From JTO
I do remember a spate of articles about measures of happiness in various countries with, as I remember, northern European countries scoring high.
I thought this was pretty interesting as these countries share market economic systems, democratic government systems, and strong social welfare systems. I thought this result was pretty interesting, because happiness is, as you say, what the objective should be and is even stated so, along with life and liberty, in our own Declaration of Independence, which contains no reference to pursuit of aristocratic wealth. Economists will always gravitate toward things they can
measure, however, and Stiglitz, as a Nobel prize winner, and Ivy League professor, is a pretty influential thinker, author and speaker.
This discussion makes me want to go back and understand better the founders’ understanding of Rousseau’s views on human happiness and its relationship to development of democratic political systems in England, France and the U.S. rRelated, I recently read a short biography of Washington written by Joseph Ellis, an eminent scholar of the founders and prof at Mt. Holyoke College, that suggested that theses guys were really the landed gentry and early aristocratic class, with motivations – and the wherewithal – to break free of the English colonial economic and legal systems for the less noble purpose of creating their own aristocratic class independent of England. If you think about the fight over taxes then, and the current Tea Party connections to the current 1%, this becomes a pretty intriguing perspective..
Yes of course they were. I read have read similar books with such a premise about the founding fathers- perhaps it was Ellis, I can’t recall. Economic freedom from Britain was the driver for change and in fact, it was British law, ironically, which enabled the colonies to gain their freedom. Interesting split in the British Parliament at the time, which of course forced revolution and war.
Regarding happiness in America, never mind Rousseau, I have my own theories and speaking of Newcomer, they center around Christianity and its lasting influence. While I think that many of the founders were enlightened about religion, it is perhaps the puritan ideals which played a major role in developing conservative policy in America- and, in my opinion (IMHO), continues to drive it in the heart and minds of many Americans. You know, that happiness is only to be expected in the hereafter, that hard work and suffering is necessary to prepare for this, that laziness is not to be tolerated. When you think about it, there is no coincidence that religion plays a major role in the conservative movement, that austerity is something to be desired, that there is a prevalence to blaming laziness as the root of all problems.
Here in New England, particularly in small towns, this puritan repression of happiness is probably most obvious and is often manifested by stoicism, latent alcoholism, excessive fiscal conservatism, and angry intolerance to opposing views. “Happiness? Who talks about happiness and quality of life? Just get a job and quit blaming other people for your problems.” This is the mentality. And it is exploited and used by the Republicans to prevent true engagement and a true quest for progress.
It wasn’t Ellis. It was Draper. Theodore Draper. Struggle for Power was the name of his book. Good read. Better than Bailyn in my opinion.
Two mentions of me in the same article? Must be a slow blog day in Woodstock!
I’ve been staying out of the economic discussion because I frankly don’t feel that I have a full command of the topic. But, LibDem, I think you may be conflating several thoughts in your above comment regarding happiness, Christianity, and conservatism.
When you say that “many of the founders were enlightened about religion”, I’m not sure what you mean by that. But if you mean that some of them were students of the historical movement of “The Enlightenment”, then I would say that you are correct. However, the founders came well after the landing and settling of the Virginia colonists and Mayflower pilgrims. I believe the original colonists were the ones who brought Puritanism to our shores.
I’ve noticed in your comments here at the Cafe in the past that you tend to lump all denominations of Christians into one group under the umbrella of “evangelicals”. This is not correct. There are distinct differences between denominations. There are liberals, conservatives, progressives, and orthodox/traditionalist members of these denominations. A particular denomination can be (and many are) its own house divided as well as simultaneously being divided and apart from other denominations. That’s why all who call ourselves Christians are not presently united under one church. We are clearly and distinctly separated brethren in both theology and politics on many, many issues.
I think you oversimplify the matter when you lump Christians into the same category as republicans and conservatives. It’s true that the republican party seems to enjoy the support of many of the evangelical denominations, but there are plenty of very devoutly religious Christians who do not belong to any evangelical denomination and also do not belong to any political party.
With factors such as a growing popularity of neo-atheism, waves of relativism and secularism gaining broad acceptance in our culture as well as politics (one example being Obama’s anti orthodox Christian policy of the HHS mandate), I can’t predict how well Christians will do in the future in the U.S. But I will make a prediction that independents are the political wave of the future. I can see the republicans and democrats bickering and filibustering themselves into irrelevancy somewhere down the political road.
NC-
I think that in your earnest haste to defend religion and invoke your own political predictions, you not only misread my statements but failed to counter my premise.
