Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sixpence on May 08, 2005, 07:26:46 PM
-
Rev.: Political ousters a misunderstanding
By Paul Nowell, Associated Press Writer | May 8, 2005
WAYNESVILLE, N.C. -- Calling it a "great misunderstanding," the pastor of a small church who led the charge to remove nine members for their political beliefs tried to welcome them back Sunday, but some insisted he must leave for the wounds to heal.
The Rev. Chan Chandler didn't directly address the controversy during the service at East Waynesville Baptist Church, but issued a statement afterward through his attorney saying the church does not care about its members' political affiliations.
"No one has ever been voted from the membership of this church due to an individual's support or lack of support for a political party or candidate," he said.
Nine members said they were ousted during a church gathering last week by about 40 others because they refused to support President Bush. They attended Sunday's service with their lawyer and many supporters.
Chandler noted their presence in his welcome to the congregation, saying, "I'm glad to see you all here. ... We are here today to worship the Lord. I hope this is what you are here for."
But Chandler's statement and his welcome didn't convince those members who were voted out that things would soon change, and some called for him to resign.
"This all started over politics and our right to vote for whoever we wanted to," said Thelma Lowe, who has been attending the church for 42 years. She and her husband Frank, a deacon at the church for 35 years, were among those voted out.
"Things will never be the same here until he leaves," she said.
Chandler, 33, has been at the church for less than three years.
The ousted members have said Chandler told them during last year's presidential campaign that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry needed to leave the church in the mountain town about 125 miles northwest of Charlotte.
"He needs to leave," said Marlene Casey, 42, a lifelong member. "A lot of blood, sweat and tears have been shed by the people he told to leave."
Added Lewis Inman, a deacon at the church who said he was voted out Monday: "He could have apologized and made everything right. He's not man enough."
Chandler invited all church members to attend a business meeting on Tuesday. "This should all be cleared up by the end of the week," he said in an interview after the service.
Chandler said he and his wife have received calls from around the nation -- some of them threatening -- since his politics in the pulpit made national news.
His actions also drew criticism from other Baptist clergymen in the town.
"This is very disturbing," the Rev. Robert Prince III, who leads the congregation at the nearby First Baptist Church, said Saturday. "I've been a pastor for more than 25 years, and I have never seen church members voted out for something like this."
Some members of his congregation, however, voiced their support for Chandler on Sunday.
"He's a wonderful, good old country boy," Pam Serafin said as she walked into the church. "There are always two sides to every story."
-
that's sad when politics rears it's ugly face at a place of worship. I've never understood how a church would/could turn their backs on anyone for that matter. That's very "un-christian like"
-
I don't understand "voting out" someone from a church. Is this a place of worship or an episode of survivor?
-
Alarmist post.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Alarmist post.
Was gonna post one reason why I support separation of church and state, but I figured it didn't need to be said, I stand corrected.
-
Then where is it?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Then where is it?
I just said it
-
There are always two sides to every story."
-
I..... see....?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I..... see....?
Well it's about time!
-
Sixpence, surely you must know that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Sixpence, surely you must know that the phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution.
Did I say it did?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Nine members said they were ousted during a church gathering last week by about 40 others because they refused to support President Bush. They attended Sunday's service with their lawyer and many supporters.
Chandler noted their presence in his welcome to the congregation, saying, "I'm glad to see you all here. ... We are here today to worship the Lord. I hope this is what you are here for."
That's funny that they went back to Church with lawyers. I wouldn't want to go back at all unless that pastor was gone.
Then the pastor tried to gloss over what he did. :D
-
I'm just funnin' ya, Sixpence.
I attempted to cover the same ground (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=148487) a few weeks ago, after the Republican leader of the US Senate was fresh off an appearence at a huge religious rally condemning the judiciary, and supporting the notion that the filibuster was attack on religious freedom.
It was like nobody knew what I was talking about. Like Dinger said, if your opponent does not agree on any reasonable principles of argument, there's no point discussing with him.
Sorry for the troll... I just wanted to know what it felt like to be so oblivious.
-
never trust anything that can't be taxed
-
And "state" has exactly what relationship to this story?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I'm just funnin' ya, Sixpence.
I attempted to cover the same ground (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=148487) a few weeks ago, after the Republican leader of the US Senate was fresh off an appearence at a huge religious rally condemning the judiciary, and supporting the notion that the filibuster was attack on religious freedom.
It was like nobody knew what I was talking about. Like Dinger said, if your opponent does not agree on any reasonable principles of argument, there's no point discussing with him.
Sorry for the troll... I just wanted to know what it felt like to be so oblivious.
Holy crap Nash, you are whining about that? That was even lamer than this thread. You just posted some retarded crap out of the blue, with nothing to back it up, just your general feelings from watching TV shows about the USA or wherever you get your misinformation. At least Sixpence had an actual story to work with, even if he has badly misinterpreted the implications of the story.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
And "state" has exactly what relationship to this story?
State would imply government.
Government implies, among other things, political parties.
When you have a Church kicking out members of one political party, then it's not difficult to see what "state's" relationship to this story is.
Unless you think this is about, like, states as in the state of North Carolina.
-
Great, you've established a semantic relationship. But the concept of "separation of church and state" has to do with the state making laws regarding religion. There's nothing at all Sixpence's story that even remotely deals with that. There's no mention of government involvement at all. He did, at least, get closer to constructing an argument than you did.
-
if your opponent does not agree on any reasonable principles of argument, there's no point discussing with him.
Please demonstrate how, in the thread you referenced, you applied any reasonable principles of argument. You are putting us on, right?
-
Funked, I thought it was common knowledge. I didn't think I'd have to learn ya about it. I took the reaction as a complete disregard of the situation. I figured that if you won't even accept what's going on as going on, then what's the point? I can't work with that. I at least expected someone to defend it.... but not pretend that it didn't exist. It was useless because of that.
How many posts of this nature are you going to write off?
-
I'll write off every alarmist post with no basis in fact or the principles of argument. If you've got a point, make it. If you are just going to generalize with zero support for your position, go screw. :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
I'm just funnin' ya, Sixpence.
I attempted to cover the same ground (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=148487) a few weeks ago, after the Republican leader of the US Senate was fresh off an appearence at a huge religious rally condemning the judiciary, and supporting the notion that the filibuster was attack on religious freedom.
It was like nobody knew what I was talking about. Like Dinger said, if your opponent does not agree on any reasonable principles of argument, there's no point discussing with him.
Sorry for the troll... I just wanted to know what it felt like to be so oblivious.
Yeah, kinda the same point I guess. Makes you shake your head when someone uses religion to rally people around a political agenda. And even more so when they are successful.
