I recently had an email exchange with Dr. Gil Shapiro, a Tucson podiatrist and political activist who advocates “secularizing” all officials who hold public office, including elective office. He certainly doesn’t oppose the Constitution’s right to freedom OF religion, but he wants to take it a step further and guarantee freedom FROM religion.
I repeatedly offered many examples of how his advocacy was unconstitutional, but he remained undeterred. I finally was able to pin him down with the following exchange.
Me: “You completely glossed over my criticism of your advocacy to secularize public and elective office, which is both an impossible and unconstitutional task, by saying “common sense” and “understanding and respecting their job description” will do the trick in secularizing public service. What the heck does that mean? Who defines common sense? Who decides what their job description is?”
Dr. Shapiro: “Our federal and state Constitutions are godless (secular) documents and therefore the basis and framework for our nation’s laws and policies. Elected office must be held by those who agree their professional lives (as opposed to their personal lives) must be ‘secularized.’ ”
Me: “I strongly suspect that strong-willed politicians who wear their religious faith on their sleeves and would outright refuse to adhere to any of your secular litmus tests, such as Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum, would thus be ineligible to even run for, much less hold, public office. Am I right?”
Dr. Shapiro: “You’re right.”
Me: “And that’s where your view of a secular government comes unraveled. You’re trying to build a brick wall between people of strong and unrepentant religious faith and their possible service in government. That, sir, is a fool’s errand.”
Dr. Shapiro: “You put your finger on the problem. The people referenced want to Christianize our society and appear to not understand how that goal is improper and unconstitutional. They should neither run for nor hold public office.”
(Me, after I read his responses: “Yikes.”)
Podiatrists are quacks. And hacks, don’t ever let one do surgery on you, or else you’ll be crippled for life.
And this one in particular sounds insane. Part of freedom is believing in God, or Buddha, or whatever you want. It sounds like yet another ploy by godless freaks, demons, and the evil that runs this country to take away freedom. This country was founded by European white males that believed in God. When you no longer have any morals or ethics, than anything is permissible, and you have the degenerate parasitic corrupt country we have today. This jackass needs to go to a communist country, where religion is banned and he can have his secular government. What the fuck is wrong with people these days?
AWD
Dr. Shapiro is a staunch atheist. He just might be comfortable in a country that banned religion.
I see where he’s trying to go with this, but it’s weak argument.
And his statement that our Constitution is a “secular” document ( I do agree with that) is also irrelevant to his argument.
Our founding fathers came from a “Christian” background, I think we can all agree on that. What THEY agreed on is that government has no right to dictate an individual’s right to worship how they see fit (or worship not at all).
The problem comes into play when elected officials or those running for office attempt to utilize their belief system to garner votes.
Because we have made things like marriage, abortion, drugs, alcohol, and death-with-dignity a political agenda rather than what it is ( a personal decision) these politicians now use their stance on these personal issues as a way to get votes.
But what it really comes down to is a TAX issue. Alcohol and cigarettes have a “sin” tax. Abortion is provided to some on a free basis paid for by tax dollars. If you take the tax out of the situation, there is ZERO reason for reasonable people to complain. There will always be the zealots who will feel it is their right to force their belief system on others, that will never change.
Government is actually for a very, very limited purpose, at least it was supposed to be. Protecting our borders, a sound currency, and maintaining an infrastructure.
That all changed when politicians realized that people could be made to feel angry, or sad, or guilty about certain behaviors of others or past others and thus tax it or pay for it (entitlements) so that campaign promises could be made and votes gotten.
Wanting to hold office and change things for the greater good can, in fact, be motivated by what some would say are “christian” values. This is not a bad thing in and of itself.
But getting and keeping votes based on a platform of moralistic changes is not government, especially when taxing others who may or may not hold your views is the main way of paying for it.
Dr. Gil Shapiro, a podiatrist.
Hmmm, how about a little analysis of these facts….
First, he’s Jewish, and probably wants the christian goyim destroyed and/or neutered. He’s scared of the religious right, whom he considers to be terrorists.