Regardless, you have proved useful in supporting my argument when you stated that you’ve “been staying out of the economic discussion because I frankly don’t feel that I have a full command of the topic.” Yet you seem to believe you have full command of religion. That’s the problem.
Combine the ethos of capitalism (protect the bottom line, Randian selfishness, profits before people, creation of wealth) and religion (martyrdom, puritan austerity, turn the other cheek, render unto Caesar) and you create a broad culture that cares little about quality of life, preserves happiness for the wealthy while for the rest of it us can wait till “kingdom comes”- so long we repent for our sins, and most dangerously, there is a general passivity and carelessness about understanding the economics which, more than any type of theolatry, is the truest driver in directing the happiness of our short lives.
So in the broader discussion that we were having on quality of life and economic policy, it is no surprise that America is not one of the “happiest” countries and that its political and religious culture reflect for us the reasons why.
My hope is that eventually people will wake up to the travesties of crony capitalism and religion, and that both become greatly marginalized through science, advanced secularization and socialized regulation. For now, we can look toward advanced countries like Sweden, Norway, Finland as being models for leading the way.
Well we missed you Newcomer!
Let me take a slightly different tack on LibDem’s point. I think there is a connection, and certainly a co-incidence, among the increasing influence of Christian fundamentalists in the Republican party and associated views of evolved law under the Constitution and evolved economic views. With +/- 45% of registered Republicans calling themselves Christian fundamentalists, this helps explain the increasing conservatism of the Republican party as it relates to legal and economic views. So, the Christian fundamentalist view treats the bible as the original holy writ, and interprets it literally, and treats
any straying from it as sinful. Carrying this thought process over to the law, it is easy for people to view the original Constitution as the authentic holy writ, interpret it literally, and treat any departure from it as an aberration. And again, in the world of economics, they treat the highly simplistic Classical economics school as the holy writ, with any evolution of these theories as aberrations. I
I am quite familiar with this thought process from my early and extensive Catholic education, certain theories that were somewhat hard to believe, especially the infallibility of the Pope.
So this fundamentalist thought process has carried over Into our political process and policymaking. So these fundamentalist believe in “original constructionists” interpret the Constitution based on a plain reading, ignoring that the document itself provided for evolution of the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and ignoring the context of 225 years of evolved law. And In the field of economics, these Market Fundamentalists, as they are called, ignore the obvious problems with Classical analysis and see more advanced analysis as straying from the pure path.
It’s a funny thing, this thought process. All of these documents are man-made, and therefore fallible. I lok at it the other way, and quote John Kennedy from his famous American University “Peace”speech about the nuclear arms race:
“our problems were created by man, therefore they can be solved by man.”.
I think its up to us.
LibDem,
I think that I read your statements properly, although I can see why you feel that I failed to refute your premise. I probably should have stated flat-out that I disagree with your premise. I disagree with your premise for the reason I stated in my prior comment. I feel that you are conflating and lumping together two disconnected thoughts.
I agree with your list of some of the undesirable qualities of our capitalists as they have currently evolved. You named protecting the bottom line, “Randian” selfishness, profits before people, creation of wealth. Certainly protecting the bottom line to the point of putting profit and wealth above people, selfishness (which I would say includes greed and is rather a universal human character defect that is not limited only to Randian economic philosophy) – both of these are problems in our econmoic system as it currently exists. I don’t see the creation of wealth per se as a problem, but again, it’s when the people who achieve wealth turn into greedy predators that problems and inequalities arise.
I disagree with you that these factors are the result of religion in general and Christianity specifically. I believe that these factors are the result of people who are exactly the opposite. They are either completely ignorant of faith-based morals or are aware of them but are “talking the talk, not walking the walk” of their purported values.
If I understand you correctly, you’re arguing that Christian morals are the problem. I disagree with that. I feel that corrupted and abandoned Christian morals are the problem. If one holds themself out to the community as a Christian, that is supposed to mean that they strive to imitate Christ in the living out of their daily life. “Render unto Caesar” refers to our obligation to pay taxes if we owe them – nothing more, nothing less. Preserving happiness for only the wealthy is not a principle of Christian doctrine. Caring for one’s neighbor and providing for them is a Christian moral tenent. Good liberal Christians and good orthodox Christians (as well as those who practice other religions) can have honest disagreements as to the best economic model that will accomplish that. But when you blame all of our societal ills on religion, you’re just plain wrong. Blame it on religion gone wrong, or gone awry. When religion is properly put into practice (in terms of economic practice specifically since that is what you’ve been discussing) then the wealthy don’t greedily hoard their wealth and preserve it at the expense of their neighbor. They don’t ship jobs overseas to maximize profits at the expense of providing employment opportunities for those in their community (for example).
