Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Secular government was a gift from Founding Fathers

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, May 7, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:12 am, Mon May 7, 2012.

Secularism is not a religion. The Founding Fathers deliberately avoided having a state-sponsored religion. They were men who knew their history. The mixing of government and religion is one of sectarian strife ending with war, torture and cruelty beyond measure. They set up a secular government deliberately.

The evidence of this is Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, where the words "separation of church and state" originated.

The second piece of evidence is the Treaty of Tripoli, in which Article XI states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This treaty was passed by the Senate and signed by John Adams. Treaties have the force of law.

The third is the Constitutional clause that states there will be no religious test for political office.

The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. It frees individuals to seek a higher power in their own way, but just as important, it keeps those who would force their beliefs on the rest of us at bay.

We are one of the most religious nations on earth, yet we are free from the sectarian strife that is so prevalent in the Mideast today and in the 1990s in the Balkans. This can be laid at the feet of our Founding Fathers, who gave us a secular government. One of my favorite bumper stickers: "God, protect me from your followers."

John Lucas

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.

56 comments:

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:08 pm on Fri, May 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated...This would have been fine if you would have used something concrete he said that directly refuted my assertion that fear is the root of anger, fear and selfishness. I mean something he said WHY my argument is wrong.

    It has nothing to do with wrong or right. There are many psychologists that would agree with your position. There are many that will disagree. It does not mean either side is right or wrong. You made a statement that there is only one answer or possibility. I was demonstrating that there is more than one possibility. You take it I am stating you are wrong... I was not. I said there is more than one way to look at the same issue.

    In my view, this is a perfect example of showing how rigid, inflexible and single minded your reality is.
    It's why I refuse to address your points in a debate format.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 1:54 pm on Fri, May 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    Mr Lucas stated...Darrell, do you even understand the idea of debate? So far we are having a real debate...(in your mind)

    Sorry Mr Lucas...I have no intent to attempt to debate anything you state. I think you do understand what debate is but have no ability to participate in one because of your fixed extreme reality that will not change.

    I simply wish to refute inaccurate statements you make and offer alternate thoughts and perspectives of an issue.

    Debate? ... I have zero motivation or inclination to engage with a person who insults people's intelligence consistently. For example, it is very derogatory and disrespectful to ask if I even understand the idea of a debate... Even though I have decided that debate with you is meaningless, I would never insult your intelligence by asking you such a question.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 11:59 am on Fri, May 11, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1182

    Of course I can't prove what is fanciful however your contention that "natural rights" or "human rights" come from god requires the initial proving. Otherwise how can you disprove what hasn't been shown to exist.

    Of course this goes back to of what value are rights you can't exercise if others prevent you. What difference does it make if they are from god if they are granted or denied by other people?

    Of course we are all grateful the founding fathers recognized natural rights and our government continues to assure us these rights (for the most part).

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:02 am on Fri, May 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Darrell, do you even understand the idea of debate?

    I said all emotions are derived from either love or fear.

    You countered:

    and then... there are those that act out of hate and anger, which really has little to do with love or fear.
    and then... there are those who act from what they perceive instead of what is...
    and then ...there are some that act from selfishness and ego... which has little to do with love or fear.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    I then countered with a step by step why anger, hate and selfishness (which I noted was not an emotion) of how the root of these is fear.
    I left ego out because I was not sure if meant it in the spiritual sense or a physiological sense and in either case it does not lend itself a short answer. I said take it with your Rabbi for it is a great discussion to have.

    So far we are having a real debate


    In the above post did you address any of the arguments I made? For example you might of said:

    You say anger is just the reaction to the fear of not getting what you want but this false because of X,Y and Z and we would have continued the debate

    What did you do? You completely ignored every argument I made. You brought up a psychologist. This would have been fine if you would have used something concrete he said that directly refuted my assertion that fear is the root of anger, fear and selfishness. I mean something he said WHY my argument is wrong.

    What you are doing is the same thing that Mr Maple and Mr Chapman do. They use the what they see as the great accomplishments of their lives to not answer the arguments someone else brings up. You are doing the same by using this psychologist. You not advanced the debate all. This where the debate has broken down.

    As far as I am concerned we are still at the place of where I took your arguments and answered your assertions one by one, concretely and directly. If you want to continue this debate you will have to answer my arguments concretely and directly with arguments of WHY my arguments are not true.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:57 am on Fri, May 11, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    According to “ The World According to Lucas”, The reality is that all emotions are derived from either Love or fear.

