Religion in the Public Square: All or Nothing

[miloblithe]

I'm not going to go back and find all of that again and provide links. If you think I'm lying about those cases you can look them up for yourself, but there it is exactly what you asked for.

Rules of the forum:

II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate
Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay

[silverback66]

I think they ought to be tested, but the will of the American people ought to be considered. I mean we are still a nation by the people for the people aren't we? Wasn't the intention of creating America to create a place where the power belongs with the people? I mean how can we take seriosuly people who liken Christians in this country to the KKK? That sort of religious intolerance is unacceptable in my mind. They certainly have the right to say it, but frankly I don't want my tax dollars going to support such frivolous cases that basically amount to support for hate speech and a lack of tolerance for others beliefs.

[skunk]

a lack of tolerance for others beliefs.Pot, meet kettle.

[silverback66]

Rules of the forum:

II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate
Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay

Well then I'll bend that rule to my will and call it an "other" form of citation from "various sources."

Seriously, just accept it for what it is. I didn't pull that stuff out of my butt, so either acknoledge it or ignore it.

[Ugg]

we usually provide links to sources in this forum.


Not only do we usually provide links but it is more or less a requirement as per the guidelines.

I. Show respect for your fellow posters
Name-calling, eye-rolling, use of deprecating smilies, generalizations/stereotypes, etc. will be viewed as a display of disrespect and will fall under the heading of "trolling"
II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate
Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay
Repetition of opinion/hearsay as the factual basis for an argument will fall under the heading of "trolling"

SB66, it's pretty clear to me that you are on the verge of being considered a troll if you continue to refuse to back up your claims. You spend a lot of time posting here so it would seem that you have enough time to find a reliable link and post it.

[leekohler]

Pot, meet kettle.

No kidding.

[skunk]

Well then I'll bend that rule to my will and call it an "other" form of citation from "various sources."

Seriously, just accept it for what it is. I didn't pull that stuff out of my butt, so either acknoledge it or ignore it.We need to be able to check your assertions, other than by checking your butt.

[silverback66]

Pot, meet kettle.


Okay see why was it neccessary for you do do that? You couldn't have chosen an alternative way that didn't imply some sort of bias against me? That's exactly the sort of thing that has gotten me ticked several times here. I've been advocating tolerance since the beggining for everyone and just because I believe that you shouldn't legislate faith out of society you basically label me as intolerant. It would behoove you to be more courteous and respectful of my opinion.

Also, by the forums definition of trolling, you all have been doing that from the beggining so don't act all innocent and quit being so eager to point the finger.

[leekohler]

Well then I'll bend that rule to my will and call it an "other" form of citation from "various sources."

Seriously, just accept it for what it is. I didn't pull that stuff out of my butt, so either acknoledge it or ignore it.

I'll choose to ignore it. Why refuse to provide links? Clearly, it's simply too inconvenient for you.

[skunk]

Okay see why was it neccessary for you do do that? You couldn't have chosen an alternative way that didn't imply some sort of bias against me? That's exactly the sort of thing that has gotten me ticked several times here. I've been advocating tolerance since the beggining for everyone and just because I believe that you shouldn't legislate faith out of society you basically label me as intolerant. It would behoove you to be more courteous and respectful of my opinion.Damn! You just broke my irony meter. Do you know how much those things cost?

[pseudobrit]

So basically, my contention is that some are interpreting the constitution as freedom from religion when in fact it's freedom of religion. It's the freedom to choose what's best for you and allow others to choose whats best for them.

And what if someone chooses no religion? How does being made to sing religious songs or allow an atheist to "choose what's best for them"?

You do know there's a list of Supreme Court and lower court rulings that have found the things the ACLU acts against to indeed be a violation of the First Amendment?

I would link them to you, but it's too much trouble for me to follow the forum rules by backing up my assertions with links.

[silverback66]

There's your link. You want to find out where there information came from feel free to email them.

http://www.catholicleague.org/2003report/activists2003.html

[blackfox]

SNIP...

"All things being equal," Secretary Paige said, "I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith." He also compared public schools unfavorably to Christian schools because of the latter's emphasis on values.
While I can see how you (or myself) might be sympathetic with this gentlemen's opinion, do you not see how innappropriate it is for someone in his position to say it? There is a separation of Church and State - provided by the Constitution. He is elevating his opinion above his position and above the law. I assume that's why these organizations/critics lambasted him.






So basically, my contention is that some are interpreting the constitution as freedom from religion when in fact it's freedom of religion. It's the freedom to choose what's best for you and allow others to choose whats best for them. Basically it's a live and let live approach, but certain individuals and organizations think their rights are being violated when others express theirs. I welcome diversity of faith, but I certainly don't support stripping it from society in order not too offend a select few.While someone will probably explain this more eloquently than myself - but yes, there is freedom of Religion - but in the appropriate sphere and venue(s). Legally, it is not allowed in the Realm of the State - whether it be Christianity or otherwise. You are still free to build as many Churches as you want, worship where you want - and instill your "values" on those you feel you have a responsibility to do so. It ain't so bad...

[skunk]

All Christians are genocidal psychopaths. I can't be bothered to find the link. You'll just have to take my word for it.

[silverback66]

And what if someone chooses no religion? How does being made to sing religious songs or allow an atheist to "choose what's best for them"?

You do know there's a list of Supreme Court and lower court rulings that have found the things the ACLU acts against to indeed be a violation of the First Amendment?

I would link them to you, but it's too much trouble for me to follow the forum rules by backing up my assertions with links.


Trolling....

If someone chooses to have no religion then that's there right but they don't have the right to deny others their rights. If you're going to start showing me some 9th circuit court of appeals rulings, don't bother.

[silverback66]

All Christians are genocidal psychopaths. I can't be bothered to find the link. You'll just have to take my word for it.


Trolling...

[pseudobrit]

Also, by the forums definition of trolling, you all have been doing that from the beggining so don't act all innocent and quit being so eager to point the finger.

The reason this thread has degraded into Everyone vs. You is because you are not following the rules and the etiquette everyone else typically does, not because of your views.

You refuse to debate, but demand we respect your opinion. We try to gauge your opinion and you back it up with lies.

I'm just about done with you. You're a waste of my time.

[skunk]

Trolling...Damn, you noticed.

