This looks to me like the atheism we don't need.

Atheism should be a liberating way of thinking, but these people seem vindictive, like they've swapped one straitjacket for another.

Have I missed something?

Father Jordan’s Nightmare

May 20 issue column on the fight for the World Trade Center cross.

GERALD J. RUSSELLO 05/27/2012

Father Brian Jordan is finally emerging from a nightmare. For months, he had been named as a defendant in a suit brought by atheists who protested him praying before the “Trade Center Cross” after Sept. 11. The atheist group recently dropped their attack against Father Jordan — for now.

But the case continues, and it raises troubling questions about the emerging anti-religious, and specifically anti-Catholic, prejudices in American society, a prejudice only compounded by the Obama administration’s insistence on forcing Catholic institutions to violate their beliefs through the provision of health insurance for contraception services, including abortion-inducing drugs.

Read more: http://www.ncregiste.../#ixzz1wL95ytuG

My copy of the Constitution in Article I says...

"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."

The key words to me are, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Nowhere in the Constitution does it call for any freedom FROM religion.

My real question in this law suit is...How is it that 99% of the lawyers can give the rest of them such a bad name?

No, you haven't missed anything , XSH. I believe that every adult has the right, indeed the obligation, to decide what he/she believes, but does not have the right to force the consequences of that belief on others. Militant atheists these days are worse than militant Christians; they even have their own tele-atheist, Richard Dawkins. Abuse of someone else's belief is, more often than not, a covert sign of insecurity in your own belief. But of course, it is easy to believe in nothing.

The article refers to the Obama administration forcing Catholic clinics to offer abortion and contraceptive services. While I accept the need for both abortion and contraception, I also believe the Catholic Church should have the right to refuse such services, while making it clear that it does so, and why.

One of my oldest and closest friends is an atheist. We argue like billy-o... but I think it is fair to say that we are deeply fond of each other. That is how things should be.

The USA is a secular country. They are not above secular laws. If women's health legally includes services that Catholics object to, and these Catholic institutions are involved with government funding, they need to be Americans first, not Catholics first.

About the cross at the "sacred" 9-11 site, so let me ask, was it only Christians who were victimized by the terrorists? I think not. I don't think a cross belongs there.

The USA is a secular country. They are not above secular laws. If women's health legally includes services that Catholics object to, and these Catholic institutions are involved with government funding, they need to be Americans first, not Catholics first.

About the cross at the "sacred" 9-11 site, so let me ask, was it only Christians who were victimized by the terrorists? I think not. I don't think a cross belongs there.

Good point about funding.

The 'cross' at the 8-11 site was, apparently , fortuitous... and therefore it was quite reasonable for Father Jordan to pray there. If it was meaningful for him, as it obviously was, I see no reason why anyone should object; was he harming anyone else?

I would expect quite a few prayers have been uttered at the 9/11 site...in many religions.

This is one reason I ***king despise atheists. They are a waste of space, a waste of time, and a waste of taxpayer money. They think they are being clever, clogging the courts with garbage like this. Even though I'm not religious the whole 9/11 cross story is a good one. You don't have to believe in God to appreciate it. It was an iconic image of Ground Zero and anyone who tries to have it removed from a memorial for petty bS reasons ought to be ashamed of themselves and counter-sued into oblivion.

Bring it on! Just kidding. I don't really care.

The USA is a secular country. They are not above secular laws. If women's health legally includes services that Catholics object to, and these Catholic institutions are involved with government funding, they need to be Americans first, not Catholics first.

About the cross at the "sacred" 9-11 site, so let me ask, was it only Christians who were victimized by the terrorists? I think not. I don't think a cross belongs there.

Not sure about the "Americans first" idea. People have a nationality, but it normally goes together with some other individual characteristics. One may be an American, but one is also a housewife, a Presbyterian, a Red Cross volunteer, a registered Democrat, etc. What should a person discard first in order to be more fully an American?

If Catholic hospitals or pregnancy counseling centres have a faith-based objection to doing abortions or providing advice on how to obtain one, what proportion of their funding should be withdrawn from them, and how will it be calculated so that the withdrawal does not impact on other, valued services the hospital or centre provides? And what if, say, the enforced euthanasia lobby becomes powerful and Congress feels obliged to gently put to sleep unproductive people such as paraplegics and the very old? Should the cudgel of potential funding cuts be raised over the heads of objectors, and if their funds are withdrawn in whole or part, who will benefit?

