Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/15/2004 5:12:48 PM EST
Plain and simple............there is no such thing. People have been eating their own bullshit for many years now.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 5:19:04 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 5:38:14 PM EST
Ban organized religion now!

For the children!
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 5:40:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By A2sights:
Plain and simple............there is no such thing. People have been eating their own bullshit for many years now.



So the government has a right to tell me what to worship, or to have me worship in public service? Sorry just as bad as gun grabing.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 5:45:23 PM EST
This country was based AROUND Christian principles, not ON Christian principles. Can't ask for something better as a Christian. The Govt adheres to basic principles of christianity (very strong invidual rights with great moral tones), but does not use your religon to justify its agenda, like many countries do with the muslim faith.

The 'seperation' is only there to protect both the country AND the religion that many founding fathers held dear.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 5:47:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By SO-COM:
This country was based AROUND Christian principles, not ON Christian principles. Can't ask for something better as a Christian. The Govt adheres to basic principles of christianity (very strong invidual rights with great moral tones), but does not use your religon to justify its agenda, like many countries do with the muslim faith.

The 'seperation' is only there to protect both the country AND the religion that many founding fathers held dear.



GREAT paragraph. Sums it up wonderfully, except that if you look in the Dec. of In., or the Constitution, the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't exist. It was a separate letter Jefferson wrote to some Danbury baptist regarding a separate topic.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 5:48:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 5:49:27 PM EST by Greenhorn]
Some of you guys are taking this completely the wrong way. There is no such law as the "seperation of church and state". THe constitution only says that the government shall pass no law respecting an esablishment of religion". The constitution does NOT say that the government people cannot mention, support, believe in, display, etc. certain religions. ONLY LAWS RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION ARE ILLEGAL.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 5:52:26 PM EST
That's correct.

The so-called "separation of church and state" is one of the biggest sham bologna jobs the liberals ever put out.

The ACLU (worthless and destructive organization) bought that junk before an activist judge somewhere in the late 1940's, and like we see today, implement garbage in our Constitution.

I hope one day, they pay in spades.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 5:53:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
Some of you guys are taking this completely the wrong way. There is no such law as the "seperation of church and state". THe constitution only says that the government shall pass no law respecting an esablishment of religion". The constitution does NOT say that the government people cannot mention, support, believe in, display, etc. certain religions. ONLY LAWS RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION ARE ILLEGAL.



You are correct there, but there was a definite line drawn by the founding fathers about the states use of religon. They did not want the president to act under the guise of any religon, and deminish the protestant movement.
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 5:54:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
Some of you guys are taking this completely the wrong way. There is no such law as the "seperation of church and state". THe constitution only says that the government shall pass no law respecting an esablishment of religion". The constitution does NOT say that the government people cannot mention, support, believe in, display, etc. certain religions. ONLY LAWS RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION ARE ILLEGAL.



+1 You got it right. A gold star for you!
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 5:55:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
Some of you guys are taking this completely the wrong way. There is no such law as the "seperation of church and state". THe constitution only says that the government shall pass no law respecting an esablishment of religion".



Precisely
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 5:58:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/15/2004 6:03:57 PM EST by limaxray]

Originally Posted By Currahee:

Originally Posted By A2sights:
Plain and simple............there is no such thing. People have been eating their own bullshit for many years now.



So the government has a right to tell me what to worship, or to have me worship in public service? Sorry just as bad as gun grabing.



Totally unrelated to A2sights comment. The government has no right to force you to worship; it is prevented from doing that by the 1st Amendment.

What A2sights is talking about is, oddly enough, that there's no constitutional basis for the concept of "separation of church and state." Doesn't appear anywhere in the document.

That phrase was used by Jefferson, IN A LETTER TO HIS FRIEND, (note: that is NOT the Constitution), to describe his desire to ensure the church did not become an arm of the state, and therefore used to opress the citizenry, as it had been used by King George in England.

In other words, Jefferson was worried about the STATE taking over the CHURCH, not the other way around.

People have been using that concept to mean "no one can exercise their INDIVIDUAL faith within the public arena." But, what that really means is that the government has been infringing on the right of the individual for the last 30 years.

Remember, the entire religion clause of the First Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

So, every time the courts say someone can't put a cross up in their cubicle, they're basically violating the 2d half of the religion clause of the First Amendment. In addition, by forcing a lack of religion on the population, isn't that establishing a religion of atheism, which would also violate the 1st amendment?

As for stupid stuff like Ten Commandments monuments, how is that "establishing religion"? Only activist judges hell-bent on stamping out Christianity can follow the logic trail, because I sure can't!
Link Posted: 10/15/2004 6:29:45 PM EST
The state, congress (or any government agency) can not establish ANY religion or any religious practices as "official," nor can it ban the practice of any religion (or lack of religion). That is my interpretation of that part of the first amendment. I don't think it could be more clear.

I am not personally aware of instances where persons could not "place a cross in their cubicle," It wouldn't surprise me. If you want to place a cross in your cubicle however, you should be happily willing to let someone place a pentagram in theirs. I think that conflicts like these probably come about because folks (on both sides) are willing to behave like asshats.

