Non-believers form political action group to rid government of religion

[Khephra]

Non-believers form political action group to rid government of religion

By Julia Malone, Palm Beach Post-Cox News Service
Wednesday, March 10, 2004



WASHINGTON -- Atheists and other non-believers launched a political action committee Tuesday to endorse candidates and lobby lawmakers to remove all traces of religion from the government.

But organizers acknowledged they face a major problem.

Most politicians won't want public support from their new group, which they are calling the Godless Americans Political Action Committee.

So Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists who announced the formation of the new group, proposed an unusual approach: Godless American PAC could use the threat of endorsement to pressure lawmakers into siding with the group on issues.

"If a candidate says, 'Don't endorse me,' we will have to say we have the right to endorse somebody, but perhaps we can talk about what we can get in terms of promises from that candidate to help us out in return for not endorsing him," Johnson told a sparsely attended news conference at the National Press Club.

more...............

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/today/news_04e49aab07a180140050.html

[Zhade]

1. Thank God! (Pun intended.)

In my opinion, we're teetering dangerously close to a right-wing Christian theocracy as it is - anything positive that beats back the Dominionists is welcome.

Note to DU believers: unless you share their views, please understand I am talking about the Religious Reich and their ilk, not you. :)

[dand]

2. Its a pity that only atheists and non-believers belong .

Every sentient being should want religeon out of government.

[jsw_81]

3. Good

[Spentastic]

4. At least

They're not calling themselves "brights".

Sounds a good idea to me.

[asthmaticeog]

30. Ha!

So I take it you read Free Inquiry then? I thought that "brights" proposition was about the dumbest thing I ever heard.

More on-topic, this PAC would be more effective if it changed it's name from "Godless." It's a negative word, however you parse it, and it won't help even one bit in selling their ideas to the public. We can't continue to be so shitty at PR if we're going to get a word in edgewise in the debate over religosity in the public sphere.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. For more info, here is their homepage

http://www.godlessamericans.org/

[fob]

38. GAMPAC? The first thing I thought besides "bad choice of Godless", was

GAPAC. Say that as a word and it sounds like GAY PAC. Not that there's anything wrong with GAY, but the right-wing fundies will definitely be using that and make the group even more radioactive to anyone they would choose to support. I applaud the IDEA, BTW.

They might as well chosen GODAMPAC as the acronym!

I like Citizens for the Government we were Promised, or something along those lines.

[enki23]

64. they probably chose the name to enhance their strategy

that is, their threat to endorse someone strategy. sad that we have to work that way, but at least it's creative.

[schultzee]

6. Liberal Christians who don't want a theocracy should belong

[joycep]

7. I agree with you

I am a Christian but I certainly do not believe in government pushing religion in any way. I would have liked for them to have chosen a more inclusive name, though.

[truthspeaker]

8. you might like Americans United for Separation of Church and State

www.au.org

[rfranklin]

9. How about S.A.T.A.N.?

Sensible Americans Taking America Non-Religious?

[polmaven]

11. I do have to agree

I consider myself to be a strong and active Christian, and I am absolutely opposed to the thought of the fundamentalism that is over-running this government. We are headed toward theocracy at a rapid speed, and it is outright scary.I cannot, however, even consider joining or aligning myself with a group called "Godless Americans".

Americans for Separation... is more like it.

[ithacan]

12. www.TheocracyWatch.org

check out this site, it's a detailed look at how the Religious Right has hijacked the Republican Party and is now shoving their extremist agenda down our throats:

http://www.TheocracyWatch.org/

There's a lot of text on the site but it's got excellent and enormous amounts of info on this.

[polmaven]

28. Thanks..

great site!