I’ve said it before here at the Cafe and I’ll say it again. I think that there would be a lot less anti-Christian sentiment in the U.S. if we had more examples of Christians actually practicing what we preach instead of saying one thing and doing what is self-serving instead of neighbor-serving.
I don’t think that a European socialistic economic model is the way to go because our country is much bigger than any European country. We would go broke if our government tried to provide free universal healthcare and free retirement to our seniors. However, our present model is obviously not working either. In terms of happiness, it seems to me that major reform is needed but I don’t know what that would look like because 1.) I’ve never seen it in my lifetime and, 2.) I’m not well-versed enough in economics to come up with something that would do the trick. But there has to be some way in this rich nation to provide for those who through no fault of their own, are unable to provide for themselves, without doing so in a way that is detrimental to others. My opinion is that the two political parties are too steeped in their ideological battle to get this done. That, absent a basic morality in government, private enterprise, politicians, and the culture in general, make for a poisonous combination. But I still say it is an over-simplification to blame this mostly on religion and republicans.
P.S. if you want a voting population that is better educated about economics, then advocate for legislation to make econmics mandatory in high school. It’s not even mandatory in many colleges. If it’s an elective in college, how do you expect the general population to learn this stuff? Osmosis?
JTO,
I don’t have any statistics to offer up, but I’m willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt that fundamentalist Christians seem to be a growing base of the republican party. At least that seems to match public perception anyway. But as I said to LibDem, I think that this black or white (with no gray area) ideological fight between the two parties is as much to blame for our inability to effect any meaningful economic reform. I listen to both Fox and CNN to try to get a sense of bias on both sides but all that I keep hearing is the battle between “big government” and “private sector”. Is that the best that we can do? Is there no way to combine the “good” of private enterprise and the “good” of sensible government regulation, and government providing some safety nets to the poor and disabled, and eliminate the greed, corruption, and hand-picked winners and losers in our economy? This is what frustrates me and I don’t think it is correct to solely blame one party or the other. I blame them both.
As pertains the area of law, I would say the same. I think that with the rising prevalence of relativism in our society (“what’s right to me is right, and what’s right to you is right”) there needs to be a few commonly held moral principles in order to prevent chaos and anarchy. Our laws originally stem from the Magna Carta and that document does seem to recognize aspects of natural law, or a God-given law of right and wrong that is written upon the heart of mankind. I think that’s a good place to start at least. But here again, our elected officials have become deadlocked in a fight over which party is correct and which school of thought, liberal vs. conservative, is superior. While they duke it out and try to win electoral dominance, each over the other, they abdicate their elected role to enact our nation’s laws and instead, they delegate that responsibility to the SCOTUS. None of the SCOTUS members are elected by the people. Where’s the check and balance for legislating from the bench? I suppose it’s supposed to be in the legislative branch but they’re too busy arguing and out-spending each other to notice and enact bi-partisan legislation.
Moral of the story: indeed it IS up to us.
I am in agreement with JTO. Certainly fundamentalism is the epitome of all that is wrong with religion. The impact it has on our politics is a constant source of acid reflux for me.
Newcomer- (really you should be “old timer” by now). I will not argue with you point by point but there is one thing I want you to consider. While I agree with you that Christian “morals” are an overall healthy construct for society, it is outrageous for anyone to presume that those who are not Christian (or any other religion) cannot or do not practice those morals. One does not need a church dictate or a belief in a supreme being to understand that there is a code of conduct that intuitively distinguishes between good and bad. In fact, C.S. Lewis used this premise to make the justification that there is a god. I disagree with that justification but acknowledge the universality of ethics and morals (sociopaths excluded). Therefore, if we can agree that basic morals are generally universal, then this becomes the great equalizer. This, then, leaves Christianity with nothing more than its institutional shell- an emperor without clothes.
And of course we know (morals aside now), historically speaking, that the institution of Christianity is, without a doubt, a corrupt and dangerous plague on humanity.
We’ve had this conversation before, so before I start quoting Christopher Hitchens, remember that it is not the universal morals I am opposed to as much as the institution itself- and how it has crowned itself as being the grand arbitrator of morals, going so far as to rendering to Caesar more than just taxes.
