I know there is the Divine, in all his aspects. An Athiest believes there isn't.I've got to say that this one bugs me a bit, unless I'm misreading it. You appear to assert that you "know" your position is true, whereas those who disagree with you merely "believe" so? My understanding was that, in a Christian sense, omniscience was reserved for God, not His followers.
A distinction: Matthew could be justified in claiming that he knows this, without any claim to omniscience. He might not be saying that his knowledge is infallible, just that he knows it. I sure wouldn't want someone coming to my door saying that Buddhism might be the way to liberation. ;)
If he believes that he knows that there is a God, then he must say that nonbelievers believe that there is not a God, not that they know it. In the same way, if someone believes that they know there is not a God, they must say that believers believe in God, not that they know God. Their claims are necessarily exclusive, without a need to claim that they are omniscient or infallible. I take this to be why it is so important for us to make space for people who are wrong, whenever and to the greatest extent possible.
I've asked several times why people excuse their belief from the burden of proof, and I have yet to get an answer.
I suppose I'll bite.
God, if he exists, exists outside the reality we understand. He cannot be proven or disproven by means available to mortal man. Therefore belief in him hinges entirely on faith, and a conscious choice to believe the information given in the documents that claim to be written in his name, due to examination of the text therein.
I've asked several times why people excuse their belief from the burden of proof, and I have yet to get an answer.I suppose I'll bite.
God, if he exists, exists outside the reality we understand. He cannot be proven or disproven by means available to mortal man. Therefore belief in him hinges entirely on faith, and a conscious choice to believe the information given in the documents that claim to be written in his name, due to examination of the text therein.
Then we all should just be agnostic and get along. Hold hands and sing songs and light up smores at the campfire. ;)
Then we all should just be agnostic and get along. Hold hands and sing songs and light up smores at the campfire. ;)I've asked several times why people excuse their belief from the burden of proof, and I have yet to get an answer.I suppose I'll bite.
God, if he exists, exists outside the reality we understand. He cannot be proven or disproven by means available to mortal man. Therefore belief in him hinges entirely on faith, and a conscious choice to believe the information given in the documents that claim to be written in his name, due to examination of the text therein.
Somehow I don't think that would work out ;) Though I will take a s'more :)
Well, I guess I'm breaking my attempt to not post here.
It's not semantics to say that asserting nothing is asserting something, it's just the way that it is. And to be precise, you're asserting all kinds of things, Bugley, not just one: that we should accept preponderance of evidence, what is preponderance, what is evidence, that reality is observable, and so forth.
I'm not going down that rat hole; if we can't agree that we aren't brains in a vat, then all conversation is pointless. So I'm asserting that I'm a human, that 2 is 2, etc.
(Asserting nothing = asserting something) simplifies to (nothing = something). Are you sure you're using the word consistently? :P
I *know* that I am using the word consistently, if the word in question is belief. :D
Brain in the vat is fun, but my position does not rest on it. You believe in fairies, I believe that there are not fairies. I don't think I need to assert any burden at the outset that privileges my position or yours to come to a pretty solid conclusion on the matter.
I've asked several times why people excuse their belief from the burden of proof, and I have yet to get an answer.I suppose I'll bite.
God, if he exists, exists outside the reality we understand. He cannot be proven or disproven by means available to mortal man. Therefore belief in him hinges entirely on faith, and a conscious choice to believe the information given in the documents that claim to be written in his name, due to examination of the text therein.
If God exists outside the understandable, therefore physical universe, can he affect it?
I'm pretty sure (mostly from the smiley), that Matthew is making a joke by deliberately using believe for the group that's been most vociferous about not being a belief.
Ah! Aha, I get it now! (facepalm)
And that's a much better explanation than Mairkurion's convoluted and not altogether credible attempt at logic (if you "just knew" something that turns out to be wrong, then you didn't know it after all -- you just thought you did, n'est-ce pas?).
A lot of you are just figments of my imagination; ascii texts and html code appearing on my screen; products of the Architect. Incomprehensible as it may be. Since you are not a part of my physical universe, you cannot affect me.
:P
If God exists outside the understandable, therefore physical universe, can he affect it?I've asked several times why people excuse their belief from the burden of proof, and I have yet to get an answer.I suppose I'll bite.
God, if he exists, exists outside the reality we understand. He cannot be proven or disproven by means available to mortal man. Therefore belief in him hinges entirely on faith, and a conscious choice to believe the information given in the documents that claim to be written in his name, due to examination of the text therein.
My belief is that he can, and in the past did so more directly; in more recent times he has chosen to do so indirectly, operating through "natural means" I think is a term I've seen used. Omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.