[dax]

62. The Right needs religion, how else can lies be justified...

The "opiate of the masses" was really a misconception-the real use of religion is to be able to make pronouncements about how things should be that are not subject to verification as any other contention would be-ie how are you going to cross-examine GOD?! These hacks say what they think then justify it by religion and it can't be refuted-
When I was a child like 7 years old-I posed the question that if the Bible was written by men who worked with Jesus, how could we be sure nothing got lost in the translation-to a hushed group of adults-yoou could of heard a pin drop-my parents are humanist Unitarians but they hustled me off to bed to protect their guests from embarassment

[GinaMaria]

48. the Interfaith alliance

welcomes anyone and works hard to keep religeon and govern. separate. The two groups should work together on their common goals.

[Malva Zebrina]

10. Ellen Johnson has a sense of humor

imagine belonging to a PAC and threatening to endorse someone that is not listening to you? LOL

[Disturbed]

13. A Sense of humor...

is real important. Maybe the Christian non rightwing is starting to feel that the Right Wing Zealots aren't making Christianity a concept that is not so appealing. I never can understand the Right Wing Christians because Jesus was a Socialist that championed the poor, the sick and the sinners. He didn't hang out with the wealthy elite or apsire to be filthy rich. I think Jesus would have dug Kucinich, don't you?

[Catch22Dem]

14. Is this the same thing from last night

You posted a thing about CSPAN2 last night, but I didn't get a chance to watch it.

[Khephra]

15. Yep

Same thing.

I ended up missing it too, due to circumstances beyond my control (I had to tape something for my mother.)

[Tracer]

16. Godless ...

... has always been a perjorative term.

I too, wish that they had chosen a more inclusive name for all of us who want a firm separation between church and state.

[truthspeaker]

17. There are already organizations for that

www.au.org is probably the best.

I'm still researching what this PAC plans to accomplish and who will be doing it. It came out of American Atheists, who in their usual fashion developed the idea without seeking input from anyone else in the non-believing community and sprang it on us at the Godless Americans March on Washington. I'm still trying to figure out if Ellen Johnson is on the side of reforming AA's exclusionist culture or if she's part of it.

But I have no problem at all with the word "godless". I don't find it perjorative at all and wear the label with pride (beats the crap out of "brights"). My nickname on religion-oriented boards is Godless Dave.

[FlaGranny]

19. By using the term

godless, the organization has effectively barred participation from anyone who does not consider themselves "godless" but would otherwise agree with their goals. Thus, it is an unfortunate choice of words.

[truthspeaker]

21. they only want people who consider themselves "godless"

Sorry, this is a special interest PAC; kind of like a veterans organization that only lets in veterans. For all those people who share its goals, I invite you to check out Americans United. They have a long track record on this, and are open to everybody. The ACLU is also very good with establishment/free exercise cases.

[FlaGranny]

23. I understand that they want only

"godless" members, but they have limited their own effectiveness in that way. Of course, they are entitled to call themselves whatever they wish and to accept only those members that they want. I wish only success for them, as I tend to be "godless" myself. :-)

[0007]

31. Even Godless Republicans are welcome, 'eh?

[Paulie]

60. Freedom from Religion Foundation

is also a great org, with a history of winning battles for separation.

www.ffrf.org

[Just Me]

26. Yeah,...rather divisive,...

,...had they used something like, "Secular Americans for Separation of Church and State", or something a bit more inclusive,...they may have received a more positive response. But, maybe they seek to be exclusive.

[FlaGranny]

18. I agree with the other posters that

"godless" is an unfortunate name choice. I caught the end of this news conference and heard the part where the woman was reading excerpts from different state constitutions that REQUIRE anyone running for office to either be Christian or profess belief in a higher being. Those are very unconstitutional constitutions.

[Triana]

20. Cool...

...I'll find out where to sign on with them!

[ixion]

22. Glad to hear this

I'm glad to see true Christians supporting separation of chruch and state. There is no freedom of religion in a theocracy, only the 'official' religion of that theocracy.

And it's about time these right-wing zealots acting as Christians get called out for their obvious hypocrisy. I'm not a Christian, although I have nothing against Jesus. And I can guarantee that Jesus would not have thought well of greedy, blood-thirsty fundies clammoring for a corporatist theocracy, and clammoring for war.

