Is Protecting Freedom Of Religion Essential?

[Guest]

I try and read from many sources to gain a 360 degree of a situation. I copied and pasted this article from Patriot Update 6/17/15 and while I do not agree with all of their views this won caught my attention

There are many in this "new normal" venue that are determined to kill off religion and replace it with secularism. I have my beliefs but am more interested in your take on this issue.

Here is what Jeffrey Salon has to say about religion using supreme court Justice Antonin Scalia as an example:

"In the leftist-dominated media culture, you can, with limitless vile, insult individuals and groups outside those protected by political correctness with impunity and often with confidence that you’ll be praised.
If you doubt that Christians are fair game for ridicule by the cultural left, take a look at the hit piece on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia by Jeffrey Tayler for Salon.
I can’t decide which is worse, the title or the subtitle. The title: “Antonin Scalia is unfit to serve: A justice who rejects science and the law for religion is of unsound mind.” The subtitle: “The justice claims to be an originalist, but his real loyalty is to religion and a phony man in the sky.”
The writer is trying to be cute, but don’t conclude that any part of his thesis is intended to be tongue-in-cheek. He opens by telling us that “faith-derangement syndrome” has now infected the Supreme Court as it has the executive branch.
He writes: “Sufferers of faith-derangement syndrome (FDS) exhibit the following symptoms: unshakable belief in the veracity of manifest absurdities detailed in ancient texts regarding the origins of the cosmos and life on earth; a determination to disseminate said absurdities in educational institutions and via the media; a propensity to enjoin and even enforce (at times using violence) obedience to regulations stipulated in ancient texts, regardless of their suitability for contemporary circumstances; the conviction that an invisible, omnipresent, omniscient authority (commonly referred to as ‘God’) directs the course of human and natural events, is vulnerable to propitiation and blandishments, and monitors individual human behavior, including thought processes, with an especially prurient interest in sexual activity.”


Personal Best Regards

[Guest]

We must protect freedom of religion and the best way to do that is to NEVER allow any religious belief to determine the way mans laws are written or enforced.

[Guest]

I believe that the hate shown in South Carolina is borne from a heart that is void of any beliefs.

HATE is a by product of that empty heart.

Whether that hate is manifested in words, or deeds, it is hate and comes from having no beliefs.

[Guest]

I try and read from many sources to gain a 360 degree of a situation. I copied and pasted this article from Patriot Update 6/17/15 and while I do not agree with all of their views this won caught my attention

There are many in this "new normal" venue that are determined to kill off religion and replace it with secularism. I have my beliefs but am more interested in your take on this issue.

Here is what Jeffrey Salon has to say about religion using supreme court Justice Antonin Scalia as an example:

"In the leftist-dominated media culture, you can, with limitless vile, insult individuals and groups outside those protected by political correctness with impunity and often with confidence that you’ll be praised.
If you doubt that Christians are fair game for ridicule by the cultural left, take a look at the hit piece on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia by Jeffrey Tayler for Salon.
I can’t decide which is worse, the title or the subtitle. The title: “Antonin Scalia is unfit to serve: A justice who rejects science and the law for religion is of unsound mind.” The subtitle: “The justice claims to be an originalist, but his real loyalty is to religion and a phony man in the sky.”
The writer is trying to be cute, but don’t conclude that any part of his thesis is intended to be tongue-in-cheek. He opens by telling us that “faith-derangement syndrome” has now infected the Supreme Court as it has the executive branch.
He writes: “Sufferers of faith-derangement syndrome (FDS) exhibit the following symptoms: unshakable belief in the veracity of manifest absurdities detailed in ancient texts regarding the origins of the cosmos and life on earth; a determination to disseminate said absurdities in educational institutions and via the media; a propensity to enjoin and even enforce (at times using violence) obedience to regulations stipulated in ancient texts, regardless of their suitability for contemporary circumstances; the conviction that an invisible, omnipresent, omniscient authority (commonly referred to as ‘God’) directs the course of human and natural events, is vulnerable to propitiation and blandishments, and monitors individual human behavior, including thought processes, with an especially prurient interest in sexual activity.”


Personal Best Regards

To answer your question, protecting freedom of religion is indeed essential.

