Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/19/2001 6:45:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/19/2001 9:49:02 PM EDT by VA-gunnut]
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 6:57:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 7:37:24 PM EDT
The concept was more against a State Church that against religion. I am a card carrying Catholic but I don't want my tax dollars paying for a nativity scene or better yet having Christmas as a national holiday. All you who support a Christian based government imagine what it would be like living in a Islam based country.
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 7:42:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 7:46:24 PM EDT
I thought the phrase "seperation of church and state" was in the old Soviet Constitution, not ours.
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 7:46:25 PM EDT
I am not religious. At all. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that talks about this. It's an invention of later presidents. The separation of church and state may or may not be a good idea, but it is legally a fiction. You have the First Amendment's establishment clause, but that's it. All that says is that the govt may not establish a religion.
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 8:19:19 PM EDT
Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [8D] How many laws are out there violate this… TO F**KING MANY. [b]Amen[/b]dment 1 supports [b]Amen[/b]dment 2. (By being here) [b]Amen[/b]dment 2 supports [b]Amen[/b]dment 1. (When the example above fails) [b]We[/b] support all of them or [b]we[/b] quit. [:|] I don’t see the words ‘separation of church and state’ here. What I see is the state will ignore the church as far as law making is concerned. [:D] SSD
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 3:05:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SSD: Amendment 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [8D] How many laws are out there violate this… TO F**KING MANY. [b]Amen[/b]dment 1 supports [b]Amen[/b]dment 2. (By being here) [b]Amen[/b]dment 2 supports [b]Amen[/b]dment 1. (When the example above fails) [b]We[/b] support all of them or [b]we[/b] quit. [:|] I don’t see the words ‘separation of church and state’ here. What I see is the state will ignore the church as far as law making is concerned. [:D] SSD
View Quote
The above quote is completely correct. I didn't vote because neither are valid answers from my viewpoint. The whole "separation of church and state" bullshit has become so twisted that it really doesn't make sense anymore. How the hell can somebody make a reasonable arguement that saying a prayer before a highschool football game violates the 1st amendment? There should be one more amendment which states that anyone found to be violating the Constitution of the United States by a jury of educated peers should be publicly executed. Michael
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 3:15:00 AM EDT
You 'separation of church and state' guys are whacked! While we make a big loud fuss about honoring the 'original intent' of the writers of the Second Amendment, we seem to honor anything [b]but[/b] the 'original intent' of the framers in the First Amendment. The 'Establishment' of religion by a state was a hotly contested issue back in those days. You have read about such matters, right? But we are so much more [b]enlightened[/b] now then we were back then! Eric The(Yeah,Right!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 3:16:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 3:09:18 AM EDT by Ponyboy]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: You 'separation of church and state' guys are whacked! While we make a big loud fuss about honoring the 'original intent' of the writers of the Second Amendment, we seem to honor anything [b]but[/b] the 'original intent' of the framers in the First Amendment. The 'Establishment' of religion by a state was a hotly contested issue back in those days. You have read about such matters, right? But we are so much more [b]enlightened[/b] now then we were back then! Eric The(Yeah,Right!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Exactly.... (I thought I was the only person who got up and logged on to ar15.com this early.)
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 3:31:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 3:32:16 AM EDT
'Misery loves company', [b]Ponyboy[/b]! [>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 3:42:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By WhomItMayConcern: Some watch the site all night long. [:)]
View Quote
Yeah, I used to when I worked nights[%|]. Now that I'm a normal person though[8D], I just get up early occasionally. However, I'm pretty sure Eric doesn't work nights [@:D] Michael
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 3:44:15 AM EDT
No separation = Taliban
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 3:50:37 AM EDT
So, you 'SOCAS' folks, let me get this perfectly straight, the Founding Fathers would have thought that 'nude dancing' was an appropriate use of the freedom of speech, but a public prayer before a high school football game was an activity prohibited by the First Amendment? How is it 'prohibited'? Maybe you SOCAS guys should read the First Amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I know you can recite the Second Amendment by heart, but you should try to remember this one as well. It says 'Congress shall make no law...' But now the US Supreme Court, beginning in about 1962, has said that 'separation of church and state' is the law of the land. Problem is, the phrase 'separation of church and state' appears nowhere in our Founding Documents! I can't wait until the US Supreme Court tells us that the Second Amendment doesn't mean that the people have a right to keep and bear arms! I'll buy all you SOCAS folks' weapons then for a song and a dance! HeHeHe! [Note: I chose the term 'SOCAS' as an acronym for 'separation of church and state' and, quite frankly, because it sounds like 'sucka**' when spoken aloud![:D]] Eric The(CommonSenseInterprtationsBeDamned,ItTakes­AnEnlightenedBarAssociationToTellUsWhat'They'­Meant!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 3:50:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dbrowne1: I am not religious. At all. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that talks about this. It's an invention of later presidents. The separation of church and state may or may not be a good idea, but it is legally a fiction. You have the First Amendment's establishment clause, but that's it. All that says is that the govt may not establish a religion.