[silverback66]

While I can see how you (or myself) might be sympathetic with this gentlemen's opinion, do you not see how innappropriate it is for someone in his position to say it? There is a separation of Church and State - provided by the Constitution. He is elevating his opinion above his position and above the law. I assume that's why these organizations/critics lambasted him.






While someone will probably explain this more eloquently than myself - but yes, there is freedom of Religion - but in the appropriate sphere and venue(s). Legally, it is not allowed in the Realm of the State - whether it be Christianity or otherwise. You are still free to build as many Churches as you want, worship where you want - and instill your "values" on those you feel you have a responsibility to do so. It ain't so bad...


Doesn't the congressman ( I believe it was a congressman) have the right to express his opinions without being attacked by those organizations? Who's rights did he infrine on?

With regards to the other issue, the very word public seems to indicate open to all to me so why is it wrong to express beliefs on "public" property. I can understand how it's wrong to go on private property and do such things, but public...is public.

[silverback66]

The reason this thread has degraded into Everyone vs. You is because you are not following the rules and the etiquette everyone else typically does, not because of your views.

You refuse to debate, but demand we respect your opinion. We try to gauge your opinion and you back it up with lies.

I'm just about done with you. You're a waste of my time.


I gave you the damn link! Go look at it and quit accusing me of crap that isn't true!

There it is again
http://www.catholicleague.org/2003report/activists2003.html

Here's another for you!

http://www.aclj.org/

[pseudobrit]

If you're going to start showing me some 9th circuit court of appeals rulings, don't bother.

So only silverback66 Approved ™ facts are allowed in this debate?

Don't bother indeed.

[pseudobrit]

Damn, you noticed.

my God... all this time... you, you... you've been a troll?

[sobs uncontrollably]

[silverback66]

So only silverback66 Approved ™ facts are allowed in this debate?

Don't bother indeed.


The 9th circuit court is THE most liberal court in the entire country. I think it ought to be disbanded.

[pseudobrit]

I gave you the damn link! Go look at it and quit accusing me of crap that isn't true!

There it is again
http://www.catholicleague.org/2003report/activists2003.html

Here's another for you!

http://www.aclj.org/


Crap that isn't true?

You neglected to cite your sources for facts numerous times during the course of this thread, then flat refused to cite your source for a 2 minute Google-search-copy-paste-hack job, got called out on it, cited it, still haven't backed up aforementioned numerous claims elsewhere in the thread and I'm the liar?

You're not getting it at all.

[aquajet]

And we still love you, don't we? :)

;)

He made my Official Enemies List. But I only penciled him in. So there's hope yet.

Hmmm....fair enough. To be frank, I used you as a guinea pig to test certain vBulletin features I never used before. But ultimately I find you amusing enough, so...yeah. :D ;)

[pseudobrit]

The 9th circuit court is THE most liberal court in the entire country. I think it ought to be disbanded.

Why specifically?

[pseudobrit]

;Hmmm....fair enough. To be frank, I used you as a guinea pig to test certain vBulletin features I never used before.

The ignore feature?

[silverback66]

http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=2052

http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=623

http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=612

http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=745

[silverback66]

Why specifically?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139436,00.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5331379p-4828846c.html

[pseudobrit]

http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=2052

http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=623

http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=612

http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=745

And how does any of this fit into the context of anything? I mean, when you're trying to make a point, you quite literally do have to spell it out for everyone.

May I suggest that your debating skills are somewhat lacking?

[silverback66]

And how does any of this fit into the context of anything? I mean, when you're trying to make a point, you quite literally do have to spell it out for everyone.

May I suggest that your debating skills are somewhat lacking?


Oh but remember, when I spell it out it's just opinion and heresay and the only valid form of expression is links. Remember?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200510%5CNAT20051011b.html

[vniow]

Following the Constitution is such a pain the ass nowadays.

[pseudobrit]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139436,00.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5331379p-4828846c.html

Those are political opinions expressed by lawmakers and pundits.

Do you perhaps have a link to a legal opinion which says the Ninth Circuit violates the Constitution on a regular basis? I presume that's the argument you're trying to make.

[aquajet]

The ignore feature?

Ahem, well briefly...I just wanted to try and see how it worked. :D

****...this thread is going all to hell again...I'm just gonna watch it blow up.

[blackfox]

Doesn't the congressman ( I believe it was a congressman) have the right to express his opinions without being attacked by those organizations? Who's rights did he infrine on?
It was your quote - It was the Secretary of Education. Would it seem appropriate to you if the Pope made a public statement saying that it seems non-Christians are better people than others? Or that Evolution makes much more sense than Christian Dogma? Do you see my point?

With regards to the other issue, the very word public seems to indicate open to all to me so why is it wrong to express beliefs on "public" property. I can understand how it's wrong to go on private property and do such things, but public...is public.

I think you have a misconcepion of "public". Your inferences aside, the "public" sphere does not involve the State (with regards to Religion)- as Constitiutionally it is prohibited from taking sides. You are still free to practice you beliefs in your community, at home, with all of those who choose to do so - just not with taxpayers monies (actually or implied).

[silverback66]

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165644,00.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/13/172143.shtml

[silverback66]

Those are political opinions expressed by lawmakers and pundits.

Do you perhaps have a link to a legal opinion which says the Ninth Circuit violates the Constitution on a regular basis? I presume that's the argument you're trying to make.


Oh so the only valid opinion now is a LEGAL opinion...oHHHHHHHH

[pseudobrit]

Oh but remember, when I spell it out it's just opinion and heresay and the only valid form of expression is links. Remember?

Jesus Christ. Are you seriously this far from understanding it?

You make a point in your post. If you use a specific fact (such as when you said NAMBLA helps men molest children or when you suggested there is a massive liberal bias in universities) you back it up with a link. If you are just using an opinion, be prepared to be prompted for said facts.

[pseudobrit]

Oh so the only valid opinion now is a LEGAL opinion...oHHHHHHHH

When we're discussing the matters before the courts, yes. Would you rather the courts' decisions be decided by a popular vote instead?

[silverback66]

It was your quote - It was the Secretary of Education. Would it seem appropriate to you if the Pope made a public statement saying that it seems non-Christians are better people than others? Or that Evolution makes much more sense than Christian Dogma? Do you see my point?



I think you have a misconcepion of "public". Your inferences aside, the "public" sphere does not involve the State (with regards to Religion)- as Constitiutionally it is prohibited from taking sides. You are still free to practice you beliefs in your community, at home, with all of those who choose to do so - just not with taxpayers monies (actually or implied).

