Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 8/19/2006 12:07:01 PM EDT
www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/news/142797.php

In spite of the Anti Christ Liberation Union, the monument which contains the 10 commandments can stay outside of the court house.
Link Posted: 8/19/2006 12:19:59 PM EDT
careful

the ACLU is saving up responses like this one (admittedly they'll probably never see this one) and they will all be presented for the next challenge as an example of how it IS a religous monument.

Link Posted: 8/19/2006 12:32:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
careful

the ACLU is saving up responses like this one (admittedly they'll probably never see this one) and they will all be presented for the next challenge as an example of how it IS a religous monument.


Because Christians object to it being removed does not make it purely a Christian monument. It is sickening what the ACLU does under the guise of freedom FROM religion. The ACLU has done more over the years to infringe upon the free excercise or religion and to establish a national religion of Antitheism than any religous group has done to infringe upon the rights of the Antitheists.
Link Posted: 8/19/2006 3:56:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Interceptor_Knight:

Originally Posted By Dino:
careful

the ACLU is saving up responses like this one (admittedly they'll probably never see this one) and they will all be presented for the next challenge as an example of how it IS a religous monument.


Because Christians object to it being removed does not make it purely a Christian monument. It is sickening what the ACLU does under the guise of freedom FROM religion. The ACLU has done more over the years to infringe upon the free excercise or religion and to establish a national religion of Antitheism than any religous group has done to infringe upon the rights of the Antitheists.


Doesn't have to be purely a Christian monument. It just has to violate standards set forth by the Supreme Court. If the ACLU can demonstrate that it violates those principles, they can get the monument removed.

Many of those decalogue monuments you find across the country had nothing to do with religion. Scores of them were set up by the Fraternal Order of Eagles as part of an ad campaign for the movie The Ten Commandments.

Personally, I think this particular monument is safe as it has the Mayflower Compact on the other side. That is a document of tremendous historical importance, and it shows the object serves a purpose besides religous.

The problem is its up to a judge, and not me (or you). Why give the ACLU more ammo when it comes to cases like these?



Link Posted: 8/19/2006 4:15:18 PM EDT
I still do not see your point. My assertion that the ACLU are not the good guys does not give them ammo to win more lawsuits. The assertion that the good guys being those who fight the stupidity of the ACLU and their wrongful interpretation of the constitution does not give them ammo. Any manipulation of the constitution to discriminate against decency is just wrong.
The constitution sets forth the standards which we are to be concerned with. The supreme court unfortunately has continually either refuse to support these standards or manipulates them against reason.
Link Posted: 8/19/2006 4:29:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Interceptor_Knight:
www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/news/142797.php

In spite of the Anti Christ Liberation Union, the monument which contains the 10 commandments can stay outside of the court house.




I've always heard it called the Anti-Christian Lawyer Union. Either way, burn in hell libtards.
Link Posted: 8/19/2006 9:54:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Interceptor_Knight:
I still do not see your point. My assertion that the ACLU are not the good guys does not give them ammo to win more lawsuits. The assertion that the good guys being those who fight the stupidity of the ACLU and their wrongful interpretation of the constitution does not give them ammo. Any manipulation of the constitution to discriminate against decency is just wrong.
The constitution sets forth the standards which we are to be concerned with. The supreme court unfortunately has continually either refuse to support these standards or manipulates them against reason.


I never said either of those things, I'm not sure where you get that from. What gives them ammo for the next challenge is the reaction of people like yourself. You view it as a religious victory, so how can you claim its not a religous monument? You can't, and anyone who reads your comments knows it to be true. Including the next judge who will read similar commentary from citizens in the area.

p.s. your idea of decency is probably quite a bit different from mine and a lot of other Americans. That why decency isn't used as a litmus for constitutionality.


Link Posted: 8/20/2006 6:10:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
What gives them ammo for the next challenge is the reaction of people like yourself. You view it as a religious victory, so how can you claim its not a religous monument? You can't, and anyone who reads your comments knows it to be true. Including the next judge who will read similar commentary from citizens in the area.