I noticed Toad posted Jefferson's letter to the Baptists in Danbury. If you read some old Puritan laws and know of the Salem witch trials, you kind of get an understanding of why he would write this.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'll write off every alarmist post with no basis in fact or the principles of argument.
Okay, well then lets revisit it.
Assuming that you were unaware of Frist just comming off of a televised appearance at a religious rally condemning the justice system, and lending support to the idea that the fillibuster is but an attack on religeous freedoms, what do you think about it?
And where do you think this falls with regard to church and state, as it's clear that you don't think this latest kicking out of Democrats from church has anything to do with it?
-
Well you said nothing about that in the previous thread. I'm not familiar with Frist or the story.
-
Well, my bad.
-
I found the story. I wouldn't piss on Frist if he was on fire. I think Chandler is a doofus. I don't think either man is any threat to our Constitutional principles.
-
I don't get it, the article didn't say they were evil Catholics. :confused: :confused: :confused:
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I think Chandler is a doofus. I don't think either man is any threat to our Constitutional principles.
Can you at least agree that they are at odds with your Constitutional principles?
That would make me feel very much less insane. :)
-
Just goes to show that while a lot of non-US commentators on the American scene are familiar with our Constitutional "buzzwords", many of them know little or nothing about the actual substance behind them.
The First Amendment is a prime example; who hasn't heard of "Freedom of Speech" and that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
Many of course confuse Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1801, the famous "Wall of Separation" letter with our Constitution. That letter is where the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" originates. Many people make the mistake of thinking that "Separation of church and state" is a constitutional tenet that prohibits any mention of religion by politicians.
It is not.
The First is a clear, simple statement.
The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.
-
Ging bok choi mah?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Can you at least agree that they are at odds with your Constitutional principles?
That would make me feel very much less insane. :)
I can't say that based on what I've read. The Constitution has no bearing on the internal affairs of a church congregation.
And Frist has a right to his religious views and free speech. I think he's probably overstating the case regarding the filibuster, but it's clear to me that there is a part of the DNC that is clearly biased against Christians and their beliefs, which is definitely not in the spirit of religious tolerance from which the "separation" is derived. They are trying to marginalize all people of faith as "fanatics" and "zealots". Yes it is merely a tactical response to the GOP's cynical exploitation of religion, but two wrongs don't make a right.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I can't say that based on what I've read. The Constitution has no bearing on the internal affairs of a church congregation.
And Frist has a right to his religious views and free speech.
Frist, the leader of the United States Senate, which is but one of the three branches of government, aligns himself in an attack on another branch of government, based on religion.
He attacks his own branch of government's procedures, based on religion.
I don't know how you can divorce yourself from the reality of that, and claim that it has nothing to do with the seperation of powers, and then claim that it's no threat.
You just said that you were unaware of any of this, then upon finding it, would not piss on Frist were he on fire. On what basis if not this?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
"...it's clear to me that there is a part of the DNC that is clearly biased against Christians and their beliefs, which is definitely not in the spirit of religious tolerance from which the "separation" is derived. They are trying to marginalize all people of faith as "fanatics" and "zealots". Yes it is merely a tactical response to the GOP's cynical exploitation of religion, but two wrongs don't make a right."
Ah, now it's your turn to substantiate that.
-
I didn't say anything about separation of powers. That's a different concept from "church and state".
Criticising another branch is not at odds with the Constitution. Nor is criticism of his colleagues in Congress.
The one thing I read from Frist that really pissed me off was his inclusion of "marriage, families and a culture of life that protects human dignity at every stage of development" in an agenda for Congress. Culture, marriage, families, none of the government's $@#$ing business.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I didn't say anything about separation of powers. That's a different concept from "church and state".
Criticising another branch is not at odds with the Constitution. Nor is criticism of his colleagues in Congress.
Yet, all of it.... is based on religion.
It is not as if he's saying that the Judiciary is wrong because they are, I don't know, slackers...
No.... It came directly as a result of Schiavo. Do we have to pretend?
Criticizing his own branch comes not as a result of....heh... filibusters run amok.
It is based on the fact that they aren't able to railroad judges into place.... which is seen by him and them as an afront to their religious freedoms.
This is turning quickly back into that other thread where reality is not being accepted for what it is. It's a given. At least argue the merits of the stance - not repeat that it doesn't exist.
-
I'm not following your line of reasoning here. There's nothing unethical or unconstitutional in having political views based on one's faith.
*I edited, sorry*
-
Yeah, absolutely.
And I would think that the very 1st principle would be that you didn't act like the foundation of another's argument simply isn't there.
I've made the case for its existence.
I didn't in the other thread because I thought it was already evident. I was wrong. It obviously wasn't.
But here it is.
Now what?
-
This argument of yours fails for the exact reason the last argument fails.
You apparently don't understand the First.
But I'll leave you to make up your own First and then argue that it's being violated.
(http://www.fallacyfiles.org/Strawman.gif)
-
Dang.... yer editing on me.
-
Yeah I'm sorry. I'm forgetting what your original argument was in the first place.
-
Toad...
Sung tok choi bo.
(Just say what's on yer mind).
I aint down with your.... whatever. If you think your.... whatever.... is making sense to me then you'd be wrong.
What are you saying?
-
Ciò è una discussione dell'uomo di paglia.
-
Okay yeah.... righto.
-
What, you don't think foreign language is way kewl?
or are you denying it?
-
Nash:
If your argument is that the GOP is cynically exploiting people who believe in the judeo-christian God, then I agree with you. I have much bigger issues with them than that one, but you would be right.
If your argument is that this exploitation is unconstitutional then I do not agree with you. Our Constitution is double-edged regarding religion and government. The government may not make laws regarding faith. But all citizens, including those in public office, are free to hold and express political views based on faith.
-
I do think that foreign language is way cool. But mostly moaned into my ear by a free spirited traveller.
You are not that.
So wtf?
-
Chinga tu madre!
-
Ging bok choi mah?
Sung tok choi bo.
Wah tah fok?
-
You wan chitty chrimp?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Nash:
If your argument is that the GOP is cynically exploiting people who believe in the judeo-christian God, then I agree with you. I have much bigger issues with them than that one, but you would be right.
If your argument is that this exploitation is unconstitutional then I do not agree with you. Our Constitution is double-edged regarding religion and government. The government may not make laws regarding faith. But all citizens, including those in public office, are free to hold and express political views based on faith.
My point isn't that the GOP is cynically exploiting people based on faith. I'm afraid to say that it's a given. But no...
Those views, and that exploitation, is making its way into laws...
That I do find problematic.
-
Been watching Deadwood?
"Swearengen!," "Socktucker! "San Francisco!"
Wu is one of the highlights.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Those views, and that exploitation, is making its way into laws...
And an example of such a law that has passed recently in the US Congress is?