Either offer everything secular institutions offer or voluntarily withdraw from all connections to the government. You choose.

Either offer everything secular institutions offer or voluntarily withdraw from all connections to the government. You choose.

How do you feel about Churches openly supporting/campaigning for one political candidate over another? Should they keep their tax exempt status?

Either offer everything secular institutions offer or voluntarily withdraw from all connections to the government. You choose.

How do you feel about Churches openly supporting/campaigning for one political candidate over another? Should they keep their tax exempt status?

I feel it is wrong. No, they should not keep that status. I also feel it is wrong that the Mormon church was the major funder of the anti-gay California proposition. Something is very rotten about all of that.

And what if, say, the enforced euthanasia lobby becomes powerful and Congress feels obliged to gently put to sleep unproductive people such as paraplegics and the very old?

Is there an 'enforced euthanasia' lobby in the USA?

Either offer everything secular institutions offer or voluntarily withdraw from all connections to the government. You choose.

How do you feel about Churches openly supporting/campaigning for one political candidate over another? Should they keep their tax exempt status?

I feel it is wrong. No, they should not keep that status. I also feel it is wrong that the Mormon church was the major funder of the anti-gay California proposition. Something is very rotten about all of that.

There is NOTHING wrong with any religious organization having a position on an issue. That's not the same as using sermons to support one candidate over another like the black churches have been doing openly for Obama or supporting one political party over the others. You'd shit a brick if the Catholic Church started slamming Obama or preaching that Democrats were the party of atheists every Sunday.

And what if, say, the enforced euthanasia lobby becomes powerful and Congress feels obliged to gently put to sleep unproductive people such as paraplegics and the very old?

Is there an 'enforced euthanasia' lobby in the USA?

No.

Either offer everything secular institutions offer or voluntarily withdraw from all connections to the government. You choose.

How do you feel about Churches openly supporting/campaigning for one political candidate over another? Should they keep their tax exempt status?

I feel it is wrong. No, they should not keep that status. I also feel it is wrong that the Mormon church was the major funder of the anti-gay California proposition. Something is very rotten about all of that.

There is NOTHING wrong with any religious organization having a position on an issue. That's not the same as using sermons to support one candidate over another like the black churches have been doing openly for Obama or supporting one political party over the others. You'd shit a brick if the Catholic Church started slamming Obama or preaching that Democrats were the party of atheists every Sunday.

I answered your question. I actually don't think religious organizations should get any tax deductions PERIOD.

And what if, say, the enforced euthanasia lobby becomes powerful and Congress feels obliged to gently put to sleep unproductive people such as paraplegics and the very old?

Is there an 'enforced euthanasia' lobby in the USA?

Not that I know of. It was just a hypothetical.

There was one in Germany in the 30s and 40s. No one stood up to it until Archbishop von Galen did in 1941.

Either offer everything secular institutions offer or voluntarily withdraw from all connections to the government. You choose.

How do you feel about Churches openly supporting/campaigning for one political candidate over another? Should they keep their tax exempt status?

No, I don't think churches should campaign for a political party... unless, of course, that party wants to abolish freedom of religion.

The Catholic Church has a large investment in schools and hospitals worldwide, and the state (whichever country you happen to be talking about) owes a great deal to those organisations. It seems reasonable that the state should respond in some way by tax relief and/or funding. But I don't think the state should give funds and say that the Church must therefore provide abortion and contraception services. there should be a certain amount of give and take, not all give, not all take.

On another point, I am happy for everybody to pray at the World Trade Centre site, Catholics, other Christian denominations, Jews, Muslims, and so on. I suspect most American Muslims would have been against the terrorists, but I question whether many, if not most, Americans would be tolerant enough to allow an Imam to pray there. I don't think most non-Americans appreciate the hurt 9/11 did to America's pride.

The cross - to their credit, Christians just picked a symbol that happens to be easier to randomly appear at the site of a collapsed building. If the beams in the wreckage had clearly formed a six-pointed star, a crescent moon or even a reclining Buddha or same-sex married couple, then I would not be against including it at a memorial. I would think it pretty cool that it happened in the first place rather than take someone to court over it.