View Quote
A truly eloquent statement. Add Eric the Huns comments, and you have a complete thought. The phrase actually comes from a personal letter of T. Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. Politically, it is indeed a fiction. The Founding Fatherws were against a state church, but for ANYONE who has read them, the acknowledged that teh ONLY way the Republic would survive is ******* IF ****** personal morality was well-ingrained in those who seved in elective office. So, in a twisted sort of way, the immoral leaders we have now are in part FORCING those of us who acknowledge what the Founding Fathers said to try to instill SOME sort of morality in gov't. Stated another way, IF the elected officials held to the moral standards that the FF deemed CRUCIAL to the survival of the Republic, the "Separation of Church and State" issue would be a non-issue. And for the record, the LAST thing I want is for Chritianity to be made the official religion. All youi need do is look and see what happened when Oliver Cromwell and Charlemagne did that.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 4:02:41 AM EDT
The truth according to Shooter? Frankly, I'm not to impressed by either the Church of Today or the State of the State. I'm not so certain they don't deserve each other, maybe just pull up a lawn chair and an 12 pack on ice and watch the fight. My view on religion has been brutally evolved/devolved since Sept 11. More exactly, my view of Man. Until the human equation evolves beyond its current definition of 'religion', we will remain self-oppressed and floundering in a quagmire of misplaced self-righteousness. God may love us all, but I'm pretty sure he sits down on occasion with a Cosmic Corona, and like any good parent, wonders "Where did I screw up so badly?" Shooter [i]"omnia mutantur nos et mutamur in illis" all things change, and we change with them[/i]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 4:03:44 AM EDT
Post from entropy -
No separation = Taliban
View Quote
So you believe that prior to the US Supreme Court of EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947), that the United States was, basically, a religious dictatorship? Is that what you're claiming? I suppose you were born sometime after 1947, and never read much history, am I correct? The [u]Everson[/u] case, to refresh your memory, the Supreme Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that 'aid one religion' or 'prefer one religion over another,' but as well those that 'aid all religions.' Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters, such as our boys Scalia and Thomas, have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is 'preferential' governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general. Rhenquist has indicated that while he would go along with the dissenters to a point, he felt that the Court was bound by 'historical tradition' of the [u]Everson[/u] case. Wow, a case from 1947 is accorded 'historical tradition' status! Eric The(GetYouHistoryRightHere!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 4:11:18 AM EDT
Post from SS109 -
The concept was more against a State Church that against religion. I am a card carrying Catholic but I don't want my tax dollars paying for a nativity scene or better yet having Christmas as a national holiday. All you who support a Christian based government imagine what it would be like living in a Islam based country.