Second, he’s a podiatrist, this means he’s an idiot and a failure. Anybody that is incapable of getting into medical school becomes a podiatrist or a chiropractor. Considering he is Jewish, he must have been a pretty bad failure in school to end up as a podiatrist. Among his own kind, he would be laughed at and ridiculed since he’s not a real doctor, but a bunion jockey.
People that are anti-faith want nothing but anarchy and the downfall of this country. This is the game plan of the democrats: a godless bankrupt country, socialist and communist, the state in control of every thought and action. Freedom only to obey the state, dependency on the government. These people have to be stopped at any cost.
An atheist tattoo artist
[img
[/img]
There’s nothing worse than somebody raised Jewish (or Christian, or Muslim) that becomes disgruntled and becomes an atheist.
Somewhere in the back of their festering brain remains their religious upbringing….
[img
[/img]
“Our federal and state Constitutions are godless (secular) documents and therefore the basis and framework for our nation’s laws and policies.” —– SSS’s dickhead foot doctor
Technically, Dickhead foot-doctor is correct. Save for the word “creator” there is no reference to God in the constitution.
Sooo ….. Dr. Dickhead wants us to think that the Founding Fathers just made shit up, irrespective of their education, life experience, beliefs and convictions?? What a crock of Menorah Shit. From a valid premise, Dr. Dickhead comes to a totally erroneous conclusion. AWD noted that the guy is a Joo, and so really, why the fuck should we listen to a Joo when it comes to religion?
There is ZERO doubt most of the Founding Fathers held deep religious beliefs. I don’t give a rats-ass about which version of Christianity, desists, theists, etc. That’s minutiae to me. The Big Picture is that these men mostly believed in a Higher Power …. and the belief in this Higher Power greatly INFLUENCED how and what went into the Constitution.
You don’t have to believe me. But, you do have to believe them;
—————————————————————————————
“I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government”
—– George Washington, 1783 in a letter to the governors of the states on disbanding the army.
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
—–Thomas Jefferson, 1781, Notes on the State of Virginia.
“Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government. ….. We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
—–James Madison, 1778, to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia
“Here is my Creed. I believe in on God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel”
—– Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional Convention
“The Christian religion is above all the Religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and Humanity. The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.”
—— John Adams, in his letters to Thomas Jefferson
Why Dr. Dickhead went into podiatry ….
[/img]
[img
“People that are anti-faith want nothing but anarchy and the downfall of this country.” AWD
I would have to disagree with you there.
I do not believe in Unicorns or Bigfoot but that doesn’t mean I’m “anti-unicorn or anti-Bigfoot”. It is a common misconception the believers have towards those that disagree with them. After all, how can I be opposed to something that doesn’t exist?
Anyway, what I am opposed to is people legislating based on their beliefs. Frankly, I do not care one bit what anyone thinks with regards to the creation of the Universe but if you want to legislate based on what some goat hearders that didn’t know where the sun went at night thought then I’m going to take up arms to protect myself from that foolishness.
Keep that crap at home where it belongs.
“Keep that crap at home where it belongs.”
—-NickelthrowR
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe by “that crap,” you meant religion. That may your ideal, but it’s not the way American politics works.
I came at Dr. Shapiro strictly from a constitutional viewpoint and never once referred to my personal religious preferences. You simply CANNOT make someone keep their mouths shut about religion just because they either seek or hold public office. It’s called freedom of speech, and any attempt to shut them up, or stifle themselves, is flat-out unconstitutional.
What you CAN do is vote against them and/or work in opposition to their campaign for office. He didn’t accept that argument and finally admitted that he would impose standards to limit what public office holders MUST do, ie. check their religion at the door at all times in office. Then he finally admitted that certain people such as Michele Bachmann COULD NOT hold public office simply because of their outspoken views on Christian values and their religious beliefs.
Once he said that, our discussion was over. I thanked him for the lively exchange and ended the conversation.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I LOVE the Wild West nature of American politics. Blood all over, just like TBP. And it only exists because the Constitution permits it to exist.
T4C
I could care less about Putin’s alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church.
Our Constitution specifically ordered governments, all governments from federal to local, to stay out of religion. It did NOT order religion to stay out of governments. I’m good with that.
“There isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.”