And it violates the First because?
Take your time, no rush.
-
Originally posted by Nash
My point isn't that the GOP is cynically exploiting people based on faith. I'm afraid to say that it's a given. But no...
Those views, and that exploitation, is making its way into laws...
That I do find problematic.
Which laws exactly? I would find it problematic too.
Not as problematic as oh, the size of the federal government, federal income tax, social security, etc, but still problematic.
-
Schiavo.
-
Well, I'm agnostic, and I think it was wrong to kill her, so what else you got?
-
It'll do, Funked.
-
I guess I actually do find that one problematic, because it's the federal government interfering where they don't belong. But I don't find the religious side of it problematic. You don't need to be a Christian to think that was a wrongful death. We aren't going to strike down murder laws because they happen to agree with the 6th commandment.
-
OK, there's your idea of an example.
The bill passed in Congress applied only to Schiavo and only allowed a federal court to review the case. The House passed the legislation on a 203-58 vote, the Senate approved the bill Sunday by voice vote. Sounds like the two parties were pretty well in agreement doesn't it? Hard to make this into a Republican thing.
Now, show how it violates the First.
If you can, I'll have another question.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
We aren't going to strike down murder laws because they happen to agree with the 6th commandment.
You never know!
-
Here's one that did bother me - both sides of the gay marriage thing. The government should not be legitimizing or fighting gay marriage. Marriage is between two people and any churches or deities they choose to include. No government interference needed. When Bush announced he was supporting a constitutional amendment on this issue I just about blew a gasket.
-
You don't find the religious side of it problematic, why?
Because that is just one angle of it?
No no.... that was the entire angle of it.
The Congress doesn't get involved in a court's decision.... wake people up at night for a vote.... have the President book it from a vacation back to Washington on account of some little court decision.....
It was religion. In government. Clear as muthahfreakin' day.
Discount that, and we really aint got much to talk about.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You don't find the religious side of it problematic, why?
Because that is just one angle of it?
No no.... that was the entire angle of it.
The Congress doesn't get involved in a court's decision.... wake people up at night for a vote.... have the President book it from a vacation back to Washington on account of some little court decision.....
It was religion. In government. Clear as muthahfreakin' day.
Discount that, and we really aint got much to talk about.
Again: Americans Are Free To Make Political Decisions Based On Faith
And as Toad and I have shown, you didn't need to be religious or Republican to think Schiavo's life was worth saving.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sounds like the two parties were pretty well in agreement doesn't it? Hard to make this into a Republican thing.
OMG.... You think you know yer politics better than me, and yet say such a thing? Come on....
-
Originally posted by Nash
It was religion. In government. Clear as muthahfreakin' day.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. It passed handily; are the Dems in on this little "sneak religion into government" scam too?
But that's neither here nor there.
The point, unfortunately for you, is that Religion. In Government. in no way violates the First Amendment.
We're back to you using a pure Strawman Argument.
Now, you may be using it because you enjoy arguing. That's cool; but it's still a Strawman argument and accordingly not worth the candle.
Or you may be using it because you really just don't understand the First Amendment. It's been pointed out to you several times, so I won't bother. If you want to finally try to understand it, you might start here:
first amendment: an overview (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html)
-
I don't think it's technically a straw man argument. He's just misunderstanding the Constitution. And he's allowed to do that. Hell there are people I actually know and respect who completely misunderstand the 2nd Amendment and the meaning of "general welfare". :)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
And as Toad and I have shown, you didn't need to be religious or Republican to think Schiavo's life was worth saving.
Absolutely not. You, and they, may think her life was worth saving.
Enacting unprecedented law, creating an unprecedented circus, based on what you personally think, about one case, out of millions, is insanity.
And that insanity was religious. And a law was passed based on religion.
Why you trying to act like it wasn't?
-
Bush's Faith Based Initiatives are a clear violation.
Financial support of the churches (any of them) by public taxdollars is IMO unconstitutional.
Tax-Exempt status is enough help for them now they want taxdollars to help with all the social programs they "provide". What a crock.
-
Oh geeze... Toad....
First off... spare me trying to pretend that Schiavo was bipartisan. You know that aint the case, no matter how the votes shaked down.
Yes, the 1st allows freedom of expresion and freedom of religion.
But is that an acceptable excuse for making America a theocracy, for example? Because the leaders are allowed their religious freedoms?
The first, according to you it would seem, exempts the government from the peril of turning the US into a theocracy, based on the fact that the US government is granted the freedom to express religion.
I don't buy it.
-
Oy what a mess,
1) You have a church adding an unbiblical requirement to church membership (and extending its mission to the sphere reserved for the civil magistrate)
2) Then you have a congregation "voting(!)" members "out of the church" rather than following any biblically prescribed methodology for church discipline such as Matthew 18 or 1 Cor. 5 Not to mention the fact that they didn't specify what sins the ousted members were committing that they refused to repent of (willyfully refusing to vote for Bush is not actually covered in the Decalogue).
3) Then to compound the problem, you have the ejected members bringing in civil lawyers in order to force a reversal of the decision - which is actually the most ominous infringement on the separation of church and state in the article.
Guys, I know that many of you see this insanity as an example of why Christianity must be excluded from the political sphere, but I see it as a much clearer example of:
1) What happens when the bible is abandoned (lets face it, in this example "not even consulted" would be nearer the truth) as the guiding light for church order and mission.
2) The kind of thing that happens when politics, and social concerns are made the driving concern of the church rather than following the pattern set for the church in the great commission. And sadly its not just Republicans co-opting the church. Both parties "cynically" use churches for achieving their political ends.
The saddest thing is, that they have effectively abandoned a concern for men's souls and the eternal issues of life in favor of bickering over purely temporal concerns, as though the outcome of the 2004 election were more important than where a person spends eternity. Truly we have become so earthly minded we are doing no heavenly good. They'd do well to remember the underlying lesson of Shelly's poem, Ozymandius:
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
Let the Church be about the work of the eternal Kingdom, not frittering away her time with the petty politicking of passing earthly kingdoms.
- SEAGOON
-
Sorry, I don't think ya get off that easy.
Originally posted by Seagoon
1) What happens when the bible is abandoned (lets face it, in this example "not even consulted" would be nearer the truth) as the guiding light for church order and mission.
Abandoned by whom? The Democrats attending the church?
Who abandoned what, here?
Really.
2) The kind of thing that happens when politics, and social concerns are made the driving concern of the church rather than following the pattern set for the church in the great commission. And sadly its not just Republicans co-opting the church. Both parties "cynically" use churches for achieving their political ends.
There it is again. "Both sides cynically using religion for political gain". But nobody... NOBODY.... can point out an example of how the left uses the church for political gain. It's like one of those things that gets said so much it becomes accepted.