Telling children Santa isn't real is not very cool

Punishing children for believing in Santa is cruel

Either offer everything secular institutions offer or voluntarily withdraw from all connections to the government. You choose.

How do you feel about Churches openly supporting/campaigning for one political candidate over another? Should they keep their tax exempt status?

No, I don't think churches should campaign for a political party... unless, of course, that party wants to abolish freedom of religion.

The Catholic Church has a large investment in schools and hospitals worldwide, and the state (whichever country you happen to be talking about) owes a great deal to those organisations. It seems reasonable that the state should respond in some way by tax relief and/or funding.

If any religion chooses to do charitable works then they ought to be congratulated but charity is its own reward. No religion ought to be afforded tax relief because, by definition, they are taking money from people some of whom disagree with their beliefs.

If your religion exhorts you to give money to those who are deserving then give it. Don't expect those who don't share your beliefs to subsidise you.

The Catholic Church has a large investment in schools and hospitals worldwide, and the state (whichever country you happen to be talking about) owes a great deal to those organisations. It seems reasonable that the state should respond in some way by tax relief and/or funding.

If any religion chooses to do charitable works then they ought to be congratulated but charity is its own reward. No religion ought to be afforded tax relief because, by definition, they are taking money from people some of whom disagree with their beliefs.

If your religion exhorts you to give money to those who are deserving then give it. Don't expect those who don't share your beliefs to subsidise you.

This sounds all very well in theory, but society is more integrated than that, at least in UK and US. It's not so much a question of asking for handouts, as a tit-for-tat arrangement. We don't ask if a sick person is Catholic before we treat them, nor do we turn away non-Catholic children (indeed, we welcome them!). Neither should the state say that such-and-such a hospital or school is Catholic, therefore we won't help them.

Either offer everything secular institutions offer or voluntarily withdraw from all connections to the government. You choose.

How do you feel about Churches openly supporting/campaigning for one political candidate over another? Should they keep their tax exempt status?

No, I don't think churches should campaign for a political party... unless, of course, that party wants to abolish freedom of religion.

The Catholic Church has a large investment in schools and hospitals worldwide, and the state (whichever country you happen to be talking about) owes a great deal to those organisations. It seems reasonable that the state should respond in some way by tax relief and/or funding.

If any religion chooses to do charitable works then they ought to be congratulated but charity is its own reward. No religion ought to be afforded tax relief because, by definition, they are taking money from people some of whom disagree with their beliefs.

If your religion exhorts you to give money to those who are deserving then give it. Don't expect those who don't share your beliefs to subsidise you.

Please explain how church based tax relief is taking money from people that might disagree with the theories of the church.

Please explain how church based tax relief is taking money from people that might disagree with the theories of the church.

Everyone, regardless of religious beliefs, pays taxes. Some of that money is used to give tax relief to religious institutions without regard for the beliefs of the taxpayer. Notice that I said 'religious' not 'church'. I include all religions in my belief that they shouldn't receive subsidies in any form from the State.

The Catholic Church has a large investment in schools and hospitals worldwide, and the state (whichever country you happen to be talking about) owes a great deal to those organisations. It seems reasonable that the state should respond in some way by tax relief and/or funding.

If any religion chooses to do charitable works then they ought to be congratulated but charity is its own reward. No religion ought to be afforded tax relief because, by definition, they are taking money from people some of whom disagree with their beliefs.

If your religion exhorts you to give money to those who are deserving then give it. Don't expect those who don't share your beliefs to subsidise you.

This sounds all very well in theory, but society is more integrated than that, at least in UK and US. It's not so much a question of asking for handouts, as a tit-for-tat arrangement. We don't ask if a sick person is Catholic before we treat them, nor do we turn away non-Catholic children (indeed, we welcome them!). Neither should the state say that such-and-such a hospital or school is Catholic, therefore we won't help them.

In the UK the NHS is a secular organisation that doesn't cherrypick who it treats. You walk through the door - you get treated. I'm not aware of an Catholic hospitals in the UK so I'm not really able to post any opinion.

As far as schools are concerned I'd ban all religious schools. If parents want to instill a particular faith into their children that's their business. It's no business of the State to facilitate it.

The Catholic Church has a large investment in schools and hospitals worldwide, and the state (whichever country you happen to be talking about) owes a great deal to those organisations. It seems reasonable that the state should respond in some way by tax relief and/or funding.