[Roaming]

24. What theocracy?

I personally don't see a theocracy in government--in fact, many court decisions over the last decade or so seem to favor separation of church and state, at least in schools (examples are to limit prayer at graduations, etc.). I guess I just don't see it happening...

[yardwork]

25. The proposed constitutional amendment denying rights of marriage

based on sexual orientation is an example of theocracy in government. The entire basis for denying rights to gay and lesbian people is based on a narrow reading of a few biblical passages.

Count me as another Christian who is horrified at the way that Bush is pushing for a state-mandated religion of his own choosing.

[prolesunited]

27. You want evidence?!?!

Let's start here:

"We want to fund programs that save Americans one soul at a time."
President George W. Bush, January, 2004, in a speech in New Orleans

Since when is it the function of the federal government to fund programs directed at "saving souls." :wtf:

Faith-based prisons?
FLORIDA: A RELIGION-BASED PRISON In Lawtey, Gov. Jeb Bush dedicated what is being called the nation's first religion-basedn prison. In addition to prayer sessions, the Lawtey Correctional Institution will offer Bible study, choir practice and religious counseling. Participation is voluntary, and inmates are free to transfer out. (BTW, they allow the prisoners here more privileges to make the program more attractive.) Governor Bush, a Republican, told the inmates: "I can't think of a better place to reflect on the awesome love of our Lord Jesus than to be here at Lawtey Correctional." Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, called the prison part of "a major constitutional showdown" over government financing for religious programs.


This page compares the teachings of an influential Christian textbook, America's Providential History by Mark Beliles and Stephen McDowell, with the Texas 2002 Republican Party Platform and Bush Administration policies. It suggests a relationship between the "dominion mandate" as described in the textbook, and Bush's economic, social, and environmental programs.

Dominion Mandate
Genesis 26 says,
"Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

America's Providential History asserts that it is "God's plan" for "Bible believing Christians" to take dominion over government.

"God … shapes history to prepare people so that they may fulfill their destiny and accomplish God's purposes in the earth," (53) God's purpose is for the United States, as "the first truly Christian nation" (184), to complete a chain of events that will "make disciples of all nations." The book quotes the Biblical commentator, Matthew Henry


America's Providential History offers Biblical rationale for Bush administration policies while the Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002, spells out the details. Starve the federal government, transfer its social and educational functions to churches. The end result is what the Texas 2002 GOP Platform declares is a "Christian" nation.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/rr_economics.htm#Dominion

Would you care for more evidence? Or will that suffice?

BTW, what is your opinion? Do you see America as a Christian nation? Do you think it would be a good thing?

[Roaming]

29. My opinion is...

As long as it's voluntary (as the prison program mentioned above) and it does some good (reduces recidivism), then I have no objection to it. I think even federal aid to places like alcohol abuse programs that are already in place, both secular and religious, is a good idea too, as long as those programs are monitored to be sure they're on the up-and-up.

I don't want to see the US become like the fundamentatlist Muslim nations, though, where all other religions are outlawed, etc. America was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. When I think of "theocracy," I think of the Muslim nations; I just don't see that happening in the US.

[pinto]

33. 'On a Mission From God', interesting article.....

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04007.html

'On a Mission From God': The Religious Right and the Emerging American Theocracy

by Maureen Farrell

[w4rma]

I agree with you about federal aid, however they shouldn't be allowed

to evangalize during the program. Evangalizing in a semanar directly afterwards is quite fine, imho, but not during.

For the times they want to evangalize they can use their own donations.

[prolesunited]

43. Well, I'm certainly glad

you're not opposed to outlawing other religions. However, even if they didn't ban other religions outright, can you see how it would be setting up a two-tiered system in which the Christians receive special treatment.

If they get their way, federal funding for social programs will be stripped bare. (to be drowned in the bathtub as Grover Norquist stated) In such a climate, if you want to eat or have shelter, you will be forced to convert (or at least pretend.)