————- Batshitcrazy Bachman
The PROBLEM with electing batshitcrazy Christians (like, Bachman) — I’m OK with nominal Christians — is that they WILL bring their Christian beliefs into office, and they WILL enact laws, or attempt to, that reflect their Christian beliefs. Book it, Danno.
One quick and easy example. Unequivocal support for Israel. Batshitcrazy Bachman and her ilk (Fuckabee, Romney, etc.) will support Israel NO MATTER WHAT, even if it’s unconstitutional or against America’s interest to do so.
In that aspect, Dickhead Podiatrist is correct regarding the end result …. such people should NEVER be elected. However, he is incorrect in his means …. preventing them from running in the first place. Why? Americans deserve whatever stupidfuks they want.
Secular governments have been the biggest mass murderers on this planet .They all based their beliefs and rationalized their murder on the lie of evolution.*Whether it was the Nazi’s or the Marxist throughout history have been killing machines.These people want to ban Christianity period .They don’t ever say another word about any other religion.They hate Christians and Christianity because they hate Christ.I have talked to enough of these people to know what’s really motivating them.Show me a man who hates Christ and that man will hate you.These godliness secular atheists have never been in positions of power until the last generation and now you are beginning to see the results.
Stucky
There is a huge difference in saying people like Michele Bachmann COULD NOT hold public office (Dr. Shapiro) than saying she SHOULD NOT be elected (you). Huge. One is an outright ban, the other is, well, just sharp disagreement.
“Secular governments have been the biggest mass murderers on this planet.”
—-bb
Agree. I purposely didn’t point that out to Dr. Shapiro because that would have been an opening for him to start ranting about shit like the Crusades. Fact is, the body count of secular atheists like Lenin, Stalin, the agnostic Hitler (who tolerated most religions except Judaism), Mao, and Pol Pot is staggering. I just didn’t want the conversation to wander away from the Constitution.
“Secular governments have been the biggest mass murderers on this planet ” ——— bb brains
Good Grief! Not that tired ass argument …….. AGAIN. Prior to some modern day era — perhaps the Enlightenment — pretty much most governments were religion based or influenced. (I am not limiting it to Christianity).
Do I need to list the myriad wars and deaths done in the name of some religion? And please don’t quote statistics about 20 million killed by that atheist, Stalin, or whatever. He had access to Modern Day Death Machines. If the Spartans had access to nukes they probably would have nuked the Persians. It’s the PRINCIPLE that matters, not raw numbers for reasons stated, and that is; mankind kills mankind, and religion is ancillary. Mankind is red in tooth and claw, religion hardly changes that.
If religion produces peace, why is the most Christian nation of all carrying the world’s largest nuclear stockpile? And why would a Christian nation nuke two cites with zero military value? Go ahead and try to your damnedest to rationalize that shit. I need a good laugh.
Since we’re going all religious, let me enlighten everyone here.
I live in S. California. As a matter of fact, Scientology is one of the more popular religions here to include their Cathedral which is just a few blocks from my daughter’s home. If you wish to work in the “industry” that I work in, you may need to join the flock.
Scientologists are all around me and it is conceivable that they will, at some point, acquire political power.
Now, I’m guessing that most of the people here at TBP would not want to be governed by people that believed that they are possessed by the ghosts of hydrogen-bombed space aliens. I bet that most of you find the Scientologists to be nothing but absurd exhibitionists. But, if you were here, an opinion like that would place you in the minority.
Just like you do not wish to be governed by such lunacy, I do not wish to be governed by the lunacy of Islam, Judaism or Christianity. Whether you believe in Scientology or in the cannibalistic rituals of Christianity, the best thing to do is to keep it at home.
I am surprised, thus far, how a libertarian-oriented site such as this, could attract any anti-religious comments to this post.
The Constitution protects EVERONE’S religious beliefs, or lack thereof, including those who wish to take their beliefs into the political marketplace.
What is so difficult to understand about that? What am I missing?
“The Constitution protects EVERONE’S religious beliefs, ….. What is so difficult to understand about that?” —————- SSS
One believes Israel is truly “God’s Chosen” and that those who bless Israel will be blessed in return. OK, fine.
