Dagny, I was just called for jury duty - I wasn't the defendant or a witness, and I was never actually called to take the oath.

However, I understand your point: would someone being tried harm their case by advertising that they were non-religious by affirming to tell the truth, rather than swearing on a BIble, "so help me God." Such an act might trigger some prejudices, conscious or unconscious, that could make a difference in how a juror voted.

Mike, I agree with you that the word "secular" is used in a couple of different imprecise and confusing ways. When we say that we are a secular nation, we mean that in respect to government affairs, we do not include religious or other metaphysical position as the rationale for government actions. In this sense, secular is neutral as to specific religions, or religions in general. This is the rationale behind the separation of church and state.

However, in reference to individuals, secularist, (or a version, secular humanist), sometimes refers to a person who does not have any religious beliefs, or at least any theistic ones. In this sense, a secularist would be an atheist.

So I guess the difference is between political secularism and philosophical secularism. Many theists support political secularism ("this is a secular nation") without being, philosophically, a secularist in respect to belief in God. I can see where these differences can lead to a lot of confusion and disagreement over issues involving "secular", as both a word and concept.

Actually, it seems that the "secular humanist" is contributing to the confusion. They should be up front about it and call themselves an "atheistic humanist" although, of course, there is nothing in atheism per se that implies humanism.

Jack......However, I understand your point: would someone being tried harm their case by advertising that they were non-religious by affirming to tell the truth, rather than swearing on a BIble, "so help me God." Such an act might trigger some prejudices, conscious or unconscious, that could make a difference in how a juror voted.


I just posted a link (Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:18 pm at viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2093&start=30) to a fascinating study on bias towards letters that are used in words (left vs. right side of keyboard). This brings up a point of if jury members/judges would be even aware of their biases when they hear specific words or read evidence that predominantly consist of letters on the right right or left handed side of keyboard.

Reason Rally 'Question Silly Beliefs' - interview with Lawrence Krauss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JKhBDo3 ... e=youtu.be

I plan on watching the videos from the Reason Rally soon. It appears there is a concerted effort now to start questioning public figures and politicians about their private religious beliefs and how they are related to politics, science, economy.

MSNBC just had a 1 hour show "UP with Chris Hayes" dedicated to Reason Rally and interviewed Dawkins, Pinker, Jacoby and even an active pastor who came out as atheist and graduate of the "Clergy Project" on TV.

Seems like religion is going to be scrutinized more and more in public. I am not sure I understand the argument for privacy of religious beliefs when it comes to politics and science. It just doesn't make sense.

I think we are entitled to know and criticize and publicly question the mental stability of a politician who is claiming that he may start a war based on what god tells him or that he literally believes that a piece of a wafer literally becomes the body of a deity.

An interesting opinion piece in the NYT based on the "Up with Chris Hayes" show:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... right-one/

"But the desire of classical liberals to think of themselves as above the fray, as facilitating inquiry rather than steering it in a favored direction, makes them unable to be content with just saying, "You guys are wrong, we’re right, and we’re not going to listen to you or give you an even break." Instead they labor mightily to ground their judgments in impersonal standards and impartial procedures (there are none) so that they can pronounce their excommunications with clean hands and pure — non-partisan, and non-tribal — hearts. It’s quite a performance and it is on display every day in our most enlightened newspapers and on our most progressive political talk shows, including the ones I’m addicted to."

And I think we are entitled to know and publicly question the mental stability...and honesty... of a politician who runs for office saying he is going to end two wars but continues them under a different guise in obedience to Oil Companies and Global Corporations; and who even does his best to get us involved in a couple more in support of his real beliefs.

(By the way, pastors who don't believe deserve to be exposed; there have always been people in it for power and money, and they have done incalcuable dameage. Expect a splash on the local news about this very topic soon.)

I don't know about "scrutinized," but a recent Pew Poll indicates that the American public is increasingly uneasy with religious expression by politicians. Even amongst Republicans. And those increases (in Republicans that say that politicians express religious faith too much) aren't just pouty conservatives with ignorant claims about science being a religion or that certain scientific topics are the secular humanist religion.

http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/more-see-too-much-religious-talk-by-politicians.aspx?src=prc-headline

Somewhat of a paradox, how come we don't hear Santorum or Romney being questioned by Republicans about their irrational beliefs in god when it comes to their job? Obama claims to be a Christian, yet doesn't wear it on his sleeve and only flashes it at annual prayer breakfast, in his major speeches in conclusion with obligatory "god bless america". Republicans are an enigma when it comes to this. I realize overwhelming majority of Republicans are religious and right wing, so these numbers come as a suprise and still confusing.

It seems to me they keep their private doubts private while still want their politicians to flash their faith.

I think the poll suggests that Republican moderates and maybe even fiscal conservatives are providing cover for the religious extremists of their party. In private they think the language of the godsquad is a little tiresome, but in public they let it go in the spirit of party unity. I know several libertarian types that hate the religious right, but tolerate them as long as they vote non-Dem.

Somewhat related to the topic, I'm reminded of a Bill Maher quote (from back in the day when we all learned John Ashcroft's religion prohibits dancing because it is sexually suggestive), "Why is it that when a Democrat says he is religious, we all think, 'Aw, that's cute,' but when a Republican says he is religious, it scares the shit out of us?"

Brilliantly Devastating Talk. Facts, legislative accommodation of religious schools, camps and child abuse. One thing that is not mentioned is the religious exemption of school bullying of gays and lesbians that some laws (was it MI and some other states have) give based on religious views. So you can bully someone because your religion has negative views of the gays. Classic!

Can Religion Justify Bullying Children? by Sean Faircloth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5U4prBnQss

Faircloth is an Anti Theist with an agenda; his book is prominently advertised on the Richard Dawkins website. He barely pretends that it is any kind of "objective" study.

Classic argument ad hominem.

I recently heard Faircloth interviewed by Chris Mooney on Point of Inquiry. Good to hear he is making the rounds. Can't wait to check out the video.