    I and others do not think this thought accurate, though many would agree with Mr Lucas.. for example, psychologist Robert Plutchik considers there to be eight primary emotions (anger, fear, sadness, disgust, surprise, curiosity, acceptance and joy) with his psycho evolutionary theory of emotion. His theory is regarded as one of the most influential classification approaches for general emotional responses.

    This is why I consider debate with Mr Lucas meaningless. There are various theories that many people can embrace which has merit. However, according to " The World According to Lucas", Mr Lucas is right, all others wrong. Mr Plutchik should maybe consult with Mr Lucas before he writes his books.


    Robert Plutchik (21 October 1927 – 29 April 2006) was professor emeritus at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and adjunct professor at the University of South Florida. He received his Ph.D. from Columbia University and he was also a psychologist. He has authored or coauthored more than 260 articles, 45 chapters and eight books and has edited seven books. His research interests include the study of emotions, the study of suicide and violence, and the study of the psychotherapy process.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:35 am on Fri, May 11, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    Thomas wrote:

    If you studied history you would find this as blatantly untrue.
    People wanting their rights have always had to wait for government to grant them.. How long did it take to abolish slavery and why did slavery occur in the first place. Perhaps god may give rights but surly can't enforce them.

    -Does anyone else see how Thomas contradicts himself here? He can't disprove our inalienable rights come from God so he goes on to say he can't enforce them.
    Unlike our founding Fathers, they never wanted to disprove this.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:28 am on Fri, May 11, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Thomas, I am just a truck driver with gift for gab

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:25 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    "Liberty" means, first and foremost, limited government -- because bigger government means less individual liberty. "In God We Trust" means that America must be rooted in Creator-based values. There are no inalienable rights if no rights derive from God. And "E Pluribus Unum" means the assumption of an American identity by all citizens regardless of their racial, ethnic or national background.

    The left seeks to replace Liberty with Equality. Material inequality is the great evil, and if individual liberty needs to be sacrificed to attain equality, so be it.

    Creator-based values are to be replaced by government-based values. "God-fearing" is to be replaced by "State-fearing." God must be removed from schools and wherever else the left can succeed in doing so.

    "E Pluribus Unum" is to be replaced by multiculturalism. For leftism, the very words "American identity" conjure up chauvinism, if not fascism.

    For these reasons, this election is not just a choice between a Democrat and a Republican. It is between Americanism and leftism.

    This does not mean that left-wing Americans are un-American or unpatriotic -- or that they do not love their country. The conflict between Americanism and leftism is between ideas, not between decent and indecent people. But it is an unfortunate fact of life that decent people can believe in bad ideas. If this were not so, few of the greatest evils would ever have occurred.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:15 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    John wrote:

    You are like the Christian zealots who tortured heretics before burning them to the stake or militant Islamists who behead people. It was their lack of faith in the justice and mercy of God that made the commit these crimes. Like you they do not trust God.

    -Why thank you John to comparing me to these people. I would never expect you speculate about me in a kind manner. It would be out of character for you to do such a thing.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 4:03 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1182

    Maybe I should call you the professor
    What do you think?

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 4:02 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1182

    Thank you John. Thats like acknowledgment from the master.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 2:42 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Thank you, I appreciate your nice words

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 1:50 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Thanks for writing such a good letter, John Lucas. Nice job.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:36 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Brian said:

    I should add; Secular government was never a gift until our founding fathers made sure it was NOT devoid of God.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Are you so lacking in faith that you think there can be anything that can be "devoid of God"? I think is your lack of faith that makes you so militant in your responses to atheism and other belief systems. You are like the Christian zealots who tortured heretics before burning them to the stake or militant Islamists who behead people. It was their lack of faith in the justice and mercy of God that made the commit these crimes. Like you they do not trust God.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 1:22 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1182

    Brian you reall need to study some history;
    You've been doing too much picking and choosing.
    The founding fathers were most concerned with freedom of thought along the lines of freedom of speech. Their main goal was to allow people to believe what they wanted without perseqution. This is as true for muslims as well as christians or even scientologists.This of course applies to atheist as well.