More points to ponder:

Statement from Americans United for Separation of Church and State:
Americans in need of social services, such as welfare support, job training, emergency shelter and food/clothing supplies, should be able to get the help they need without being pressured to take part in religious activities. “Faith-based” initiatives, which propose turning the provision of social services over to religious groups, threaten individual rights and could lead to taxpayer support of religious ministries. In those cases where religious groups want to take tax aid to provide relief, they should first agree to run secular programs and drop all forms of religiously based discrimination from their hiring policies.
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_faithbased

The Problem with Proselytizing
Bill Moyers program, NOW, (the first of a two-part series) aired on PBS September 26, 2003, makes clear the problem with proselytizing. The TV show focuses on one program that trains church volunteers to help lift people out of poverty. At first, the whole concept looked truly wonderful. A volunteer family infuses a young, struggling mother of three with love and a sense of caring -- which is very moving.

Then the pressure begins to join their church. This "loving" family is all the support this young mother has in the world, and she feels deeply conflicted about joining their church. When she was asked by the interviewer about joining the church, her face froze in what looked like silent terror. She hadn't wanted to join, but appeared to be terrified of losing the love and support of her sponsoring family. The sponsoring family told the interviewer that they're taught not to invite the family to their church for the first month, and that they never told the woman that she had to join. But it's clear that the invitations to go to church would not let up.

That look of frozen terror on the young woman's face illustrated dramatically the dangers of government funding for church sponsored charities. Millions of young, vulnerable mothers and struggling families will feel coerced to join the "correct" evangelical churches.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm

The Texas Faith-Based Initiative at Five Years:
Warning Signs as President Bush Expands Texas-Style Program to National Level
After five years of aggressively implementing the Bush-led Faith-Based Initiative in Texas, positive results have proven impossible to document or measure. Evidence points instead to a system that is unregulated, prone to favoritism and co-mingling of funds, and even dangerous to the very people it is supposed to serve.

The Texas record shows that:
Loosening regulations over faith-based providers has not served the faith community at large, but has instead provided a refuge for facilities with a history of regulatory violations, a theological objection to state oversight and a higher rate of abuse and neglect.

Loosening regulations over faith-based providers has endangered people in need and lowered standards of client health, safety and quality of care in Texas.

Faith-based deregulation has allowed physical diseases to go medically untreated.

Regulatory changes have resulted in preferential treatment of faith-based providers in government contracting opportunities.

Taxpayer funds have been co-mingled with church funds and spent on overtly religious activities.

Clients have been ordered by the courts to attend unlicensed faith-based providers.

The Faith-Based Initiative has proven to be a treacherous enterprise for houses of worship, taxpayers, and people in need alike. So treacherous, in fact, that even the very legislators who once promoted the Faith-Based Initiative in Texas have now abandoned the idea, choosing not to renew the state's Alternative Accreditation program for religious providers last year.

http://www.tfn.org/issues/charitablechoice/report02.html


How can you believe this is a good thing? Or, are you one of those people that believes men will never use religion, even Christianity, to achieve evil ends. If so, I think you need to go back and study history a little bit closer.

[Arugula Latte]

52. freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion

In my experience most religious people have no idea how offensive they can be by just assuming you're not only a believer in god but also a Christian.

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. No it does not

Freedom of religion allows each of us to practice OR NOT our religious beliefs or lack thereof. It does not mean those who are religious should hide it for fear of antagonizing those who are not.

[Malva Zebrina]

67. I don't think anyone is asking anyone to "hide" their Chrisitianity

I have not seen anyone doing that at all. All that is asked is that people do not use their religion , foister it on others, in public, tax payer funded places, for instance, prayer on the school grounds before a football game

No where have I seen anyone asking people to hide it. That accusation, however, is one I see frequently coming from evangelistic literalists who often tell people if they do not like the noise to get out of the way, and is one of the frequent references to a sort of enjoyed claims to the "persecution" of Christians that these often resort to, It certainly is not the case at all at least on the political stage where separation of church and state is usually the debate. Individually, I am not sure what people do-- Some Catholics who were harrassed by literalist evangelists in school, complained. They were in turn harrassed evcen more on the telephone and their homes were threatened. They sued over the prayer before the football game, I think.