I view it as a victory against those who would claim that freedom of religion is being infringed by the 10 Commandments being posted. Their agenda is freedom from religion and anything that would remind them that they are accountable to anything but their own "feelings". Secular Humanism IS a religion.
Link Posted: 8/20/2006 7:17:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
p.s. your idea of decency is probably quite a bit different from mine and a lot of other Americans. That why decency isn't used as a litmus for constitutionality.


When personal privacy is used to constitutionally defend prohibiting the states from restricting the killing of human fetuses in the supposed protection of their mothers' wombs, it is apparent that many do not share my standards of decency.
Antitheists have a great champion in the ACLU. The Antitheists and Humanists claim that they do not need a higher power to tell them how to act with compassion and as a guage for what is ethical and moral. It is easy to kill the innocent when you have a government that sanctions the killing and there is no one to be accountable to for your actions.
Link Posted: 8/20/2006 7:27:04 AM EDT
I don't mind religious symbols and such, they don't bother me. One thing bothers me to the core though. The seperation between church and state seems to be getting blurrier and blurrier every day. It's frustrating to watch, especially as a non-christian. I respect your beliefs, and I don't go around knocking your religion. But please keep it out of government land/buildings/courts/schools/etc. There is NO PLACE for any religious anything at any of these places.

THE ONLY reason any of these things becomes an issue, is because the group who put them up wants EVERYONE to have to view it, not just people who believe that way. That is my problem with it. Practice what you want, but let me do the same.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:09:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Interceptor_Knight:

Originally Posted By Dino:
What gives them ammo for the next challenge is the reaction of people like yourself. You view it as a religious victory, so how can you claim its not a religous monument? You can't, and anyone who reads your comments knows it to be true. Including the next judge who will read similar commentary from citizens in the area.


I view it as a victory against those who would claim that freedom of religion is being infringed by the 10 Commandments being posted. Their agenda is freedom from religion and anything that would remind them that they are accountable to anything but their own "feelings". Secular Humanism IS a religion.


When my dollar bills say "We Trust in No Gods", then we can talk.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:13:13 AM EDT
Could someone please show me where in the Constitution, Declaration of Indendence, or Congressional Legislation where the term "Separation of Church and State" is mentioned.

It's not there.

The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Referring to the fallicies of the Church of England, Jefferson sees the need to not let the Federal Government control the Christian Church.

Liberals, athiests and other Christian bashers have taken Jefferson's words and tried to turn it into something that it is not. It turns out they were successfull in re-writing history, as now your every day average Joe seems to think that "Separation of Church and State" is some sort of law and that we must take down the Nativity Scenes, 10 Commandments and other references to the Christian Religion, even though 70% of this nation claims to be Christian.

For those on this board that Nativity Scenes / 10 commandments offends, I suggest you do what you have been telling us to do in regards to porno, vial language, and other dispicable garbage on our TV and radio broadcasts, look the other way.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:22:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JHMC79:
For those on this board that Nativity Scenes / 10 commandments offends, I suggest you do what you have been telling us to do in regards to porno, vial language, and other dispicable garbage on our TV and radio broadcasts, look the other way.


I would certainly be concerned if the government was supporting posting vile language and porno in public places. What people do in private enterprise is none of my concern, however.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:27:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:

Originally Posted By JHMC79:
For those on this board that Nativity Scenes / 10 commandments offends, I suggest you do what you have been telling us to do in regards to porno, vial language, and other dispicable garbage on our TV and radio broadcasts, look the other way.


I would certainly be concerned if the government was supporting posting vile language and porno in public places. What people do in private enterprise is none of my concern, however.


When the FCC permits it to be broadcast, they are supporting it.

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:28:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JHMC79:
For those on this board that Nativity Scenes / 10 commandments offends, I suggest you do what you have been telling us to do in regards to porno, vial language, and other dispicable garbage on our TV and radio broadcasts, look the other way.


