On my first message board in 2000 I said: Self-defined liberals in the private sector are so busy defending against the Religious Right they cant see the Religious Left sneaking up on them. Recently Newt Gingrich offered this: My objection is directed at the word secular. Newt, along with thousands of others, refuse to call socialism a religion. Many refuse to admit that the forces of the secular Left are Socialist/Communists, nor will they admit that liberalism is doublespeak for socialism. I am talking about conservatives, moderates, independents, and everyone else who opposes where Socialists/Communists would take this country. If those good folks refuse to identify socialism as an organized religion there is not a chance youll hear it from Democrats and/or media liberals. Newts use of the phrase: is all the more troubling to me because since the day I got my first computer Ive read thousand of online commentaries that used similar phrases while refusing to call socialism an organized religion. I do not know if the oversight was timidity, or a failure to see socialism for what it is? By defining Socialists/Communists as secular the secular Left can continue circumventing the First Amendment without fear of a challenge to their use of tax dollars: secular (adjective) 1. Worldly rather than spiritual. 2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music. 3. Relating to or advocating secularism. 4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy. 5. Occurring or observed once in an age or a century. 6. Lasting from century to century. noun 1. A member of the secular clergy. 2. A layperson. secularly (adverb) Does anyone doubt that elected Democrats, their chosen bureaucrats, and their judges, constitute socialisms clergy? clergy (noun) plural clergies The body of people ordained for religious service. See Usage Note at collective noun. Finally, make no mistake about it, socialism is a highly organized religion; a religion without recognizable houses of worship, but an organized religion in violation of the First Amendment nevertheless. Gingrich warns of role of secular left February 26, 2012|Ken Thomas, Associated Press Newt Gingrich warned members of a Georgia church Sunday that the secular left is trying to undermine American principles established by the Founding Fathers as he sought to rejuvenate his presidential bid. The former House speaker is bypassing Tuesdays Republican presidential primaries in Michigan and Arizona and spending most of the week in Georgia, which he represented in Congress for 20 years. Gingrich said at a church north of Atlanta that Americans have faced a 50-year assault by those trying to alienate people of faith. The forces of the secular left believe passionately and deeply, and with frankly a religious fervor, in their world view and they will regard what I am saying as a horrifying assault on what they think is the truth, Gingrich said. Because their version of the truth is to have a totally neutral government that has no meaning. Gingrichs campaign has struggled since winning South Carolinas GOP primary on Jan. 21, watching as Rick Santorum has emerged as Mitt Romneys chief rival. Gingrich is trying to regain traction in Georgia, Tennessee and a group of Super Tuesday states voting March 6, hoping to amass delegates to the national nominating convention. He told reporters Sunday that we have a pretty high likelihood of winning in Georgia. I think its central to the future of our campaign. Were going to do everything we can to win here. He has stopped short of saying a loss in Georgia would end his campaign, stating the Republican contests are likely to extend deep into the spring. At First Redeemer Church, Gingrich said the nations founding was supported by people of faith, saying those principles were under attack by the Obama administration. You loan power to the government, the government does not loan power to you, Gingrich said. The former speaker also criticized President Barack Obamas decision to apologize for the burning of Qurans at a military base in Afghanistan. The incident has led to violent riots in Afghanistan, in which four U.S. soldiers have been killed. Gingrich said George Washington would not have apologized for an incident that led to the killing of young Americans. We are supposed to apologize to those who are killing us? I dont think so, Gingrich said to applause. At the outset, the thrice-married Gingrich told a few thousand congregants that he was not speaking to them as a religious leader, and I dont come here as a saint, referencing the attention that his previous marriages gained earlier in the campaign. I come here as a citizen who has had a life that at times has fallen short of the glory of God, who has had to seek Gods forgiveness and had to seek reconciliation, Gingrich said. Later, before another church audience in Milner, Ga., Gingrich spoke about his efforts to secure the GOP nomination and win the White House when a member of the congregation yelled, You will! This is up to God and the American people, Gingrich said. I dont want to be presumptuous. Gingrich travels Monday to Tennessee, where he will attend campaign events in Nashville, and will then return to Georgia for a bus tour around the state. http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-26/news/31102035_1_newt-gingrich-speaker-campaign
and in the document stating 'we the people' it claims that the my country is not to support a religion state. ie.... no taxpayer funding for a 'religious' anything! the gravest mistake this country has ever done was 'create' israel! The problems occuring all over the world regarding the terrorism of the middle east and the global problems between the religious wingnuts and the west are because the west supports the most horrific bigot state on the earth; israel. The secular doublespeak is that there should be no governing politicians seeking, speaking, supporting or claiming a 'religious' adherance, pursuit or the guise of following a 'god' within the scope of his/her campaigning. This country is 'we the people' and that representation should involve equality, no matter the religion. Religious wingnuts have no business in politics, period!
To Bishadi: I do not engage in Jew/Muslim debates. However, you have a valid point if you are objecting to American tax dollars going to Israel. Unfortunately, American tax dollars also go to Muslim theocracies. In both cases it is a clear violation of the First Amendment: Hiding the violation in foreign aid does not make it any less of a violation. Its a pity the First Amendment is not more definitive: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion at home and abroad, . . .
lmao So now Gingrich wants a holy war when there isn't even a religion present? The fact that this guy, and many of his colleagues, can only think in terms of of 'holy wars' and 'ideological wars' should give everybody pause. It certainly is a puerile, and very biblical, mind set in which their entire existence is centered around one massive final battle between good and evil.