If you do something right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
<SNIP> Therefore belief in him hinges entirely on faith,
Agreed.
and a conscious choice to believe the information given in the documents that claim to be written in his name, due to examination of the text therein.
Unfortunately, here is where I must disagree. I cannot choose to believe something without proof. Presumably I could be inspired to do so (as presumably those with faith have been), but that's not the same thing.
I'm pretty sure (mostly from the smiley), that Matthew is making a joke by deliberately using believe for the group that's been most vociferous about not being a belief.Ah! Aha, I get it now! (facepalm)
And that's a much better explanation than Mairkurion's convoluted and not altogether credible attempt at logic (if you "just knew" something that turns out to be wrong, then you didn't know it after all -- you just thought you did, n'est-ce pas?).
No, you are completely correct, Kirth. But it's not a convoluted attempt at logic. It's a necessary distinction made by the classical analysis of what constitutes knowledge, generally taken in philosophy to be belief + truth + justification. If this analysis is in the ballpark, then subtracting anything from that equation leaves you with something short of knowledge. I make no claims as to whether I read Matthew correctly or missed a joke.
|
If God exists outside the understandable, therefore physical universe, can he affect it?I've asked several times why people excuse their belief from the burden of proof, and I have yet to get an answer.I suppose I'll bite.
God, if he exists, exists outside the reality we understand. He cannot be proven or disproven by means available to mortal man. Therefore belief in him hinges entirely on faith, and a conscious choice to believe the information given in the documents that claim to be written in his name, due to examination of the text therein.
Yes.
<pulls out a shield to deflect the a-quinas priori molotovs and readies an action>
and a conscious choice to believe the information given in the documents that claim to be written in his name, due to examination of the text therein.Unfortunately, here is where I must disagree. I cannot choose to believe something without proof. Presumably I could be inspired to do so (as presumably those with faith have been), but that's not the same thing.
You're going to have to explain to me how you are incapable of choosing to believe something regardless of evidence. That's different than "there's not enough evidence so I don't believe it"... that's choosing not to believe, which is simply the other side of the coin.
My belief is that he can, and in the past did so more directly; in more recent times he has chosen to do so indirectly, operating through "natural means" I think is a term I've seen used.
Why not set the ball rolling directly to begin with, and then be indirect from there on out? Of course, then that would make one a Deist rather than a Christian...
<SNIP> Therefore belief in him hinges entirely on faith,Agreed.
and a conscious choice to believe the information given in the documents that claim to be written in his name, due to examination of the text therein.Unfortunately, here is where I must disagree. I cannot choose to believe something without proof. Presumably I could be inspired to do so (as presumably those with faith have been), but that's not the same thing.
Just for the record, this is the kind of talk that allows Bugley to escape coming to terms with his own faith. Of course, choice does come into play on some level, but everyone believes all sorts of things all the time with something short of Bugley's "proof," and that necessarily so. Maybe Orthos will clarify his point.
I *know* that I am using the word consistently, if the word in question is belief. :DBrain in the vat is fun, but my position does not rest on it. You believe in fairies, I believe that there are not fairies. I don't think I need to assert any burden at the outset that privileges my position or yours to come to a pretty solid conclusion on the matter.
BUT WHY NOT?
You're confusing the truth of your conclusion (there are no fairies) to ignore the lack of a logically valid argument to prove your conclusion.
In other words, without placing the burden of proof on the asserter of belief in fairies (me), what possible logical basis do you have for reaching your conclusion?
|
You're going to have to explain to me how you are incapable of choosing to believe something regardless of evidence. That's different than "there's not enough evidence so I don't believe it"... that's choosing not to believe, which is simply toe ther side of the coin.and a conscious choice to believe the information given in the documents that claim to be written in his name, due to examination of the text therein.Unfortunately, here is where I must disagree. I cannot choose to believe something without proof. Presumably I could be inspired to do so (as presumably those with faith have been), but that's not the same thing.
I think he is saying there isn't enough evidence. The double negative is a bit confusing but a rearrangement of the sentence to "Without proof, I cannot believe something." clears up what he's saying. Assuming I've understood your question.
You're going to have to explain to me how you are incapable of choosing to believe something regardless of evidence. That's different than "there's not enough evidence so I don't believe it"... that's choosing not to believe, which is simply the other side of the coin.
I didn't say "regardless of evidence." I said in the absence of evidence, which your earlier assertion ("belief in him hinges entirely on faith") demonstrates you agree exists. Otherwise, why would belief in him hinge "entirely on faith?"