View Quote
So do you believe that your Church should be paying taxes on its properties, of which it has many? Should religious donations continue to be tax deductable? Should all federal regulations concerning labor be applied to Church employees? Should the EEOC investigate your Church to determine if the fact that there are no female priests means that wholesale discrimination has been taking place for centuries, and then try to fashion a remedy for your Church? Did the United States even remotely resemble any Islamic countries you know of, prior to 1947? BTW, Christmas is still a National Holy Day![:D] Eric The(SOCAS,MyRear!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 4:15:21 AM EDT
For the learning disabled I will make a rather simple observation; CONGRESS shall make no law. There exists no prohibition for state governments to have official religion and many did. The problem is the reversal of our freedom of religion to the freedom from religion. Without self governed people our government will topple. It is only a matter of time. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 4:15:49 AM EDT
I would inject here, but The Hun is saying everything for me. Plus he is saying it a lot better than I ever could. Michael
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 4:23:18 AM EDT
So did the Founding Fathers believe in SOCAS? Hmmmm. Let's see. "We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us . . . to Govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded." -- James Madison, Fourth President of the United States (called the 'Father of the Constitution') "Acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of . . . that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. "It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor . . . ." --George Washington (Thanksgiving Proclamation, 1789) "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue." -- John Adams, Second President of the United States Although not 'Founding Fathers' here are two more quotes - "Our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits." -- Daniel Webster, American Jurist and Senator "The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion." -- Abraham Lincoln, Sixteenth President of the United States Need more? I've got a million of them! Eric The(AndThey'reOnlyARightClickOnMyMouseAway!)H­un[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 4:25:58 AM EDT
They always bring a tear, ETH. give us more, more, more!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 4:31:12 AM EDT
By the way the poll statement that:
Yes the founding fathers were correct in this protection
View Quote
should be changes to:
Yes the United States Supreme Court was correct in this protection
View Quote
The Founding Fathers haven't written any new stuff in quite a few years. The best and brightest scholars who came and went during the entire history of our Republic never once thought or urged that the First Amendment meant SOCAS. And then in 1947 and afterwards, certain legal scholars must have slapped their heads and hollered 'why, it's been right in front of our noses all along - the First Amendment means we need freedom [u]from[/u] religion'! Eric The(Boy,AndHaveWeGotten'Free'FromReligionEver­Since!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 6:58:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from entropy -
No separation = Taliban
View Quote
So you believe that prior to the US Supreme Court of EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947), that the United States was, basically, a religious dictatorship? Is that what you're claiming? I suppose you were born sometime after 1947, and never read much history, am I correct? The [u]Everson[/u] case, to refresh your memory, the Supreme Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that 'aid one religion' or 'prefer one religion over another,' but as well those that 'aid all religions.' Recently, in reliance on published scholarly research and original sources, Court dissenters, such as our boys Scalia and Thomas, have recurred to the argument that what the religion clauses, principally the Establishment Clause, prevent is 'preferential' governmental promotion of some religions, allowing general governmental promotion of all religion in general. Rhenquist has indicated that while he would go along with the dissenters to a point, he felt that the Court was bound by 'historical tradition' of the [u]Everson[/u] case. Wow, a case from 1947 is accorded 'historical tradition' status! Eric The(GetYouHistoryRightHere!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Hi Eric, Quite the conrary, I do read lots of history. Perhaps I misphrased my equation. Instead of: No Separation = Taliban It should be: State sanctioned religion = Taliban I think that is the fear of not having SOCAS. How about if that prayer before the football game was "Praise Allah, for he kills infidels"?
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 7:28:17 AM EDT
Post from entropy -
State sanctioned religion = Taliban I think that is the fear of not having SOCAS.
View Quote
So from your reading of history, did the United States have a 'state sanctioned religion' prior to the US Supreme Court getting involved in what, up to that point, had been a matter for the States to decide for themselves? If so, which religion was sanctioned? And how was that religion sanctioned?
How about if that prayer before the football game was "Praise Allah, for he kills infidels"?
View Quote
If the State determines that public prayers can be offered at public events, and the public assents to the type of prayer that you indicated, then wouldn't it be a prohibition of the 'free exercise of religion' for Congress to forbid it? It simply might mean that the States would no longer permit the recitation of public prayers at public events, if they invariably led to religiously inspired maimings and killings. Ah, but that's how the Founding Fathers wanted it to be! BTW, where [b]did[/b] you go to high school? Did y'all have a cheer that went something like 'Two-Four-Six-Eight, who do we all agree to hate'? I thought not! Eric The(FreedomIsAnAwesomeThing)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 7:30:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 7:26:17 AM EDT by KBaker]
Originally Posted By Planerench: For the learning disabled I will make a rather simple observation; CONGRESS shall make no law. There exists no prohibition for state governments to have official religion and many did. The problem is the reversal of our freedom of religion to the freedom from religion. Without self governed people our government will topple. It is only a matter of time. Planerench out.
