them, in which its easier to blame all Muslims rather than develop a nuanced view, and easier to project a limited knowledge gleaned from a prejudice than to truly understand that Faith.
I'm an Atheist, and I don't think there's a "secular" religion. I agree that some Atheists are as anti-all-religions as the worst fundamentalists, but as far as I'm concerned, for Atheists to be referred to as members of our own secular religion, we should have something else in common--not just an agreement about what we don't believe in: talking snakes.
Personally, I think people should be able to do what they want, as long as other belief systems aren't trampled upon. This is the real value (and reason for) the country, not "Judeo-Christian values."
Free, when I say Atheistss have a Relgion, I don't man Atheism itself is a Relgion. Just like Theism is not a Religion in and of itself. However, when you look at the Modern-Day Atheism thats most commonly on display, its not just "A lack of beleif in a god". If one visits Dan Barkers "Freedom From Religion Foundation" one can find a list of things they beleif in that extend way past this. (Really the "Lack of beleif in a god" thing isnt True either, its mroe like a Rejection, if you read that page.) Barker even has a Nontract ( I hate the term, its still a folded paper with a message) that tells you what a Freethinker is, and in it is says to be a Frethinker is to follow Humanist Values.
If you visit the COunsil for Seculr Humanisms site, you casn find a "What we beleie" section there as wel. The same is True of Richard Dawkisn website.
Basiclaly, most Modern Athesists in the Western World at leats are Humanists.
Not all are midn you, but most.
Humanism bills itself as a NonReligious Philosophy tht can be used instad of Religion, but as Humanism covers the same basic ground that Relgiion does and provides for its adherants the same thing Relgiion does, whats the Difference? Is it really all about the fact that they don't beleive in a god? Becuase thats not relaly what defines Religion.
Religion is simply a codified Philosophical beleif system that serves as a Framwork for the adherant to understand their existanc and relate tot he world they live in. It doens't require gods, or else many forms of Buddhism woudln't be Relgios either.
It only requires beleifs in andabotu our world, and most Ahtiests that I've met do share a good deal in common Ideologically about the Fundamental Qustions. Thats nto to say Political beelifs alays align, but basic thigns such as Materialism and the basis of Morality do.
There are of ocurxe other Athisic Philosophies, such as Objectivism or Neitchism, but they'd be Relgiiosn too, with Adherants just as willign to force heir perspective onto others as unquestionable Truth as any Relgiiosu Devotee.
The big problem is, mist Ahtiets dont really stop and htink of it and do at as thoguh becuase thye have no Rekgiion they cant force Relgiion onto pepel and so when they soeak fo Seperation fo Chruch and STtae do Favour a Humanist undrstanding.
As to the COuntry, continued belw.
My own views on Relgiion and Freedom are simple.
I think that anyone shudl ahve the right to hodl any beleif they wish, and to congregate wth others of a shard beleif shoudl they pelase. I also think that the Seperation fo Chruhc and Tate interpeetation we work under is daft. I feel we need ot lalow Chruches to address COngress, and infleunce Laws, like they use to before th 1960's. I simply think they shoudl be understood liek any other group, such as a Corproation, or a Nonprofit Charity, or Educaitonal Orginisation, in that regards. Each one would have a Right to Address COngress. None wudl be Favoured over the other. Thus, the United Mehodist Chruch woudl have the right to speak as much as the American Family Association, even if Judson Philips hates the United Methodist Chruch. So woudl the CHurch of Satan. So woudl Theravda Buddhists. So woudl Secular Humanists. They'd all be able to address COngress and male petitions and a case for theyr poitn in whatever is beign debated.
I also didn't have a problem withthe Hindu Prayer openign COgnres a few years back.
I think some people overreacted, bith in the Ahtiests who said Relgiion shoudl be banned form the Capital, and NonHindus, usually Evangelical Christaisn, who soemhow saw a great evil in lettign this guy take hsi Turn.
I see it as a Cultural Expression, and this is a part of that Amrican Culture we share. Relgiion reflects Reality, and how we understand it, and as weare a Diverse Union of States, wiht an even greater Diversity of peoples, lwt hem all have their Turn, and honour each Culture.
But perhaps I'm too IDealistic.
I agree (even though it took me some time to put letters in the right order). People spend too much time complaining about the potential influence of religion in politics and not enough time complaining about real corporate influence.
Yeah I'm dyslexic.
Oops. Sorry.
R.X. speeks out of both sides of his mouth.
1. He has a display in the city council room of the American Flag that has gold fringe.
When I say I pledge allegiance to the flag.
( it never said flags.)
Bush and obama found this out when they signed the flag. In January 19, 2009, Baltimore, MD. Flags overprinted with the new President Obama image and name are distributed to celebrate his inauguration. Section 8g of the Flag Code reads, "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing
(((of any nature."))) It is no differant than when Hitler placed the swastic on the Austria Flag. Its called false flag dichotomy, Or desicration of the National flag. The U.S. Government can not domanate the Republic flag in this maner. Rex you of all people know that.
Post a Comment