    The seperation of church and state began as a fear of one protestant religion trying to reduce another protestant religions influence. So to avoid government occupying itself, as in England (Henry the 8th), with forced religious changes the government rightfully declared itself religion free while protedting the peoples right to think freely without censure. Being secular the government frees us and itself from herasy and blasphemy laws. You don't want the government deciding your doctrine. So the principle focus was freedom of thought which happens to include religion and god.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:16 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    well said

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 12:36 pm on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1182

    Brian
    you said "Our inalienable rights come from God. Not from humans."

    If you studied history you would find this as blatantly untrue.
    People wanting their rights have always had to wait for government to grant them.. How long did it take to abolish slavery and why did slavery occur in the first place. Perhaps god may give rights but surly can't enfore them. History is full of countries giving rights to some or all of their poulations who didn't have them before. Then with a change of kings or ueens or being conquered by another nation those existing rights are taken away. Women have been the most consistently deprived of rights and evidence is easily found in the bible.

    Having state religions is dangerous because it fosters the idea whatever government does, war, torture, ethnic subjugation as being above question if it is done in the name of god or that god favors one group of people over another. Thats why the phrase American Exceptionalism can be cause for concern .

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:48 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    I should add; Secular government was never a gift until our founding fathers made sure it was NOT devoid of God.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:18 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    Not that I am in favor of an Islamic State. But an Islamic State is kind of a response to secular governments devoid of God.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:06 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    John wrote:


    Secularism is not a religion. The Founding Fathers deliberately avoided having a state-sponsored religion. They were men who knew their history. The mixing of government and religion is one of sectarian strife ending with war, torture and cruelty beyond measure. They set up a secular government deliberately.

    -And to add; The founding fathers also made sure our secular government would never be devoid of God. A first in the history of mankind.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:02 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    Eric,

    I'm not saying there wern't millions murdered from other causes. I'm saying the vast majority of the millions murdered by governments were by secular governments devoid of God.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 7:44 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1342

    Brian what do you base this claim on that the vast majority of the millions murdered were performed by secular governments? I think that the many wars fought, the inquisition, eradication of native peoples, slavery, witch trials, even most acts of terrorism were acts carried out by god fearing people.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:16 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    Manuel wrote:

    None of us are in disagreement with your claim that the first amendment protects against the disestablishment of religion (...we call it the free exercise clause...) what I and those of us on the atheist side are taking issue with in particular to this comment is that the goal of freeing people of their religion is a private act that does not seek to use the government as a vehicle for this change

    -Yet the vast majority of the uprisings to free people of religion was done by secular governments devoid of any God. But Manuel can insure us the David Diskins of the world would never be in favor of empowering the Federal government ot do such a thing.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:08 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    Part of the American Trinity as described in the youtube link is In God We Trust.
    No other country has this. Our inalienable rights come from God. Not from humans. Many describe this as American Exceptionalism.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:03 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    John wrote:

    I have yet to meet an atheist who would ban religion by fiat.

    -We thank you John for admitting there are probably atheists who would ban religion by fiat. They are taking the first step to do so by banning it from the public square as if the main intention of religion is to proselytize. But we have never seen a religious untertaking attempting to ban atheism and secularism in the public square even though the vast majority of the millions murdered throughout the centuries were performed by secular governments devoid of any God.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 6:45 am on Thu, May 10, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4IH3yng4k

    The American Trinity.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:44 pm on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Thank you for your post. I have yet to meet an atheist who would ban religion by fiat. People like Brian see atheists and their religious allies as trying to do away with religion when they are only trying to do is keep the public square free of those who would use the public square to try to proselytize. I have met many religious people of many different faiths who would try to force their beliefs on others by fiat and history is replete with examples.

    I have often asked myself if fear is at the bottom of my religious belief. I think not. If my life would end today and there was no afterlife I would be a creature of no gratitude for the gift that I have already been given. I always like to say is that God cannot scr-w me over now she has already given me too much.

    However you do not give the idea of justice it's due. Like I say, I have been given much. If one looks around and is remotely awake one cannot see the staggering amount of injustice in the world. I try to do what I can but a human being is limited not only in what he or she can do but is limited by an inferior intelligence in the operation of justice even if one had all the power. So, I admit that my belief that their is justice in the end is a comforting belief otherwise I would have to out and start shooting some people.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 8:27 pm on Wed, May 9, 2012.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Brian Dockter posted at 7:59 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    "One more little trinket fro you Mr. Lucas. The First Amendment also prevents the disestablishment of religion. Whether you care or not, there are people who have an agenda to disestablish religion. I'm not too sure I can conclude David Diskin and his followers don't have theses motivations."