View Quote
For the legally disabled, the Fourteenth Amendment has been used to "incorporate" all of the protections of the First Amendment. That is, the STATES may make no law that the First Amendment denies the Congress from making. You'll note, however, that no such protection has been extended to the Second Amendment, and under US v. Cruikshank the Supreme Court said that while the "right to bear arms for a lawful purpose" was protected by the Second Amendment, it prohibited only CONGRESS from infringing on that right. This was IMMEDIATELY AFTER the 14th was passed. To me, it's hypocrisy for the First Amendment protections to be extended under the 14th when the Second Amendment is abandoned by it. To all those so inclined, yes the Founding Fathers did insist that only with a moral people could the United States survive, and to them moral=Christian. However, I'm not a Christian, and my morals are (IMHO) superior to those of Jim and Tammy Fay. Or Oral Roberts. Or Jimmy Swaggart. It is possible to have a system of morals outside of the cult of the dead-jew-on-a-stick or any other belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being or beings who created us and now require our devotion. What the Founding Fathers were trying to ensure was that the multiple sects of Christianity in the US weren't going to try to wrest control and duplicate the Catholic/Protestant idiocy going on in Ireland (or worse). The PC crap over whether a prayer should occur before a football game is exactly that - crap. Don't want to pray? DON'T. But don't tell those who do that they CAN'T.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 7:31:18 AM EDT
What would this country be like without the "seperation of church and state" that has been forced upon us? I think it would be just what the founding fathers wanted. Would that be good or bad, well that is a seperate qustion. But notice a few other things: 1)The 1st amend says congress shall make no law, it didn't say anyhting about the ststes and for a time after the revolution some states did have semi-offical state religions. 2)the 1st only says congress can't make laws repecting the establishment of religion, it doesn't say congress can't favor one over another or support one over another.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 7:37:22 AM EDT
Post from KBaker -
It is possible to have a system of morals outside of the cult of the dead-jew-on-a-stick or any other belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being or beings who created us and now require our devotion.
View Quote
'Dead-jew-on-a-stick'? Wow, your morals are certainly [u]different[/u] from the Bakkers, the Swaggarts, and so many other exposed and defrocked Christians, [b]but hardly superior.[/b] In one silly phrase, you've managed to mock the entirety of Western Civilization. Because, you must admit, Christianity was the driving force behind the rise and triumph of Western thought and culture. What a class act you are! Eric The(ButThen,It'sWhatOneShouldExpectFromOneWho­seGodIsSpelledWithALittle'g')Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 7:53:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from KBaker -
It is possible to have a system of morals outside of the cult of the dead-jew-on-a-stick or any other belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being or beings who created us and now require our devotion.
View Quote
'Dead-jew-on-a-stick'? Wow, your morals are certainly [u]different[/u] from the Bakkers, the Swaggarts, and so many other exposed and defrocked Christians, [b]but hardly superior.[/b] In one silly phrase, you've managed to mock the entirety of Western Civilization. Because, you must admit, Christianity was the driving force behind the rise and triumph of Western thought and culture. What a class act you are! Eric The(ButThen,It'sWhatOneShouldExpectFromOneWho­seGodIsSpelledWithALittle'g')Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Thank you Eric. It certainly is a fairly large dichotomy that in one paragraph this statement is made and yet with the next breath, a defense of prayer is given. Now I won't deny your right to [b]not[/b] believe, but please, do not mock my beliefs with such statements - I shall strive to do the same about yours.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 7:59:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 7:53:14 AM EDT by AR15FENCER]
The 1st Amendment says that congress shall make no law regarding religion. THUS separation of church and state. Actually, more refers to separation of Church and the central government, not any particular state. However "Congress shall make no law..." sounds a lot like ".... shall not be infringed" [edited, because, I don't know, where to put, commas]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 8:12:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15FENCER: The 1st Amendment says that congress shall make no law regarding religion. THUS separation of church and state. Actually, more refers to separation of Church and the central government, not any particular state. However "Congress shall make no law..." sounds a lot like ".... shall not be infringed" [edited, because, I don't know, where to put, commas]
View Quote