The vile and in some cases genuinely evil attacks on the Christian faith, Catholicism in particular, is the manifestation of the Left's continual war on faith and on God. The Left knows, accurately, that Christianity is in fact its mortal enemy, hence they attack, attack and attack.

[Guest]

To answer your question, protecting freedom of religion is indeed essential.

The vile and in some cases genuinely evil attacks on the Christian faith, Catholicism in particular, is the manifestation of the Left's continual war on faith and on God. The Left knows, accurately, that Christianity is in fact its mortal enemy, hence they attack, attack and attack.

I have two liberal neighbors that are very dedicated to God and their faith. You can blame the decline of faith as easy to conservatives as liberals, maybe more so.

[Guest]

As an atheist I will categorically state that Christianity is not my enemy. Islam is not my enemy, Judaism is not my enemy, the FSM is not my enemy, Shintoism is not my enemy, Taoism is not my enemy, ...

It is the assertion of whomever holds a set of beliefs in whatever gods whatever divinely given doctrine they cling to, that those beliefs and that book is to be given superior consideration over the secular laws and secular documents of my nation that I reject. And if Scalia cannot put aside his belief that the earth is 6000 years old when he is making Supreme court decisions then he is no better than the Ayotollahs in Iran using their holy book to enforce their faith on their countrymen.

So you protect religious freedom by keeping it out of secular spaces, like our courts.

[Guest]

As an atheist I will categorically state that Christianity is not my enemy. Islam is not my enemy, Judaism is not my enemy, the FSM is not my enemy, Shintoism is not my enemy, Taoism is not my enemy, ...

It is the assertion of whomever holds a set of beliefs in whatever gods whatever divinely given doctrine they cling to, that those beliefs and that book is to be given superior consideration over the secular laws and secular documents of my nation that I reject. And if Scalia cannot put aside his belief that the earth is 6000 years old when he is making Supreme court decisions then he is no better than the Ayotollahs in Iran using their holy book to enforce their faith on their countrymen.

So you protect religious freedom by keeping it out of secular spaces, like our courts.

Dear Guest: you state your position succinctly well, objectively and with little judgment. Your demeanor tells me you are a good and moral person. But may I posit that in the secular world it seems bad actors always want to be top dog be it government or as egomanatic, god.

Some would argue that religion and science have co-existed through the ages. both are based on faith and both require repetition/consistency to remain viable.

In the case of Justice Scalia would you trust him more if he were of a secular mind rather than humbled by his belief in God?

Certainly we have had bad actors who in the name of religion have committed very bad acts. But on the other hand and this is especially true of Christianity more good has been accomplished.

I do not deal in absolutes but this nation was built on Judeo-Christians beliefs and the founders incorporated these concepts into our Charters of Freedom.

So in my view we must defend Freedom OF Religion and not confuse it with Freedom FROM Religion

None of us know the truth but if God did not exist I would have thought it a good thing to invent him because while not perfect God seems to bring out the best in man.


Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Atheists are not angry at God (just as they are not angry at the Tooth Fairy), and most of us didn’t become atheists because something bad happened to us. We became atheists because we find no evidence for any gods.

War on religion, war on Christmas, war on Christians? "Let's put Christ back in Christmas?"
Who wants to carry this out?
As a secular humanist without a religion, I just want to live and let live, be kind to others and do good in the living world.

[Guest]

Simple....the answer is yes.
I personally would not consider losing or negotiating any of my freedoms.
Remember freedom of religion is not intended to profess favoring it.
The intent is to have the ability to have religion or not......so for the atheist the freedom of religion protects their choosing.

No freedom of religion = ISIS......believe what I say or you will be slaughtered!

[Guest]

As an atheist I will categorically state that Christianity is not my enemy. Islam is not my enemy, Judaism is not my enemy, the FSM is not my enemy, Shintoism is not my enemy, Taoism is not my enemy, ...

It is the assertion of whomever holds a set of beliefs in whatever gods whatever divinely given doctrine they cling to, that those beliefs and that book is to be given superior consideration over the secular laws and secular documents of my nation that I reject. And if Scalia cannot put aside his belief that the earth is 6000 years old when he is making Supreme court decisions then he is no better than the Ayotollahs in Iran using their holy book to enforce their faith on their countrymen.

So you protect religious freedom by keeping it out of secular spaces, like our courts.