    None of us are in disagreement with your claim that the first amendment protects against the disestablishment of religion (...we call it the free exercise clause...) what I and those of us on the atheist side are taking issue with in particular to this comment is that the goal of freeing people of their religion is a private act that does not seek to use the government as a vehicle for this change. It would not serve us well to simply abolish religion, because to do that would not handle the belief on any level -- it would merely effect the practice of the belief.

    I'd prefer to quote Karl Marx's arguably misunderstood comments on the matter in their entirety so that we are clear about what it means to free people of religion (I acknowledge and prefer that it ought to be done without the aid of the state)

    "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The CRITICISM of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of the vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

    ... Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain, not in order that men shall continue to bear the chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower."

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:24 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Sorry Darrell, this is clearly false. The United States was something completely new in the world. I think it is clear that many of the new ideas born in the Renaissance by religious men and atheists were instrumental in our founding. I cannot think of a nation that did not have a official state religion. Look at the bible. Was there a state that did not have an official state religion? This was a completely new idea. Look at the First Amendment. In all of history in all the nations with official state religions what was the penalty for speaking out against it? Again, something completely new. Even today countries like England, Germany and Italy give tax money to religions. We do not.

    I will tell you one thing that you and Jerome would disagree with me about. You are most certainly for school prayer and in official government functions. I am opposed. Is it because I am an atheist? No because to me it is clearly against what Jesus taught in the Gospels. He said pray in closet. I do not want to get into a religious argument but my point is what values are universal? When people talk about Judeo-Christian values I think they need to be more specific. The following video from the TV show makes my point.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYaewOBGybw

    The difference between you and I is that to me my religious values must be translated into ideas without the religious trappings when dealing with others. Those ideas or values must be judged on their own merits. Like the school prayer thing I cannot say it must not happen because Jesus said so. With you I might point out that I think that praying in pubic is not about ones relationship with God but is used by con men in a show of false piety because we would be having a religious argument. In the public square this argument does not fly. There I might say that it tends to impose one beliefs on another etc

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:59 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Darrell, I tell you what you might try doing, take what you said above and take what I am going to tell you below to your Rabbi. I guarantee you that you learn much in that talk. Having done that I can say it is very interesting also.

    You said:

    and then... there are those that act out of hate and anger, which really has little to do with love or fear.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The reality is that all emotions derive from either Love or fear. You say that hate and anger have little to do with love or fear.

    Anger is simply an emotion one feels when one is not getting what one wants. Lets say you are walking down the street and a mugger shoots you. You get angry. Why? It is because you did not want to get shot. It is a reaction to the fear of not getting what you want which is not getting shot.

    Now that you have been shot it is now time to take action. The first thing you need to do is get medical help. The second thing you need to do is call the police for we need to get that guy off the street. The third and vital thing you have to do is forgive the mugger. Some like to put that Jewish mans words 2000 years said on some sort of pedestal that only the most holy could understand. The reality is that his words were simply very practical. He said,”you have to forgive 70 times seven”.

    Forgiveness is the same thing as acceptance. Some would say, “ but that terrible s-b did this horrible thing to me!!!!”. If one continues with this sort of thinking it will turn into resentment. Resentment is just living the anger over and over again in one’s mind. After a while it will metastasize into hate(this is where I am in your mind I would bet). Hate like anger and resentment can always be traced back to fear. The fear of not getting what you want.

    I will tell you a story. My brother did something terrible to me once. A year later I was still eaten up with resentment. It was h-ll. A spiritual adviser and dear friend came to my rescue as he has done more than a few times in my life. I am very lucky in the having such people in my life. My whining and babbling went on for awhile when he said, “You have to pray for him”. I replied,”Can’t I take him out to the his back yard for 15 minutes first?”. I followed his advice. I drove truck halfway from Oakland to LA and back every day and when he came up in my mind I immediately prayed for him and wished him well. It took six months for the miracle to happen but the resentment was finally gone. This was one of the greatest lessons of my life.
    The secret is in the Serenity Prayer:

    God grant me the serenity 
to accept the things I cannot change; 
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
    Anger is normal and is just a sign that you are not getting what you want. When it happens to me I just ask myself ,“Is there something I can do about it?” If there is I do it and the anger goes away. If not then I just give it to God. She will know what to do with it. Either way in a very short time the anger is gone and there is no resentment. I can then think about the important things in life and what makes this miracle of life so wonderful and beautiful. You know, things like women and avocados.
    You said:
    there are some that act from selfishness and ego... which has little to do with love or fear.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Selfishness is not really an emotion but it is still based on fear. I got this from the web and it explains it well:

    For example, you kill for money? That's because you are selfish, therefore you are afraid of being poor. You kill for fun? You are selfish therefore you are afraid of being bored. You steal? Selfish and you are afraid of poverty again. You rape? Selfish because your pleasure is your priority therefore you are afraid of being bored again.