Hmmm, and I always thought "Shall make no law" meant shall make no law! The general idea, as stated above is to ensure that the gov't doesn't create a "Church of the U.S." as England had a Church of England. This would have had the effect of swinging all of teh federal gov't power and might (granted, limited in those days, but there was historical precedent) behind an effort to persecute any other church or religion that didn't fall in line with it. This clause has been interpreted in recent history to mean the exact opposite of what it was put there for. That rather than free exercise of religion, you can't excersize your religion except in certain places at certain times. By it's very nature, the SOCAS philosophy has actually established a "religion" of secular humanism, or worse, a religion of the "Federal Gov't" as god. Some separation, now the "State" [i]is[/i] god.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 8:14:15 AM EDT
OK, I apologize. Sincerely. The DJOAS comment is not original, and yes, I understand that to Christians it's offensive. I should not have used it. (I think it's funny, but not in this context.) As to whether or not my morality is superior to the aforementioned "evangelists", I at least don't think that fleecing your flock in the name of Jesus is moral. "Do as I say, not as I do" is pretty poor morally. Christianity was the driving force behind the rise of Western culture? I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Christianity in general and Catholocism in particular were fairly repressive forces until Martin Luther broke the power of the Church over the people. I think that the plagues had more to do with the rise of western culture than religion did.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 8:30:21 AM EDT
I think the founding fathers intended for there to be freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. They never actually make mention of "separtaion of church and state". I believe that phrase refers to the fact that the govt. is not in the business of mandating or establishing any particular brand of religion(ie the Anglican Church in England). Finnbear out
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 8:32:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: OK, I apologize. Sincerely. The DJOAS comment is not original, and yes, I understand that to Christians it's offensive. I should not have used it. (I think it's funny, but not in this context.) As to whether or not my morality is superior to the aforementioned "evangelists", I at least don't think that fleecing your flock in the name of Jesus is moral. "Do as I say, not as I do" is pretty poor morally.
View Quote
Well, you'll get no argument from me on that statement [:D] Fleecing the flock is indeed [b]very[/b] poor morally to begin with, not to mention doing it in the name of Christ. I think you'd find most Christians to be completely dismayed and offended by what happened.
Christianity was the driving force behind the rise of Western culture? I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Christianity in general and Catholocism in particular were fairly repressive forces until Martin Luther broke the power of the Church over the people. I think that the plagues had more to do with the rise of western culture than religion did.
View Quote
Well, some might actually argue that western culture didn't really begin it's rise until the Reformation anyway. Until then it was still basically the remnants of the Roman Empire, attempting to remain in place as the Holy Roman Empire. Even at that, it took a while, once the yoke of Rome and the pope was thrown off to get the "west" into gear. Now, to forstall some other outrage, I'm not saying that prior to the Reformation there wasn't culture, and art, etc... just that in my own mind it isn't entirely "western" in nature.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 8:33:05 AM EDT
The spelling police missed this one- it is "separation" and not "seperation" [:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:23:56 AM EDT
Well, I disagree with those who think the 'dark ages' were really all that dark. And you certainly can't demonstrate that Western Civilization was not alive and well during that time period, either. The Holy Roman Empire, while, as was pointed out by someone, was neither 'Holy', 'Roman', nor much of an 'Empire', is was certainly not the period of literary and cultural depression that some make it out to be. And remember, cathedral building was alive and well, and, practically speaking, uninterrupted since Classical Roman days. Where else in the World was all this happening? Eric The(China,Possibly?No,ItWasTheSameItHadBeenFo­rCenturies-Stagnant)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 9:26:06 AM EDT
And building cathedrals advances Western Civilization exactly how?
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:00:00 AM EDT
Post from KBaker -
And building cathedrals advances Western Civilization exactly how?
View Quote
So you don't think architecture is a worthy science, I take it? Well, it sure beats those little mud huts you find all over the world - TODAY! Cathedrals inspired other architects, poets, painters, artisans, mathematicians and other scientists, theologians, and philosophers, and generally contributed to a feeling of mutuality of purpose among the citizens, which led to cities, city-states, and unltimately, nations. Need I go on? Eric The(AreYouPullingMyLegOnThis?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:06:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: And building cathedrals advances Western Civilization exactly how?
View Quote
If you don't know, then you don't really understand the meaning of the term "Weastern Civilization". Look: [img]http://data2.artifice.com/gbc/images/cid_chartres_jai_031.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:07:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from entropy -
State sanctioned religion = Taliban I think that is the fear of not having SOCAS.