I don't accept it.
Show me.
The saddest thing is, that they have effectively abandoned a concern for men's souls and the eternal issues of life in favor of bickering over purely temporal concerns, as though the outcome of the 2004 election were more important than where a person spends eternity. - SEAGOON
Who is "they"? Who are you talking about here?
Democrats?
I think not.
You think differently? Well then....
Show me.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Enacting unprecedented law ... based on what you personally think ... is insanity.
So "what you personally think" is not a valid basis for legislation? Legislators should ignore their own beliefs and feelings and base their votes on... what exactly?
-
Law.
The Constitution.
But that doesn't mean much nowadays, does it? I mean... Nowhere in the Constitution does it specifically mention the seperation of church and state.
Wow! What an epiphany.
Lets go to town.
-
"Legislators should base their votes on Law."
That's redundant.
So let's try your second answer.
"Legislators should base their votes on the Constitution."
Please show how the federal Schiavo legislation was unconstitutional.
-
Originally posted by Nash
OMG.... You think you know yer politics better than me, and yet say such a thing? Come on....
OMG... you think a vote of 203-58 doesn't show what went on?
OMG.. the Senate passed it by voice vote; that doesn't show you what went on?
-
Okay but before we go on this particular ride....
The quote we're on was a portion of a sentence in a broader point.
As if calling people from bed, and as if calling the President back to Washinton from vacation wasn't a part of it.
In the world according to you:
"Enacting unprecedented law, creating an unprecedented circus, based on what you personally think, about one case, out of millions, is insanity."
... is all that matters?
As if to say that everything they do is okay as long it's what they personally think?
Before we go there, which I'll certainly do, please let me in on the direction of your narrow course.
-
Originally posted by Toad
OMG... you think a vote of 203-58 doesn't show what went on?
OMG.. the Senate passed it by voice vote; that doesn't show you what went on?
Yeah Toad. Yeah.
Either you don't think I know about it, or I don't think you do.
Or maybe you're just playing to the audience.
-
The only thing I can conclude is that Nash does not think that voters or their elected representatives have a right to base their decisions on their personal values if those values have a religious basis.
That's cool. He's in Canada. They can do whatever they want up there.
We're in the USA. We have a long tradition of religious tolerance and diversity. Atheist, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, whatever. You can pray and speak and vote however you want. Regardless of whether you are a private citizen or an elected official.
You do it your way, we do it our way, good times.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
"Legislators should base their votes on Law."
That's redundant.
So let's try your second answer.
"Legislators should base their votes on the Constitution."
Please show how the federal Schiavo legislation was unconstitutional.
OK, Funk... NOW do you think it's strawman or do you REALLY think he's completely clueless as to what the First says?
Nash, you are right about one thing. There is no basis for discussion.
You are either using a strawman to entertain yourself or you really don't know jack about the US Constitution and the three branches of government while refusing to take a few minutes to learn it.
Glad I went to watch Deadwood. This thread is like your last.
It's either a deliberate strawman or a strawman because you don't understand what you discuss.
Sorry, but there it is.
-
Toad I don't know. Nash is a smart, talented, humorous, well mannered person. I'm going to assume we are just having a barrier of understanding due to the impersonal communication method in use. I'm sure we could work it all out in a bar.
This is getting dumb anyways. I voted against Bush, would vote against Frist if I had the chance, and I think those church officials are idiots. Not much basis for argument.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Either you don't think I know about it,
That's it right there. I don't think you do.
How many Representatives are there? What's the split Dem/Rep? What do the vote totals tell you in light of these two facts? When does the Senate use a voice vote and for what reason? What are the oppositions options if they don't want a voice vote?
Go ahead, show me how much you understand.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
The only thing I can conclude is that Nash does not think that voters or their elected representatives have a right to base their decisions on their personal values if those values have a religious basis.
That's cool. He's in Canada. They can do whatever they want up there.
We're in the USA. We have a long tradition of religious tolerance and diversity. Atheist, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, whatever. You can pray and speak and vote however you want. Regardless of whether you are a private citizen or an elected official.
You do it your way, we do it our way, good times.
heh... What a cop-out.
As long as you want to turn this into us-vs-them, then okay.... that's the problem with you guys. I can't tell if the truth is too hard for you to handle, or if it's too complicated, or what....
But you didn't say jack **** with yer last post.
-
Toad, the fact that you are mentioning the vote count is a display of your ignorance on what happened.
Now either you are trying to fool me or someone else....
Which is it?
-
Toad, why don't you just spare me an analysis of my argument style and instead just argue. Mmmmkay?
I don't think I'm throwing out straw men here.... but if it makes it easier for you to discount everything I say to accuse me of it... well.... That's yer crutch aint it.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Toad I don't know. Nash is a smart, talented, humorous, well mannered person.
[/b]
Agree without reservation.
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'm going to assume we are just having a barrier of understanding due to the impersonal communication method in use.
[/b]
Disagree. He is too smart, and talented to misunderstand without even trying to verify his position. There's ample material available to show that the point he is trying to make is a strawman argument if one reads/understands the First.
Originally posted by FUNKED1
This is getting dumb anyways.
It's a dumb as when one of the Euros complains that Americans are stifiling his free speech whenever someone disagrees with them.
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I voted against Bush, would vote against Frist if I had the chance, and I think those church officials are idiots. Not much basis for argument.
[/b]
I didn't vote for Bush, think Frist is no better and no worse than say... Robert Byrd and the other featherbedding jerkoffs that constitute the remaining 90% of our National Legislature, think about 90% any churches officials are clueless and can see that you and I would spend our time drinking rather than arguing in a bar.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Toad, the fact that you are mentioning the vote count is a display of your ignorance on what happened.
Now either you are trying to fool me or someone else....
Which is it?
I think you're fooling yourself.
You think they did it all in secret and didn't tell the Dems there was a meeting? The Dems had as much time to get back as the Reps did.
Further, and this is KEY... there's NOTHING in the Constitution that precludes a law such as this.
Again, you don't understand the First with regards to religion.
-
Okay.... Last thing I'm gonna say about this.
Your country can't afford people like you to play dumb.
At a certain point, something's gotta give. If it doesn't start, nay even happen at all with the bright people, then where from? And with what consequence?
Thassit.
you two.
G'night!
-
Originally posted by Nash
Toad, why don't you just spare me an analysis of my argument style and instead just argue.
There's nothing to argue.
Sorry. You just don't understand the First.
Didn't read the link did you?
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. .
It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited.
The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.
[/b]
Now, tell me... how is the Schiavo law an example of passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another?
Next, tell me how the Schiavo law an example of the government interfering with a persons practice of their religion?
Go ahead.
I'm hitting the sack and will check back in the morning.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Your country can't afford people like you to play dumb.