I'm not offended by nativity scenes, the decalogue, porno, or vile language. From the numbers, it appears most Christiand don't have a problem with porno either :P

What private people or private/public corporations do is their own business. What the government does is all of our concern. I'm a UU and it would be wrong of the government to put my religous beliefs over yours. It is just as wrong for the government to put your religous beliefs over mine.

Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:31:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JHMC79:

Originally Posted By dolanp:

Originally Posted By JHMC79:
For those on this board that Nativity Scenes / 10 commandments offends, I suggest you do what you have been telling us to do in regards to porno, vial language, and other dispicable garbage on our TV and radio broadcasts, look the other way.


I would certainly be concerned if the government was supporting posting vile language and porno in public places. What people do in private enterprise is none of my concern, however.


When the FCC permits it to be broadcast, they are supporting it.



I don't see it that way, since the FCC is a censoring body only responsible for filtering what other people say. If you considered that the FCC supports what it allows, then you have to conclude that the FCC is also supporting religion by allowing them to broadcast the 700 Club.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:32:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 11:35:33 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By JHMC79:

Originally Posted By dolanp:

Originally Posted By JHMC79:
For those on this board that Nativity Scenes / 10 commandments offends, I suggest you do what you have been telling us to do in regards to porno, vial language, and other dispicable garbage on our TV and radio broadcasts, look the other way.


I would certainly be concerned if the government was supporting posting vile language and porno in public places. What people do in private enterprise is none of my concern, however.


When the FCC permits it to be broadcast, they are supporting it.



The government doesn't allow porno to be displayed in public places. Private companies do that on a subscription basis or behind closed doors.

The FCC can do nothing about satellite programming or cable programming. Its private enterpise.

If your speaking of the change in standards over the past 40 years, thats simply the way our culture has developed. Its the FCC's job to recognize that some things that were taboo, no longer are.

Your argument can be turned on its head as by your logic, the government is supporting the Christian religion by allowing Christian programming to be broadcast.

And it would be closer to the truth as well, because the government DOES censor indecent content but provides no oversite on scumbag preachers who prey on the religous.


*not saying all televangelists are scumbags, but I think we all know examples of the people I am talking about.



Link Posted: 8/21/2006 11:38:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 11:43:20 AM EDT by JHMC79]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By JHMC79:
For those on this board that Nativity Scenes / 10 commandments offends, I suggest you do what you have been telling us to do in regards to porno, vial language, and other dispicable garbage on our TV and radio broadcasts, look the other way.


I'm not offended by nativity scenes, the decalogue, porno, or vile language. From the numbers, it appears most Christiand don't have a problem with porno either :P

What private people or private/public corporations do is their own business. What the government does is all of our concern. I'm a UU and it would be wrong of the government to put my religous beliefs over yours. It is just as wrong for the government to put your religous beliefs over mine.





So if 70% of your local population wants a nativity scene displayed at your county courthouse and one non-Christian has a problem with it and sues on the grounds of a non-existant "Separation of Church and State" Law should the Nativity Scene come down?

According to spirit that this nation was founded on, of course it should not. Forcing out the will of the people is committing a tyranny of the minority. Note that I'm not saying that the one Non-Christian shouldn't be allowed to display what they want also. They shouldn't be allowed to tromp over the rights of the majority, simply because they are a malcontent.

ETA: When are you going to show us where the Separation of Church and State Clause is the Constitution? You all love preaching it so much, I would have thought you had it memorized.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:13:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JHMC79:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By JHMC79:
For those on this board that Nativity Scenes / 10 commandments offends, I suggest you do what you have been telling us to do in regards to porno, vial language, and other dispicable garbage on our TV and radio broadcasts, look the other way.


