Fully 100% American vs divided allegiance

I received this in an e-mail: On further investigation I found this:
Humor & Whimsy So while the source of the quote is in error the jist of the argument is not.Now we can talk about the validity of requiring everyone to speak a common tongue in any nation -- and the need for clear communication between people -- (or require other common behaviors) but that doesn't necessarily bear on the isssue of divided allegiances. This is the focus I want to pursue: can anyone with a divided allegiance be a fully committed american or are they, at heart, ready to forgo {america} for that {other} allegiance at any time?If there is a conflict between the two which is favored?Now for the kicker: the divided allegiance I am talking about is based on religion.America is a secular government with a secular constitution specifically set up to favor no one religion. It is government of the people, by the people, for the people.Is it possible for a person committed to any one religion -- to the extent that they think america needs to be changed for that religion to be properly recognized -- to truly be an undivided american?Let the games begin.Enjoy.

coffee house

And insular and a bunch of other elements I don't necessarily agree with.Of course the e-mail that it originally came in was heavily jingoistic if not racist and exclusionistic. Misquoted or misassigned statements are often abused this way.Personally I think the more varied a background people have the better. Having returned to the US from many years in Canada I find it a different place ... because of the way it has changed and because of the way I have changed. More serious is the "Patriot" Act that allows the rights of any citizen to be ignored by government. There was talk of erasing this so that Arnold could be the next president ... I think it was originally distrust on the part of the founding fathers for naturalized citizens to have undivided allegiance that caused them to put it in.Personally I have advocated making citizenship easier and more open, as I think our current policy is elitist and exclusionary and does not really reflect the founding principles of america or the ones that made her an icon of freedom and opportunity (one now badly tarnished by the jingoist elitist etc administration).BUT. The issue I want to address is the issue of divided allegiance. This speech is just the setting of the stage. Agreed. Of course they aren't, until the point where they want to impose their religion on others. They are free to behave according to their beliefs within the context of the constitution and the laws of the land.Do we really need 100% undivided commitment? I think not (we need no more "unamerican" witch hunts eh?), just not so divided that there is a question of which is more valuable to the person, the commitment to america (the ideals, the values of freedom, justice, equality, liberty, to democracy and government of the people by the people for the people etc etc) ...... or to some other set of values, especially when they are at odds with the american ones.When push comes to shove are the rights of others more important or some other value system that comes from some other source.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

False. The constitution is nothing but a secular document that lays out the way this secular government - of the people by the people for the people - is to be operated. Also false, if not totally insulting. People are reacting to the assault on the constitution by specific religious institutions that are trying to convert this country into something it isn't and never was. Many of those people are also people of faith, many are also Christians.What defines America are the American ideals: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, justice, libery freedom and equality, opportunity without discrimination, whether due to race, religion, sex, age, disability, economic status or country of origin.Those ideals may not always be recognized in actions, but they are the ones that define America, these are the ones recognized in the official documents ... like the constitution that established this country and the declaration of independence that launched this country. As long as you don't try to impose that creed on anyone else. For they are equally free to follow whatever beliefs they want to follow in their personal lives. It is a freedom equally valid for all of us.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Perhaps then you shouldn't post bare assertions. Secularism is not a belief system. From wikipedia: Of course the fact that the United States was formed during the age of enlightenment might have something to do with it too.Another bare assertion debunked.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Care to substantiate that the 1st amendment is so founded? Perhaps some documents by Thomas Jefferson or the others in their discussion of the 1st amendment? Some kind of link eh? or is this just another bald randman assertion? Nope.It is really ludicrous that you can read my OP and then presume to tell what I meant by secular. Do you really think that washes? It is also ludicrous that you presume to speak for ALL religions within your narrow views.It is not hostile to religion in general, but it is concerned with the assault on government by certain factions, specifically those with divided loyalties on how government should be run, like the extremist religious right. Yawn. Then edit wikipedia to change it (and see how long your definition lasts). The power of wikipedia is that it can be changed so that it reflects the common usages better. But it certainly does define secularism the way it is generally used and understood by most people, rather than the funny version (= atheist\anti-religion) of it that you and the extremist right try to portray. That is a false usage.Lets go to dicitionary.com:sec·u·lar adj. Gosh, that backs up wikipedia. Am I stunned? No. Does this change my usage in the OP? No. What it shows is that you and your usages are wrong. False again. You are still not the author and your logic here is ludicrous. It does not apply to ALL religious people.The question is about when SOME religious people have divided loyalties and where they place their primary loyalty. When they place their primary loyalty to other than American values then they are not committed to the American way of life.There are many people of faith that feel that religion should be kept out of government. Seems you even claimed this as a prior basis of the separation of church and state ... Yes, but because your premises are false and your usages (definitions) of terms is false (as already demonstrated).It does not mean anti-religious it just means not influenced by religion, but by rationality, logic and the use of evidence and coming to a common agreement, worldly. People can think without referring everything to their religion, and that is all we ask of our government. The government's role is secular ("worldly rather than spiritual"), and that has been established, not just here but in the Supreme Court. This is so patently false and logically inept and downright wrong it is once again ludicrous.You are not allowed to include values that are at odds with the defining ideals of the constitution and which are specifically embedded within it. When you cross the values of liberty, freedom, justice, equality and move into bias and discrimination and elitism - no matter the basis - then you are not free to use them as a basis for influencing government.This is precisely what this topic is about: giving values that aren't American a higher {loyalty\regard} than American ones. This is also logically false. Your conclusion does not follow from the definition at all. You are trying to make secularism into something it is not, and it just doesn't fit. Secular is not anti-religion, it is simply worldly rather than spiritual and it is just not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body.Math is secular, is it anti-religious? Logic is secular, is it anti-religious? People making decisions on how and when to build roads based on the evidence before them of the costs, supplies, manpower and construction time is secular, is it anti-religious? No, it is making decisions concerning the general welfare of the people based on the maths and logic and reason of normal rational people.There is also no reason for a government to enter the realms of religion, for that is not their purpose. The government's role is secular ("worldly rather than spiritual"). More false assertions by randman. These are not just bald assertions, they are false.(1) Secularism is not a religion or a set of beliefs. So this is patently false.(2) You can't be 'sectarian' and meet the conditions of the 1st amendment, thus this is patently false. From dictionary.com:sec·tar·i·an adj. Boy that sure sounds like American values eh?In addition, sects only apply to established religions and thus they also exclude any and all informal religious beliefs or personal views. This is patently too narrow a usage to apply to the people of the USof(N)A or to the Constitution, so this interpretation is ludicrous in the extreme. It just ain't so.(3) It was not designed to be "more so" Christian, it was specifically designed to be NOT "more so" ANYTHING.That is specifically what the 1st amendment states: Randman is Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*04*2005 10:20 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

