Originally posted by Only-now No, it IS a matter of that. That is what I am talking about...and your differentiation between that, and "unfairness" is wrong. Your argument is PART of the movement I am describing. I believe you are misunderstanding my argument here. We are discussing Christianity...as the religion in question. I am saying, that I believe that attacking Christianity on the basis that it is unfairly represented in public etc is wrong. I am not stating that there is a major movement of people dedicated to irradicating all religious expression. I am stating, that there is a group of people in this country that are intent on lessening the public representation of Christianity based on political correctness, political motives, or an all out dislike of religion (Christianity is the largest target). So, your argument that you believe it is represented unfairly is precisely what I am talking about.
It IS represented unfairly in many circumstances. And the fact that you're not just complaining about this movement, but actually arguing this country is not religious -enough- already suggests to me that what you'd really like is for this to be a Christian nation with a government sanctioned religion.

Apparently you believe this is a discussion about atheists and Christians? I am talking about THOSE people...the people who DO react that way. I am not saying that all atheists hold this point of view. I didn't even mention atheism. The Democratic Party supports the views of the people I am against. The ACLU does as well. Those are not miniscule, minority groups...they are major groups with a lot of influence. If your view is right..that most atheists are upset about Christianity being displayed above others...then the majority of atheists support the measures I am arguing against.
If you're going to discuss "people who are frustrated with the over representation of religion" you are typically discussing atheists. Obviously people of other religious faiths are also probably annoyed at the over representation of one religion but it depends on whether we're discussing religion or Christianity. You keep jumping back and forth. Do you think America is not -religious- enough or not -Christian- enough? The latter would be even more absurd than the former. And the democratic party as a whole, as in every single democrat, is not out to suppress religion. Many democrats ARE Christian. Probably the majority of democrats are Christian or of some other religious faith. You keep generalizing and lumping groups together. I'm not a democrat, by the way, if that is at all relevant.

Before I reply about those court cases, I shall look them up and read more about them. Can you give me the title of the one about the 12 year old, so I can look it up as well?
I don't know the precise title of the court case but I can get you the boy's name later. The book I read the account in is at my apartment and I'm in class at the moment.

To reply about what I did read on that case of the drugs. The claim by that church was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They did not claim they needed it to "understand God". It was used in a tea during a ritual that was essential to that churches beliefs. I am not stating that I agree with the ruling, but I am painting the picture that they did have a legal reason to challenge this. They are also not a major Christian sect...as they are part of a small group from Brazil, so this type of ruling is very rare.
But see, the very fact that a church CAN get such a ruling and be exempt from a regular law is precisely why I feel this country is too focused on religion to the point where they often consider it untouchable. You said yourself that you disagree with the ruling, yet you're arguing for this kind of unequal "religious freedom?"

As for evolution being brought up....well, it still seems to hold out in every school, in every state, and in every college. I don't think YOU need to worry about a threat to that pseudoscientific theory anytime soon. Any mention of it usually does not assert that there need to be mention of God. Most of the time it is simply that they state it is not supported well, which IS the case.
Yes, it holds out and usually wins the court cases because of its scientific validity. Anyone who actually understands evolution to a thorough degree realizes this and realizes that Creationism and ID, regardless of how fervently people might "believe," are -not- science. Their conclusions were not developed based on the scientific method and their conclusions contradict with observable fact. They're trying to make the facts fit their theories as opposed to developing theories that fit the facts. That's not the way science works. They're the psuedoscience, not evolution and it's a little sad that you keep insisting on belittling and dismissing it when you can't even argue against it. This is precisely the reason evolution wins these cases. You can't just -make- something wrong because you want it to be wrong. You actually have to back up your opinion with valid scientific and logical reasoning which Creationists and ID proponents fail at doing.

Evolution is incredibly well-supported and if you're so convinced it's not, then I'd like to see you back that up. Go ahead and start a new thread explaining what you feel are the flaws in evolution and then we'll see if you have any validity in making that claim. But don't make claims you can't back up.