I see your point, but despite his position he is still entitled to his opinion. It's appropriateness can certainly be gauged, but not his right to say it and the ACLU and other groups objection is telling of their own bias.

as for the pulic issue, It is unconstitutional for the state to officially support or deny religious displays, but their appearance on public rotperty is not an indication of support and in fact their removal IS an indication of denying the rights of those who wish to put up a display.

[silverback66]

Jesus Christ. Are you seriously this far from understanding it?

You make a point in your post. If you use a specific fact (such as when you said NAMBLA helps men molest children or when you suggested there is a massive liberal bias in universities) you back it up with a link. If you are just using an opinion, be prepared to be prompted for said facts.


I've already said my opinions and am now providing you with links supporting those. Put it all together, it's only a two piece puzzle.

[silverback66]

When we're discussing the matters before the courts, yes. Would you rather the courts' decisions be decided by a popular vote instead?


Do you support judicial activism? If the court is in the public's mind unfair and biased what use are it's opinions?

[Ugg]

The 9th circuit court is THE most liberal court in the entire country. I think it ought to be disbanded.

By that means test, so should the most conservative court.

The makeup of the 9th court reflects the population of those that live in its territory. California of course is the largest source of judges since the state has about 12% of the nation's population within its borders. California has always been proud of its liberalness and to deny the state its representation would be an exercise in federal power never before seen.

bushco cannot disband the 9th court. They can stop funding it but that's not going to happen. The only hope for this country is that all people have a voice in all venues of government.

Your pettiness seems be inspired by drug addicts like rush and misogynists like coulter. You must not get out much.

[pseudobrit]

I've already said my opinions and am now providing you with links supporting those. Put it all together, it's only a two piece puzzle.

Considering you just ejactulated 16 (?) links on this page alone with no supporting argument prefacing any one of them, I'd say it's more than a two piece puzzle.

[silverback66]

By that means test, so should the most conservative court.

The makeup of the 9th court reflects the population of those that live in its territory. California of course is the largest source of judges since the state has about 12% of the nation's population within its borders. California has always been proud of its liberalness and to deny the state its representation would be an exercise in federal power never before seen.

bushco cannot disband the 9th court. They can stop funding it but that's not going to happen. The only hope for this country is that all people have a voice in all venues of government.

Your pettiness seems be inspired by drug addicts like rush and misogynists like coulter. You must not get out much.


Way to go Troll.

I'll agree with your logic because it would also stand reason that the supreme court, being representative of America and the final word in legal issues, would be strongly conservative and ths it's opinions would override the courts in the liberal pockets of America.

[silverback66]

Considering you just ejactulated 16 (?) links on this page alone with no supporting argument prefacing any one of them, I'd say it's more than a two piece puzzle.


you wanted links, I gave you links. Man, you complain about everything don't you?

[pseudobrit]

Do you support judicial activism?

What is judicial activism? Besides a hollow, meaningless talking point phrase. Is that like what Bush wanted the courts to do in the Schaivo case?

If the court is in the public's mind unfair and biased what use are it's opinions?

If the public has a disdain for the law and no respect for the Constitution their opinions countering that are of utmost importance.

[leekohler]

Way to go Troll.

I'll agree with your logic because it would also stand reason that the supreme court, being representative of America and the final word in legal issues, would be strongly conservative and ths it's opinions would override the courts in the liberal pockets of America.

Wow- seems to me that you want to see anything liberal crushed. Interesting coming from someone who claims to be open-minded.

[pseudobrit]

you wanted links, I gave you links. Man, you complain about everything don't you?

I'm not complaining. I just can't follow what you're trying to prove because you're just slapping up links everywhere. How am I supposed to know which links are supposed to support which points?

The ones I did bother to look at were about the Ninth Circuit and they provided absolutely nothing to back up your assertions.

You have failed miserably to put together a coherent argument for anything.

[blackfox]

Do you support judicial activism? If the court is in the public's mind unfair and biased what use are it's opinions?
The Judicial system, by design (as one of the three pillars of government), is specifically not beholden to public opinion - only to the interpretation of the Law. "Judicial Activism" as you call it, is a highly-subjective term - and one applied unfairly - usually to partisan ends. It is bound to happen that a branch of government, bound to the law, not public opinion will make judgements that not everyone agrees with...there are many conservative "activist" judges also, I might remind you...

I'll agree with your logic because it would also stand reason that the supreme court, being representative of America and the final word in legal issues, would be strongly conservative and ths it's opinions would override the courts in the liberal pockets of America.
What in the hell?
Where is the fairness in that? If you are implying that conservative thought/values are more representative of American public opinion right now, that is a dubious statement at best - Almost all large, urban centers are Liberal, and I would say that things are about equal - with a large, independent, moderate group being the swing vote - just because Conservatives are a bit more vocal, does not mean they are anything else.

[zimv20]

i've read through all the posts today and i can't for the life of me figure out why silverback's professors and fellow students had a problem with him expressing his views.

[leekohler]

i've read through all the posts today and i can't for the life of me figure out why silverback's professors and fellow students had a problem with him expressing his views.

Sarcasm?

[zimv20]

Sarcasm?
farmfuls of it.

[zimv20]

sb, here is your m.o.:

1. make hateful claim
2. hide behind christianity
3. cite persecution by a vast conspiracy when called on it

read up on the Dark Ages and the Age of Enlightenment, then ask yourself why some people never made the transition.

[Sayhey]

At the risk of feeding some twisted persecution complex, I'm going to try to participate further in this debate.

First, I'm want to be clear on a few things. Silverback, do you now agree that the ACLU isn't trying to "rape America" of its right to religious expression? That in fact no serious attempts exists to stop Christians from practicing their religion? Your disagreements about what cases the ACLU should or should not take being beside the point.

Second, do you agree this debate is instead about the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment? Otherwise known as the doctrine of Separation of Church and State?

Lastly, do you agree that in a constitutional republic it is one of the functions of the constitution to safeguard the rights of the minority from the will of the majority? In other words, that a majority does not have the right to override the rights of a minority, such as freedom of religion (including the right to choose no religion,) that are guaranteed to every citizen?

PS - as a side note, please assure me that you do not think only your approach can be considered a truly "Christian" one.

[Blue Velvet]

Honestly, I simply cannot believe you guys are wasting so much time and effort giving this forum member the attention he/she so obviously craves...

Their efforts are so lamentable and so far off the scale that surely they don't deserve the dignity of such a response.

