Blog Against Theocracy 2009

[salvorhardin]

Whether we believe in the divine or not, I think there's one thing everyone who posts in R&T here on DU does believe. The separation of church and state, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is a cornerstone of our government and way of life. Every year bloggers from all over write for three days straight in support of church-state separation in an attempt to raise awareness of church-state issues. Blog Against Theocracy 2009 is well under way and already there are scads of posts just waiting for you to check them out, all linked to over at the BAT site. So why not take some time this Easter weekend and spend some time reading about our first freedom and show some support for the bloggers participating by leaving comments on their blogs? You can find all the participants here. Keep checking back regularly too. Posts are added to the list as BAT's organizers have time.

Welcome to Blog Against Theocracy 2009
This is a blogswarm dedicated to the separation of church and state.

It is not a blogswarm against religion. Bloggers who believe in religion and those who don't are equally welcome here. What we share is a common commitment to the First Amendment to the Constitution and its guarantee of church-state separation.
http://blogagainsttheocracy.blogspot.com/2009/04/participants-in-blog-against-theocracy.html

[Why Syzygy]

1. I had lunch with my mother today.

She wanted to know if I had heard Obama say that America is "not a Christian nation". I said, "It's not". She looked at me in disbelief. I mentioned the Constitution, etc. Now, she will at least be repeating to her gaggle that ***** says it ISN'T! New concept to the Great Depression era folks, I guess.

[pocoloco]

2. Maybe she was thinking of Germany?

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." ~~Adolf Hitler, "Berlin: Proclamation to the German Nation", February 1st, 1933

[Why Syzygy]

3. Meanwhile..

Passover at the White House. I'm so confused!

[Neo Atheist]

4. not to mention that fat asshole fraud Rick Warren at the inauguration

[Why Syzygy]

5. I don't understand

why DUers are going all gaga over the Passover meal at the WH! (Greatest Page)

Do they bear a resemblance to my MOTHER?? :wow: (Hitler?)

[Meshuga]

6. Why would you call your mother Hitler? n/t

[Why Syzygy]

8. I surely did not.

Did you read the posts prior? Self explanatory, I think. If not, get back to me.

[Meshuga]

9. I see what you mean

I think sometimes the hyperbolic replies take away from the greater cause.

[Why Syzygy]

10. "hyberbolic" is in the eyes of the beholder

Why should we even bother expressing concern for the Constitution when religious displays are encouraged on state property? Why bother?

eta: I don't know if you're referring to this thread containing hyperbolic, or the one in GD.
If we do not want a "Christian"/"Jewish"/"Islamic" nation, why the displays? I truly do not get it.

[Meshuga]

11. I guess it is in the eyes of the beholder

I could be wrong but I don't see a Passover Seder or an Easter Dinner at the White House as infringing on the first amendment of the US constitution unless it is being done with the intention to establish that religion as the state religion.

I see it more as a question of how the taxpayers money is being used/wasted. It would make no difference to me if they did away with the Easter Egg hunts, Passover Seder, Christmas Celebrations, etc. in the same way I would not see these as a path toward the US becoming a theocracy. In that sense I see your charge as hyperbolic reaction that moves away from real issues that we face in regards to state sponsored religion (i.e., teaching religion and pseudo-science in public schools, government taking a position based on religion, discriminating laws being create based on religion, etc.).

[Neo Atheist]

7. I haven't seen the thread

I think some are annoyed at even further erosion of church (or in this case, synagogue) and state (like I am).

How about we have a president who doesn't engage in using property of the American government for religious practices?

[laconicsax]

12. Oh pshaw.

Only a godless commie would object to the president using government property for religious purposes.

:sarcasm:

[Why Syzygy]

13. Or

a buzz kill like me.

[laconicsax]

14. I've never seen you advocate weakening the separation of church and state.

Nor do I suspect you'd wish it.

[Why Syzygy]

15. You're wrong.

If you're saying I approve of a union of church and state. Hard to tell from your sentence construction.

Have you read this entire thread or the other one referenced?

[laconicsax]

16. Not what I meant.

I've never seen you advocate weakening the separation of church and state.

I'm not sure what's confusing about that. Do you advocate weakening the separation of church and state? I've never seen you say that you do.

I read this thread, not the other one.

[Why Syzygy]

17. Weakening the separation of church and state

as per the Constitution? It's confusing because I don't know to what degree you perceive the connection of church and state. If it were a STRONG one, then weakening it would mean the opposite of weakening a WEAK one.

I support separation of church and state, absolutely.

By, "buzz kill", I was mainly referring to the other thread where everyone else was celebrating, and I was the downer by suggesting there might be something amiss. Whereas in this thread, I was merely referred to as "hyperbolic".

[laconicsax]

18. How is weakening a strong connection the opposite of weakening a weak one?

That makes no sense.

Weakening a strong connection would mean making it less strong. Weakening a weak connection would mean making it more weak. Is that what you meant by opposite?

[Why Syzygy]

19. I've never seen you advocate weakening the separation of church and state.

Your statement:
I've never seen you advocate weakening the separation of church and state.

Assume you perceive the connection of church and state to be too closely related in current practice. If you said that I do not advocate for weakening that connection, you would be implying that I approve of the (closely related) connection.

OTOH, if you perceive the connection of church and state to have already arrived at a separation in current practice, and said I do not advocate for weakening that connection, you would correctly imply that I approve of the non-connection.