A valid point. Let's stick to secular, as was used in the OP.An interesting article on the religious assault on the secular history of the USof(N)A is
Page not found | The NationThere is also Secular Humanism ... to add an -ism to an -ism:
Page not found | Free Inquiry This comes closer to randmans usage, but it is not what secular means that makes it so.Thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Our government is secular. It is definitely NOT sectarian. Nor is it based on some form of secular humanism, which appears to be conflated in randmans mind with secular. As noted above "secular" has specific meaning that apply, and that apply to our form of government. What does this have to do with how govenment is run? People are allowed their idols and icons, but they are expected to base their decisions on facts, logic and good reasons. They are not allowed to place major displays of them (the 10 commandments) or to favor one over others. They are expected to base their decisions on the American values written in the constitution and not to consult religious leaders on occult or arcane readings of obscure texts and passages as you see in theocratic societies.{abe}I see I posted somewhat hastily here.They are not allowed to place major displays of them (the 10 commandments) in public places or with public funds or to favor one over others in any laws or regulations. {/abe}This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*04*2005 07:59 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

An overall view of religious liberty as defined by U.S. Supreme Court cases
http://fact.trib.com/1st.religion.html This is what I "get" randman, and not your strawman version. You are free to express your personal views and to build your opinions on your personal values as long as they do not contravene the constitional requirements. As soon as you do that, then you step over the line from American values to some other system.It seems that it is you and the extreme religious right that do not "get" this message.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

My reply is here:
http://EvC Forum: Separation of Church and State -->EvC Forum: Separation of Church and State

no, "good reasons" are ones that can be substantiated and not some arbitrary decision.

randman, you are wrong. again. This is just completely missing the point. Sectarian? where? All religious people? where? Call them unAmerican? where?Or are you still presuming to tell me what I really meant?Here is the original statement again: A person. Not every person. Not whole segments of society.What I have done is raise the question whether SOME people, notably SOME religious extremists could have divided loyalties.I have already corrected you on this.Of course you could always try to address the issue instead of trying to obscure it with this kind of nonsense.What say huh? IS it possible?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I edited my post above. it was a little hasty, but I thought everyone would know the context I was talking in. Then it is not secular, as something else is driving this. Secular is ambivalent whether religion exists or not. Yes, and this is why the school board in Dover PA was ejected ... the point being that if your position is not demonstably to the benefit of the people, defendable with logic and reason, that you won't last long in government -- make an irrational arbitrary decision (ie the school board's one to include ID) and out you go.Governor Arnold ran into that same problem with outright rejection of his proposals on the last go-round. They didn't measure up.This is why there are platforms and positions taken by politicians, so they can establish the justifications for their positions and let the people evaluate them before making a decision.They need to convince people that they are right and that the positions are sound. How good people are at applying logic and reason is another issue.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

All laws that favor sundays over other days or certain religious holidays but not others. There are others. I would say there aren't many, and that those that do exist are not gut-busters. With the possible exception of property taxes that pay specifically for police and fire protection ....

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Aside from the fact that those holidays - as observed by the general population - pay as much or more homage to pagan rites dealing with solstices and equinoxes (and fertility rites under the light of a full moon) and thus that many cultures also have festivities at roughly the same time ...Aside form the fact that December 25th has nothing to do with the life of christ that I am aware of (the actual birth dates possible range from late march to early april in -4 to -7 IIRC) and that this has slipped from the actual date of the solstice due to calendar error in the dark ages ...Don't you think that it is unconstitutional to tell a businessman that he can't open his store on day {X} because it is someone elses religious holiday, on a day that has no special meaning for the businessman?Don't you think that it is unconstitutional for (IIRC it was KMart) a business to fire an employee that refused to work on Sunday when the worker is a devout Christian who believes that it is against their faith to work on Sunday and who made that know when hired (this was in fundamentalist haven West Michigan where many are Dutch Reform)?Simple yes or no will suffice.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.