I'm not offended by nativity scenes, the decalogue, porno, or vile language. From the numbers, it appears most Christiand don't have a problem with porno either :P

What private people or private/public corporations do is their own business. What the government does is all of our concern. I'm a UU and it would be wrong of the government to put my religous beliefs over yours. It is just as wrong for the government to put your religous beliefs over mine.





So if 70% of your local population wants a nativity scene displayed at your county courthouse and one non-Christian has a problem with it and sues on the grounds of a non-existant "Separation of Church and State" Law should the Nativity Scene come down?

According to spirit that this nation was founded on, of course it should not. Forcing out the will of the people is committing a tyranny of the minority. Note that I'm not saying that the one Non-Christian shouldn't be allowed to display what they want also. They shouldn't be allowed to tromp over the rights of the majority, simply because they are a malcontent.

ETA: When are you going to show us where the Separation of Church and State Clause is the Constitution? You all love preaching it so much, I would have thought you had it memorized.


It's called the Establishment Clause and in the same way they cannot restrict religious freedom they are not supposed to endorse an 'establishment of religion'. Why can't you put the nativity scene on your church lawn? Why does it need to go on a courthouse? It gives the (very real) impression of judicial bias.

If it's done in a historical context that's fine, eg a Ten Commandments display next to other religious and historical texts. However, would you feel right if they started putting crescents of Islam all over government buildings (and no other religious texts/symbols)?
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 12:39:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 12:41:38 PM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By JHMC79:

So if 70% of your local population wants a nativity scene displayed at your county courthouse and one non-Christian has a problem with it and sues on the grounds of a non-existant "Separation of Church and State" Law should the Nativity Scene come down?

According to spirit that this nation was founded on, of course it should not. Forcing out the will of the people is committing a tyranny of the minority. Note that I'm not saying that the one Non-Christian shouldn't be allowed to display what they want also. They shouldn't be allowed to tromp over the rights of the majority, simply because they are a malcontent. eh? So Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.. are all "malcontents" niiiiice....



Why can't the nativity scene be set up on the grounds of a Church, a home, or a business? What non-religous purpose does setting up a nativity scene on the courthouse serve?

You and I both know it serves NOTHING but a religous purpose, which is why its so important to you in the first place.

You apparently have a problem grasping the concept of freedom of religion. That doesn't mean your free to use your majority status to make your religion the standard (I like how you referred to those of other religions as malcontents, it really shows how you view your fellow citizens who don't follow the same religion)

our country was setup to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Keeping the courthouse free of religous influence tramples on the rights of noone.

Only an idiot would argue that having to setup your nativity scene on private grounds is some sort of onerous burden.

I'm against any primarily religous display on government grounds. Its not because I find religous displays offensive, I am a religous man. Its because I find government getting involved in religion to be a dangerous road to travel down.

As far as your opinion what what the majority should get away with, in 20 years when Catholics make up over 50% of the American population, you might find your tune changing.

Luckily our mostly Christian founding fathers were more aware than you how small minded men could use religion as a weapon aimed at their fellow citizens. They set up our system to protect the rights of everyone and prevent a tyranny of the majority. No founding father ever used the term "tyranny of the minority" as they were smart enough to know its a nonsensical term.


Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:01:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 4:01:43 PM EDT by JHMC79]

Originally Posted By dolanp:

It's called the Establishment Clause and in the same way they cannot restrict religious freedom they are not supposed to endorse an 'establishment of religion'. Why can't you put the nativity scene on your church lawn? Why can't they put it on both? Why does it need to go on a courthouse? That's where its been since the courthouse was built. It gives the (very real) impression of judicial bias.

If it's done in a historical context that's fine, eg a Ten Commandments display next to other religious and historical texts. However, would you feel right if they started putting crescents of Islam all over government buildings If 70% of that county's population was muslim and I was allowed to put up my nativity scene, I see no problem with the arrangement as long as everyone was peace loving as we all know the ROP is. (and no other religious texts/symbols)? I have not once advocated other religions being excluded from the courthouse lawn.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:15:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 4:24:44 PM EDT by JHMC79]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By JHMC79:

So if 70% of your local population wants a nativity scene displayed at your county courthouse and one non-Christian has a problem with it and sues on the grounds of a non-existant "Separation of Church and State" Law should the Nativity Scene come down?