[blackfox]

At the risk of feeding some twisted persecution complex, I'm going to try to participate further in this debate.

First, I'm want to be clear on a few things. Silverback, do you now agree that the ACLU isn't trying to "rape America" of its right to religious expression? That in fact no serious attempts exists to stop Christians from practicing their religion? Your disagreements about what cases the ACLU should or should not take being beside the point.

Second, do you agree this debate is instead about the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment? Otherwise known as the doctrine of Separation of Church and State?

Lastly, do you agree that in a constitutional republic it is one of the functions of the constitution to safeguard the rights of the minority from the will of the majority? In other words, that a majority does not have the right to override the rights of a minority, such as freedom of religion (including the right to choose no religion,) that are guaranteed to every citizen?

PS - as a side note, please assure me that you do not think only your approach can be considered a truly "Christian" one.

me likey to be so eloquent-like. me always fail miserable. kudos.

[Ugg]

Honestly, I simply cannot believe you guys are wasting so much time and effort giving this forum member the attention he/she so obviously craves...

Their efforts are so lamentable and so far off the scale that surely they don't deserve the dignity of such a response.


Ah, it's just post MWSF euphoria showing through. sb66 seems to come back for more so we're all honing our skills here. Sort of like a cat sharpening its claws. A few more personal attacks from him and he won't be here much longer I'm sure.

[silverback66]

At the risk of feeding some twisted persecution complex, I'm going to try to participate further in this debate.

First, I'm want to be clear on a few things. Silverback, do you now agree that the ACLU isn't trying to "rape America" of its right to religious expression? That in fact no serious attempts exists to stop Christians from practicing their religion? Your disagreements about what cases the ACLU should or should not take being beside the point.

Second, do you agree this debate is instead about the meaning of the establishment clause of the First Amendment? Otherwise known as the doctrine of Separation of Church and State?

Lastly, do you agree that in a constitutional republic it is one of the functions of the constitution to safeguard the rights of the minority from the will of the majority? In other words, that a majority does not have the right to override the rights of a minority, such as freedom of religion (including the right to choose no religion,) that are guaranteed to every citizen?

PS - as a side note, please assure me that you do not think only your approach can be considered a truly "Christian" one.

Yes, yes and yes, though on the third point I think that a line has to be drawn between someone being annoyed and someones rights truly being denied to them.

And as to the side note, I wouldn't describe my approach as Christian by any stretch of the imagination but rather that of a steemed conservative. Perhaps in a few years as I've explored my faith more deeply and experienced more and more of God's grace I'll better be able to show it to others even when they are seemingly hostile towards me. I'm aware that what I've done and said is unChristlike and for that I apologize, but I think it must be noted that the idea that Christians somehow are supposed to be perfect is a ridiculous notion to entertain and one that is often weilded whenever a Chrsitian gets upset about any given issue being discussed.

[IJ Reilly]

At the risk of feeding some twisted persecution complex, I'm going to try to participate further in this debate.

Ah, I think you've put your finger on it. I neither condone nor do I wish to encourage persecution complexes (of the twisted or straight variety).

I'm out.

Oh, right... I almost forgot.

Obligatory eye-rolling to follow:











:rolleyes:

[silverback66]

Ah, it's just post MWSF euphoria showing through. sb66 seems to come back for more so we're all honing our skills here. Sort of like a cat sharpening its claws. A few more personal attacks from him and he won't be here much longer I'm sure.


So your personal attacks are okay but mine aren't? What's the matter, you can't stand having done to you what you do to others?

[silverback66]

Now am I supposed to respoind how you guys responded to me and go

HAHA I guess he just couldn't hang? That's how it works right? Seek every opportunity to bash someone for any reason whatsoever? I'm asking you guys because your the pros. Teach me oh wise teachers.

[aquajet]

And as to the side note, I wouldn't describe my approach as Christian by any stretch of the imagination but rather that of a steemed conservative.

I think you're confused about your political ideology. May I suggest you read up on a real conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater).

As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties.

[Sayhey]

Yes, yes and yes, though on the third point I think that a line has to be drawn between someone being annoyed and someones rights truly being denied to them.

And as to the side note, I wouldn't describe my approach as Christian by any stretch of the imagination but rather that of a steemed conservative. Perhaps in a few years as I've explored my faith more deeply and experienced more and more of God's grace I'll better be able to show it to others even when they are seemingly hostile towards me. I'm aware that what I've done and said is unChristlike and for that I apologize, but I think it must be noted that the idea that Christians somehow are supposed to be perfect is a ridiculous notion to entertain and one that is often weilded whenever a Chrsitian gets upset about any given issue being discussed.

I'm not saying Christians should be one way or the other, only that there are many here who consider themselves Christian (I'm not one of them) who are also quite liberal to left.

As to your other responses to my questions, please clarify your position on the establishment clause and we can have a, hopefully interesting, discussion. I'm a strong supporter of Jefferson's and Madison's ideas for the need to have a "wall" separating church from state. Perhaps that is stating the obvious, but if you are in disagreement, which also seems obvious, could you explain why anyone should go along with a radical change in one of the most important concepts underling our basic rights? Next tell me what is "conservative" about such an approach other than it coming from the Right side of the political spectrum. It looks to me like you are promoting the establishment of a particular Christian dogma based on supposed majority support.

[OnceUGoMac]

I know this may stray from the current topic somewhat, but it's something that I feel is important. Under current law, one cannot be discriminated against based on their religion, race, national origin, sex, etc. However, when the issue of gay rights or more specifically the inclusion of sexuality, the argument against allowing gay rights is that it is a choice. That argument is based on humans not being able to change their race (in most cases...any one see Soul Man:p), that humans cannot change their sex (that's out the window), one cannot change their national origin, etc. Okay, for a moment, let's agree that one's sexual orientation is a choice (something that I disagree with). Is religion not a choice? Is religion not a moral decision? Why would it be fair to allow religious rights but not gay rights? Again, this may be somewhat off-topic, but just my thoughts on the debate earlier in this thread.

[vniow]

that humans cannot change their sex (that's out the window)


Heh.

[silverback66]

Well as I pointed out before, the term sepration of church and state comes from one of Jefferson's letters written years after the constitution (I'll try to find more info on it) and as such can't be used as a mean of taking such action in the modern world. We have to evaluate what the constitution itself says and frankly there are a number of opinions on what it means and so our only hope of resolving it is to bring it before the supreme court and let them decide what it's architects intended. Anything we might say about it is opinion and ought to be treated as such. My opinion is that faith was highly valued by those who penned the constitution and were they alive today they would never support the banning of faith based things from public life and more than likely would speak out strongly against groups trying to remove it.