True, and neither Funk nor I is playing dumb.
OTOH, our country can afford any number of Canucks that don't understand our Constitution.
;)
-
Hello Nash,
Originally posted by Nash
Sorry, I don't think ya get off that easy.
Do I ever? ;)
Abandoned by whom? The Democrats attending the church?
Who abandoned what, here?
Really.
Nash, I could be wrong, but I'm getting the impression you missed the point I was trying (and apparently failing) to make. The real issue is that this congregation isn't functioning as a church, its functioning as a social club. The fact that politics have become their primary concern, rather than the commission given to the church in the bible is the problem.
The problem isn't "the Democrats" or "the Republicans" in the congregation. It's the fact that the congregation has made who is a democrat and who is republican its concern, rather than the primary biblical concern - making believers (note the lack of party affiliation in the statement " And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women" (Acts 5:14) )
Theologians sometimes classify the three marks of the true church as being:
1) The Gospel is preached
2) The Sacraments are administered as they were instituted by Christ
3) Church discipline as it is set forth in the bible is rightly practiced.
From the description in the article, this church is apparently failing outright on #3 and seriously confusing #1.
There it is again. "Both sides cynically using religion for political gain". But nobody... NOBODY.... can point out an example of how the left uses the church for political gain. It's like one of those things that gets said so much it becomes accepted.
Oh, come on Nash. Surely you don't really believe that? You are really unaware that Al Gore and Bill Clinton campaigned in liberal black churches? That liberal churches frequently conduct "get out the vote drives" for the Democrats? That left-leaning churches fall all over themselves to make their pulpits available to candidates like Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Barrack Obama? That People For the American Way and many, many, other liberal pacs receive support and assistance from liberal denominations and churchmen. Do you really need a list of links to click on?
Many theologically liberal denoms these days, like the Unitarian Universalists, define themselves primarily in terms of social activism, and the General Assemblies, Conventions, and Synods, of several denoms. spend FAR more time issuing proclamations denouncing big tobacco, condemning Israel, and pushing a legislative agenda than they do debating issues of religion and spirituality.
For instance at the 212th assembly of the PCUSA they called for:
*Campaign Finance Reform
*Police "Accountability"
*"Lifting the ban on federal funds for support of needle exchange programs "
*"an immediate moratorium on all executions in all jurisdictions that impose capital punishment"
*"working to remove the Confederate flag from government facilities where laws and public policies are developed and enacted"
*Gun Control
*"that the U.S. Navy permanently stop all military training and bombing on the island of Vieques "
And the PCUSA isn't even in the really, really, left wing denominations category. You'd be amazed at the things the Unitarian Universalists and the UCC call for when they get together, they make MOVEON.ORG seem moderate.
The politicizing of the church has been a problem since Constantine's day, and it always destroys the true spirituality of the church, doesn't matter whether the politicization is on the left or the right.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
You are really unaware that Al Gore and Bill Clinton campaigned in liberal black churches? That liberal churches frequently conduct "get out the vote drives" for the Democrats? That left-leaning churches fall all over themselves to make their pulpits available to candidates like Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Barrack Obama?
- SEAGOON
Oooooooooooooh. That's gotta sting. I want to see him wriggle out of that one.
BTW, Sea... could you post that link to your site again.
You've impressed me Preacher. I want to read some more in a more formal setting where you don't have to swat so many flies.
I realized today that I may a rare conservative Universalist. I've got to do some more study to see just how deep in the doo that puts me. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Next, tell me how the Schiavo law an example of the government interfering with a persons practice of their religion?
My religion allows family to make decisions on life support.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oooooooooooooh. That's gotta sting.
Doesn't sting one bit. Maybe in your world.
Hope and fear. There is a difference.
Giving a leg up, and giving voice to that, and using that leg to beat someone across the head. There is a difference.
And there is a difference between asking for support, and misusing that support.
Problem is that I no longer know who is using who.
Fine with you? Fine with me.
Cheers.
-
Thought there was a law about congress creating a law that is aimed at a single individual. Yeah they might have used some strange wording but we all know that bill they passed was all aimed at Shiavo.
-
Maybe bad politicians making poor laws are being confused with philosophers making a constitution?
I get your point and share some of your disquiet on the present situation Nash.
But what Toad is stubbonly holding on to is that poor constitutional interpretation doesn't define a poor constitution; it defines a poor interpreter.
And Seagoon's very properly also pointing out that while your fears are well founded; the principle applies to both sides equally.
I think you two would dance better if you gave each other a bit of room now and again.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Yeah they might have used some strange wording but we all know that bill they passed was all aimed at Shiavo.
Strange wording?
AN ACT
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.
It applied solely to the Schiavo case; said so right up front. Only allowed a federal court to review the case.
Congress can pass a law that applies to a single person, as long as the law doesn't penalize or punish a single person or group.
Pretty tough to make that into either an example of passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another or an example of the government interfering with a persons practice of their religion.
Despite Nash's concern, the Schiavo law isn't a precursor of the Fall of the Republic.......... or any sort of violation of the 1st Amendment.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Doesn't sting one bit. Maybe in your world.
[/b]
As a wriggle, the Kansas judge gives you a 2.2 and you are removed from the competition.
Let's review the performance:
Originally posted by Nash
But nobody... NOBODY.... can point out an example of how the left uses the church for political gain.
[/b]
Originally posted by Seagoon
Oh, come on Nash. Surely you don't really believe that? You are really unaware that Al Gore and Bill Clinton campaigned in liberal black churches? That liberal churches frequently conduct "get out the vote drives" for the Democrats?
That left-leaning churches fall all over themselves to make their pulpits available to candidates like Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Barrack Obama? That People For the American Way and many, many, other liberal pacs receive support and assistance from liberal denominations and churchmen. Do you really need a list of links to click on?
[/b]
Originally posted by Nash
Hope and fear. There is a difference.
Giving a leg up, and giving voice to that, and using that leg to beat someone across the head. There is a difference.
[/b]
So the wriggle is........... "it's not the same when the Democrats do the exact same thing."
Upon further review, the score is lowered to 1.1.
However, I'll remember this one next time I'm in a tight spot debating with Nash. ;)
-
Actually Toad, the context of me saying that was in response to Funked saying this:
"...it's clear to me that there is a part of the DNC that is clearly biased against Christians and their beliefs, which is definitely not in the spirit of religious tolerance from which the "separation" is derived. They are trying to marginalize all people of faith as "fanatics" and "zealots". Yes it is merely a tactical response to the GOP's cynical exploitation of religion, but two wrongs don't make a right."
Seagoon's response didn't touch it. Now I would like to hear substantiation of Funked's claim, by either you or Funked or Seagoon.... but excuse me if I don't go off on a tangent about politicians showing up in a church a few days before an election because that is not what I was asking.