[Muddleoftheroad]

74. Look to France for a second

Where religious folks of all stripes are indeed being made to hide their religion.

[Malva Zebrina]

77. we are not talking about France--that is a straw man

you and I live in the US-not in France-there is no one here asking anyone to hide their religion. If you want to go that route, hell we can name several instances of persecution of athiests in other parts of the world ans well as several instances of acceptance where the population of athesits is far above what is reported to be in thei country. We can even name several instances of persecution of other Christains by Christians that are in the majority or sanctioned by the state.

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. It is not straw

I saw several DUers not only support the French ban but advocate for similar legislation in the U.S. THAT makes it an issue here.

[Zhade]

68. Mostly correct.

I will only add the caveat that it does, indeed, also mean freedom from religion - in government.

In private life, anyone can believe anything they want. When it comes to public policy, religion is to be strictly separate from governance. That's where freedom FROM religion comes in.

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. You wish for the impossible

Religious people hold beliefs. Religious people hold office or vote or lobby. Those beliefs are part and parcel to who they are and impossible to separate.

[Malva Zebrina]

78. So?

and your point is?

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. The point

The following comment was made: "When it comes to public policy, religion is to be strictly separate from governance."

That is unrealistic. Religion is part of the belief system for most people. You can't separate out our religion from our beliefs and our beliefs from the policies and people we support.

[Zhade]

66. Under the reign of George W. Traitor, the threat is real.

And if he manages to remain in power, through either another electoral theft or by fiat decree, the threat becomes much more severe.

I just finished reading a great breakdown of some of the influential groups of the Religious Reich. Very informative.

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04007.html

[w4rma]

32. Atheists aren't Christian. Godless folks aren't either. (n/t)

[Claire Beth]

37. well said n/t

[unbrand]

34. Love the bias in the headline

Christian journalists writing for a Christian audience about our Christian government. Perfect.

How about a little more accuracy. Instead of "Non-believers form political action group to rid government of religion", let's say:

"Free thinkers form political action group to uphold Constitution."

[w4rma]

35. It's a PAC for and by atheists. atheists = non believers. (n/t)

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Just as biased

Calling them "free thinkers" is just like the term "brights." It is also loaded.

Why doesn't non-believers work for you?

[not systems]

39. Let people call themselves what they chose.

Non-believer doesn't work for me because it accept the
construct that believe in a capital G God is the normative position.

Why should a person describe themselves as not something
instead what they are "free thinker" for instance.

[unbrand]

40. Thank you.

You expressed perfectly what I was getting at. Yes, I struggled a bit with the term "free thinker" but it sure seems a more accurate term than "non-believer" which implies exactly what you said.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Like I said before

It's also a biased term and implies others don't think freely. How about non-religious or just atheist?

[not systems]

44. Well...

non-religious has the same problem as does atheist but in another language.

Both are negating a base word.

I think you are stretching to feel put down by "free thinker"
I can think of a few other terms like "the saved", "the righteous"
and "the chosen" that others might find offense at if they had
the hair-trigger persecution complex some people do.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. Compared to Godless, both my suggestions are an improvement

Talk about a negating word.

Sorry, outside media strive for neutral terms and free thinker is far from neutral. As are the others you listed.

Frankly, I doubt they could have used words that would satisfy anybody with their headline.

[not systems]

49. I agree about "godless"...

but if they want to call themselves "godless" have at it, I say.

Twenty five years ago "queer" was pejorative now it is the name of a department in many universities.

Maybe they can reclaim "godless" from people who use it like a hammer.

[unbrand]

46. Hmmm.

"Non-religious" is negative and implies "religious" is the norm or the correct approach.
"Atheists" is technically correct, for sure. But that term is not in keeping with the spirit of the headline. I see your point about bias, and actually I agree. "Free thinkers" DOES imply that people who disagree with them don't think -- exactly what I was shooting for. Do I believe that literally? No, I don't. Am I trying to use a tactic to "frame the debate" the way I want to? Yes.