According to spirit that this nation was founded on, of course it should not. Forcing out the will of the people is committing a tyranny of the minority. Note that I'm not saying that the one Non-Christian shouldn't be allowed to display what they want also. They shouldn't be allowed to tromp over the rights of the majority, simply because they are a malcontent. eh? So Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.. are all "malcontents" niiiiice....
Now your trying to put words in my mouth. Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists rarely ever squeel over any religious display, regardless of who's it is. It is the athiest that has the shit fit over nothing. By malcontent, I mean someone who would manipulate the judicial system to further their cause, thus overiding the will of the people.


Why can't the nativity scene be set up on the grounds of a Church, a home, or a business? What non-religous purpose does setting up a nativity scene on the courthouse serve?

You and I both know it serves NOTHING but a religous purpose, which is why its so important to you in the first place.

You apparently have a problem grasping the concept of freedom of religion. That doesn't mean your free to use your majority status to make your religion the standard (I like how you referred to those of other religions as malcontents, it really shows how you view your fellow citizens who don't follow the same religion)

our country was setup to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Keeping the courthouse free of religous influence tramples on the rights of noone. Except the 70% who want it.Only an idiot would argue that having to setup your nativity scene on private grounds is some sort of onerous burden.

I'm against any primarily religous display on government grounds. Its not because I find religous displays offensive, I am a religous man. Its because I find government getting involved in religion to be a dangerous road to travel down.

As far as your opinion what what the majority should get away with, in 20 years when Catholics make up over 50% of the American population, you might find your tune changing. The will of the people should always rule, as long as it is within the stipulations of the constitution.

Luckily our mostly Christian founding fathers were more aware than you how small minded men could use religion as a weapon aimed at their fellow citizens. They set up our system to protect the rights of everyone and prevent a tyranny of the majority. No founding father ever used the term "tyranny of the minority" as they were smart enough to know its a nonsensical term. Nonsensical term? So do you not consider a dictatorship such as the one in Cuba a tyranny by a minority? Tyranny of the minority makes perfect sence. This country has spent billions and lost thousands of lives fighting against Tyrannical governments composed of minority factions. One or two people out of hundreds who want something done their way, and stop at nothing to deprive the hundreds of their traditions/rights is tyranny, no matter how you try to spin it into a positive.
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 4:22:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2006 4:26:27 PM EDT by JHMC79]
I'm still waiting on a link to "Separation of Church and State" in the constitution.

Surely, since there are many who believe that this is the corner stone of American Government they can tell us how this tennet came to be.

ETA: I'm beginning to think some of you don't want to talk about this aspect for fear you have no case (which you don't).
Link Posted: 8/21/2006 6:04:02 PM EDT
Well I already addressed that, it 'respects an establishment of religion' which is the first line in the 1A. Since the courthouse is funded by taxpayer dollars it should not be biased towards any particular religion. A nativity scene clearly expresses a belief in Christianity.


You keep quoting majority opinion but the Constitution was designed precisely to protect against that. Surely if 70% of a town wanted to ban guns you wouldn't support that?
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 5:56:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JHMC79:
I'm still waiting on a link to "Separation of Church and State" in the constitution.

Surely, since there are many who believe that this is the corner stone of American Government they can tell us how this tennet came to be.

ETA: I'm beginning to think some of you don't want to talk about this aspect for fear you have no case (which you don't).


Sure we can talk about it. Its not in the Constitution, its from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.

The "wall of seperation" that Jefferson spoke of was his view on the purpose of the establishment and free exercise clauses.

I will take Thomas Jefferson's view over yours any day of the week and twice on sundays.