Hey! Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
Just for the record, this is the kind of talk that allows Bugley to escape coming to terms with his own faith. Of course, choice does come into play on some level, but everyone believes all sorts of things all the time with something short of Bugley's "proof," and that necessarily so. Maybe Orthos will clarify his point.
Faith = belief without proof. I don't have faith, which is the whole point. It's like you're saying I have "faith" in logic. *sigh*
You're going to have to explain to me how you are incapable of choosing to believe something regardless of evidence. That's different than "there's not enough evidence so I don't believe it"... that's choosing not to believe, which is simply the other side of the coin.I didn't say "regardless of evidence." I said in the absence of evidence, which your earlier assertion ("belief in him hinges entirely on faith") demonstrates you agree exists. Otherwise, why would belief in him hinge "entirely on faith?"
I'm confused.
I'm done on the religion topic.
If anyone has anything to add about conservatism/liberalism that doesn't amount to name-calling, I'd like to have that conversation.
So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.
|
|
Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
So you believe I, a non-Christian, should pay my taxes to support your religion just because I'm a minority? Oh, look, textbook case of tyranny of the majority.
Yes, lets balance the budget and set in term limits.
Hey, look at that, we agree. Easy conversation. :)
If by logical basis, you mean reasonable basis (there are more forms of reason than simply deductive logic), then I can produce cumulative case arguments and arguments to the best explanation against the existence of fairies without assuming that I start at +1 and you start at -1. If what you are concerned about is not some kind of epistemic privilege, but people being held responsible for their beliefs, then I'd say that certainly has it's place: If a person is claiming to enter the arena of reason and then refusing to give reasons, then they should be called on it. "I believe in fairies, but just because and you'd have to tell me why I shouldn't believe before I tell you why you should believe" isn't really covered by logic per se, it covered by "don't be dick." But even if one were to be less than publicly forthcoming, I could still make the case for my belief, granted that I understood enough about the claim they are making without their help.
EDIT: I don't see where I called any names, but I posted this before I saw that you declared yourself frustrated. Yes, the statement "I have faith in logic" makes perfect sense to me, I do have faith in logic, though it might not be identical to yours. Again, there are important issues about concepts of faith, proof, and reasons that aren't taking hold here, so I will simply resign myself from trying to make them given your reaction.
|
|
So you believe I, a non-Christian, should pay my taxes to support your religion just because I'm a minority? Oh, look, textbook case of tyranny of the majority.Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
Give it a rest! You are choosing not to listen except to that which you find offense in. I am sick of it.
So you believe I, a non-Christian, should pay my taxes to support your religion just because I'm a minority? Oh, look, textbook case of tyranny of the majority.Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
LA LA LA I can't hear you. ;-)
As an aside I have also found that many atheists have about as much religious instruction or understand as most cradle-Catholics do. I am not sure which bothers me more someone who believes because they don't have enough information or someone who does not because they do not have enough information.
I disagree. To be a cradle catholic (or protestant, hindu, etc.) all that is required is for one to continue on in the traditions and practices you where engaged in during your youth. If your raised as a Catholic its very easy to just continue to go to church or say grace before dinner etc. and its a bit jarring to abandon these things if for no other reason then your damaging your support structure.
With an Atheist you don't really have that. Either you've consciously abandoned all your normal support structures (which is a pretty deliberate act) or you've taken some kind of stand on the issue (presuming that there was no support structure to abandon).
While the default mode for a child raised Catholic is Catholic the same does not really apply to Atheists since Atheists don't have any traditions at all (except idiosyncratic family traditions) - the default mode for a child raised by Atheists is actually irreligious since a lack of religion is likely to be addressed minimally. To be an Atheist you have to have made some kind of conscious philosophical choice - the same is not really true with Judaism or Catholicism etc. where you can simply continue doing what you have always done.
Hence if you've never really thought about the issue your not an Atheist - your just irreligious. If you've thought about it but decided you just don't know what to think then your Agnostic.
While Atheists do hold the belief that there is no divine this group can be divided into either Hard Atheism or Soft Atheism. Hard Atheism is the certainty that there is no God and its the equivalent of a Born Again Christians belief in Jesus and God. However almost all Atheists are actually Soft Atheists, of which Dawkin's is currently the one getting the most press. This is essentially the belief (to use Dawkin's analogy) that one can't disprove God but one can't disprove the fairies at the bottom of the garden either.
i think that part of the convo was fixed several pages back.:)Yes, lets balance the budget and set in term limits.Hey, look at that, we agree. Easy conversation. :)
Indeed. I think most people agree on the end result; what we probably disagree about is how to get there.