Have you read the rulings of these court cases? I've never seen a single one which includes the qualifier "not-well-supported." The rulings generally state something along the lines of: Creationism and ID have no footing in this debate. They don't belong in a science classroom because they're not science, whereas evolution is and is extremely well-supported.

Sure thing, I am about to leave for work..but I will look some up, and get some from the book I was just reading. I stated that I understood the definition...and being as it is...there IS no state sponsored religion. However, "seperation of church and state" is cited numerous times when religion comes into contact with school, as if any connection or mention will result in Christianity being the state sponsored religion.
Trying to include religious beliefs in non-religious classroom subjects is a violation of separation of church and state.

People bash Christians ALL the time, and it is applauded by the left, and even perpetuated by them. They perpertuate the idea that every stance that Christians take..no matter the facts is because they are a religious "zealot". You disagree with evolution?! You must believe in God and think the world is flat!
Again with the generalizations. I have rather liberal views and I don't "bash Christians all the time." Nor do I applaud Christian-bashing. And most of my liberal friends are extremely tolerant of religion, or religious themselves. Do you assume there's no such thing as a left-wing or liberal Christian?

What I don't like is fundamentalists, or anyone who feels religion should play a bigger role in -everyone's- lives whether everyone wants that or not. I also get frustrated by people who are determined to ignore accepted science because they're buying into fundamentalist propaganda.

I don't see where you get this idea that atheists are "bashed" all the time. They are criticized..sure...but that is allowed from anyone, on any subject. I notice you said "extremely religious people". Well, it sort of makes sense that those people would react more harshly to you. Now..I highly doubt that if someone who was devoutly Christian asked you "do you believe in God" and you said "no" they would start "bashing" you. That isn't what their religion teaches...and anytime I have answered that question that same way..their next response is "why not?". I don't believe that most moderate Christians would react that way either.
I'm not saying that all Christians bash atheists or that any time any atheist mentions their beliefs, they're attacked for them. My point was that you're complaining about oppression of religion in a primarily Christian country. My point was that if you see Christian bashing in this country, can you imagine what it's like for atheists and other minority beliefs? My point was that it's absurd for you to whine about how Christians are the victims in this country when they make up the -majority-.

You might as well be saying this country isn't "white" enough and there's too much "white oppression" in America.

Yes there are other religious beliefs here. Yes there is bashing of Christianity that occurs. But compared to every other belief system in this country, Christians have it great. And now that other religions are starting to ask why they can't get the same kind of representation, or ask that Christianity be more on level with other beliefs, people are upset because no one likes to have power or comfort taken away from them once they have it.

Here is that same person you mentioned, stating how the AMerican Atheists filed that same lawsuit about the pledge we were discussing that you stated most athiests don't support:

"Sherman: American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"

The answer isn't really important...obviously they didn't like it, but regardless they support the very things I am arguing against. The funny thing you also forgot to mention is that that was not our current Presdient. That was his father, George H.W Bush. Not to mention, just because he has the belief that belief in God is important to America...and thus does not support atheism, does not mean he is going to revoke the citizenship of these people. That was his personal belief...and unfortunately for you, there are others who share it. Right or wrong, it isn't important unless someone enacts a law proclaiming atheists are not citizens.
I didn't quote Sherman to say I agree with his views (although frankly it's a little silly that people are up in arms so much over God being removed from the pledge of allegiance seeing as it wasn't even in it originally anyway and if people really want to still say it with the word God, no one's stopping them) I posted that quote as an example of intolerance towards atheists because you asked for examples. My apologies on not realizing which Bush it was...they have the same name so I'm not exactly sure why it's a massively important mistake. My point stands regardless which president said it (especially since Bush father and son tend to share similar views from what I've heard them say on various issues). The point is, if anyone dared say that about a Christian, people would be up in arms. But an atheist? Most people don't care. You yourself didn't seem shocked by it or even seem to consider it a problem, or at least you certainly didn't comment on it. You actually seemed to be agreeing with him. Do you believe atheists don't deserve to be considered citizens? Do you believe that's the sort of thing a president of our country should be saying about a group of people based solely on their religious (or lack thereof) beliefs?