-
a little confused here... If I don't think people should be allowed to starve to death by witholding food.... What religion does that make me?
If any of my beliefs happen to coencide with the ten commandments and vote in that manner based on the morality of it... does that mean I am violating some unwritten nash law of seperation of church and state?
And, for the life of me... how does what this one church does so far as membership have anthing to do with the government forming a religion?
And... if The NRA tells me to vote for certain candidates am I violating canadas version of the U.S. constitution?
it's all so confusing.... I can't imagine how teachers and union members must feel with their leaders spewing political messages every week.
lazs
-
Good morning Lazs.
I'd have to say that you nailed it in your first few words. Go see a pastor or something. :)
-
ya gotta tell me which one you think I should see. I was baptized a catholic so nuke doesn't feel that I am a christian.
I don't believe in any religion per se but the morality of the christian teachings is pretty close to good law.
lazs
-
C'mon, Nash, the context is your direct reply to Seagoon, whom you quoted. You got caught speeding by Seagoon...own up.
You'd never let anyone else off if they used the weak defense your trying to use to slide on past.
Instant Replay:
Seagoon posted his take on the original issue that started this thread, the WAYNESVILLE, N.C. issue.
Originally posted by Seagoon
2) The kind of thing that happens when politics, and social concerns are made the driving concern of the church rather than following the pattern set for the church in the great commission. And sadly its not just Republicans co-opting the church. Both parties "cynically" use churches for achieving their political ends.
- SEAGOON
YOU replied to SEAGOON, quoting him exactly and telling him he's not "getting off that easy".
Originally posted by Nash
Sorry, I don't think ya get off that easy...
There it is again. "Both sides cynically using religion for political gain". But nobody... NOBODY.... can point out an example of how the left uses the church for political gain. It's like one of those things that gets said so much it becomes accepted.
I don't accept it.
Show me.
Seagoon accepts your challenge and shows you beyond any shadow of a doubt that "the left uses the church for political gain", with examples.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Nash,
Oh, come on Nash. Surely you don't really believe that? You are really unaware that Al Gore and Bill Clinton campaigned in liberal black churches? That liberal churches frequently conduct "get out the vote drives" for the Democrats? That left-leaning churches fall all over themselves to make their pulpits available to candidates like Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Barrack Obama? - SEAGOON
Let's be honest about this. You claim the political left doesn't use churches/religion for political gain.
Seagoon pinned you to the mat.
Get up, dust off and get ready for the next round.
-
what I got out of seagoons post was that he belived it was against chritian teachings (and wrong) to vote out members based on their political support of candidates.
While this has absolutely nothing to do with seperation of church and state..... I agree. I have no idea what is going on in nashs fuzzy head in regards to church and state.
I also got that seagoon feels that any organization has the right to promote candidates that best serve their purpose. This would be the vast majority of black only churches as well as the ones nash is upset about.
NRA wants one thing... NEA another.. they both send out pamphlets to their members endorsing candidates. I don't see any real difference or problem here unless it is simply that nash feels that only candidates he supports shouls have religious (or any other) groups backing and that ones that don't support his candidates should be struck down under some "seperation of church and state" rule that he made up.
lazs
-
Toad (oh self appointed score keeper of intardnet debate), I had asked for substantiation on Funked's claim:
"...Yes it is merely a tactical response to the GOP's cynical exploitation of religion."
...which followed immediately from "They are trying to marginalize all people of faith as "fanatics" and "zealots".
I don't care how you perceive Seagoon coming into it and thinking it can be addressed with the fact that politicians show up in churches.
It's like answering a question that wasn't asked, and then claiming victory (as you are so wont to do in these threads).
Or fine... how about this...
Toad you rule, Seagoon zinged me and Oh Boy it stings!!!
Now answer the original question?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
And, for the life of me... how does what this one church does so far as membership have anthing to do with the government forming a religion?
It sparked up a debate from a previous post(I missed it). I do not like the church getting involved in politics, I posted this as an example.
-
Churches have every right to be as stupid and bigoted as they please.
-
Nash, you got pinned. No matter how you spin it.
You called SEAGOON on what he said, claimed nobody could show it's on both sides.
Seagoon proved your claim totall wrong.
Funked ain't in this one. Try to put him in. Start a fire, burn a tire, smoke it up.
It's there. It's obvious.
Deny, if you like. Feels good, do it.
Whatever.
Now, you want me to tell you what Funked was thinking or what?
I suggest you ask Funked what he was thinking.
If you have a direct question for me and can frame it understandably, I'll answer you. You know I will. Without dodges, straight up.
-
Lol Toad, sometimes you are so full of chit.
When you get off your ridiculous obsession with "getting pinned", scoring points, and winning, and all the other BS, lemme know. Nuke used to say stuff like that all the time, for what it's worth.
I'm not in a contest here. Feel free to pretend you are all you want if it makes ya feel good.
At work now anyways.... so mebbe we'll chat later and I can come back from the big deficit I've apparently left myself in, and pull out a squeaker in overtime. Ciao.
-
Look guys, I'm not trying to pin, zing, whap, or kapow anyone. I was commenting on what I thought about the original situation.
What am I against? The church, which is supposed to be the body of Christ, and which he has commissioned to: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you" being used as a tool to achieve political ends. I've quoted this before, I'll quote it again:
"Just because the preaching of the Word is so great a task the church must devote itself to it alone. For the church to undertake other activities, not indissolubly bound up with this one, is a colossal blunder, because it inevitably results in neglect of its proper task. Let not the church degenerate into a social club. Let not the church go into the entertainment business. Let not the church take sides on such aspects of economics, politics, or natural science as are not dealt with in the Word of God. And let the church be content to teach special, not general revelation. Let the church be the church." - R.B. Kuiper
For an even better explanation of the importance of not politicizing the church, take a look here: Great Commission or Great Society (http://www.modernreformation.org/dgh94greatcom.htm)
Nash, I know in one sense you are eager to keep "religion out of politics," while I am even more eager to keep politics out of the church.
But you seem to be getting dangerously close to wanting to keep Christian ethics out of politics or people who happen to be evangelical Christians out as well - or am I misreading you? Should a belief in absolute truth and faith in Jesus Christ automatically disqualify someone from serving in public office or being involved in politics, in a way for instance that believing in situational ethics, and the teachings of Darwin, Hume, Locke, Malcolm X, Rousseau, Marx, and Engels doesn't?
Now I wouldn't be all that bothered if you said "yes", because at heart, modern politics comes down to "I want people who hold to my beliefs in power, and I want people who oppose them, out" - and I am not demanding or expecting to be "tolerated." If a position is false, it shouldn't be tolerated, if on the other hand it is true, it deserves to be accepted not tolerated. "Tolerance" generally only flows one way, in any event.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Toad
BTW, Sea... could you post that link to your site again.