View Quote
So from your reading of history, did the United States have a 'state sanctioned religion' prior to the US Supreme Court getting involved in what, up to that point, had been a matter for the States to decide for themselves? If so, which religion was sanctioned? And how was that religion sanctioned?
How about if that prayer before the football game was "Praise Allah, for he kills infidels"?
View Quote
If the State determines that public prayers can be offered at public events, and the public assents to the type of prayer that you indicated, then wouldn't it be a prohibition of the 'free exercise of religion' for Congress to forbid it? It simply might mean that the States would no longer permit the recitation of public prayers at public events, if they invariably led to religiously inspired maimings and killings. Ah, but that's how the Founding Fathers wanted it to be! BTW, where [b]did[/b] you go to high school? Did y'all have a cheer that went something like 'Two-Four-Six-Eight, who do we all agree to hate'? I thought not! Eric The(FreedomIsAnAwesomeThing)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Geeesh, you sure can infer a lot, eh? The word I used was [b]fear[/b]. I think folks are afraid that without the "SOCAS", that a state sanctioned religion could arise. High School(s) Balboa High School, Balboa, CZ Stringer High School, Stringer, MS Lynbrook, HS, Lynbrook, PRNY. Where'd you go? How about the "praise allah" prayer being given by the principle? Or how about the second grade teacher, in class? Is that ok at a public school? If your kids were in a classroom, and the teacher had a "praise allah" prayer time and faced mecca every day at noon, would that be cool with you? BTW, I'm a states rights proponent :)
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:08:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from KBaker -
And building cathedrals advances Western Civilization exactly how?
View Quote
So you don't think architecture is a worthy science, I take it? Well, it sure beats those little mud huts you find all over the world - TODAY! Cathedrals inspired other architects, poets, painters, artisans, mathematicians and other scientists, theologians, and philosophers, and generally contributed to a feeling of mutuality of purpose among the citizens, which led to cities, city-states, and unltimately, nations. Need I go on? Eric The(AreYouPullingMyLegOnThis?)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Architects, yes. Mathematicians, yes. Other scientists? Theologians and philosophers? Got an example? Mutuality of purpose - doubtless. But I think that by the time the cathedral-building craze came around city-states and nations were already established. Religion during and before the Dark Ages also acted to repress science, and still does so today. Science is the one thing that has lead to the incredible advances of modern history. It is also the major cause of the decline of religion today (doubtless why it was so ruthlessly suppressed - "And yet it moves!") I think if the Church had known that the building of cathedrals would lead to an advancement of science, we'd still be in mud huts.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:13:38 AM EDT
Major-Murphy: Been there, seen that. Spectacular. What else could they have accomplished with that investment of wealth and energy? Of course the competition of "my cathedral is bigger than your cathedral" did draw off a lot of "my army is bigger than your army" energy.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:34:55 AM EDT
Let's not forget the even more recent beginnings of this country! Witch trials and cult-like villages were the norm. Religion is not responsible for western civilizations' sudden rise. The gun is the reason. Gunpowder began a surge of development of weapons for war. A lot of this technology also helped in activities like mining, new smelting techniques, and manufacturing techniques. Until guns moved in, barbarians would still sack cities and sometimes overrun nations. But back to the religious argument. I'm an atheist, and am for separation of church and state. I'm not against school prayer, if it is before or after actual school classes, and is done only by students or groups of students, with no teacher or administrator involvement. I'm against any type of led prayers at public high school sporting events. I think the best thing to remember for most of the Christian people on this board is that there are a bunch of public schools in this nation where Jewish teachers and students are the majority. Do you want your kids being led in prayer in those schools??? I'm not one of those anti-"god bless America" freaks either. If students want to put that on the sign outside their school, let them. But teachers or administrators should have no involvement. If you want to talk about backwards civilization, remember a certain state still trying to teach creationist ideas instead of evolution in their public schools. Medical science would really have advanced with those teachings.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 10:35:39 AM EDT