Newcomer – I understand what you are saying but I still think the mindset of the Christian fundamentalists – 45% of Republicans according to a poll I saw but cannot reference – is so similar to the thinking of the market fundamentalists and the Constitutional “Originalists” that this co-incidental trend in the Republican party is not, well, coincidence. It is anti-intellectual, anti-science and anti-reality and is a function of the rising tide of Christian fundamentalists in the party. And more and more of these people show up in our government who appear to me to be simply delusional, simply repeating the theme that somehow cutting taxes and privatizing government services will solve all our problems. The other part of this mentality is the belief that once discovered, truths are absolute and their repetition, rather than demonstration through rational argument, somehow makes them true.
A good example of this is the evolution versus “Intelligent Design” debate, where these approaches are taught side by side as scientific theories in many public school systems, which I think is an outrageous violation of the principle of separation of church and state. One is a SCIENTIFIC theory that has been tested over 150 years and more and more physical evidence has been collected to support the theory. I would not say it is absolute, but it has held up pretty well to analysis. The other is a thinly disguised religious belief I Creationism dressed up and pretending to to be a “theory”.
I think this influence has dragged the Republican party off a cliff into a near- delusional state, and that is bad for our country because the Democrats need some moderates on the other side to work with.
LibDem,
You said, “it is outrageous for anyone to presume that those who are not Christian (or any other religion) cannot or do not practice those morals. One does not need a church dictate or a belief in a supreme being to understand that there is a code of conduct that intuitively distinguishes between good and bad.”
This is the crux of our ongoing disagreement, isn’t it? If you’re arguing that atheistic societies would be just as moral as a society that believes in a God who has rules, I disagree with that completely. That’s not to say that within any such atheistic society, there aren’t (or wouldn’t be) individual people who live morally. But let’s think this through to its logical conclusion for a moment.
If an entire society does not believe that God exists, then to whom is anyone in the society ultimately accountable to? Who has the right to choose a king, president, or any other sort of ruler/leader for the society? Who among them would have the power to make laws governing the society? From what source would such a person derive his/her power? What would ensure that any such power is binding? By its very nature of deriving from nothing/no one, it would necessarily be arbitrary and of its own accord. Would such a society instinctively become democratic and choose a leader by majority vote and if so, who or what holds any individual bound and subject to that authority and power struggles? Who’s to determine whether the original ruler or any dissenters are right or wrong if none of them can be held to account to any ultimate Authority and if there is no Divine law and Divine lawgiver to whom every human being is subject to?
You see, when you take atheism to its logical conclusion philosophically, its logical conclusion is nihilism. A society of people accountable to no one (each individual is not subject to any authority because authority is merely an arbitrary human construct) will eventually devour itself because no one has any ultimate authority to judge another as right/wrong or even decide what behavior constitutes right/wrong.
So no, I do not believe, nor accept the premise, that morals are universal, absent and independent of God. I don’t doubt that atheism seeks to become the great equalizer, I just think it falls woefully short.
Next, you said, “And of course we know (morals aside now), historically speaking, that the institution of Christianity is, without a doubt, a corrupt and dangerous plague on humanity”.
I know no such thing.
You have made it clear in past discussions that it is the “institution” you despise. I would simply remind you that in present day Christianity and in the present day Christianity of the U.S., there is not one, singular Christian institution that crowns itself the “grand arbitrator of morals”. If there are 200 denominations of Christian churches in the U.S. (could be more, for all I know) and they aren’t united into one church because they don’t even agree about doctrine and theology among themselves, then which of those 200 Christian institutions are you singling out as the “grand arbitrator”? Remember that all Christians are not also fundamentalists. All Christian denominations do not subscribe to fundamentalist doctrine and theology.
So which institution do you have a beef with?
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go brace myself for a Hitch quote…
JTO,
I recognize what you are saying too. If you and LibDem are correct about fundamentalism and the republican party, the flipside of the argument could also be made that the Democratic party seems to be experiencing a growing trend of not just liberals dominating the party, but a growing breed of progressives who are to the left of garden-variety liberals gaining dominance in the party.
Is our problem restricted to the fact that more extreme schools of thought are over-taking each party? Or is our problem that neither party is interested in finding common middle ground any longer? I think it is the path of least resistance for each party to dig its heels in ideologically and insist that the opposing party is being impossible.
One needn’t buy into an opposing ideology in order to recognize that our Constitution was designed to allow secularists, atheists, jews, fundamentalists, etc. to co-exist in societal harmony without trampling on each others’ rights. That’s not what we have right now though. We have secularists like LibDem who want to banish religious institutions from society and we have fundamentalist schools of thought (I can’t think of a person who represents that movement off the top of my head) who want to convert everyone in the U.S. into fundamentalists. Neither of those are practical, nor Constitutional.