I think the United States should quite borrowing money, right now, today. There should be no more votes to raise the debt ceiling "just one more time." Yes, it would be EXTREMELY painful, but less painful than what is to come if we don't. As much as I agree that most issues are quite complex, in the end I believe this one should be treated like it is dead simple, because leaving it for "the next administration" to fix is INSANE.
|
|
Give it a rest! You are choosing not to listen except to that which you find offense in. I am sick of it.So you believe I, a non-Christian, should pay my taxes to support your religion just because I'm a minority? Oh, look, textbook case of tyranny of the majority.Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
Ok. What have I missed?
Christian tradition supported by taxes=Ok because it's traditional.
Politicians can be kicked out if the majority doesn't like what they're doing in supporting said Christian tradition. If you're a minority who objects to sup[porting someone else's religious tradition with your money, suck it up.
Courts shouldn't enforce the 1st amendment about not supporting religion because...?
Seriously, what have I missed?
Give it a rest! You are choosing not to listen except to that which you find offense in. I am sick of it.So you believe I, a non-Christian, should pay my taxes to support your religion just because I'm a minority? Oh, look, textbook case of tyranny of the majority.Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
Ok. What have I missed?
Christian tradition supported by taxes=Ok because it's traditional.
Politicians can be kicked out if the majority doesn't like what they're doing in supporting said Christian tradition. If you're a minority who objects to sup[porting someone else's religious tradition with your money, suck it up.
Courts shouldn't enforce the 1st amendment about not supporting religion because...?
Seriously, what have I missed?
So the better thing is the tyranny of the minority?
At this point, all it boils down is word semantics and a priori argument. I think the greater importance is to toss aside the quibbles and work toward a socio-ecumenical direction where we can agree on instead of creating further schisms. I may not be in agreement as to how you may draw your conclusions, but it doesn't mean I can't have a beer with you, roll a d20, or whatever.
Of course, us working in collusion will never overthrow Heathy's post count. That's outside the realm of understanding and therefore can only be approached from agnosticism.
:P
|
|
As an aside I have also found that many atheists have about as much religious instruction or understand as most cradle-Catholics do. I am not sure which bothers me more someone who believes because they don't have enough information or someone who does not because they do not have enough information.I disagree. To be a cradle catholic (or protestant, hindu, etc.) all that is required is for one to continue on in the traditions and practices you where engaged in during your youth. If your raised as a Catholic its very easy to just continue to go to church or say grace before dinner etc. and its a bit jarring to abandon these things if for no other reason then your damaging your support structure.
With an Atheist you don't really have that. Either you've consciously abandoned all your normal support structures (which is a pretty deliberate act) or you've taken some kind of stand on the issue (presuming that there was no support structure to abandon).
While the default mode for a child raised Catholic is Catholic the same does not really apply to Atheists since Atheists don't have any traditions at all (except idiosyncratic family traditions) - the default mode for a child raised by Atheists is actually irreligious since a lack of religion is likely to be addressed minimally. To be an Atheist you have to have made some kind of conscious philosophical choice - the same is not really true with Judaism or Catholicism etc. where you can simply continue doing what you have always done.
Hence if you've never really thought about the issue your not an Atheist - your just irreligious. If you've thought about it but decided you just don't know what to think then your Agnostic.
While Atheists do hold the belief that there is no divine this group can be divided into either Hard Atheism or Soft Atheism. Hard Atheism is the certainty that there is no God and its the equivalent of a Born Again Christians belief in Jesus and God. However almost all Atheists are...
I can understand what you are saying however I think you have missed my point.
Some people believe what ever is put forth before them. Religious or irreligious. It is when something happens outside of their normal day to day expectations that they tend to wake up and then damages as you say "their support structure."
I have been in basic classes on religion and had a parishioner tell the priest that this is not the way it is, even though the course is teaching it. The priest response was that then the parishioner just didn't pay any attention in mass.
I have had simple conversations with a "hard atheist" who didn't know the first thing about that which he says not to believe in. I guess i can understand in a way he didn't believe but in another to so casually disregard something of which you have no knowledge.
|
|
At this point, all it boils down is word semantics and a priori argument. I think the greater importance is to toss aside the quibbles and work toward a socio-ecumenical direction where we can agree on instead of creating further schisms. I may not be in agreement as to how you may draw your conclusions, but it doesn't mean I can't have a beer with you, roll a d20, or whatever.
Of course, us working in collusion will never overthrow Heathy's post count. That's outside the realm of understanding and therefore can only be approached from agnosticism.
:P
maybe. maybe just education on all subjects will help us all.
maybe. maybe just education on all subjects will help us all.
Agreed. That's why I read just about everything I can get my paws on. Even if I don't agree with it or if it's way cracked out there (Dianetics, anyone?).
