‘God Is Surely Moving in This Nation’: Christian Musicians Worship Jesus at the White House

They should be the time learning logic and science rather they deluding themselves with bronze-age mythology and crappy music. 

I think their faith, education, how they spend their time , or what music they listen to really isn't any of your business.

I think their faith, education, how they spend their time , or what music they listen to really isn't any of your business.

It most definitely becomes a public issue when it happens while they are working as elected representatives and is paid for by taxpayer dollars. Go to church on your own time and off the public time clock. When they are at work their duties are to be absolutely secular.   You'd be offended if they were praying to Mecca, Thor or Krishna on the Senate floor but you have no problem when they are praying to your god and promising to legislate your beliefs as public policy.  

It most definitely becomes a public issue when

No it really doesn't.

You'd be offended if they were praying to Mecca

I can't imagine why I would be offended. This is your hangup, not mine.

You make great points.  Some it seems expect Christians to be unique in having to check our free speech and free exercise rights at the door if we are part of or are participating in an event of government.  

Maybe we atheists should start legislating our non-beliefs in government and public schools, instead of just being secular? We can start by erecting 2 meter tall bronze Humanist icons in public square and teaching the Humanist motto in public schools via recitation. After they repeat the Humanist idea they will bow to Mecca and recite the Shaddah, just for religious equality

After lunch, the students will read the Bhagavadgita and the I-Ching.  

I think we should just start with blue laws....like alcohol sales on Sunday

I think we should just start with blue laws....like alcohol sales on Sunday

Abortion is between a woman and her Dr. LGBT people have absolutely equal rights to us heteros in all areas. Then we start taxing church income.

We have a lot of places to start

Then we start taxing church income.

Sure thing but we won't stop there.   We can tax other tax exempt entities like museums, art galleries, private schools and universities ..... credit unions and tax exempt public groups like the United Way ...... YMCA's , labor unions and tax exempt fraternal groups like the Shriners ...... etc, etc

Man think of all that new tax money we'll be collecting ...... we'll be cutting a fat hog in the ass!

You can't compare multi-millionaire televangelists and worldwide religious orgs' such as the Vatican to any of those other groups. 

I think their faith, education, how they spend their time , or what music they listen to really isn't any of your business.

It is when, what they spend their time on, effects me.

You can't compare

Sure i can and just did.   Because it's absolutely a reasonable comparison.   One needs to be unbiased about such things to see that.  

Having a huge chip on one shoulders towards any component of such a discussion automatically disqualifies one from having a truly unbiased viewpoint on such matters

Isn’t it interesting

Not really.   Its not an "us" vs "them" sort of thing like it appears to be for some here.

Its about not governing in a politically selective manner.   Going after one tax exempt group and not others does reek of partisan hypocrisy in that regard.

Big time!

We always knew atheism is a religion

Just like you always knew not collecting stamps was my favorite hobby and bald is my favorite hair style.

And an interesting fact, there are as many hobby stores catering to not-collecting stamps as there are atheist Churches.

Didn't I basically say get rid of all blue laws?

Oh, please, come down from that cross...we need the wood!

I never had a hero who was nailed to a cross.......

I never had a hero who was nailed to a cross.......

I'm sure, much like his favorite President, HA believes Jesus is only a hero because he was captured, he prefers heroes who weren't captured and killed.

Government Blue laws have no legitimate place or purpose as they favor some beliefs over other beliefs.

yet.. many states have those Blue Laws ... isn't that interesting ?

en.wikipedia

but we know it's ok because.... well... God , right ?

Actually, for the record, as a believer in a degree of separation of church and state, I oppose all blue laws.

i agree with you on this particular comment  

Government coordinating how it more efficiently dispenses aid during and after a disaster or more efficiently helps the poor and the homeless by involving charities that are run by faith based organizations affects you?  

Taxpayer money should not be given to faith-based orgs because their support isn't always equal among all people.  They tend to benefit demographics of their own religion and that isn't equal.   Faith-based groups should disperse money and aid raised by their religious believers. 

as a believer in a degree of separation of church and state, I oppose all blue laws

How much rat poop should be allowed in ground beef? What degree of separation between the latrine and drinking fountain is a "good degree" of separation? Like, barely touching? One sort of spooning the other? While I applaud you for opposing all blue laws, I question your need for the word "degree" in that statement. Secular government and laws governing all Americans should be completely free from any religious influence. I want zero degrees of rat poop in my burgers, thank you very much.

as a believer in a degree of separation of church and state, I oppose all blue laws.  

What exactly is a "degree?" Separation of church and state should be absolute! And I oppose blue laws too.

Their church can play in  secular law but the state cannot regulate any religion or prohibit them from trampling the rights of others. "A degree of separation" a conservative euphemism for a theocracy of their religion. All other religions and non-believers have the religious freedom to worship as conservative Christians choose.

All other religions and non-believers have the religious freedom to worship as conservative Christians choose.

I actually had someone tell me that once, to the effect that Christians allow other religions and beliefs here.

I actually had someone tell me that once, to the effect that Christians allow other religions and beliefs here.

It is a common belief among a few of the religious crazies. They seem to think that one of their religious rights is to decide what the religious and secular rights of others are. 

Antonin Scalia didn't believe that there was a separation of church and state. His interpretation of the Establishment Clause should have been sufficient to deny him a seat on the federal bench. 