Link Posted: 8/22/2006 6:12:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JHMC79:
Now your trying to put words in my mouth. Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists rarely ever squeel over any religious display, regardless of who's it is. It is the athiest that has the shit fit over nothing. By malcontent, I mean someone who would manipulate the judicial system to further their cause, thus overiding the will of the people.


That is a falsehood (whether intentional or just ignorance on your part, I cannot say). The vast majority of cases where the seperation of church and state is an issue are brought up by religous minorities.

its only been in the last few decades that atheists have played any part in such cases.

The earlier cases were mostly religous minorities like Unitarians, Universalists, Jehovah's Witness, Jews, etc...

Link Posted: 8/22/2006 6:50:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By JHMC79:

Originally Posted By Dino:
Luckily our mostly Christian founding fathers were more aware than you how small minded men could use religion as a weapon aimed at their fellow citizens. They set up our system to protect the rights of everyone and prevent a tyranny of the majority. No founding father ever used the term "tyranny of the minority" as they were smart enough to know its a nonsensical term. Nonsensical term? So do you not consider a dictatorship such as the one in Cuba a tyranny by a minority? Tyranny of the minority makes perfect sence. This country has spent billions and lost thousands of lives fighting against Tyrannical governments composed of minority factions. One or two people out of hundreds who want something done their way, and stop at nothing to deprive the hundreds of their traditions/rights is tyranny, no matter how you try to spin it into a positive.


LOL, ok now you're just being foolish.

We were discussing a negative aspect of democracy (tyranny of the majority, which you misused as tyranny of the minority). Our Constitution was set up to prevent a tyranny of the majority and thus protect everyone's rights. Its why the US is NOT a pure democracy.

In a discussion of democracies, there can be no tyranny of the minority.

Now unless you are going to argue that we are a communist dictatorship, your comparison to Cuba is just foolish. Of course, its just as foolish to claim keeping the courthouses free of religous influence is somehow tyrannical, but it hasn't stopped you yet.

Link Posted: 8/22/2006 3:41:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By JHMC79:

Originally Posted By Dino:
Luckily our mostly Christian founding fathers were more aware than you how small minded men could use religion as a weapon aimed at their fellow citizens. They set up our system to protect the rights of everyone and prevent a tyranny of the majority. No founding father ever used the term "tyranny of the minority" as they were smart enough to know its a nonsensical term. Nonsensical term? So do you not consider a dictatorship such as the one in Cuba a tyranny by a minority? Tyranny of the minority makes perfect sence. This country has spent billions and lost thousands of lives fighting against Tyrannical governments composed of minority factions. One or two people out of hundreds who want something done their way, and stop at nothing to deprive the hundreds of their traditions/rights is tyranny, no matter how you try to spin it into a positive.


LOL, ok now you're just being foolish.

We were discussing a negative aspect of democracy (tyranny of the majority, which you misused as tyranny of the minority). Our Constitution was set up to prevent a tyranny of the majority and thus protect everyone's rights. Its why the US is NOT a pure democracy.

In a discussion of democracies, there can be no tyranny of the minority.
A minority faction dictating to the majority what will be displayed at their courthouse is tyranny regardless of your feelings on the matter.

Now unless you are going to argue that we are a communist dictatorship, your comparison to Cuba is just foolish. Of course, its just as foolish to claim keeping the courthouses free of religous influence is somehow tyrannical, but it hasn't stopped you yet.



My analogy makes perfect sence. When a minority of people overide the will of the majority, it is tyranny. It does not matter if it occurs in Cuba, or your local county.

Link Posted: 8/22/2006 3:47:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2006 3:54:29 PM EDT by JHMC79]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Sure we can talk about it. Its not in the Constitution, its from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.

The "wall of seperation" that Jefferson spoke of was his view on the purpose of the establishment and free exercise clauses.

I will take Thomas Jefferson's view over yours any day of the week and twice on sundays.


Jefferson's view and my view are very similiar.