[silverback66]

Here, just so we're all on the same page. These are the words:


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[skunk]

My opinion is that faith was highly valued by those who penned the constitution and were they alive today they would never support the banning of faith based things from public life and more than likely would speak out strongly against groups trying to remove it.I may be only a foreigner, but I am sure you are incorrect on that one.

[silverback66]

I haven't read through all of this but it does cite what I mentioned above in the first couple paragraphs:

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

[skunk]

Here, just so we're all on the same page. These are the words:


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"I do not see any reference there to foisting one's religious opinions on those who may not share them.
:confused:

[silverback66]

I may be only a foreigner, but I am sure you are incorrect on that one.


Well then please by all means read through what the founding fathers said here:

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

I'll provide highlights momentarily.

[silverback66]

I do not see any reference there to foisting one's religious opinions on those who may not share them.
:confused:


I don't see anything about banning religion from public either.

[leekohler]

I know this may stray from the current topic somewhat, but it's something that I feel is important. Under current law, one cannot be discriminated against based on their religion, race, national origin, sex, etc. However, when the issue of gay rights or more specifically the inclusion of sexuality, the argument against allowing gay rights is that it is a choice. That argument is based on humans not being able to change their race (in most cases...any one see Soul Man:p), that humans cannot change their sex (that's out the window), one cannot change their national origin, etc. Okay, for a moment, let's agree that one's sexual orientation is a choice (something that I disagree with). Is religion not a choice? Is religion not a moral decision? Why would it be fair to allow religious rights but not gay rights? Again, this may be somewhat off-topic, but just my thoughts on the debate earlier in this thread.

I would like to see you answer this silverback66. I'm curious.

[Ugg]

Well then please by all means read through what the founding fathers said here:

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

I'll provide highlights momentarily.


The above link is highly subjective in what it quotes from the founding fathers. What is clear from the Constitution is that government should not be in the business of religion.


On another but related note, do you believe the Constitution is a static, unchanging document or should it evolve with the people it's supposed to represent?

[silverback66]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams


“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”
John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61


Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll
" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."


In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."


Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklin
“ 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” –Constitutional Convention of 1787


It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses] -Patrick Henry


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 a gift from 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, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” -Thomas Jefferson (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]

“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.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]” -James Madison

In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.


“ I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.”
[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States p. 593] _Justice Joseph Story


Farewell Address: "The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion" ...and later: "...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..." -George Washinton



“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.” -George Washinton



The three branches of the U.S. Government: Judicial, Legislative, Executive
• At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22;
“For the LORD is our judge,
the LORD is our lawgiver,
the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”



New York Spectator. August 23, 1831
“ The court of common pleas of Chester county, [New York] rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no cause in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.

[silverback66]

The above link is highly subjective in what it quotes from the founding fathers. What is clear from the Constitution is that government should not be in the business of religion.


On another but related note, do you believe the Constitution is a static, unchanging document or should it evolve with the people it's supposed to represent?

You're dismissing the quotes that are clear as day. Find me as many contrary statements from such prominent sources and then we'll discuss further.

But to answer your question, it's not a static document but also one that's not open to negotitattion. It's a contract between the government and it's people promoting life, liberty and justice and clearly a document which many of it's writers directly stated to have been inspired by the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.

[silverback66]

I would like to see you answer this silverback66. I'm curious.

I already said I thought gay right was appropriate but that I don't agree with gay marriage. What else do you want me to say?

[vniow]

You're dismissing the quotes that are clear as day. Find me as many contrary statements from such prominent sources and then we'll discuss further.


Hm.

"In war, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
-James Madison

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
-John Adams, U.S. President

This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.
-John Adams, U.S. President

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being of His Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President

The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.
-Abraham Lincoln, U.S. President

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
-James Madison, U.S. President

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
-Thomas Paine, American revolutionary

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the word of God.
-Thomas Paine, American revolutionary

No kingdom has shed more blood than the kingdom of Christ.
-Guy de Montesquie, inspiration for the American Constitution and French revolutionary

The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.
-Benjamin Franklin

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
-The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams in 1797

[floyde]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams
...
Most of those aren't facts, they're just quotes. Quotes are people's opinions and nothing else. The fact that these people were once "prominent" doesn't make any of those statements true. A fact would be more in the realm of "a recent study conducted by the university of ... proved that ...", or something along those lines...

[Ugg]

You're dismissing the quotes that are clear as day. Find me as many contrary statements from such prominent sources and then we'll discuss further.

But to answer your question, it's not a static document but also one that's not open to negotitattion. It's a contract between the government and it's people promoting life, liberty and justice and clearly a document which many of it's writers directly stated to have been inspired by the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.

In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said,

Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.
The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity:

Thomas Jefferson:

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short
Jefferson again:
Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.
More Jefferson:
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson's word for the Bible?
Dunghill.
John Adams:
Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?
Also Adams:
The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Here's Thomas Paine:
I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).

Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.

The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.
Finally let's hear from James Madison:

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Among those who confuse Christianity with the founding of America, the rise of conservative Baptists is one of the more interesting developments. The Baptists believed God's authority came from the people, not the priesthood, and they had been persecuted for this belief. It was they—the Baptists—who were instrumental in securing the separation of church and state. They knew you can not have a "one-way wall" that lets religion into government but that does not let it out. They knew no religion is capable of handling political power without becoming corrupted by it. And, perhaps, they knew it was Christ himself who first proposed the separation of church and state: Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's.

That's a pretty good start, also you might want to check out the following link which provides a pretty clear idea how little religion played in the lives of most of the FF.

http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

[zimv20]

i take umbrage with the notion that a person of religion necessarily includes it in their work.

[silverback66]

So are you saying our founding fathers were huge hypocrites or what because clearly your statements and mine are in direct contradiction. Though I d note one distinction...

Many of your are in reference to the instituton of the church and not Christianity or the bibe itself. Given the tyranny of the church in England is it not understandable that fear of a similar institution rising in America would be a concern of those men?

[leekohler]

I already said I thought gay right was appropriate but that I don't agree with gay marriage. What else do you want me to say?

When? I missed that.

[silverback66]

When? I missed that.