So take the example of school choice, since you mentioned fundamentalists insisting on the Creation story being taught in schools alongside the big bang theory. Neither of them should be taught if they can’t be proven. Really, only a statement should be made that scientists have theories about how the earth began but these theories are still being investigated, then teach what we do know. The age of the earth can be approximated due to advances in geology, etc. But beyond that, I think school choice should be an option and would be Constitutional. It limits the freedom and happiness of American parents if their children have to attend a government-run school wherein the government, determines what to teach the child, and that could come to include atheism if LibDem gets his way. Atheism currently violates the beliefs of most Americans, not just fundamentalist Christians. It violates the beliefs of other denominations of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. If our government and elected officials are going to insist on an all-or-nothing solution to our educational system, then that answer needs to be “all” rather than “nothing” IMHO.
This statement appauls me “fundamentalists insisting on the Creation story being taught in schools alongside the big bang theory. Neither of them should be taught if they can’t be proven.” Who decides what is proved beyond a reasonable doubt? People who are ignorant of the evidence? Exploring and understanding emerging science is what spurs creative thinking. The limited world that you are describing would be populated with zombies devoid of new creative thoughts who would just do and believe what the church tells you to do and believe.
NC – with all due respect it is a clear distinction between Evolution, which is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY that has been held up for SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY for a very, very long time, and has not only held but been supported by a great deal of additional evidence, on the one hand, and a RELIGIOUS BELIEF, that is contradicted by SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE accumulated over a very long period of time. These are not equivalent “theories” and the government, which operates under the Constitution, a lay document, should not allow teaching of RELIGIOUS beliefs to our children in our public schools.
I think you are proving my point about the influence of the Christian fundamentalists on our our politics via their dominance of the Republican party.
I don’t remember the correct name – a formal and high-level Catholic institution (‘Bishop’s Council’?) – but didn’t this group label the Republican ‘Paul Ryan’ Budget as “Immoral” because of how it proposes to gut the budgets of entitlement programs and simply leaves a large number of poor Americans completely on their own to “sink or swim”? Remember the Republican Debate audience applause of the “let him die!” idea about a poor, sick American with no insurance
It’s always been a fundamental weakness of Conservatives that so many of them purport to be ‘Good Christians’, yet so much of their ideology is contrary to Christian doctrine, tenets and beliefs.
The Conservative attitude that Americans should ‘sink or swim’, ‘pull themselves up by their own bootstraps’ and not receive any help does not seem very Christian and is especially hypocritical when espoused by those who “were born on 3rd base, but think they hit a triple”.
John,
The “people who decide” would be the people that we elect. If you object to any talk of God/religion (any religion, pick one) in public schools, then you have to allow for the fact that people who are religious, be they Christian, Muslim, or Jew could very well be equally appalled at the thought of their children, whom parents are trying to raise in keeping with their religious traditions, being forced to sit in classrooms run by atheists and secularists. One side cannot be appalled on their own behalf and then turn around and be shocked that those holding the opposite view could also be appalled.
The government cannot and should not pick a winner and loser in this debate. Our elected officials should be working together to devise a reasonable accomodation that serves atheists and religious people. Obviously, that’s a tall order if we keep the present educational model of lumping very diverse populations into a one-size-fits-all classroom model. This is true for learning styles and it’s also true for religious freedom. Vouchers are one idea that could help. That’s why I brought it up. I’m sure there must be other ideas out there as well.
I get that none of you (John, JTO, and LibDem) want any trace of God in public education. Recognize that those who do aren’t automatically over-zealous fanatics. Rather than bickering about your views on evolution versus my views on creation (which is exactly the problem when politicians and elected officials engage in this behavior) we should be discussing potential ways to accomodate our differences without any of you having to compromise your beliefs and without any of you pressuring me to compromise mine. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make.
Until we do this ourselves and then hold our politicians to the same standard, nothing is going to change. If you want to know what contributes to happiness, I would say that religious freedom ranks right up there with economic freedom. God is not a cigarette. In a free society, you can’t ban God from all public places the way you ban smoking. People who actively live out their faith, whichever faith that may be, should have the freedom to do so in public.