Would you feel better if the ACLU gets a court order to chisel the 10 Commandments off the Supreme Court Building?

ten commandments in supreme court building - Bing Images (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ten+commandments+in+supreme+court+buildin g&view=detailv2&&qpvt=ten+commandments+in+supreme+court+building&id=3C8146844BD6B5166AA52EB324319D1A3A59F92E&selectedIndex=1&ccid=Zz4G2J5o&simid=608042579447320060&thid=JN.Gzj3UTKL7MVIaNL3RnNSAA&ajaxhist=0)

[Guest]

Atheists are not angry at God (just as they are not angry at the Tooth Fairy), and most of us didn’t become atheists because something bad happened to us. We became atheists because we find no evidence for any gods.

War on religion, war on Christmas, war on Christians? "Let's put Christ back in Christmas?"
Who wants to carry this out?
As a secular humanist without a religion, I just want to live and let live, be kind to others and do good in the living world.

Do you realize there's a certain irony in your posts and beliefs?

The primary reason that you, as a self professed atheist, are allowed to practice your beliefs in peace is because you grew up in a Judeo Christian culture which places love for and respect of the individual high in the value chain ... Ie because the belief is you were made in God's image.

If, for example, you lived in many Muslim countries and posted or said what you did about atheism, and where no tolerance is allowed, you would likely be imprisoned or beheaded.

Perhaps you should give thanks you live where you do?

[Guest]

Dear Guest: you state your position succinctly well, objectively and with little judgment. Your demeanor tells me you are a good and moral person. But may I posit that in the secular world it seems bad actors always want to be top dog be it government or as egomanatic, god.

Some would argue that religion and science have co-existed through the ages. both are based on faith and both require repetition/consistency to remain viable.

In the case of Justice Scalia would you trust him more if he were of a secular mind rather than humbled by his belief in God?

Certainly we have had bad actors who in the name of religion have committed very bad acts. But on the other hand and this is especially true of Christianity more good has been accomplished.

I do not deal in absolutes but this nation was built on Judeo-Christians beliefs and the founders incorporated these concepts into our Charters of Freedom.

So in my view we must defend Freedom OF Religion and not confuse it with Freedom FROM Religion

None of us know the truth but if God did not exist I would have thought it a good thing to invent him because while not perfect God seems to bring out the best in man.


Personal Best Regards:

Perhaps this dialogue will be useful. Please read your post as it might appear to an atheist like me. Your claim that in a secular world evil people take control is wrong. You can certainly name some non-religious people who are evil and took control... Pot, Stalin for example, but I can name evil people who are performing their acts of evil because of their faith, as can you. You, I am sure, are very aware of the sad history of both Eastern and Western religions being the justification for war, slavery, slaughter, political and economic malice. And one need not go back to the Crusades nor the Spanish Inquisition for Christian examples. So the claim that it is preferable having leaders come from people of strong faith is wrong if they are using their particular book or their particular god(s) in their decision making.

Your next posit that science and religion are twins as both are faith based is errant. It is true that both have unknowns. But science and only science is disprovable (until we get a time machine). People of faith will tell you that there is no evidence, no study, no photograph, no document, nothing that will alter their belief. It will be a trick played by others to test their faith. Science tests, retests, tweaks and modifies. Science is mutable and fallible. Religion is immutable and infallible. Justice demands that evidence be examined and considered in making a decision. Religion demands that all observations fit a preconceived endpoint.

Justice Scalia has never seemed humbled to me.

We completely agree that our Western democracy has evolved from other Western institutions and ideas and prior governmental failures, including the failure of our own early country. And I will strongly support your freedom of religion whether it be Christian or Wiccan or anything. I want you to just as strongly support my freedom from your religion or any other religion being promoted by my government, and that when you enter government service you leave your holy book at home and use our laws to govern. That you decide what is Constitutional based on the Constitution not on Leviticus.

And lastly, while your invention of a god may bring out the best in some, it also brings out the worst in some. And yes, I think I am a moral and good person. If there is a god and there is a heaven which is meant as a reward for living a moral life here on earth, and I'm not allowed into heaven because I failed to accept a doctrine, then there is something very wrong with the entry requirements into heaven.