Last night when you and I were joking around.

[leekohler]

Last night when you and I were joking around.

Oh OK. Oops. Had a bit of whiskey last night. :)

[silverback66]

Seriously I want to know what people make of such drastic contradictions of statements. Were our founding father in constant violation of the very constitution they penned? If the ACLU were around then they'd be hammering the government and individuals like crazy talking about how the things they were doing are unconstitutional. Don't you see the irony in this?

[zimv20]

Don't you see the irony in this?
no, there's no irony. just because someone is religious doesn't mean they must imbue that into their work. especially when they set off to design a nation-founding document that specifies the government won't endorse religion.

could you make a film w/o religion?

[silverback66]

Here's an example of congressional endorsment of a translation of the Bible:

Page 1: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006472.jpg

Page 2: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006473.jpg

[silverback66]

no, there's no irony. just because someone is religious doesn't mean they must imbue that into their work. especially when they set off to design a nation-founding document that specifies the government won't endorse religion.

could you make a film w/o religion?


What about the instence I cited where the government approved funds to purchase bibles so they could be spread around?

[zimv20]

could you make a film w/o religion?

[atszyman]

I have a simple question silverback66:

If the US were to at some point in the have a Muslim majority would you support the following changes:

1. Reword the Pledge of Allegiance to read "One nation, under Allah"
2. Replace "In God we trust" on our currency with "In Allah we trust"
3. Adding Crescent Moon symbols to city seals and other government properties.
4. Removing references to the 10 commandments in the courts and replacing them with quotes from Mohammed.
5. Swearing on a Koran in a court room instead of the Bible.

If you cannot support these changes to our current status quo in the event that Christianity is no longer the majority then you should have no problem understanding why non-Christians don't want these references there now.

[Ugg]

So are you saying our founding fathers were huge hypocrites or what because clearly your statements and mine are in direct contradiction. Though I d note one distinction...

Many of your are in reference to the instituton of the church and not Christianity or the bibe itself. Given the tyranny of the church in England is it not understandable that fear of a similar institution rising in America would be a concern of those men?

I think it's clear that at the point of the writing of the constitution, there was a lot of debate going on in the western world about the role of religion in governemnt. Luther did much to reform the worst excesses of the Catholic Church but religion was still a central part of government. The corruption within both the Catholic Church and the CofE made them very fearful and rightly so.

In 1700's America, there was little of intellectual interest. Their books, their plays, their fashions, their, well, pretty much everything came from Europe or were heavily influenced by Europeans. The distate for religion was one of these imports. It was liberating to the French and gave rise to a large middle class in Europe, one that had been held back by the excessive taxation of the church. The change wit

Many of the intellectuals of the FFs got much of their inspiration from non-Christians, namely the ancient Romans and the Greeks. To claim that they were all inspired by the bible is reaching for straws. The words are clear enough and the intent behind them is even clearer. Religion and government are to remains separate.

[Ugg]

What about the instence I cited where the government approved funds to purchase bibles so they could be spread around?

So these examples are proof of what? That religion is to be funded by the government? You haven't made a point.

[skunk]

I have a simple question silverback66:

If the US were to at some point in the have a Muslim majority would you support the following changes:

1. Reword the Pledge of Allegiance to read "One nation, under Allah"
2. Replace "In God we trust" on our currency with "In Allah we trust"
3. Adding Crescent Moon symbols to city seals and other government properties.
4. Removing references to the 10 commandments in the courts and replacing them with quotes from Mohammed.
5. Swearing on a Koran in a court room instead of the Bible.

If you cannot support these changes to our current status quo in the event that Christianity is no longer the majority then you should have no problem understanding why non-Christians don't want these references there now.That's a very good way of putting it.

[silverback66]

could you make a film w/o religion?


Long answer: No

Religion implies the belief in a diety and since we're discussing Christianity I can assume the diety in question is Jesus. From that I could say that had God not created te world and us no such things would be possible. So no, I couldn't make a film without religion.

[Sayhey]

I think any serious reading of history would support the idea that most of the people involved with the founding of the US were both Christian and had a well justified fear of intermingling of Church and State. As such, I don't find any real concern with both lists of quotes.

What I get from you, silverback, is an echo of some very right-wing politicians who would say that the establishment clause doesn't mean what it plainly says. btw, if you're into looking at contradictions it is of interest that most of the same people, yourself included, rail about "activist judges" reading things into the Constitution that aren't there. But back to the point. We are to believe that the First Amendment allows Christians to use their majority status to place Christian symbols in our government institutions, allows teaching of Christian dogma in our classrooms, and in general proclaim our nation a "Christian Nation." What does not qualify as the establishment of religion in any of this? Or does establishment prohibition only mean to you that the government can't prefer, say, Southern Baptists to Methodists? If this was being done by any other religion other than the ones supposedly embraced by our founders who it also be ok?

Sorry, I have to leave, I look for any answers or comments later tonight or tomorrow.

[silverback66]

I have a simple question silverback66:

If the US were to at some point in the have a Muslim majority would you support the following changes:

1. Reword the Pledge of Allegiance to read "One nation, under Allah"
2. Replace "In God we trust" on our currency with "In Allah we trust"
3. Adding Crescent Moon symbols to city seals and other government properties.
4. Removing references to the 10 commandments in the courts and replacing them with quotes from Mohammed.
5. Swearing on a Koran in a court room instead of the Bible.

If you cannot support these changes to our current status quo in the event that Christianity is no longer the majority then you should have no problem understanding why non-Christians don't want these references there now.


Okay if I say that I would support that and you feel thats a reasonable thing then why is it not reasonable to have evidence of Christianity within our society when Christians have been the majority since the begginging and continue to be to this day?

[silverback66]

So these examples are proof of what? That religion is to be funded by the government? You haven't made a point.


My point is what you call unconstitutional was a regular practice in the government for the majority of the nations history.

[zimv20]

Long answer: No
this is why you can't understand the notion that any religion practiced by the FF didn't necessarily make their way into the document.

[vniow]

Okay if I say that I would support that and you feel thats a reasonable thing then why is it not reasonable to have evidence of Christianity within our society when Christians have been the majority since the begginging and continue to be to this day?


Because its UNCONSTITUTIONAL and we DON"T RULE BY MAJORITY.

*bangs head on desk*

My point is what you call unconstitutional was a regular practice in the government for the majority of the nations history.


So that makes those and other unconstitutional acts okay?