A Godless society is a society in which the only absolute is ‘every man for himself’. That’s not any society that I would want any part of. I much prefer a society where people who practice their religion live in harmony with people who shun religion, each cognizant and respectful of the other, although we’re a long way from that too. Pointing out flaws and differences with the “other guy’s” point-of-view instead of looking for common ground or ways to accomodate each other won’t help resolve anything. That’s just more of the status quo and it’s unacceptable.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. I don’t want any trace of ‘God’s teachings’ to be a part of our public education system. This needs to be non-denominational. You can teach this in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, sunday schools, on TV, on the street, etc. Look at all the evangelists on TV…Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Tammy Faye, and the mega-ministers etc. There are plenty on chances for indoctrination outside of the public school system.
There you go again Newcomer.
You make the bold assumption that a godless society will be an amoral society (“every man for himself”). I’m actually a bit surprised that Con hasn’t picked up on your sophism. Why would you think that a society without god- or without religion- would be amoral? You claimed above that religion is not the arbitrator of morality and then go on to state that without it society would be amoral. On what evidence to have to back this statement up?
I know many atheists who are very kind and compassionate people. In fact, take a look at the American Humanist Association website sometime. One does not need a god or a religion to be good. In fact, Hitchens, I believe, argued that the morality of atheists (or anti-theists as he referred to himself as) are actually stronger than a theist’s because their actions are not tied to reward or punishment as they would be under religion. Good acts are done because there is a love for fellow humans, not because a “god” told you to love your neighbor.
Further, it is my belief that the code of ethics derived from man and not from a god in the first place. I believe that Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, etc were simply men who called for a code of behavior.
Sly religious institutions usurped these commn sense messages and began to market morality, under unprovable pretenses, in order to gain power and influence. To successfully spread “the word of the lord” (of course it was just the word of man), the early christian church needed to attract attention and “one up” the Greeks – hence we have walking on water, healing the sick, virgin and resurrection mythology, etc.
Add the threat of eternal punishment, retribution for sins, death for heretics, fear of God, infallibility of the pope etc. and you have a system of coercion that led mankind into the dark ages. It wasn’t until the Reformation and Enlightenment that we began to rise out of this plague and enter the post-Christian era that we live in today.
Christianity will continue to be marginalized, churches will continue to lose influence, and guess what- life will continue to harmoniously and sometimes chaotically evolve as it has for billions of years, unless some crackpot religious fanatics seeks to hurry along their idea of an apocalypse. It will be this forced morality of religion that destroys us, not the amorality of atheists as you suggest.
Con-
Speaking of Republicans and religion:
Church is where Republicans go to worship a long-haired socialist hippie who condemned the rich and told people to pay taxes.
(Lawrence O’Donnell)
Oh, and before I forget, here is your Hitchen’s quote:
“The so called Golden Rule, sometimes needlessly identified with a folktale about the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, simply enjoins us to treat others as one would wish to be treated by them. This sober and rational precept, which one can teach to any child with its innate sense of fairness (and which predates all Jesus’s ‘beatitudes’ and parables), is well within the compass of any atheist and does not require masochism and hysteria, or sadism and hysteria, when it is breached. It is gradually learned, as part of the painfully slow evolution of the species, and once grasped is never forgotten. Ordinary conscience will do, without any heavenly wrath behind it.” Christopher Hitchens “God Is Not Great”
NC you ARE free to practice and preach your religion in public places. I have never heard anyone here and there is certainly no law against your doing so. if that brings you happiness then good for you.
Where there should be no compromise is relative to your your desire to impose religious your views on OTHERS’ children in the venue of the public schools.
And you are off the rails suggesting our schools are being taken over by atheists and secularists. You have no basis for this statement and it is ridiculous. This is the kind of paranoid conspiracy theory that drives the right wing of the Republican party to discard current evolved and well established law on this matter – 200 years of legal evolution, USSC decisions, all scholarly legal research, all legal precedent – rig out the window based on a perversion of the intent of the founding fathers.
I won’t bother repeating but am right on board with posts 19 and 20.
BREAKING NEWS – The U.S. Supreme Court announced this morning that it UPHELD all components of the Obama health care law, incuding, primarily, the key question of the Individual Mandate. The Court ruled 5-4, with Anthony Kennedy, the usual swing vote, going with the conservative minority, and Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion. Most interesting is the Court’s opinion that the Interstate Commerce Clause, the basis for the complaint against the Individual Mandate, which was “shopped” to several sympathetic judicial jurisdictions, DID NOT APPLY.
So much for kooky right wing “Originalist” Constitutional theories.
Sorry to be late to the party.
Having read Comments 1-21, this is what I see:…(see Diane’s new article. Admin).