But at least you finally admit, the view you would like Jefferson to have had, is only an opinion and not American Law.

Thus, Separation of Church and State is not the law of the land, but a political tool that Christian bashers use to leverage their views over the overwhelming Christian majority.
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 3:53:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Well I already addressed that, it 'respects an establishment of religion' which is the first line in the 1A. Since the courthouse is funded by taxpayer dollars it should not be biased towards any particular religion. A nativity scene clearly expresses a belief in Christianity.

Actually the first line gaurantees the Freedom of Religion, which would include displaying a nativity scene on public property. This is one right that you don't seem to support too much.


You keep quoting majority opinion but the Constitution was designed precisely to protect against that. Surely if 70% of a town wanted to ban guns you wouldn't support that?


Of course not, this would be unconstitutional as proven recently in San Francisco. This is very much in the same vein as restricting religious freedoms.
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 5:43:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JHMC79:
I'm still waiting on a link to "Separation of Church and State" in the constitution.

Surely, since there are many who believe that this is the corner stone of American Government they can tell us how this tennet came to be.

ETA: I'm beginning to think some of you don't want to talk about this aspect for fear you have no case (which you don't).


No SOCS wording is in the Constitution. Of course you know that. Read Jefferson's opinions of the notion of SOCS, after the Constitution was written.


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."


Read the whole thing here.

Jefferson and his peers were men of reason. Men of reason realize that religion is a matter of opinion--of faith. Reasonable people know that it's foolishness to pretend to be able to please the gods--their will is unknowable. Religion has no place in debate since opinions gleaned from it have ZERO evidence of factuality--not even Christian beliefs. This government wasn't invented to please the gods. It was invented such that reason would have the best chance of prevailing in political debates.

I realize of course that you cannot agree with any of this without questioning your faith and therefore weakening your faith-based position. But, your agreement is neither solicited nor required...I don't even know why I wrote this. I guess maybe to test whether a person who knowingly or not, ties his freedom to the interpretation of a religion (God gives us Rights,) would really like to discuss the notion of the Seperation of Church and State.

Should we let religious considerations carry weight in political debates? To me, the answer is: of course not.

I feel strongly that the Founders wouldn't assume their beliefs were unquestionably true as I think you would. Do you think the Founders designed this government to please Jesus and [G]od? I don't, and being what you'd call an atheist isn't the reason why. The reason is far more existential than that being derived from what you'd call my religion. The reason is that the path of reason leads to questions begging to be answered: Do we change our laws to suit the prevailing religion? Do we design the Constitution to prohibit other religions from joining the debate?

Well?

I think if one thinks practically about these questions--not to protect one's religious status, I think the notion of SOCS becomes chrystal clear, and the words: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... have a different meaning in this light. And when viewed with the vision that reason shall prevail in political debates, the full force of the rest of the 1st Amendment become even clearer: ...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. All of these elements of the 1st Amendment are essential in government to be ran by reason.

Thanks for reading this.
Link Posted: 8/22/2006 6:48:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2006 6:48:47 PM EDT by dolanp]

Originally Posted By JHMC79:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Well I already addressed that, it 'respects an establishment of religion' which is the first line in the 1A. Since the courthouse is funded by taxpayer dollars it should not be biased towards any particular religion. A nativity scene clearly expresses a belief in Christianity.

Actually the first line gaurantees the Freedom of Religion, which would include displaying a nativity scene on public property. This is one right that you don't seem to support too much.


You keep quoting majority opinion but the Constitution was designed precisely to protect against that. Surely if 70% of a town wanted to ban guns you wouldn't support that?


Of course not, this would be unconstitutional as proven recently in San Francisco. This is very much in the same vein as restricting religious freedoms.


So you are sane enough to realize that it doesn't matter what 70% of the population thinks if it's unconstitutional. Now, I suppose where we disagree is that you think taxpayer dollars and/or government support should go towards promoting a particular religion? Your religion, conveniently?
Top Top