Thing is, I really don't want Obama to be elected again. However, looking at the GOP options, Obama seems like a great idea.
Secularism is about being able to make decisions about things (such as birth control) with a logic that can be inherently understood by anyone. A theocratic style can make laws that can only be understood by the particular religion. This is how the country was intended to operate. There are some overlapping ideas of course like don't steal or kill. Although these laws are mentioned in some holy books they are also secular principals because they are generally understood by any or no faith. The religious fears Newton G. is referring to probably tend to be towards people like Mr. Santorum and a congress that has debated a record number of anti abortion bills.
To dcaddy: Thank you. You just agreed with me. Secularism/socialism is a religion in violation of the First Amendment because no other religion uses tax dollars to fund its ideology; i.e., abortion, socialized medicine, and the welfare state.
Socialism is no more a religion than conservatism is a religion. You can be conservative, you can oppose socialism, however there is no need to destroy your own credibility with such silly things as what is stated in the OP.
You know the great thing about "secular?" You don't have to. If the woman across the street uses contraception, you don't have to. If the man down the road has a cross on his house, you don't have to. If the church three blocks over decides all their mail members will wear beards, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. Isn't secular wonderful. Almost like our constitution guarantees the freedoms of a secular life.
To Wolverine: Conservative do not tax anyone. Socialists use the tax code as a tithing mechanism. To dadoalex: Then why do I HAVE TO pay for so much?
We have a tax code, a tax code that was in place and enforced when conservatives ruled the House, Senate, and Executive office. So please, save your falsehoods for the ignorant.
For what? The cross on the man's church down the street? How much exactly did you pay of that? In Europe the monarchies were "divinely" granted. That is religious institutions. All of them imposed taxes. A
To dadoalex: If it was only abortion it would be too much. And making your case by citing organized religion in European monarchies is one more proof that socialism is a religion in violation of the First Amendment because everybody is forced to pay for it. And in case you missed school that day this country had no tax on income while it was achieving greatness. The XVI Amendment is the handiwork of American progressives cum Socialists.
I did? I think what I said is that it removes all religion from the table. A secular doesn't need to be against religion, in fact many are religious. It's simply a mindset that considers only those things that are important to everybody. In contrast Rick Santorum is on a warpath against birthcontrol - a long held opinion of the Catholics - but does seem to bother anyone else. Secularism seems like the best and obvious way to govern, what your problem with it? You can still be religious in a secular environment. In fact you have more religious freedom in this envirnment because if you happen to subscribe to a faith different then the one favored you will most likely be oppressed.
choice is fantastic it is almost as good as being conscious and aware of the ability of personal choice. ie.... some of the monkeys on this forum, have no clue even how to spell 'personal responsibility' cool post (an intellectual method to demonstrate why secular is the 'american' foundation)
To dcaddy: No it doesnt. Todays secularists only want Supreme Deity religions out of government. To be precise, they are instituting the socialist religion and calling it secular. To Bishadi: Then why is government taking so many choices away from the American people? The only choice Socialists ever stand for is the Right to kill infants in the womb. Does your definition of personal responsibility include using your own money to pay for your choices? You can start with abortion, contraceptives, and higher education. If you are not buying those things for yourself you can VOLUNTARILY contribute to those who are demanding them. In that way we both get to exercise choice. You pay for things you believe in out of your own pocket, and I have the choice of not paying for your beliefs. See the Eric Hoffer quote following my signature if nothing Ive said convinces you that the definition of secular has come to mean a Socialist theocracy in todays America. In short: Try to abstain from anything the government is forcing on every American.
perhaps because too many leaders are religious or perhaps that too much influence of religious wingnuts buy the ear of the leaders; you make that choice each do make a choice, whether money is involved or not ie.... just because my tax dollar paid for israel, dont mean, i made the choice but i can choose to discount what i paid for and you dont pay for MY choice abortion is like killing the self, whether you chose it or not 'everything'? no matter what the government imposes, i will choose what is 'right and wrong' based on what is real i am free to choose dont mean i like 'every' law of the land heck, i would prefer removing the hypocrit from the living, by choice but again, who holds the law to all, but themselves
Liberals don't particularly disagree with the religious left. If someone believes they're inspired by god to support a government that helps its citizens rather than hurts them, that's good enough for liberals. Liberals and socialists are not the same. Liberals are people who believe that your master ought to be required to use lube when he rapes you; socialists are people who believe you ought to have no master at all. Liberals want to gentle the prevailing economic system while still leaving it functional, socialists want to get rid of the prevailing economic system and replace it with something better. The Democratic party and mainstream liberals in the media utterly reject socialism these days. It's not even a factor in their discussions. They are much an enemy of the left as the Republicans. It's a political philosophy with a tendency for its adherents to self-organize, but that's hardly the basic definition of a religion. Newt Gingrich is not defining socialists/communists as secular; he is not discussing socialists at all. He is talking about Democrats and liberals, not socialists. They do not advance even the least of socialist objectives, so calling them the "clergy" is ridiculous. The modern Democratic party has been heavily involved in the organized rollback of previous socialist victories in American politics. They're simply honest state capitalists, whereas the conservatives are feudalists who like to pretend they're capitalists. Socialists as a group propose no theological concepts. It is a political and economic philosophy.