[Ugg]

My point is what you call unconstitutional was a regular practice in the government for the majority of the nations history.

Hold on buddy,you have quoted one source and you are prepared to say that is a "regular practice"? That doesn't hold water here, as you should have learned by now. How about a regular string of practices throughout this nation's history. That might prove a "regular practice". One instance doesn't.

[zimv20]

if there were no instances of people trying to do things that are unconstitutional, we wouldn't need a supreme court.

[silverback66]

I think any serious reading of history would support the idea that most of the people involved with the founding of the US were both Christian and had a well justified fear of intermingling of Church and State. As such, I don't find any real concern with both lists of quotes.

What I get from you, silverback, is an echo of some very right-wing politicians who would say that the establishment clause doesn't mean what it plainly says. btw, if you're into looking at contradictions it is of interest that most of the same people, yourself included, rail about "activist judges" reading things into the Constitution that aren't there. But back to the point. We are to believe that the First Amendment allows Christians to use their majority status to place Christian symbols in our government institutions, allows teaching of Christian dogma in our classrooms, and in general proclaim our nation a "Christian Nation." What does not qualify as the establishment of religion in any of this? Or does establishment prohibition only mean to you that the government can't prefer, say, Southern Baptists to Methodists? If this was being done by any other religion other than the ones supposedly embraced by our founders who it also be ok?

Sorry, I have to leave, I look for any answers or comments later tonight or tomorrow.

Well let's look at it within the historical context. The church of england didn't allow diersity of faith. Of course what did that mean? That means they didn't allow other denominations of christianity because it would threaten the power of the state. The founding fathers saw how faith could be corrupted when the government controlled it and as such wanted to give the religious freedom to the people to express it freely. If the modern day when groups tell us we can't read our bibles in certain places or can't pray in certain places or even put up a cross in a certain place that is a denial of rights. Do you honestly believe the men who wrote the contitution would object to religious displays in public? I mean honestly, thats such a small issue and up until recently wasn't an issue at all. The onyl reason it's happening so frequently now is because people saw that they could sue things that offended them out of their life. And really the people who are offended more often than not come off as bigots.

[trebblekicked]

silverback, do you belong to any organizations that discuss the state of these issues (christian symbols in public, ACLU, etc)? just curious.

[thedude110]

Revealing statement.

To 'look forward' to something like this? Hateful, misogynistic, bile-filled.


Not to mention the way the word "rape" was being thrown around on the first page (as if it could be separated from itself as a physical act) ...

:mad:

[silverback66]

Because its UNCONSTITUTIONAL and we DON"T RULE BY MAJORITY.

*bangs head on desk*




So that makes those and other unconstitutional acts okay?


If you want to call it unconstitutional you have to say that those who wrote it were in direct violation of their own document as were the majority of those that came after them for about 150 or so years. Seems a bit absurd. Maybe it's just that the "modern day interpretation" of the constitution is wrong?

[atszyman]

Okay if I say that I would support that

Your wording leads me to believe that you wouldn't support it if it were to happen. Would you truly be behind all of these changes if Islam were the majority religion in the USA?

you feel thats a reasonable thing then why is it not reasonable to have evidence of Christianity within our society when Christians have been the majority since the begginging and continue to be to this day?

The reason that I cited the changes is that there would most likely be massive outrage from the supposedly oppressed majority to these changes with very little sense of the irony.

[silverback66]

Hold on buddy,you have quoted one source and you are prepared to say that is a "regular practice"? That doesn't hold water here, as you should have learned by now. How about a regular string of practices throughout this nation's history. That might prove a "regular practice". One instance doesn't.


Actually I've quoted two and in the second even provided drafts of historical documents.

[silverback66]

silverback, do you belong to any organizations that discuss the state of these issues (christian symbols in public, ACLU, etc)? just curious.


I signed up to join the College Republicans and Campus Crusade for Christ, but those don't even start until next week so to this point I've had no active involvement in any such organizations. For me it's an interest thats been sparked by watching the news.

[skunk]

Okay if I say that I would support that and you feel thats a reasonable thing then why is it not reasonable to have evidence of Christianity within our society when Christians have been the majority since the begginging and continue to be to this day?Not since the beginning, but since the genocide and consequent outnumbering of the aboriginal inhabitants. Sorry to be pedantic, but that was a bit rich...

[Ugg]

If the modern day when groups tell us we can't read our bibles in certain places or can't pray in certain places or even put up a cross in a certain place that is a denial of rights.

Ok, once again, you need to back up what you consider as fact with links to reputable sources. Your claims of course can't hold water as nobody has been banned from prayin in public nor reading the bible. Putting up a cross on public property of course is not allowed. Your rights will never be violated as long as your religion is practiced on your own time, on your own property and in no way violates the rights of others. The last is important. YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE MINE BEGIN.

[silverback66]

Not to mention the way the word "rape" was being thrown around on the first page (as if it could be separated from itself as a physical act) ...

:mad:


With regards to abortion, I support that right so long as the woman in questions life is in danger. If it's an excuse to not live with ones consequences after being sexually promiscuos then I am wholheartedly against it. With regards to rape cases, I don't feel that one wrong deserves another. there are alternatives and in fact I've known several women through my church who were raped and had their babies and later came to realize it was the greatest blessing of their life.

[silverback66]

Your wording leads me to believe that you wouldn't support it if it were to happen. Would you truly be behind all of these changes if Islam were the majority religion in the USA?



The reason that I cited the changes is that there would most likely be massive outrage from the supposedly oppressed majority to these changes with very little sense of the irony.


Honestly I would be upset if something like that happened but I seriously doubt I would persue legal recourse to shape it as I saw fit. So long as it didn't become a county where Christians are treated like they are in other predominantly islamic countries I would have no reason to speak out. They'd be free to practice their religion and I'd be free to practice mine. If they had symbols on government property and I was still allowed to have mine I think that'd be very reasonable.

[Ugg]

With regards to abortion, I support that right so long as the woman in questions life is in danger. If it's an excuse to not live with ones consequences after being sexually promiscuos then I am wholheartedly against it. With regards to rape cases, I don't feel that one wrong deserves another. there are alternatives and in fact I've known several women through my church who were raped and had their babies and later came to realize it was the greatest blessing of their life.

You're the first person I've heard call rape a blessing. Do you wonder why we find you intolerant?

[silverback66]

Not since the beginning, but since the genocide and consequent outnumbering of the aboriginal inhabitants. Sorry to be pedantic, but that was a bit rich...