[Guest]

Would you feel better if the ACLU gets a court order to chisel the 10 Commandments off the Supreme Court Building?

ten commandments in supreme court building - Bing Images (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ten+commandments+in+supreme+court+buildin g&view=detailv2&&qpvt=ten+commandments+in+supreme+court+building&id=3C8146844BD6B5166AA52EB324319D1A3A59F92E&selectedIndex=1&ccid=Zz4G2J5o&simid=608042579447320060&thid=JN.Gzj3UTKL7MVIaNL3RnNSAA&ajaxhist=0)

I must have missed something. I don't see the 10 commandments anywhere on the Supreme Court Bldg. I see a sculpture of a guy holding two BLANK tablets. The artist could have chiseled the 10 into that large area but he did not. And here is what the sculptor said
"Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The "Eastern Pediment" of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment. "

You see Moses is there to represent a civilization not Judaism. And joining him on other court friezes are:
Menes, Hammurabi, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south wall); Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon

and according to the Curator of the Court:

Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this, [architect Cass] Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law.

So no, the ACLU won't be needing to get the 10 commandments removed because they are not there. Notice anything else not being there? Let's see we've got Moses, Mohammed, a few kings, some very old Roman, Greek, Chinese, Babylonian, leaders. Seems the designers missed a guy who supposedly is the most important religious figure in history. How did that happen if our Christian Bible is the guiding document for American law?

[Guest]

I must have missed something. I don't see the 10 commandments anywhere on the Supreme Court Bldg. I see a sculpture of a guy holding two BLANK tablets. The artist could have chiseled the 10 into that large area but he did not. And here is what the sculptor said
"Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The "Eastern Pediment" of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment. "

You see Moses is there to represent a civilization not Judaism. And joining him on other court friezes are:
Menes, Hammurabi, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south wall); Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon

and according to the Curator of the Court:

Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this, [architect Cass] Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law.

So no, the ACLU won't be needing to get the 10 commandments removed because they are not there. Notice anything else not being there? Let's see we've got Moses, Mohammed, a few kings, some very old Roman, Greek, Chinese, Babylonian, leaders. Seems the designers missed a guy who supposedly is the most important religious figure in history. How did that happen if our Christian Bible is the guiding document for American law?

As an atheist are you offended by the opening commentary which opens Supreme Court meeting? ie "God save the United States and this Honorable Court?"

[Guest]

And lastly, while your invention of a god may bring out the best in some, it also brings out the worst in some. And yes, I think I am a moral and good person. If there is a god and there is a heaven which is meant as a reward for living a moral life here on earth, and I'm not allowed into heaven because I failed to accept a doctrine, then there is something very wrong with the entry requirements into heaven.

Interesting philosophy of life ... does that mean you actually believe in a heaven? Would that be a secular heaven of sorts, or simply a figure of speech in your closing argument?

In any event, it paints an poignant picture of an eloquent human being, made in the image of God, protesting to God the unfairness of His rules and arrangements for eternity as he accepts his fate. Good luck with that but I will grant you are at least consistent in your belief (once again, made possible by you being lucky enough to be born into a Judeo Christian culture)

[Guest]

Atheists are not angry at God (just as they are not angry at the Tooth Fairy), and most of us didn’t become atheists because something bad happened to us. We became atheists because we find no evidence for any gods.

War on religion, war on Christmas, war on Christians? "Let's put Christ back in Christmas?"
Who wants to carry this out?
As a secular humanist without a religion, I just want to live and let live, be kind to others and do good in the living world.

Dear Guest:

I hope you don't perceive this as being patronizing ,I have every respect for what you say and the way you manage your life

Christians like you just want to live and let live, be kind to others and do good in the living world.

But like some misguided religious people some atheists, like, Jeffrey Tayler, who is featured in the opening post here, direct their angry at Christians as do The Freedom From Religion organization from Wisconsin who fail to see or care that most people just want to get along to be free to express their beliefs and practice their religion

What is happening in Muslim countries to Christians is clearly inhumane and is a prime reason as to why we should never let anyone demean or denigrate anyone's personal faith or those who preference is not to believe in God.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

There are radicals in all areas, their way or the highway mentality. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs without someone else trying to change them or know what is right for someone else.

[Guest]

As an atheist are you offended by the opening commentary which opens Supreme Court meeting? ie "God save the United States and this Honorable Court?"