    You get the idea

    The ego is nothing but fear and is not the real you. That statement is true but talk to your Rabbi for that discussion is long, interesting and fun

    I wish you well.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:27 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    and then... there are those that act out of hate and anger, which really has little to do with love or fear.

    and then... there are those who act from what they perceive instead of what is...

    and then ...there are some that act from selfishness and ego... which has little to do with love or fear.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:20 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    continued...

    is established, one in favor, and one against. Nonetheless, both fit the dictionary definition of a religion.
    Whether or not one wishes to accept or reject this definition of secularism as a religion is not what is important. Essentially such an argument is only semantics. Names and descriptions are often subjective and subject to the eye of the beholder. Arguments over words are superfluous. Instead of discussing words, we must discuss deeds and attitudes.Religion and secularism are mere words to describe how people think and what people do.
    What others do is influenced by what they believe. We are all subject to the thoughts and deeds of others. Therefore, it is important for us to understand what it is that motivates others who desire to influence us.
    Those who wish to “apply ethics” have first to explain what is the source of the ethics they
    wish others to adopt. When we define something as right or wrong, by what criteria do we make such a definition. Who says this is right or this is wrong. Who decides? Who is to judge? Herein lies a serious problem. All societies are defined by a common set of laws and values. All societies have as their common denominator a core set of beliefs that defines what it is, what its purpose is and what its course of manifest destiny is.

    Rabbi Ariel Bar Tzadok
    Rosh Yeshiva, Director Lev Torah – Benei Nviim
    KosherTorah.com
    Tarzana, CA. USA

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:15 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion Religion—sometimes used inter-changeably with
    faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or
    divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, and institutions associated with such belief. In
    its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain
    humankind's relationship with the universe

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism Secularism means: in philosophy, the belief that
    life can be best lived by applying ethics, and the universe best understood, by processes of
    reasoning, without reference to a god or gods or other supernatural concepts.
    A religion is a “belief concerning… the… divine.” Secularism is “the belief... without
    reference to a god.” Reference specifically not to mention a god is as much a statement of
    religion as is the mention a god. One way or the other a relationship between man and god

     
  • Sam Heller posted at 5:14 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Sam Heller Posts: 176

    "We can act out of love or we can act out of fear."

    Great words to live by.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:40 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Thank you. When I read the Gospels and read what Jesus says I always come up with the certain conclusions. He is talking to me about me. My only problem is the guy I shave every morning. My only problem with others is not what they do but my reaction to what they do. There are two other things that come to me when reading Jesus's words that comes from what others have said. God is love and God is truth and when we seek truth and love we seek God. The other is from David Dyer but I think is the essence of Jesus's teaching. In every moment of every day we only have two choices. We can act out of love or we can act out of fear.

     
  • Sam Heller posted at 3:55 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Sam Heller Posts: 176

    Great letter John. I enjoyed reading it and love your comments on the blogs. I may not always agree with them, but you make me think ... and I appreciate it.

    I also LOVE your last sentence. I wish there was a bumper sticker of it. It is so true. Many over-zealous followers tend to condemn and attack rather than accept and love. Christ's teachings are often lost in their interpretation of His teachings.

    Thanks for making me think !