Well since the beggining of the foundng of the United Staes of America Christians have been in the majority. I know what you're hinting at but it's a clever twisting of words that I'll applaud you for this once.

[aquajet]

With regards to abortion, I support that right so long as the woman in questions life is in danger. If it's an excuse to not live with ones consequences after being sexually promiscuos then I am wholheartedly against it. With regards to rape cases, I don't feel that one wrong deserves another. there are alternatives and in fact I've known several women through my church who were raped and had their babies and later came to realize it was the greatest blessing of their life.

I believe he was referring to your claim that the ACLU is raping the civil liberties of Americans.

[silverback66]

Ok, once again, you need to back up what you consider as fact with links to reputable sources. Your claims of course can't hold water as nobody has been banned from prayin in public nor reading the bible. Putting up a cross on public property of course is not allowed. Your rights will never be violated as long as your religion is practiced on your own time, on your own property and in no way violates the rights of others. The last is important. YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE MINE BEGIN.


The only reason you can say this is because you don't agree with me. I've put my case before you and it's open to interpretation. If it weren't don't you think someone would have setled it by now?

[silverback66]

You're the first person I've heard call rape a blessing. Do you wonder why we find you intolerant?

Seriosuly, are you really that slow? I was talking about the baby. If you seriosuly didn't know that....wow....just wow.

[silverback66]

I believe he was referring to your claim that the ACLU is raping the civil liberties of Americans.


Aye, but go frther up the page and see what it was that he was commenting on and you'll see the prgression.

With regards to my statement on the first page, I recant.

[atszyman]

Honestly I would be upset if something like that happened but I seriously doubt I would persue legal recourse to shape it as I saw fit. So long as it didn't become a county where Christians are treated like they are in other predominantly islamic countries I would have no reason to speak out. They'd be free to practice their religion and I'd be free to practice mine. If they had symbols on government property and I was still allowed to have mine I think that'd be very reasonable.

Ok, so you admit that you would be upset. So you can understand why minority religions have issues with these and other religious references in your government.

You might not sue but you can also understand why there would most likely be many lawsuits brought about by people who are more passionate about these issues than you and are currently on the side of the majority. You would probably be on the side of those who filed these lawsuits, as would the ACLU....

edit : I had more to say but I am in a rush to get out of work so I cannot continue, that and it has completely slipped my mind.

[silverback66]

Ok, so you admit that you would be upset. So you can understand why minority religions have issues with these and other religious references in your government.

You might not sue but you can also understand why there would most likely be many lawsuits brought about by people who are more passionate about these issues than you and are currently on the side of the majority. You would probably be on the side of those who filed these lawsuits, as would the ACLU....

edit : I had more to say but I am in a rush to get out of work so I cannot continue, that and it has completely slipped my mind.


I would be upset, but not for wholly righteous reasons. What would upset me would be that the nation had turned away from Christ. Me trying to impose my will in courts wouldn't be of any use. It would only polarize those that I would potentially be trying to reach out to against me.

[vniow]

What would upset me would be that the nation had turned away from Christ.


Well that spells it out pretty clearly. You care more about Christian values and your Christian beliefs that the principles of religious freedom in which this country was founded on.

I see the light now.

[Blue Velvet]

I've known several women through my church who were raped and had their babies and later came to realize it was the greatest blessing of their life.

Why do I find this repulsive statement hard to believe?

[Ugg]

I would be upset, but not for wholly righteous reasons. What would upset me would be that the nation had turned away from Christ. Me trying to impose my will in courts wouldn't be of any use. It would only polarize those that I would potentially be trying to reach out to against me.


What nation are you talking about? I'm, amongst others, a part of that nation and have never, ever turned towards your god. Your definitionn of nation is automatically excluding everyone who doesn't profess your faith. Is that moral?

[silverback66]

Well that spells it out pretty clearly. You care more about Christian values and your Christian beliefs that the principles of religious freedom in which this country was founded on.

I see the light now.


To that I can say ABSOLUTLEY! God is first in my life. first over my country, first over my family, first over everything. You won't undertsand this, but to do otherwise would mean to make what I had put first as an idol before God. I don't expect you to understand or identify with this, I mean you don't believe in Christ so it'd be foolish to think you'd get it. This country is going to fade away with time. Eventually it won't even exist anymore. Christ will still exist though and will always.

[Ugg]

Why do I find this repulsive statement hard to believe?


It sounds like anti-abortion propagand to me.

[silverback66]

Why do I find this repulsive statement hard to believe?


Why the hell is it repulsive? I'm disgusted that'd you'd say such a thing about the way a woman feels about her baby. Shes hates what happened to her, but she's forgiven the man who did it to her and see's her child as the greatest gift God has ever given her. Who the hell are you to judge her for that?!

[Ugg]

To that I can say ABSOLUTLEY! God is first in my life. first over my country, first over my family, first over everything. You won't undertsand this, but to do otherwise would mean to make what I had put first as an idol before God. I don't expect you to understand or identify with this, I mean you don't believe in Christ so it'd be foolish to think you'd get it. This country is going to fade away with time. Eventually it won't even exist anymore. Christ will still exist though and will always.

Every country fades with time. The reason for this generally is an overreaching and overbearing attitude towards other countries. I'd say we're well on our way, no surprise there.

Christ can only exist in your mind since there is no proof that he exists. As long as people believe in this fallacy his purported existence will continue. It's a shame really that people turn their backs on what is important and towards things that are such a waste of time energy and money.

[vniow]

Okay everyone, calm the **** down. There's no need for name-caling here and this thread is getting out of control. Offending posts have been reported.

[Blue Velvet]

...God is first in my life. first over my country, first over my family, first over everything. You won't undertsand this... I don't expect you to understand or identify with this, I mean you don't believe in Christ so it'd be foolish to think you'd get it.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1371802&postcount=16

[aquajet]

Perhaps it's time to close the thread if you can't take the heat.

[silverback66]

Every country fades with time. The reason for this generally is an overreaching and overbearing attitude towards other countries. I'd say we're well on our way, no surprise there.

Christ can only exist in your mind since there is no proof that he exists. As long as people believe in this fallacy his purported existence will continue. It's a shame really that people turn their backs on what is important and towards things that are such a waste of time energy and money.

You really don't get it.

[silverback66]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1371802&postcount=16


Okay so you think I'm a bigot and I think you're one. what else is new?