Oh crap, did I now piss off Tom Cruise? I better hide.
Know thy enemy.maybe. maybe just education on all subjects will help us all.Agreed. That's why I read just about everything I can get my paws on. Even if I don't agree with it or if it's way cracked out there (Dianetics, anyone?).
Nah, I want to be friends with them. Get them to trust me. Only then, will I trample over their cities, take their women, and loot their treasures. :P
XII) We believe that everyone has the right to think for themselves and to rethink their beliefs when confronted with contrary evidence....
A bunch of stuffIt is clear that you and I will never see ey to eye and that you just love every chance you can get to down play the role the United States plays in the world and tell us how bad we are. It is also clear that you will simply ignore anything I say that doesn't fit what you want to think and take my words out of context to try ad prove your anti-American agenda, Therefore I tip my hat and say Good Day sir. I have nothing more to say to you.
LOL
Atheists are prickly on this issue because from long experience when people try to classify atheism as a belief or having any component of faith, they tend to immediately make the leap to atheism=a religion just the same as any other religion, which it isn't.
I'm going to agree with this. A Christian in America and one in China share doctrines, tenets and beliefs that thy share in common, Atheists can't. I don't necessarily have anything in common with a Chinese Atheist who is rejecting his cultures belief that his ancestors watch over him. Hence Christianity is a religion but being religious is not itself a religion since there is no common doctrine between a Neo-Pagan in the outback of Wyoming running around naked on the Summer Solstice and an Orthodox Jew living in a settlement in the Middle East. You can juxtapose Atheism with religion in general but you can't juxtapose Atheism with any specific religion - hence Atheism is not a religion.
So the better thing is the tyranny of the minority?
How about no tyranny at all? Each person can use his own money to make displays for his own religion. I won't object.
So you believe I, a non-Christian, should pay my taxes to support your religion just because I'm a minority? Oh, look, textbook case of tyranny of the majority.Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
Solution.
Create an elective tax on all churches at a local level (I’m thinking extremely local, like city or county). Separate the money collected by those churches into the major faiths, so all of the Christian denominations have their money in one batch and all the Jews in another, Muslims, ect. 60% of the money collected is put towards creating religious holiday displays during an allotted ‘season’ for their holiday, which is put together by a panel made up of one representative from each church which elects to pay the tax. 20% of the money from each faith is put towards maintaining the land these displays are kept on. The remaining 20% goes to the Gubment, for new roads and blowjobs, or whatever the Gubment spends our money on. The displays are then looked over by a second secular party to make sure they aren’t overly offensive (and no I don’t mean offensive as in “I’m not Christian and there’s a cross in town square, I’m offended.” I’m talking more along the lines of an Easter display that shows Jesus on the cross getting stabbed and bleeding everywhere with “F**k the Jews” in flashing neon letters above it.) Yes, this might be crossing the separation of church and state, but f**k it, it works. As a personal aside I would like any attempts for the Christians to get Christmas decorations up before Thanksgiving to be met with a fine, and before Halloween to be considered a felony. Not really a part of my plan, but it’d make me happy.
|
|
So you believe I, a non-Christian, should pay my taxes to support your religion just because I'm a minority? Oh, look, textbook case of tyranny of the majority.Sure if the voters have an issue kick the mayor, state senator, whatever elected offical out. I still think the local government gets to pick and choose, but the courts don't.So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
Solution.
Create an elective tax on all churches at a local level (I’m thinking extremely local, like city or county). Separate the money collected by those churches into the major faiths, so all of the Christian denominations have their money in one batch and all the Jews in another, Muslims, ect. 60% of the money collected is put towards creating religious holiday displays during an allotted ‘season’ for their holiday, which is put together by a panel made up of one representative from each church which elects to pay the tax. 20% of the money from each faith is put towards maintaining the land these displays are kept on. The remaining 20% goes to the Gubment, for new roads and blowjobs, or whatever the Gubment spends our money on. The displays are then looked over by a second secular party to make sure they aren’t overly offensive (and no I don’t mean offensive as in “I’m not Christian and there’s a cross in town square, I’m offended.” I’m talking more along the lines of an Easter display that shows Jesus on the cross getting stabbed and bleeding everywhere with “F**k the Jews” in flashing neon letters above it.) Yes, this might be crossing the separation of church and state, but f**k it, it works. As a personal aside I would like any attempts for the Christians to get Christmas decorations up before Thanksgiving to be met with a fine, and before Halloween to be considered a felony. Not really a part of my plan, but it’d make me happy.
I agree with the bolded part. I'd also extend Easter produce before Valentine's Day into the criminal sanctions list.