I believe that Judge Moore (the ten commandments in the courthouse guy) was the activist. IMO his entire goal was to cause a stink and get himself publicity, which was very successful. I think I saw where he's running for office now. I take great offense at them being there, the suggestion that someone's religious laws take precedence over the law of the land in a courthouse. I can't read their presence any other way.
Link Posted: 10/16/2004 12:54:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/16/2004 1:04:48 AM EST by limaxray]

Originally Posted By Currahee:
The state, congress (or any government agency) can not establish ANY religion or any religious practices as "official," nor can it ban the practice of any religion (or lack of religion). That is my interpretation of that part of the first amendment. I don't think it could be more clear.


Yet the state bans the expression of Christianity ALL THE TIME, while endorsing the atheist religion all the time.

California worker sues over cubicle censorship


I am not personally aware of instances where persons could not "place a cross in their cubicle," It wouldn't surprise me. If you want to place a cross in your cubicle however, you should be happily willing to let someone place a pentagram in theirs. I think that conflicts like these probably come about because folks (on both sides) are willing to behave like asshats.


Agree with everything except the last sentence. Usually, when someone sues because of a non-Christian symbol, it's usually a Christian who has been told he/she/they can't express their faith, but a non-Christian can. Example--a school won't allow a Christian group to meet on campus, but they will allow a Muslim group to.

Most of the asshats I see in these issues are the non-Christians who foam at the mouth as soon as they see anything that reminds them there might be a God. Think ACLU, "In God We Trust," etc.

For example--teacher's aide wears a cross to school around her neck. Small one, but still a cross. She's suspended for a year without pay. Why, because the cross violated a rule against "religious dress." link here

So, how does one employee wearing a cross = "establishing religion?" I don't get it!

One more extreme example. Why is it the County of Los Angeles has to remove a small cross from their city seal (representing the influence of the Spanish Catholic missions on LA history), located in one small section about 1/10 the size of the seal, yet the Roman pagan goddess Pomona (of fruits and trees) is still prominently displayed in the center 1/3 of the seal? Seems to me that's discrimination. The ACLU sued because only the CHRISTIAN symbol was establishing religion.


I believe that Judge Moore (the ten commandments in the courthouse guy) was the activist. IMO his entire goal was to cause a stink and get himself publicity, which was very successful. I think I saw where he's running for office now. I take great offense at them being there, the suggestion that someone's religious laws take precedence over the law of the land in a courthouse. I can't read their presence any other way.


No he was simply trying to put up a historical monument that explained the significance of the Ten Commandments to our current legal system. I think he went about it the wrong way, but that's just me.
Link Posted: 10/16/2004 12:56:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By A2sights:
Plain and simple............there is no such thing. People have been eating their own bullshit for many years now.



With some salt and ketchup, it doesnt taste too bad though.
Link Posted: 10/16/2004 4:20:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/16/2004 4:21:27 PM EST by Currahee]
The first story on the first website was about a kid who got in trouble for wearing a t-shirt that referenced an anti-homosexual biblical quote.

I think searching for a particular Biblical quote that singles out a particular group of people qualifies the t-shirt maker/wearer as an asshat. Wouldn't offend me but if someone were to have the Quran quote about killing infidels sure would. It is behavior like this that causes the problem.

Here is an interesting story Student banned from wearing a Star of David. Big ACLU lawsuit, on CNN, the school board got to look like NAZIs. Turns out however that the kid was a gang banger wannabe, and the Star of David is a gang symbol. I know people who teach there. There is always something more to this than meets the eye.

The fourth story, about the Kali Dept of Social Services, is the one I suppose you were pointing me to. The things they removed did not seem to be Bible quotes. The examples: "Marriage: One Man One Woman" Personally I agree and would vote for it if it came to it, but it's not the persons place to use their public office to make such statements. Another Example, “Jesus spoken Here,” Sorry Madame but how do you do with English? I would be pissed if I saw a Kerry/Edwards sticker there. I personally wouldn't care if they had a cross or some other symbol, what about a "gay triangle?"

The lady being canned for wearing a cross is little odd, first the article doesn’t say she works for the school. She works for ARIN, which seems to do contract work for schools, but does not seem to be a public agency. I’m curious about who actually fired her, but I doubt it’s a public school system. If you have an employer (private) they have every right to say what you can wear, don’t like it, find a new job. I work for a public school district, I know dozens of teachers (form various districts) that wear crosses and one who wears a star of David.. We have a Baptist student league, a fellowship of Christian students and several other religious activities, all student organized, as per the findings of the Supreme Court.

On the Roy Moore thing, placing the ten commandments in the courthouse entranceway suggests that they are the law of the land. Sorry but the ten commandments are not the law of the land. They are not the forerunners of American law. In fact most of them (seven I think), if they were the law of the land, would be in direct violation of the first amendment. The courthouse is a place for accused criminals to face the judgement of the people, not the judgement of God. Moore knew he was going to get fired, it would seem he set out to do so. Never fear however, he has secured the fundamentalist Christian vote in Alabama.
Top Top