It is a common belief among a few of the religious crazies. They seem to think that one of their religious rights is to decide what the religious and secular rights of others are. 

Or they think their religion deserves special status or privileges.

Antonin Scalia didn't believe that there was a separation of church and state. His interpretation of the Establishment Clause should have been sufficient to deny him a seat on the federal bench.

Indeed. Not one of our better SCOTUS Justices.

Or they think their religion deserves special status or privileges.

This is exactly why we have the strict separation of church and state, so as to keep all religions equal in the eyes of the law, despite their political/social power or the number of members in the population.

In the latest in a long line of bigoted diatribes against democracy and equality, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia declared Saturday, in remarks at a Catholic school in Louisiana, that there was no constitutional barrier to the US government discriminating in favor of religious believers against non-believers.

Scalia was speaking at Archbishop Rummel High School in the New Orleans suburb of Metairie. He rejected claims that the First Amendment requires the government to be neutral between religion and non-religion. “To tell you the truth, there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition,” he said. “Where did that come from?”

The First Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and the state of Virginia’s declaration of religious freedom, described the First Amendment as establishing a “wall of separation” between church and state. That constitutional tradition was reaffirmed in such decisions as Everson vs. Board of Education (1947), when Justice Hugo Black wrote in his opinion, “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”

Scalia adheres to a very different theory. He told his audience in Louisiana, “To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another, but [you] can’t favor religion over non-religion?” On other occasions, he has specified Judeo-Christian religions, in particular, as legitimate objects of government support, provided no one sect is preferred.

In his remarks in Louisiana, Scalia elaborated a remarkable theory of American history: the United States won wars, and even specific battles, because of divine favor, a payoff from the divinity for lip service from American politicians.

"God has been very good to us,” Scalia said. “That we won the revolution was extraordinary. The Battle of Midway was extraordinary. I think one of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor. Unlike the other countries of the world that do not even invoke his name, we do him honor. In presidential addresses, in Thanksgiving proclamations and in many other ways.”

Scalia actually made a labored linguistic argument (too abstruse and indirect to detail here), tracing the separation of church and state back to words “spoken by a serpent, addressing a woman named Eve.” In other words, Jefferson’s “wall of separation” is really the spawn of Satan!

The Supreme Court justice claimed that the interpretation of the First Amendment to bar government support for religious institutions dates back only to the 1960s. Without acknowledging his real target, Scalia, an ultra-right Catholic, was aiming his fire at another Catholic, President John F. Kennedy, who made perhaps the most famous and categorical affirmation of the separation of church and state during his 1960 presidential campaign.

Indeed. Not one of our better SCOTUS Justices.

Scalia wasn't even a good Catholic because he died at a Texas resort on a Friday during Lent when Catholics are taught to live simply and eat subsistence meals without meat. He was a hypocrite till the very end. The fact that the resort weekend was paid for by an unknown someone suggest that he was bribed for a SCOTUS decision. 

Scalia wasn't even a good Catholic because he died at a Texas resort on a Friday during Lent when Catholics are taught to live simply and eat subsistence meals without meat.

I know not all Catholics adhere to that. It might be a Catholic denomination thing.

The fact that the resort weekend was paid for by an unknown someone suggest that he was bribed for a SCOTUS decision.

Hmm, curiouser and curiouser.

I know not all Catholics adhere to that. It might be a Catholic denomination thing.

Lent is required among all Catholics over the age of 14 and unless you have a medical/dietary problem it is a lifetime practice.  It is a common game to get a special dispensation on St Patrick's day and opening day of baseball to eat meat but I've never heard of any Catholics that get a pass on Lent otherwise. There are many old-school Latin Catholics like Scalia who still went meatless on every Friday, even outside of Lent. 

It is impossible not to pit different religions against each other because of Scalia's reading of the Establishment Clause. The fact that he puts believers over non-believers means that some religions enjoy more rights. Not all Christian religions agree, so his ruling on LGBT marriage denied some Christian sects their belief on LGBT equality. Scalia claimed to be an originalist but he commonly threw that idea out of the door when it suited him.  

Well I must say IF trump injects much religion into our government I will have underestimated him.

If he does he's more dangerous to our long term good than I thought. 

Years ago , when I was but a wee nubbin , and not even a sprout , I was told by someone that most would consider very religious , and to me was very wise, when I questioned the many different practices , that it was always best to remember the reason for the season.

Over the years I came to a conclusion that works well for me .

If a Christian friend wishes me a merry Christmas , I accept it , and say and the same to you and yours . 

If jewish friend wishes me a happy hannukah (sp) I accept it and reply and the same to you and your family.

If someone wishes me a happy Kwanza , I still say the same .

If some one wishes me a happy holidays I accept it  and repeat it to them.

 What is important I think is each of these greetings is one of well wishes , dependent on the individuals beliefs and or faiths , but in the end they are ALL well wishes from one to another, and these wishes are an expression of hope , and caring and recognition of others as people , be it comes from family , friends or complete strangers. to the one giving the greeting or saying? it may very well be the reason for the season.

Oh and the one I consider wise? was my grand mother , may she rest in peace. 

and I will excuse myself from the conversation to dig out my turkey fryer and get it ready for tomorrow , the woman is most likely rolling over , with all the time she wasted teaching me how to oven roast a perfect turkey now that I deep fry them.....

My hope is when someone gives you a greeting , you all stop and see the positive in it they are conveying and smile, a statement of well wishing and not offence.