The most stiff-necked, intolerant, condescending people who have ever prosletyzed me have been atheists. They were always totally rude, too.
Funny that, and not in the ha-ha way, either.

While I think this is overblown, it does demonstrate very clearly that the attempt to purge the public square of America's religious heritage is based not on tolerance or the Constitution, but is instead an attempt to compel all of us to observe this religion of non-religion.

Yep. Traditional religionists go door-to-door. Secularists go to court.

Popeye:

Not as often as sectarians do.

No. Secularists are not rationalists. If they were, they would ungrudgingly recognize the utility of religion, its rational benefit to society and to the individual. On the contrary, secularists are very much believers in the god of this world. The foregoing observations of their narrow-mindedness and intolerance demonstrate just how far removed they are from rational consideration of the bissue.

Rationalists with a capital "R"--meaning they think Reason can stand of itself.

I am seeking the rectification of names: caling a secularist a rationalist is a canard on the order of calling a leftist a "progressive" or a sexual deviant a "gay."

Lou:

I am a secularist--well, maybe rationalist; your distinction seems sensible--and recognize the utility of religion in precisely the way you speak.

It is precisely that utility, and my particular sense of irony, the lead me to conclude that the best way to maintain that utility in its most constructive fashion is to keep religious expression completely out of government.

I happen to think there is a probitive correlation between the enervated religious belief of Europeans, and the nearly universal state supported religions. In contrast, the nearly complete absence of religion in our government seems to have had the ironic effect of promoting extensive private religious belief. Why mess with a good thing?

Hamtramck, MI isn't too far from where I live. The hue and cry among the religious over Muslims seeking to broadcast calls to prayer in the same way as Christians ring church bells should be cautionary to anyone who thinks government should be in the business of backing a particular form of religious expression.

Jeff:

Except that our politics and governance is more permeated by religiosity than that of any other Western nation.

The religion of the left is irreligion. The distiction between the basic theistic underpinnings of ordered liberty versus a specific state sponored church is the difference between Europe and the USA. Secularists see society organized under the assumption that God has no place in government. A basic misunderstanding on their part. They are using the courts to enforce that basic misunderstanding while the theists wish to be left alone. The first ammendment ties freedom of speech and freedom of religion together for a reason. The only restrictions on speech are being advocated by secularists at the federal level concern religious expression at the local level. Crazy.

Tom:

Not really. Whether Marx, Freud, Darwin or some combination thereof, their belief systems have all the qualities of religion--except the capacity to form the basis of a decent society.

Jeff:

The law has been restricting the ringing of church bells since the 19th century. It is called the law of nuisance and it basically says one's religion is not a justification for keeping the neighbourhood awake. Sensible people are quite capable of sitting down and working out compromises over conflicting interests without everything being turned into a constitutional issue. If they can't, the law should be able to. Obviously the issue of the call to prayer is related to the decibel level of the calls.

But you ignore all that and see the threatening spectre of theocracy everywhere, which allows you to take these mundane issues and turn them into a doctrine of constitutional extremism and absolutism that is clearly at odds with the popular will. And you wonder why we see you as a man of faith.

Peter-

When it comes to the issue of religious expression and the law there is nothing sensible about secularists. They are, in general, smug, intolerant absolutists who are blinded by legalistic dogmas which neccesarily ignore basic American history.

Jeff:

It's dishonest to mention the Hamtramck calls to prayer without mentioning the times of the day they are broadcast. They have at least one that is very early in the morning.

Tom: No one's philosophy of life is, "A bunch of stuff happens, and a bunch of stuff doesn't happen", which is the only possible non-religious life philosophy.

David-

No doubt. To a secularist all the bad stuff that happens is the fault of religion. Everthing else by pure, random chance.

I don't know that I have a philosophy of life -- I'm just a pore redneck from the peckerwoods and we can't afford such luxuries -- but if I did, it might be pretty close to 'a bunch of stuff happens and a bunch of stuff doesn't happen.'

Except that you think it a world historical tragedy if anything happens to you.

Harry:

My momma done tol' me, "When someone starts talking 'bout how they just a pore ol' redneck, put your hand on your wallet, and back away."

Anyway, you're just like the rest of us: you believe that a bunch of stuff happened because a bunch of other stuff happened first. That's religion.

David:

My stuff's better than your stuff. Wanna step outside?

Peter: By definition, if Canada had any stuff we wanted, it would be our stuff.

Hey, it's the Hannukah/Christmas/Kwannza/Winter Solstice/Eid/Love A Rationalist Holiday Season, let's not fight over stuff, let's just share it all and get along please.