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:04 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    As to
    Yes, Mr. Lucas, you were implying JK wears his religious beliefs on his shoulder. And that annoys you.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Guilty as charged
    As to
    But I doubt the fact that David Diskin wears his atheist beliefs on his shoulder annoys you at all.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Again, Guilty as charged

    However, most people including atheists annoy me for a different reason. Most people do not get the difference between knowing and believing. Just being alive is a miracle and gift that no one can explain with certainty. On the knowing level we just do not know for sure what will happen when we die or what the real purpose of life is. On the knowing level we are all agnostics.
    On the believing level there are a myriad of explanations almost all of them by logical thought must be untrue. Think of it like this. If you have 1000 religions that give a different set of directions to get into heaven what do we know? 999 of them must be wrong and just maybe all of them which is the atheist belief.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 1:35 pm on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1182

    Obviously you are now showing the dark side of the bumper sticker. Religious zeal is a concern when anger managment needs are also evident. What happened to dust off your feet and move on. BTW who's David Diskin? What do you care what atheists believe? Why are you so anxious to create confrontation in defending charity.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 9:14 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    Ms. Bobbin,

    So those student's claims are gospel to you? And you don't think these students grossly misinterpreted what the Ryan Budget is? And, of course the universal concept of charity is not ALWAYS religious based. So, you really didn't reply to what I said.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 9:00 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4308

    This must be based on a VERY superficial reading of Jerome Kinderman's comments in relation to his religious convictions.

    He has always stated that Jesus Christ is intolerant of everything of which HE is intolerant.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:55 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4308

    Duh....no cable news in Arizona, Mr. Docktor?

    Paul Ryan went to Georgetown University last week to expound on the fact that his budget was based on his "understanding" of Catholic teaching. The FUNNY part was that he was met by protests from the university's faculty and students who claimed that "his understanding" was nothing like actual Catholic teaching since his budget takes from the poor and gives to the rich.

    And no, I wouldn't be "screaming at the top of (my) lungs" just because a politician equated proposed public policy with the universal concept of charity, which is not a concept owned by religious organizations.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:36 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    Many atheists would rather it not be the case that the system of values our government is based on comes from Judeo-Christianity.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:28 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    Mr. Lucas wrote:

    One last thing. Just because I do not wear my religious beliefs on my shoulder does not mean I do not have them. I like to think they influence the the ideas I have and the
    way I live my life

    -Yes, Mr. Lucas, you were implying JK wears his religious beliefs on his shoulder. And that annoys you. But I doubt the fact that David Diskin wears his atheist beliefs on his shoulder annoys you at all.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:18 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    Ms. Bobbin wrote

    Also relative to Mr. Kinderman's comments, it is interesting to note that many Catholic scholars have declared that the "Ryan Budget," put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan, who claims that it is built upon his "understanding" of his Catholic faith, is completely devoid of a large portion of true Catholic teaching.

    -Chuckle,

    Had the Ryan Budget had some mention of his Catholic Faith then Ms. Bobbin would be screaming at the top of her lungs Paul Ryan is attempting to put forth policies with a religious spin in a secular government.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:13 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    I can just about be certain there aren't many people who would want to have anything to do with someone who plasters this type of bumper sticker on their car But Mr. Lucas doesn't think this bumper sticker sends the wrong message.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:59 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    One more little trinket fro you Mr. Lucas. The First Amendment also prevents the disestablishment of religion. Whether you care or not, there are people who have an agenda to disestablish religion. I'm not too sure I can conclude David Diskin and his followers don't have theses motivations.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:48 am on Tue, May 8, 2012.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2742

    Ms. Bobbin wrote:

    Jerome Kinderman seems to have a the view that Jesus Christ, rather than being the loving and accepting Son of God, is judgmental and intolerant.

    -We can always count on Ms. Bobbin for her intellectual dishonesties. Rather than saying JK most certainly believes the Son of God is loving, accepting, is judgemental
    and can be intolerant, she goes on to twist it just enough with the full intention of disparaging JK. We thank you Ms. Bobbin for living up to your reputation.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 6:37 pm on Mon, May 7, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4308

    Also relative to Mr. Kinderman's comments, it is interesting to note that many Catholic scholars have declared that the "Ryan Budget," put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan, who claims that it is built upon his "understanding" of his Catholic faith, is completely devoid of a large portion of true Catholic teaching.

    Interesting that ALL of religion and religious ideas are dependent upon the individual's interpretation. Jerome Kinderman seems to have a the view that Jesus Christ, rather than being the loving and accepting Son of God, is judgmental and intolerant.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 6:21 pm on Mon, May 7, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4308

    If you don't understand, Mr. Kinderman, then perhaps YOU should stop adding to the "hatred and vitriol." As a self-proclaimed believer in Jesus Christ, maybe you should begin adhering to his teachings rather than declaring that "liberalism is a disease."

    Hypocrite!