The words are meaningless, like Oyez, oyez. Would I be offended if they said "May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless this court" ? No I would not as that is also meaningless. Are you offended? Do you see this a government endorsement of a religion or merely ceremonial language adopted from the 18th century English tradition? And if you believe it is a governmental endorsement of a particular God, which one? Athena perhaps, the God of wisdom and justice.

[Guest]

The words are meaningless, like Oyez, oyez. Would I be offended if they said "May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless this court" ? No I would not as that is also meaningless. Are you offended? Do you see this a government endorsement of a religion or merely ceremonial language adopted from the 18th century English tradition? And if you believe it is a governmental endorsement of a particular God, which one? Athena perhaps, the God of wisdom and justice.

Now, now, you we're doing pretty well until you succumbed to the use of sophistry. You know, as well as I do, the reference is to the Judeo Christian God upon which Western Civilization was built.

As a devout atheist you still have not, and presumably never will, acknowledge your debt to being fortunate enough to have been borne into the Judeo-Christion civilization that tolerates your beliefs.

[Guest]

"As a devout atheist you still have not, and presumably never will, acknowledge your debt to being fortunate enough to have been borne into the Judeo-Christion civilization that tolerates your beliefs."

I am not quite sure what you mean by your statetment. One of my co-workers claimed he was an atheist but he had retired from the Army after a career of 24 years. He retired as a Command Sergeant Major. I tried to get him to attend my church but he always refused.

I believe he had repaid any debt about being born in the USA. It had nothing to do with his religion. Just a very decent (but misguided in religion) man.

[Guest]

Yawn!
I think I will change the pace and go measure some passing clouds!

[Guest]

Perhaps this dialogue will be useful. Please read your post as it might appear to an atheist like me. Your claim that in a secular world evil people take control is wrong. You can certainly name some non-religious people who are evil and took control... Pot, Stalin for example, but I can name evil people who are performing their acts of evil because of their faith, as can you. You, I am sure, are very aware of the sad history of both Eastern and Western religions being the justification for war, slavery, slaughter, political and economic malice. And one need not go back to the Crusades nor the Spanish Inquisition for Christian examples. So the claim that it is preferable having leaders come from people of strong faith is wrong if they are using their particular book or their particular god(s) in their decision making.

Your next posit that science and religion are twins as both are faith based is errant. It is true that both have unknowns. But science and only science is disprovable (until we get a time machine). People of faith will tell you that there is no evidence, no study, no photograph, no document, nothing that will alter their belief. It will be a trick played by others to test their faith. Science tests, retests, tweaks and modifies. Science is mutable and fallible. Religion is immutable and infallible. Justice demands that evidence be examined and considered in making a decision. Religion demands that all observations fit a preconceived endpoint.

Justice Scalia has never seemed humbled to me.

We completely agree that our Western democracy has evolved from other Western institutions and ideas and prior governmental failures, including the failure of our own early country. And I will strongly support your freedom of religion whether it be Christian or Wiccan or anything. I want you to just as strongly support my freedom from your religion or any other religion being promoted by my government, and that when you enter government service you leave your holy book at home and use our laws to govern. That you decide what is Constitutional based on the Constitution not on Leviticus.

And lastly, while your invention of a god may bring out the best in some, it also brings out the worst in some. And yes, I think I am a moral and good person. If there is a god and there is a heaven which is meant as a reward for living a moral life here on earth, and I'm not allowed into heaven because I failed to accept a doctrine, then there is something very wrong with the entry requirements into heaven.

Dear Guest: I like the way you think and I like the way point, counter point. It may surprise you to know, perhaps not ,that much of what you said has crossed my mind over the years. Consider this as I address each of your five paragraphs in consecutive order.

You open with evil done in the name of religion. I have previously addressed and acknowledged that fact in previous posts including the one you copied for the above stated response. However, I believe those religious evil doers were following their selfish goals and not God's and I believe it is an oxymoron to place God and evil together. Secondly you cite the Crusades, etc as examples and again I agree but and while not excusable you have to judge such actions in their time as relates to the political climate at the time etc. For instance the Catholic Church has drastically changed over the centuries. As a side bar I work with due diligence to separate man's actions from God message. For instance Pope Francis exhibits some fine qualities but his anti-capitalist tendencies demonstrate his breeding in a socialist nation which I dislike . Of course I believe the critical factor here is how one perceives his God and my God is a God of love, unity and an intolerance for immorality and hate.