If any religion chooses to do charitable works then they ought to be congratulated but charity is its own reward. No religion ought to be afforded tax relief because, by definition, they are taking money from people some of whom disagree with their beliefs.

If your religion exhorts you to give money to those who are deserving then give it. Don't expect those who don't share your beliefs to subsidise you.

This sounds all very well in theory, but society is more integrated than that, at least in UK and US. It's not so much a question of asking for handouts, as a tit-for-tat arrangement. We don't ask if a sick person is Catholic before we treat them, nor do we turn away non-Catholic children (indeed, we welcome them!). Neither should the state say that such-and-such a hospital or school is Catholic, therefore we won't help them.

In the UK the NHS is a secular organisation that doesn't cherrypick who it treats. You walk through the door - you get treated. I'm not aware of an Catholic hospitals in the UK so I'm not really able to post any opinion.

As far as schools are concerned I'd ban all religious schools. If parents want to instill a particular faith into their children that's their business. It's no business of the State to facilitate it.

I haven't lived in the UK for fifty years, so I wouldn't know. There are many religious hospitals in the US, and in countries all over the world, who indeed treat anyone who walks in through the door.

On education, you would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are excellent Catholic schools in the UK (Ampleforth and Stoneyhurst come to mind), and in many countries the Catholic church has been the first and often the only provider of education. In others, other Christian groups have done the same.

As far as schools are concerned I'd ban all religious schools. If parents want to instill a particular faith into their children that's their business. It's no business of the State to facilitate it.

I wonder if the State has any business, really, in running schools.

Presumably State-approved curricula taught by State-trained teachers using State-approved textbooks and resources are not ideology-free and values-neutral.

If religious education is the business of the parents, why is not any education the business of the parents?

Would it not be better, if the State wishes to assist parents in educating their children, to either subsidize or fully fund the schools chosen by parents or provide per capita entitlements ("vouchers") that parents can transfer to the schools of their choice?

Please explain how church based tax relief is taking money from people that might disagree with the theories of the church.

Everyone, regardless of religious beliefs, pays taxes. Some of that money is used to give tax relief to religious institutions without regard for the beliefs of the taxpayer. Notice that I said 'religious' not 'church'. I include all religions in my belief that they shouldn't receive subsidies in any form from the State.

Please explain to me how tax relief for any entity, "religious" or not, suddenly becomes a subsidy.

If there is no legal obligation to pay taxes, does that magically become unearned revenue for the government and thus a subsidy?

What about the Red Cross and other non-religious charitable organizations. They also receive tax relief.

Tax relief is not a subsidy. It is merely relief from having to pay taxes.

As far as schools are concerned I'd ban all religious schools. If parents want to instill a particular faith into their children that's their business. It's no business of the State to facilitate it.

I wonder if the State has any business, really, in running schools.

Presumably State-approved curricula taught by State-trained teachers using State-approved textbooks and resources are not ideology-free and values-neutral.

If religious education is the business of the parents, why is not any education the business of the parents?

Would it not be better, if the State wishes to assist parents in educating their children, to either subsidize or fully fund the schools chosen by parents or provide per capita entitlements ("vouchers") that parents can transfer to the schools of their choice?

For some reason, the Democrats in the USA are against school vouchers. They don't want poor, inner-city kids to have the chance to go to a better school they normally couldn't afford. I'm not sure why that is because it seems like a fantastic idea.

As far as schools are concerned I'd ban all religious schools. If parents want to instill a particular faith into their children that's their business. It's no business of the State to facilitate it.

I wonder if the State has any business, really, in running schools.

Presumably State-approved curricula taught by State-trained teachers using State-approved textbooks and resources are not ideology-free and values-neutral.

If religious education is the business of the parents, why is not any education the business of the parents?

Would it not be better, if the State wishes to assist parents in educating their children, to either subsidize or fully fund the schools chosen by parents or provide per capita entitlements ("vouchers") that parents can transfer to the schools of their choice?

For some reason, the Democrats in the USA are against school vouchers. They don't want poor, inner-city kids to have the chance to go to a better school they normally couldn't afford. I'm not sure why that is because it seems like a fantastic idea.

I've never understood that either. It would seem logical if kids can be better educated by using vouchers, they should be allowed to use the opportunity.