You've impressed me Preacher. I want to read some more in a more formal setting where you don't have to swat so many flies.
I realized today that I may a rare conservative Universalist. I've got to do some more study to see just how deep in the doo that puts me. ;)
Hi Toad,
Here is the link to my site (http://www.providencepca.com/)
I hope that some of the links and info will be helpful to you in getting out of the doo. If you have anything you want to talk to me directly about, or if you want a few recommendations, please feel free to send me an email (ajwebb@providencepca.com)
I can also hook you up with a few other crazies like me if you would like a more formal discussion of this Christianity stuff.
- SEAGOON
PS: Forgot to mention, this might be a good basic link to consider starting with:Ulitmate Questions (http://www.the-highway.com/ultimate_questions.html) It will at the very least provide fodder for discussion. ;)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Now I would like to hear substantiation of Funked's claim,
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050427/D89O05980.html
I'll see if I can find the text of the speech. Every other word out of his mouth was "zealot", "fanatic", "fundamentalist", or "extremist". There must have been a memo from DNC HQ with these words in it. Pelosi and a few others are doing it too.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Lol Toad, sometimes you are so full of chit.
What can I say? I learned from the Master... you.
Originally posted by Nash
When you get off your ridiculous obsession with "getting pinned",
It's not score keeping, it's keeping the debate honest.
You posted a pure line of crap there; horse doobers, bull exhaust. Unchallenged, the lesser intellects read it and file it as truth. Sea called you on your baloney, nailed it. Best for all, especially the lesser intellects.
You could have admitted it and we'd have moved right on but the denial is equally bull exhaust and that has too be pointed out.
Should be sufficient by now I'd think.
Originally posted by Nash
I'm not in a contest here.
Me neither; I'm here to learn and to search out truths I don't know. That part of your post simply isn't the truth.
You debate well, you've got a good intellect and it's lots of fun. But that was BS and it can't pass unannounced. Heck, you know you'd think less of me if I did let it pass. ;)
-
Sea, thanks a lot. I'll be checking it out. Scanned it when it came up before but not as much as I desired.
Tell me quick and dirty.... is being a Universalist a really, really bad thing?
We'll probably chat more in detail later.
-
I think I get it with Frist and going to church.
Currently if you look at the Dem's fillibustering of judicial appointees, the issue they are using as a litemous test is the degree of christian beleif and practice of christian ethic of the prospective judge. Basicly bible and 10 commandment beleiving christians or devout catholics need not apply to become a federal judge or member of the supreme court if the Dems have anything to fillibuster about it........
Frist's statements about freedom of religion have to do with the current trend of not allowing christians to be appointed, but instead holding out for secularist or Liberal leaning social christian judges. Having the supreme court and federal courts stacked with Liberals or secularists makes it easy for the Dems to make social policy by Lawyer rather than leave it up to us STOOOPEED "We the People". We tend to be a wee bit more conservitive than they have been unlucky at getting their pet issues made into law by the constitutional method of letting them be voted on.
The fear Frist is communicating to the congregations is, in the face of an extreemly left leaning judiciary, christianity could go the way it has in Canada, Australia and the EU where speaking scripture in public can get you jailed for hate speech if a gay, lesbian, muslim, or secularist is offended. So enter the NUK option to change the rules in the Senate so that a majority vote will sufice to end the fillibuster rather than the 60 vote majority.
Currently the Dems would not be able to defeat most any up or down vote if the fillibusters are ended............Frankly the U.S. Constitution as it is, does not recognise a right to not be offended. Which is a good thing.............
-
Basicly bible and 10 commandment beleiving christians or devout catholics need not apply to become a federal judge or member of the supreme court if the Dems have anything to fillibuster about it.
Bingo. And THAT is what goes against the spirit of our Constitution, not Frist's remarks.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Strange wording?
It applied solely to the Schiavo case; said so right up front. Only allowed a federal court to review the case.
Congress can pass a law that applies to a single person, as long as the law doesn't penalize or punish a single person or group.
Pretty tough to make that into either an example of passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another or an example of the government interfering with a persons practice of their religion.
Despite Nash's concern, the Schiavo law isn't a precursor of the Fall of the Republic.......... or any sort of violation of the 1st Amendment.
Seems to punish her to me. but we don't need to get into that again.
2)never saw you get back to me for the faith based initiative stuff, or is that a little tough for you to explain away?
Like i said that is a clear violation of make no law establishing. To me you start giving taxpayer money to churches, any church that constitutes that you are establishing them.
-
As long as the Faith Based Initiatives are open to all Religions and not just Bush's denomination, it walks a slippery slope, but it does not preference one beleif over another. Unless you are throwing "All" religions into one hat and are arguing for a totaly secular government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
I could see throwing all interactions with all religions into a hat so to say if you want to loosely read this. But the Faith Based Initiative is not a law establishing a Religion. It's just another scam to get governments hand deeper into our pockets.
So as long as Frist or Billary Clinton are shouting hozanna in public to the masses as a practice of their faith or whatever and not submitting a bill up for law establishing a national religion, there is no violation of the constitution.
Unless you like judicial presidence which usually finds hidden lines in the constitution, like a mothers right to kill her baby, or mens right to bugger each other, Congress is only prohibited from creating a religion by enacting a law. You see a couple a thousand more lines in the first amendment I don't?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
2)never saw you get back to me for the faith based initiative stuff, or is that a little tough for you to explain away?
Link that please. I'll answer.
-
Originally posted by bustr
The fear Frist is communicating to the congregations is, in the face of an extreemly left leaning judiciary, christianity could go the way it has in Canada, Australia and the EU where speaking scripture in public can get you jailed for hate speech if a gay, lesbian, muslim, or secularist is offended.
You do realise where the Pope lives; don't you?
And we haven't had one arrested for quite a while........
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Like i said that is a clear violation of make no law establishing. To me you start giving taxpayer money to churches, any church that constitutes that you are establishing them.
But if the church is already established and has yet to receive any governmental funding, who unestablishes them so that they can be re-established by receiving government funding? Is unestablishing a church an expressed constitutional function of government?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
You do realise where the Pope lives; don't you?
And we haven't had one arrested for quite a while........
I don't think they'd arrest the Pope. ;)
The idea that speaking or reading scripture could even be considered a hate crime is alarming.
One of my best friends ( a theologian) is the Reverend in a church in Canada. He also had a radio show. He was canned by the radio station for airing a show recenty in which he gave examples from other religions and contrasted them with the bible's teachings.