The point is, let's see some some bias in the media go the opposite way from what this headline read. The more we have religious "standards" presented in the media, the more people will come to accept the merging of Christianity and government. We're not talking about something earth-shattering in this article alone. I think it's more of a drip...drip...drip... thing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. I can't support bias

Journalism training, sorry.

And finding a middle ground here when even the group itself doesn't seek it is kind of hard.

Lacking any other term, I would still probably stick with atheist. It seems to be as neutral as possible.

[unbrand]

54. Aha!

...light goes on above head...

Gotcha. You made good points. I was coming from a bit of a different angle, though. Unbiased media reporting vs. countering religious inculcation. Which side to take? There's a good question.

:toast:

[Sentath]

47. But, they don't think freely

They have voluntarily bound themselves with the strictures of their chosen religion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. They have freely chosen to do so

and continue to freely do so. Sorry, that makes them free thinkers as well.

[not systems]

53. So anyone can use "freethinker" by your logic...

so why have a beef with atheists who do?

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. It's not descriptive

As a noun, it is meaningless. Headlines are supposed to impart information. That term does nothing other than raise questions.

[not systems]

57. No more than "believers" ...

everyone believes something right?

I think your being pedantic because you can't stand atheists
using language that is not subservient the the dominant mindset.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. Personally, I wouldn't use believers in a headline either

I am addressing this from a journalistic perspective. Sorry if that isn't your mindset.

Again, even you default to using the term atheists.

[not systems]

63. Fine.

Non-believers is pejorative in my opinion, I'm glad we agree about that. I used atheist because it is easy
but I prefer infidel to describe my own beliefs.

I can respect you are wearing your journalistic hat in this post but doubt that you would grind the ax in the
opposite situation. I'll keep an eye out for fair and balanced ax grinding.

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. Grinding

For my own uses, I grind away any which way I want. But the usage here was a professional one and, much like the times I alert, I looked at it dispassionately.

[PassingFair]

79. For my own uses,

I like the term "believers in the supernatural" for those that believe in gods, zombies, fairies, probing space aliens, and resurrected heroes.

[Arugula Latte]

80. I'm going to start using that term, too

When someone asks me what religion I am, I'll say "I don't have any supernatural beliefs, but I do believe in nature." A friend uses that term -- supernatural -- to describe religious beliefs (along with beliefs in aliens, fairies, the boogeyman, and what have you) and I think it's accurate.

If there were one goddess I'd worship it would be the Egyptian cat god, Bestet. Now there is one goddess who blesses me daily!

[Muddleoftheroad]

82. Ah, so you choose the deliberately offensive terms

How nice of you. And good marketing too. I am just so sure that you will convinced thousands of the errors of their ways.

[Malva Zebrina]

69. No one is obliged to think of the feelings of believers who feel left out

when calling themselves freethinkers. This is another recent gripe I have come across from literalist fundamentalists. There is jealousy when atheists call themselves freethinkers, to the point where believers wish to take that label away from the athiests who have used it for at least a hundred years. It is merely a cheap attempt to diminish atheists. A history of the origins of the term

freethinkers, those who arrive at conclusions, particularly in questions of religion, by employing the rules of reason while rejecting supernatural authority or ecclesiastical tradition. The freethinkers believe that independence of thought from such authority leads all men to essentially identical conclusions concerning morality and religion. The name came into general use in the 18th cent. after the publication (1713) of Anthony Collins's Discourse of Freethinking Occasioned by the Rise and Growth of a Sect Called Freethinkers. The movement took different forms in different countries. In England it was intimately connected with deism but did not break completely with traditional Christianity. It took a more radical form in France. Voltaire renounced all connection with Christianity, and the Encyclopedists broke with religion altogether. Freethinking also has an important social side and influenced the philosophies of the Freemasons and, in France, the Culte de l'Être Suprême. In the United States the organizations established to further freethinking include the American Rationalist Association, the American Secular Union, and the Freethinkers of America. The International Order for Ethics and Culture, organized at Bern in 1908, is designed to investigate the ethical factors in society without theological or metaphysical bias.

