“The more that religion can be pushed off into the realm of private practice and out of the public square, the better for public discourse, as we can dispense with the God talk and move on to reality-based discussions about what we want and how we can get it. The Millennials have the right idea when it comes to dismissing the belief that religion somehow improves politics.”

The 20th Century has give us some marvelous examples of this sort of thinking:  The Third Reich, the USSR, China.

Everyone has a worldview even a “reality-based” one.  But how do you know that your “reality” is real?  How does their secular worldview avoid being so casually discarded as they do other worldviews?  Or is the only acceptable worldview that which is the dominant one held by the majority at any one time?

How will the secular worldview advocated here avoid the horrors unleashed by the earlier secular worldviews?  By calling evil good as in the case of abortion where we are slaughtering generation after generation?  By calling for evermore intrusive government in the name of liberty until everyone’s actions and behavior is set out in government regulations?

Not a society I have any interest in preserving.

All one has to do is read the writings of our founding fathers to know about their belief in public discourse about religion.  Poor Amanda would turn pale and faint had she ever done so.

Forget that the line “And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust;’” was written in 1814, not 1862. We can only pass along history that passes the test of modern political correctness.

At the top of the page in the Reuters article a picture of Rick Parry is shown.  At the end of the article, comes the following: “Texas Governor Rick Perry speaks to attendees during a prayer service at the First Baptist Church in Killeen, Texas November 8, 2009. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi”. 

I looked for a Parry quotation in the article but could find none, so how is he related to the article other than to associate Ms. Rinaldi’s words with him?  I guess its the thrust of contemporary journalism to imply facts to fit your story theme.

Implication of facts has always been the thrust of journalism. the hypocrisy lies in the claim by journalists to be unbiased and dispassionate relaters of events, rather than innate yellow press propagandists. 
The Brits have it right, I think. Everyone knows where the gruniad stands. It is simply unfortunate that they no longer have a conservative journal to balance the media’s bias.

We of course, have the same issue. If its from Reuters, The NYT, AP, or the Washington Compost you know already what they have to say.

Interesting to substitute other words for ‘religion’ being pushed out of the public square.  Try ‘organised labour’ or ‘business leaders’ or ‘academics’ or ... well, any other group with a voice in society and experience mixed with wisdom.  The churches, and other faiths, participate in civil society because they are entitled to do so. It is called democracy.

She might have wanted to consult Daniel Webster; counted among the larger group of “Founders” of our country,

“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”

We are walking along the ledge Webster is warning about.

A snotty, shallow, willfully-ignorant article written by someone touting a triumphalist secularism fated to be more intrusive and vicious than the religious boors it demonizes.

Funny how multi-culturalism and tolerance are so easily discarded by its most fervent advocates.

The goal of the Founding Fathers in enacting the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights was to prevent the formation of an established church, a “Church of America,” as it were, similar to the “Church of England.” But why am I telling you this? You all know it! For that matter, so does Wikipedia, which could hardly be identified as a religious source. All this pathetic Ms Marcotte is demonstrating is an appalling lack of integrity, knowledge, and subservience to the devil.

I mean an appalling willingness to serve the devil, not that she has only a tiny bit. (But you knew what I meant there too )

Creedal Episcopalian: No matter what her pretensions might be, Amanda Marcotte is not a journalist. She’s a blogger/activist/shill for the culture of death (almost literally: she got her start writing primarily in praise of the glories of abortion).

I stand corrected, but perhaps not incorrect. When I saw the Reuters tag I simply assumed it was claiming to be a news article. They cravenly provided the following caveat:

The views expressed are her own.

Even so, it wold be challenging to claim that Reuters also would promote opinion of the premise that religion in the public square is a good and necessary thing. The views very well appear to be Reuters own too.

Actually, Terry (#6), organized labor has been pushed out, in most cases. So has true academia, in favor of some odd capitalism-based hybrid that has substituted career preparation for real education/academic training.

In America, religion isn’t alone in being pushed out of public and civil influence. Any sort of morality and ethics, anything that promotes higher truths and non-commercial pursuits and enjoyment of any kind are considered fringe elements. Our halls of learning and discussion favor and bolster the consumption of gadgets and technology, watered-down science and experiential learning that doesn’t even require one to read much. Good literature, art, music, philosophy, and logic aren’t valued. If something can’t be sold and marketed widely, it’s not considered valuable.