One forms Foreign Policy based on that belief. NOT OK!!!!
What’s so difficult to understand about that?
SSS
Also, I think you’re bordering on hypocrisy.
What about those Indian Tribes, and other religious folk, who believe smoking pot is OK … even use it in their rituals.
I’m guessing your religious tolerance would be tossed out the window.
How about some of you holy religious folk answer the “nuke” question instead of merely voting down? Chicken-shit cowards,
Stucky says:
“The PROBLEM with electing batshitcrazy Christians…is that they WILL bring their Christian beliefs into office,”
Recall an officer complaining that Carter wanted to cancel the B-1because he had a dream that he would start WW3 if he built it.
Stucky says:
“How about some of you holy religious folk answer the “nuke” question instead of merely voting down?”
It was Truman’s fault, the original TBPer took a little shitfest nuclear.
Stucky says…………………………….
“The PROBLEM with electing batshitcrazy Christians (like, Bachman) — I’m OK with nominal Christians — is that they WILL bring their Christian beliefs into office, and they WILL enact laws, or attempt to, that reflect their Christian beliefs.
Jackson says………………………..
Right on Stucky! True Believers of any persuasion, and batshitcrazy Christians fall into that category, will let their basic beliefs trump what should be their good judgment for their constituents.
Stucky says………………………….
“Do I need to list the myriad wars and deaths done in the name of some religion? and,
“And why would a Christian nation nuke two cites with zero military value?”
Jackson says………………………
Good points again. Ethical religions have high ideals for their believerts. But too often a religion’s adherents forget their ideals and feel that giving lip service to their faith’s shibboleths justifies their emotional behavior.
Good comment. Stucky. This one had me thinking almost as much as much as your Pattern Recogniton had my mind turning. Keep up the provocative thoughts.
Stucky
Jumping off into discussions about Indian tribes and smoking pot is just so goddamned stupid as to be beyond stupid. The issue I presented is whether or not an OVERTLY religious person can run and hold public office in this country. I say emphatically yes.
But you come up with a hypothetical “pot smoking Indian” scenario who runs for public office because it is part of his religious heritage and have the outrageous inference that I would exclude this person from the American body politic. I would not.
You are slowly sinking into an irrational assault on the Constitution, as are a few others on this thread. Pity. I thought better of you.
NickelthroweR says:
“I live in S. California. As a matter of fact, Scientology is one of the more popular religions here..”
Respectfully, BS, they are nuts and take religious mind control techniques to a whole new level, even putting you on a sort of lie detector to make sure your with the program. they borrow from LDS the idea that ron hubbard can release you from hell just as joseph smith can. they also emphasize tithing, they may not call it that, though.
I believe Germany put the kibosh on them.
Nick, do you not know cultural Marxism is a religion ?Liberalism is a religion ?
Stucky ,those two.nukes saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people .,It ended the war.
“You are slowly sinking into an irrational assault on the Constitution” ———— SSS
Well, that’s just NUTS. You’re smoking pot again, aren’t you? The fact of the matter is that I AGREE with you! Or, did you miss that? I guess you missed all the quotes I submitted by Founding Fathers showing that religion is intertwined with the Constitution. I guess you missed where I said — “he (
Dickhead Podiatrist) is incorrect in his means …. preventing them from running in the first place.” I guess you see what you want to see.
There is nothing “goddamned stupid” about the Indian /pot question. Lemme spell it out;
—– You are anti-pot (stop denying it)
—– You are pro-religion in politics.
—– Certainly, a LOGICAL question can be posed, “What do you do when these two options are combined as one?” Do you become pro-pot, anti-religion in politics, or compromise? Well, you compromised by suddenly being pro-pot. Thanks for answering my goddamned stupid question.
” .. those two.nukes saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. It ended the war.” —-bb
That’s a popular explanation, but not a universal one. There are legitimate historians who say the war would have ended anyway soon, and that the “hundreds of thousands” of dead people is exaggerated.
Nevertheless, assuming you are correct, you have another moral dilemma. Those two cities were of no military value. Where is the moral justification for the death and injury of hundreds of thousands of civilians? I guess dead Japs don’t compare to dead Yanks?