First of all I wish AR15.COM would set aside a separate forum area for those that enjoy enlightening others of their religious prowess AND for those people that live to piss them off. Secondly, I'm not afraid of, or feel threatened by, a total and complete SOCA - in fact, it is a right I cherish. If your particular religion feels that the "establishment" clause of the 1st Amm is a danger to it - well, good. That's why its there. [i]The clergy believe that any portion of power confided to me,as President, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.[/i] - T. Jefferson The problem with saying a prayer before a football game: Is one penny from the taxes I pay being used to facilitate delivery of someone else's religious views? Then I say knock it off (and yes, I do realize that much of what I pay in taxes may be grossly misused in ways I can't imagine, but that doesn't OK the use of publicly owned equipment and real estate to disseminate a religious message, regardless of which religion is being served). [i]Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.[/i] - T. Jefferson Why is freedom [b]FROM[/b] religion so offensive to so many people? Why can't I walk out of the grocery store without being harassed by someone wanting to know if I could use some help from the Holy Spirit that day? I've got enough on my hands trying to pick out the right laundry detergent, I don't need to be confronted about the intensity, depth, and nature of my religious beliefs everywhere I go do I[b]???[/b] (and esp. not at a high school football game) [i]In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.[/i] - T. Jefferson
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 11:36:11 AM EDT
[b]Note to Dolomite[/b] - Next time you see a thread with 'Religion', 'Heaven', 'Hell', 'Jesus', 'Cristianity', 'Church', or some such other similar term in its title, pass on by, forget it, leave it lie, forget about it, don't let it trouble you, skip it, go to the next thread, whatever! Just don't try to stifle our little bit of freedom of expression and religious beliefs here in Christendom. (Now where have I heard that before?) You'll not likely find anything like it elsewhere in the World! Eric The(ThanksButNoThanksForYourImput!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 11:56:42 AM EDT
Post from KBaker -
Been there, seen that. Spectacular. What else could they have accomplished with that investment of wealth and energy?
View Quote
Why do you want to know what else could have been accomplished with that money? That sounds like something a liberal would say about a nuclear attack sub. I take it you're in favor of nuclear attack subs? So now you want to replace your choices for the choices of folks made over eight centuries ago? Why can't you just let these pious peons continue to remain pious peons? Eric The(Well,Let'sNotLoseAnySleepOverIt)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:24:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Post from KBaker -
Been there, seen that. Spectacular. What else could they have accomplished with that investment of wealth and energy?
View Quote
Why do you want to know what else could have been accomplished with that money? That sounds like something a liberal would say about a nuclear attack sub. I take it you're in favor of nuclear attack subs? So now you want to replace your choices for the choices of folks made over eight centuries ago? Why can't you just let these pious peons continue to remain pious peons? Eric The(Well,Let'sNotLoseAnySleepOverIt)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Eric, am I misinterpreting, or do you insist on being offended? It was a question, nothing more or less. You must admit, Notre Dame was a [i]massive[/i] investment in man-hours and capital. It was, among other things, a "my cathedral is bigger than your cathedral" competitive effort. Where in the Bible is the flock told to build massive ornate temples to God? Is a Notre Dame a requirement before your prayers are heard by God? A nuclear submarine protects a nation. I don't think a cathedral is necessary for the protection of the soul in any Christian religion, beautiful though they may be. And the pious peons could probably have used the taxes that were taken from them to pay for it, don't you think?
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:34:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2001 12:44:13 PM EDT by Dolomite]
I'm honored that you felt my post was worthy a response. Isn't it readily apparent why AR15.COM should have a separate (but equal) discussion area for these type of discussions? Now, [i]because I don't share your exact ideology I should stay away???[/i] BTW, I am more than happy to avoid posts with quasi-spiritual words in their title - but excuse Ms. Evelyn Wood - there ain't none of them words in this here post title. So now what should I do? I'm already here.
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:40:25 PM EDT
Now how many friggin nuclear attack subs do you think this country needs, anyway? Answer - (1) as many as our military experts tell us we need, and (2) as many as we can afford without alienating taxpayers. Simple. So, [b]KBaker[/b], I am certain that there were some cathedral-building Huns in my ancestry, so forgive me if I'm offended for their sakes.[:D] Nothing Jesus ever said on earth compels His followers to build anything 'bigger' than anyone else's, those are the private foibles of mankind. Eric The(MySpireIsHuge,Huge,ITellYou!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 12:46:47 PM EDT
Eric: Fair enough. But we've kinda strayed from the topic.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top