Record of Religious Ridiculousness, or ITT: Batshit religious insanity

[Lord J Esq]

How about that...Bill O'Reilly is doing something decent for a change. Good for him.

[Sajainta]

Look at this damn necromancy...

I got a good laugh out of this article.  My favourite part was when the guy said that non-religious liberals were likely to have addictions and be "high risk individuals".  [citation needed]

Personally, I would never marry someone I didn't live with beforehand, but the reason I posted the article was the way it was written, not the main point he was making.

[Kodokami]

For those not in the know-how, the White House had set up a Create a Petition page a while back. Now I'm being told that those who have signed a petition to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency are receiving this email in reply:

Thank you for signing the petition “Remove "In God We Trust" from currency." We appreciate your participation in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov.

The separation of church and state outlined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an important founding principle of our nation. Our nation’s Bill of Rights guarantees not only that the government cannot establish an official religion, but also guarantees citizens’ rights to practice the religion of their choosing or no religion at all.

Throughout our history, people of all faiths – as well as secular Americans – have played an important role in public life. And a robust dialogue about the role of religion in public life is an important part of our public discourse.

While the President strongly supports every American’s right to religious freedom and the separation of church and state, that does not mean there’s no role for religion in the public square.

When he was a Senator from Illinois, President Obama gave a keynote address at the Call to Renewal conference where he spoke about the important role religion plays in politics and in public life.

A sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters.
That’s why President Obama supports the use of the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance and “In God we Trust” on our currency. These phrases represent the important role religion plays in American public life, while we continue to recognize and protect the rights of secular Americans. As the President said in his inaugural address, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” We’re proud of that heritage, and the strength it brings to our great country."

[ZeaLitY]

While the President strongly supports every American’s right to religious freedom and the separation of church and state, that does not mean there’s no role for religion in the public square.

right to religious freedom

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Too bad I don't have more atheist friends and family members, because I'd love to give/receive those currency stamps that remove "In God We Trust" from currency.

[Thought]

Not sure about currency, but that looks like it is a slightly altered version to the response for the petition to remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

[tushantin]

I don't get it. What's wrong with that email reply? From what I see, it's merely stating that America is founded on a freedom of belief.

[Thought]

While I am not sure what merits its inclusion here -- keeping the two noted references to God is not ideal, but it is certainly not batshit insane -- the email is politically special. It promotes a pro-religious reference stance to people who have specifically expressed that they are anti-religious reference. In essence, it gave them the raspberry.

[Katie Skyye]

In essence, it gave them the raspberry.

I know this is a serious topic but I burst out laughing at the mental image.

[Radical_Dreamer]

I don't get it. What's wrong with that email reply? From what I see, it's merely stating that America is founded on a freedom of belief.

The addition of the phrase "under God" to the pledge of allegiance was an act of vandalism by those who rejected the values of this nation. No American who opposes its removal can rightly be said to be a patriot.

[Bard_of_Time]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8411026

This.

[tushantin]

I don't get it. What's wrong with that email reply? From what I see, it's merely stating that America is founded on a freedom of belief.

The addition of the phrase "under God" to the pledge of allegiance was an act of vandalism by those who rejected the values of this nation. No American who opposes its removal can rightly be said to be a patriot.

Just curious: How about a different approach? Instead of having a petition be to remove "Under God", how about a petition to return the pledge to its rightful, former version (which is basically the same thing but sounds different)? Obviously the Dominionists will be enraged again, but this time at least you will be given the benefit of doubt from few more parties. Disguise your motive into "returning America to its rightful glory" and not "kicking Christianity in the nuts" (the latter is how they view it).

Reason why I say this is because it's much easier to accomplish goals when you aren't spitting on someone's face. When you don't look them in the eyes, they'll ignore you, and you can simply walk in and pull the lever of change. Make them your allies, even if you have to act it out, and eventually they'll conform.

Always works. 

[Sajainta]

Disguise your motive into "returning America to its rightful glory" and not "kicking Christianity in the nuts" (the latter is how they view it).

They're going to view it that way no matter what.  Whether someone says "I don't believe in God so I'm uncomfortable saying the Pledge of Allegiance" or "I would like the Pledge to go back to its original state", people are still going to think that they're un-American / "evil atheists" / persecuting Christians / whatever other bullshit you can think of.

The vast majority of Americans are Christian.  We're in the minority.  Most of them are going to think we're being disrespectful no matter our approach.  That's just the way it works in this country, unfortunately.

[tushantin]

They're going to view it that way no matter what.  Whether someone says "I don't believe in God so I'm uncomfortable saying the Pledge of Allegiance" or "I would like the Pledge to go back to its original state", people are still going to think that they're un-American / "evil atheists" / persecuting Christians / whatever other bullshit you can think of.

I realize that. What I mean is that accusations will come to you no matter what you do. Point is, just don't give them the reason to do so. They will still do so, but this will enable support from other members of the opposition who actually do think rationally and openly.

For instance, step into a rational Christian's shoe for once, and think who you'd most likely empathize and negotiate with: An Atheist who approaches respectfully for good negotiation, or one that rallies with a "Fuck Religion" attitude? Obviously the latter is looking for war, so the first thing the opposition will do is strengthen their guard.

The vast majority of Americans are Christian.  We're in the minority.  Most of them are going to think we're being disrespectful no matter our approach.

Ouch! I feel your pain there. Remember though; just because your enemy is being foolish doesn't mean you have to. The best method and image always triumphs.

Agreed, being a minority is harsh, but at this point you can't grab a flag and scream "Revolution!", because chances are you'll be crushed by the powerful majority. The methods I've seen work best at this point are usually political espionage or psychological warfare and manipulation.

There's a useful quote that Mr. Mafioso always uses:
"Keep your eyes open and your noses clean."

[Radical_Dreamer]

My position, Tushantin, if you were to put it your more aggressive fashion, would be more honestly read as "Fuck theocrats" and "fuck traitors", neither of which are comments that should be offensive to Christians.

[Thought]

Michael Pearl, his wife, Debi Pearl, and their "No Greater Joy Ministries."
Perhaps you might recall Josh's posting about the death of Hana Grace-Rose Williams, an Ethiopian adoptee who's "parents" starved her, beat her, and sent her outside to die in the cold? Michael Pearl's book has been implicated in several other child deaths. He advocates beating children with a stick at age 6 months, and a plumbing pipe at age 2. He recommends sitting on children, pulling their hair, starving them, exposing them to the elements, etc. His wife wrote a text too, aimed at women with abusive spouses. Her advise? Be a submissive wife, allow him to kill you, and be thankful for it.

I'm generally reluctant to advocate censorship, but it seems downright vile for any publisher to put out that, and for any store to sell it.