You next dispute the relationship between religion and science yet many documents handed down through the ages by religious people have a sound scientific basis. If one openly looks at the universe and all of its creature it is hard to imagine that it has developed by happenstance. Its like saying that a building loaded to the top with alpha-numeral characters and having exploded created a complete set of encyclopedias. A serious look at how the human body and mind functions places one in awe. There is a book out called "The Strange Case of the Rickety Cossack" which posit on how because of bias, desire etc scientist have committed fraud over the years in all fields of science much of what has resulting in leading us astray about earth's history.

As to Judge Scalia I view his demeanor as being confident which does not preclude his being humble

Again I say that the Charters of Freedom were based on our Judeo-Christian beliefs. without going into detail the pilgrims faith sustained them and Christianity has had a great influence since the Europeans crossed the Atlantic. Rule of law etc was formed from the principles of religion such as God made us all free..................................

Finally I say again but for the idea of one God I do not believe people would be civil or moral because it was through such teachings that bound us altogether, again imperfect as it maybe because nature has its limits and religion has played a major role and overcoming those limits. So whether one believes in God or not religious influences influence us all believers and non-believers alike .


Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Dear Guest: I like the way you think and I like the way point, counter point. It may surprise you to know, perhaps not ,that much of what you said has crossed my mind over the years. Consider this as I address each of your five paragraphs in consecutive order.

You open with evil done in the name of religion. I have previously addressed and acknowledged that fact in previous posts including the one you copied for the above stated response. However, I believe those religious evil doers were following their selfish goals and not God's and I believe it is an oxymoron to place God and evil together. Secondly you cite the Crusades, etc as examples and again I agree but and while not excusable you have to judge such actions in their time as relates to the political climate at the time etc. For instance the Catholic Church has drastically changed over the centuries. As a side bar I work with due diligence to separate man's actions from God message. For instance Pope Francis exhibits some fine qualities but his anti-capitalist tendencies demonstrate his breeding in a socialist nation which I dislike . Of course I believe the critical factor here is how one perceives his God and my God is a God of love, unity and an intolerance for immorality and hate.

You next dispute the relationship between religion and science yet many documents handed down through the ages by religious people have a sound scientific basis. If one openly looks at the universe and all of its creature it is hard to imagine that it has developed by happenstance. Its like saying that a building loaded to the top with alpha-numeral characters and having exploded created a complete set of encyclopedias. A serious look at how the human body and mind functions places one in awe. There is a book out called "The Strange Case of the Rickety Cossack" which posit on how because of bias, desire etc scientist have committed fraud over the years in all fields of science much of what has resulting in leading us astray about earth's history.

As to Judge Scalia I view his demeanor as being confident which does not preclude his being humble

Again I say that the Charters of Freedom were based on our Judeo-Christian beliefs. without going into detail the pilgrims faith sustained them and Christianity has had a great influence since the Europeans crossed the Atlantic. Rule of law etc was formed from the principles of religion such as God made us all free..................................

Finally I say again but for the idea of one God I do not believe people would be civil or moral because it was through such teachings that bound us altogether, again imperfect as it maybe because nature has its limits and religion has played a major role and overcoming those limits. So whether one believes in God or not religious influences influence us all believers and non-believers alike .


Personal Best Regards:

Thank you both for discussing point counterpoint on a sensitive topix without any insults. If you are with the intent to give someone an opportunity to consider your take on a topic, these last two posts have shown us all how to approach that end.

[Guest]

Thank you both for discussing point counterpoint on a sensitive topix without any insults. If you are with the intent to give someone an opportunity to consider your take on a topic, these last two posts have shown us all how to approach that end.

Amen to that! Great posts, and although I don't have anything to add to the discussion at this time, both posters have given me pause to think and reflect on these issues. Thank you both for sharing your thoughts and wisdom on the topic.

[Guest]

Amen to that! Great posts, and although I don't have anything to add to the discussion at this time, both posters have given me pause to think and reflect on these issues. Thank you both for sharing your thoughts and wisdom on the topic.

This needs to be ecohed. Great discussion like adults.

This is what this forum is supposed to be about, and at its inception was.

Thanks again...it does restore faith in my neighbors.

[Guest]

To quote Thomas Jefferson. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."