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 3:47 pm on Mon, May 7, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1182

    JK
    Geez lighten up
    Really nice letter but...
    Where does it say you can't practice your faith?
    Where is the vitriol and hatred?
    Please ake the last line as a bit of levity it intended. Since we had some discussion of sharia law recently you may find the humor. I found no disrespect for any religion..
    By the way I think the supreme court building is safe.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:08 pm on Mon, May 7, 2012.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I sincerely sorry that you took the last sentence as a shot at you. As you know they only give 250 words and sometimes one's meaning is not as understood as it was meant. There are Religious zealots of all persuasions who will commit all sorts of crimes against humanity such as what happened on 9-11. History is replete with Christians, Jews, Muslims and and every other Religion doing the same thing. Those are the people I was talking about and in know way did I mean you or any other religious person who follows the tenets of their belief peacefully. Again sorry I did not communicate as well as I should have.

    As to the other points in your post I will leave them to another day except for the point about vitriol and hatred. it seems to me that both sides of argument sometimes view a difference of opinion as a personal attack. This happens when people confuse their beliefs with who they really are.

    One last thing. Just because I do not wear my religious beliefs on my shoulder does not mean I do not have them. I like to think they influence the the ideas I have and the
    way I live my life

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 12:02 pm on Mon, May 7, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    I agree with the other contributors that this letter is well-researched and well written. I had no problem with it right up to the last sentence where for whatever reason(s) the author found it necessary to stick it to those of us who choose to believe in a higher power.

    Was that really necessary in order to further the correct assertion that the government should not be able to force us to belong to some state-sanctioned church? Why not at least respect those who only wish to achieve our own brand of Life, Liberty and Pursuits of Happiness?

    Liberals talk a good game with their notion of inclusiveness and fairness. But where they diverge is when it comes to those who simply disagree with them. The First Amendment is the simplest addition to our Constitution - but over the years it's morphed to such a degree that even the mention of God within any public building or at any public gathering is taboo. This was not the Founder's intent. I'm waiting for the sad day when all of those figures adorning the U.S. Supreme Court building will be removed. After all, even though Mohammed and Moses are among the characters, Satan is missing. I suppose those who worship him will one day demand that either it be included or the rest should be obliterated.

    Whatever happened to just agreeing to disagree without all of the vitriol and hatred? I really don't understand.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:34 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4308

    Great letter, Mr. Lucas. Good for you that the LNS has the sense to print something intelligent as opposed to the usual tripe a la Jerry Osgood with his made-up garbage.

    I am still incensed that the National Day of Prayer was co-opted by the religious right to make political statements, and at the All Veterans Plaza to boot. I am sure there are many veterans who would be turning over in their graves if they knew the shenanigans these right-wingnuts were up to on a piece of ground meant to honor men and women who served, fought, and died to uphold our Constitution.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 11:28 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1182

    Excellant letter.Thanks

     
  • David Diskin posted at 9:58 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.

    David Diskin Posts: 175

    Wonderfully written, John.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:20 am on Mon, May 7, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1342

    Good info John, thanks.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 19 hours ago by Joe Baxter.

article: Letter: Pastor Frank Nolton forgets abo…

Fighting for "civil rights". Who defines civil rights? It is clear the LGBT isn't stopping at "civil rights", they are …

More...

Posted 21 hours ago by Brian Dockter.

article: Letter: Obamacare is not the program pr…

And of course it's not a matter of plagiarizing. It's what's plagiarized. Right, Ms. Bobbin?

More...

Posted 21 hours ago by Brian Dockter.

article: Letter: Obamacare is not the program pr…

Chuckle, Had the letter been plagiarism and thus citing the positive attributes of Obamacare, we wouldn't have heard a peep of criticism f…

More...

Posted Yesterday by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Pastor Frank Nolton forgets abo…

Well said, Mr Heuer. Your line about is it a woman or a man made me think of the song "Turn the Page." That'd be the perfect t…

More...

Posted Yesterday by Christina Welch.

article: San Joaquin County supervisors approve …

You are a good man, Walter.... Quack on, baby!! [beam]

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Should graduations return to the Grape Bowl?

Lodi Unified leaders are moving Lodi and Tokay high school graduations from the Grape Bowl to the Spanos Center at UOP in Stockton. They cite limited seating, costs and unpredictable weather at the Grape Bowl. But others say graduations at the Grape Bowl are an important Lodi tradition, and one reason many supported renovating the stadium. What do you think?

Total Votes: 100

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists