Unfortunately for you Plain Ol, during yours and my lifetime, the United States is, and will continue to be a non-secular Nation-State ---- speculation noted ... not shared. A *secular state* is a concept of secularism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism>, whereby a state <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29> or country<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country>purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion>, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state#cite_note-1>A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular states do not have a state religion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion>(established religion) or equivalent. The United States does not have an official religion at either the federal or state level. There are some traditions and customs regarding the use of a Bible when taking oaths in court, or for the President of the United States during the oath of office, but neither of these are required by law. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>is written as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" and is held to be applied to the state via the Fourteenth Amendment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>. Furthermore, Article Six of the United States Constitution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution>prohibits the use of any religious test as qualification for any public office.
Alas, many American religious leaders resent the concept of religious freedom. What they seek is religious dominion. The late Jerry Falwell was a prime example of this; he despised America's Constitution, and desperately tried to advance dominion. Not a progressive society, but a fundamentalist one. “If we are going to save America and evangelize the world,” said Falwell, “We cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth.” *Before the Constitution, religious leaders using "spectral evidence" to justify murder:* How is this so different from the words of former Taliban spiritual leader Mullah Mohammed Omar who, before September 11, 2001, oversaw the campaign to destroy all his country's ancient Buddhist statues, some of which dated back to the second century? And what reason for this destruction? Omar explained: “I don't care about anything else but Islam.” Religious pluralism, indeed, any pluralism, is forbidden. Law comes from the "inspired" rule of the church or mosque. On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:24:51 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > > Unfortunately for you Plain Ol, during yours and my lifetime, the > United States is, and will continue to be a non-secular Nation-State, > relying upon it's Christian heritage as its moral compass and depending > upon Christian values, principals and tenets for the concept of "Ordered > Liberty". You hate this I know, and you and your secularist liberal > friends do everything in your power to revise history, but it's pretty > much for naught! > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:18 PM, plainolamerican > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> the government cannot mandate or regulate social behavior or morality. >> --- >> nor can the religious. >> >> the good news! >> as Americans become more secular the religious will lose political power >> and influence. >> >> >> On Tuesday, April 22, 2014 11:12:50 AM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: >> >>> As a "Genocidal Conservative"; I think this just goes to show that the >>> government cannot mandate or regulate social behavior or morality. It's >>> been tried and failed at each and every attempt. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *"Herewith another and yet worse confession: I do not see, or care, why >>>> it is thought my duty to like, or dislike, groups because of their race, >>>> creed, color, sex, sexual aberration, or national origin. Nor do I think >>>> it >>>> their duty to like me. I especially do not understand why the federal >>>> government should decide with whom I ought to associate." * >>>> *"So what?" * >>>> *How do you like them apples? *By Fred Reed >>>> April 22, 2014 >>>> >>>> I am puzzled as to why racism is thought to be a terrible thing, rather >>>> than entirely natural and often reasonable, and why people allow >>>> themselves >>>> to be brow-beaten about it. Maybe we should stop. Domestic tranquility >>>> would follow in torrents. >>>> >>>> As nearly as I can tell, a racist is one who approves of rigorous >>>> education, good English, civilized manners, minimal criminality, and >>>> responsible parenthood, among other things. I am, then, a racist. I see no >>>> reason to grovel about it. >>>> >>>> I decided long ago that if, while I was doing a radio interview, a >>>> caller-in told me, “You a *racist!”* I would hesitate as if puzzled, >>>> and say “…So what?” This would add immeasurably to the planetary supply >>>> of >>>> stunned silence. The expectation is that anyone so charged will fall on >>>> his >>>> knees and beg for mercy. It would be a lesser offense to be caught >>>> sexually >>>> molesting autistic three-year-old girls while attending a Nazi torch-rally. >>>> >>>> Herewith another and yet worse confession: I do not see, or care, why >>>> it is thought my duty to like, or dislike, groups because of their race, >>>> creed, color, sex, sexual aberration, or national origin. Nor do I think >>>> it >>>> their duty to like me. I especially do not understand why the federal >>>> government should decide with whom I ought to associate. >>>> >>>> But back to “So what?” Among its charms is that there is no answer to >>>> it, other than huffing and puffing and indignant expostulation. All of >>>> these amuse me. Used frequently, “So what?”would shut up people who badly >>>> need to shut up, or else force them to think. Not likely, as most >>>> apparently cannot. >>>> >>>> Let us, improbably, glance at reality. A characteristic of human groups >>>> is that they do not like each other. The greater the difference between >>>> the >>>> groups, the greater the dislike; the closer the contact between them, the >>>> more open the friction. Note that before the advent of mass immigration, >>>> Americans of whatever politics had no dislike of Hispanics. >>>> >>>> Thus separation increases the likelihood of amity. Is this not obvious? >>>> The instinctive rancor between disparate groups accounts for most of the >>>> world’s problems. Moslems and Christians dislike each other, Tamils and >>>> Sinhalese, Cambodians and Vietnamese, blacks and whites, Americans and >>>> Frenchmen, men and women, homosexuals and the normal and, as Tom Lehrer >>>> famously sang, “…everybody hates the Jews.” >>>> >>>> Except that in America Jews are so assimilated that most of us don’t >>>> remember to hate them. They aren’t different enough. I’ll have to make >>>> myself a note. >>>> >>>> Humans like to be among their own kind. This can mean many things. It >>>> can be political. In Washington, white liberals cheerlead for diversity >>>> while spending their time exclusively with white liberals and execrating >>>> Southerners, Jesus Creepers, genocidal conservatives (understood to mean >>>> all conservatives), Catholics, racists, owners of guns, rednecks, and so >>>> on. No dissenting voices are heard because, like conservatives, liberals >>>> choose to be among their own. Similarly, if in any of Washington’s dives >>>> you know that one person in a table of six has an IQ in excess 130, it is >>>> a >>>> good bet that all do. It isn’t snobbery. Smart people enjoy the company of >>>> smart people. Their own kind. So what? >>>> >>>> If left alone, people will naturally and peacefully form such >>>> associations as seem to them desirable. If left alone. So what? >>>> >>>> The Chinese cluster together in China Towns because they want to be >>>> among their own. So what? Jews have yeshivas because they want to preserve >>>> their culture. So what? On campus, black students want separate >>>> fraternities and dormitories. So what? When men can find a pretext for >>>> being among other men, they do. So what? >>>> >>>> In all of this, I am a bit of an outlier, having lived among many >>>> cultures and generally liked them. Some can do this. Yet as a white >>>> American of European extraction, I too want to preserve my culture. This >>>> involves (or did) respect for law, studiousness, the production of >>>> children >>>> within marriage, self-reliance, honesty, sexual restraint, and so on. >>>> Another part of my cultural package is the literature of Milne, Milton, >>>> Twain, Galsworthy, Gibbon, and others at length. I want my children to >>>> read >>>> them >>>> >>>> However, I do not want to impose my values and culture on others. >>>> American blacks for example are truly *African *Americans, and quite >>>> reasonably may have as little interest in European history as I do in >>>> African. Rationally this would argue for separate schools where each could >>>> study what and as it chose. For reasons impenetrable to me, to suggest >>>> this >>>> is thought worse than genocide. >>>> >>>> A reason for letting people associate as they choose is that, while >>>> groups naturally do not like each other, they overlap in curious ways. >>>> Left to themselves, people sort these matters out like water reaching its >>>> level. When I lived in Washington I used to spend afternoons over a Bass >>>> and several of its friends at the Cafe Asia, on Wilson Boulevard just >>>> across Key Bridge into Virginia. The Asia was then staffed by Asian >>>> girlsMalays, Chinese, Vietnamese, and a lovely Japanese woman who managed >>>> it. The clientele ran to young white professionals. >>>> >>>> Their unanimous opinion held of these women by white men was highly >>>> favorable. Why? Well, these young ladiesthey *were* ladies–were >>>> sleek, pretty, classy, never toilet-mouthed, and smart. Smart: One was >>>> doing graduate work in computer security, another was a wide-area network >>>> engineer, a third had been unable to find work after a master’s in >>>> biochem, >>>> and so was in dental school. >>>> >>>> Here we have an example of people, being* left alone*, deciding *for >>>> themselves* who to hang out with. The young white professionals had >>>> decided, probably not consciously, that the Asian women had enough in >>>> common with us, and enough not in common but appealing, that we really >>>> enjoyed them. >>>> >>>> Where is the fly in this ointment? I suppose we were racists, as we >>>> were assuredly discriminating racially: We thought Malays pretty. The >>>> horror. No doubt we were sinners all. >>>> >>>> Today of course we are federally admonished not to choose our own >>>> friends and neighbors as if our lives were our own business. No. Instead >>>> we must follow the social directives of the Potomac Soviet, whether anyone >>>> wants to or not. Few do. In Washington, on the Hill, upper Connecticut, >>>> the >>>> inner suburbs, the outer suburbs, everywhere, clubs and restaurants are >>>> either almost perfectly white or perfectly black. Whites happily patronize >>>> Latin American restaurants intended for the general trade, yet in >>>> mini-barrios many venues tacitly are for browns only. So what? It is how >>>> people want it. If freedom of association is racism, I am for it. >>>> >>>> So what? >>>> >>>> http://www.fredoneverything.net/LaudableRacism.shtml >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