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/

[pacifictiger]

71. the label

heretic was used by the roman catholic church as basically free license to quash any form of dissent that may undermine their absolute authority of governmental rule under the guise of god's word. It came to be associated with someone who didn't obey god and therefore must be punished. Copernicus' opinions come to mind as just one example.
The word heretic actually derives from the greek and means free thinker. I take the term free thinker to mean more on the lines of an independent thinker reasoning differing subjects on a situational basis rather than someone who is forced or brainwashed into always following "party" opinion just because they are told they must do so by the people in charge.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. The headline writer is indeed so obliged

To try and come up with a balanced word choice. It's why free thinker is inappropriate because that is biased.

[Malva Zebrina]

76. No, I do not see it as biased--it has been around for at least

one hundred years and is usually connected to atheists or agnostics, Deists and other.

People who are believers are now jealous after years of denigrating the "freethinkers" as heretics, that they claim to be thinking and to be free in that thinking and those believers, well they want to claim the same thing--however, every religion , does not allow it. No religion is a democracy either. Free thinking is actually discouraged in most religions. Once you do that, you become a heretic.

Some of us chaff at that bit.

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. You are seeing it through biased eyes

So it appears unbiased to you.

Yes, religious folks, contrary to your view, have free will and free thought. Their religions do not control them. They actively express their support in the beliefs of those religions.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Ask the pro-lifers

They chose their name, but it is not the name typically used for them.

[nolabels]

59. Perhaps people that have a religion they want to protect should help

The reason for Freedom "of" and "from" Religion has never been more apparent. Coming together on matters that effect everybody and leaving alone the ones that don't (as best as possible) is one of the charters set forth in the Constitution and bill of rights.

Should any government hold them in contempt, then they too should be held in contempt. If I had a religious doctrine or belief (other than my citizenship) one of the foremost of goals of upholding that would be to keep third parties from interrupting that exchange.

When introducing an entity such as government into any part of the dialog you have in effect subjugated your position between you and your belief into a second tier enterprise by making government or any of its entities an arbitrator. In conclusion a dilution of your rights to observe your religion as you see fit.

[myrna minx]

65. Liberal Christians may be interested in the Interfaith Alliance.

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/

Walter Cronkite is one of their spokespersons.

[nolabels]

70. Thank you

This could also be a place to check out, though I am not, I have friends that are, I cringe at people that say we need to amend the Bill of Rights to discriminate

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=56

Gay & Lesbian Workplace Discrimination

The Interfaith Alliance believes that all people, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation, should be treated equally in the workplace. As people of faith we believe that all employees should be judged by the quality of their work, not their personal characteristics. In the last fifty years America has made great advances in preventing discrimination in the workplace through important civil rights legislation such as the Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Despite these major advances in employment rights, it is still legal in 38 states to fire an employee based on his or her real or perceived sexual orientation.

The Interfaith Alliance supports the "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" (ENDA). ENDA would extend federal employment discrimination protections currently provided based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age and disability to sexual orientation. ENDA extends fair employment practices -- not special rights -- to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and heterosexuals. ENDA provides exemptions for religions organizations and small businesses with less than 15 employees
(snip)

" not special rights " is result of an echo heard from a chamber of hypocrites on AM radio

[snooper2]

61. Sign up Here!

It was at 289 members, I made 290.

Yahoo Groups :)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/godlessamericans/

[pacifictiger]

84. they'd better start a school to train future

leaders. Stealth takeover by the fundies is alive and well as we speak. http://www.phc.edu/

Here's a nytimes article http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/08/education/08HOME.html?hp

edit: boy this is wierd - the link to patrick henry college does not work properly. Go to google