I guess the radio station said that they didn't want to be legally liable for his show , because it could be considered a hate crime. This was about four weeks ago, and he was blown away by the whole thing and very upset.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Link that please. I'll answer.
I said something about it on page 2. Anyway here is some data
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/GrantCatalog2004.pdf
The White House Office and the Agency Centers are charged with ensuring that local faith-based and community groups have a fair chance to compete for Federal dollars without facing barriers.
So they get a special office to help them compete? Do other groups get this help or just faith based? Answer just faith-based.
Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/index.html
This one made me laugh though...I love how he calls the no establishment clause a roadblock. lmao---
Unfortunately, there are some roadblocks -- such as the culture inside government at the federal, state and local level that is unfriendly to faith-based organizations.
Today, 10 federal agencies have got faith-based offices, three of them set up last year. In other words, a lot of money comes out of these different bureaucracies, and in order to make sure people feel comfortable accessing the grant-making process, and/or that the bureaucracy itself is fair in enabling faith-based organizations to apply, there's an office in these different bureaucracies -- you know, Housing and Urban Development has got one; Margaret has got one; McAllum's organization, the Justice Department, has got one.
Special offices set up to help "faith based" organizations. Do other "organizations" get "special offices" to help them get more grant money? Nope. lmao I am not saying faithbased anymore from now on I am gonna call it like it is. RELIGOUS ORGANIZATIONS!
Statistics...
Since 2003, the administration has increased grants to faith-based organizations by 20 percent.
Last year, 10.3 percent of all federal grants -- those are grants coming out of Washington, those are not formula-based grants to states -- 10 percent of those grants went to faith-based organizations. That's up from 8.1 percent.
That means about $2 billion in grants were awarded last year to religious charities. That's a start.
-BUSH
2 billion in taxpayer money to religious organizations. I don't care if they spread it around or gave it all to catholics. Any taxpayer backing of "churches" goes against establishment. I would like to see if the Religous organizations that received these grants increased their "social help" programs by the same amount of money or whether they were able to use it so that they could divert money into that new gym I see at every church.
I had another post somewhere with a lot more data and numbers but one of the most striking things was that even though the "Religious Organizations" receive federal money and are therefore required to comply with federal hiring/employment practices, they have been exempted and are allowed to discriminate based on sex, sexual orientation, and any other factors that they deem will interfere with their "religion". What a crock.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But if the church is already an established and has yet to receive any governmental funding, who unestablishes them so that they can be re-established by receiving government funding? Is unestablishing a church an expressed constitutional function of government?
stupid.
-
Yes it is. Funding a program whereby some church group goes around delivering meals to elderly shut-ins by no means establishes that church.
I'm glad you agree.
-
Originally posted by bustr
The fear Frist is communicating to the congregations is, in the face of an extreemly left leaning judiciary, christianity could go the way it has in Canada, Australia and the EU where speaking scripture in public can get you jailed for hate speech if a gay, lesbian, muslim, or secularist is offended.
hate literature is just that, regardless of what an invisible friend whispers in your ear.
christians had a hardtime getting over slavery and interracial marriage, they just lag behind the times. time to rewrite the novel again.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Yes it is. Funding a program whereby some church group goes around delivering meals to elderly shut-ins by no means establishes that church.
I'm glad you agree.
You need to read up on what that money is going for.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
You do realise where the Pope lives; don't you?
And we haven't had one arrested for quite a while........
Is the Vatacin a signed member of the EU Charter?
I can see what NASH is upset about. He should stay in Canada where Christianity is considered an institution of hate and sexual discrimination with laws in place to allow the persecution of Christians for practicing their beleif in the name of human rights, dignity and multiculteralism.
If our judiciary gets stacked with Liberal one world multiculteralists, you will see the First Amendment thrown out the window and 1000 extra lines of hidden text and meaning suddenly found in the constitution to justify condeming the practice of the Judeochristian religion in the U.S. as a religion of hate, intolerance and sexual discrimination.
The constitution currently protects the right to freely practice religion and the right to speak that religion freely in the public square. If NASH don't get that, NASH should leave the U.S. alone........................ ............
-
Originally posted by bustr
As long as the Faith Based Initiatives are open to all Religions and not just Bush's denomination, it walks a slippery slope, but it does not preference one beleif over another. Unless you are throwing "All" religions into one hat and are arguing for a totaly secular government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
I could see throwing all interactions with all religions into a hat so to say if you want to loosely read this. But the Faith Based Initiative is not a law establishing a Religion. It's just another scam to get governments hand deeper into our pockets.
So as long as Frist or Billary Clinton are shouting hozanna in public to the masses as a practice of their faith or whatever and not submitting a bill up for law establishing a national religion, there is no violation of the constitution.
Unless you like judicial presidence which usually finds hidden lines in the constitution, like a mothers right to kill her baby, or mens right to bugger each other, Congress is only prohibited from creating a religion by enacting a law. You see a couple a thousand more lines in the first amendment I don't?
Like I said Financial backing of Religion is IMO establishing those Religions as the "Preferred" religions of the state. Someone's religion or lack there-of is gonna get left out and that will give the impression that their religion is not as accepted as the others that get 10's of millions of dollars.
It is a simple matter or choosing religion over lack there-of. Government should stay neutral and not have anything to do with any religion.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
You need to read up on what that money is going for.
I know of a program which was doing just that but was denied due to it's relationship with a church.
The New York chapter of the Salvation Army recently got into hot water due to its reception of government funding for soup kitchens etc. because it required employees to speak the "company doctrine".
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Like I said Financial backing of Religion is IMO establishing those Religions as the "Preferred" religions of the state. Someone's religion or lack there-of is gonna get left out and that will give the impression that their religion is not as accepted as the others that get 10's of millions of dollars.
It is a simple matter or choosing religion over lack there-of. Government should stay neutral and not have anything to do with any religion.
See I knew you could find the extra hidden text in the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or Financial backing of Religion ; 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 guess the version I grew up with was a PC revisionist version and not the original one.
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.
Now if this is a discussion on how YOU would rewrite the Constitution, well by all means. Otherwise all of these threads on the board about the constitution come down to: one group dosent like the rules and wants to change them, the other group is happy with them.
The concept of "Funding" being an establishment is as bogus as the SCOTUS using judicial precidence for discovering 1000 hidden lines of text and meaning in the Frist Amendment. Creating a funding agency that provides funding for religions through a qualifying process is not a law establishing a religion. It's just another government hand out. I'm more concerned about the DING DONGS running the program and how badly they will screw the whole process before "Wikkens for Pedophilia" sue for their freebe and the SCOTUS gets to find a right to Pedophilia in the constitution................. .
-
Originally posted by bustr
Creating a funding agency that provides funding for religions through a qualifying process is not a law establishing a religion. It's just another government hand out.
Maybe you are just not bright enough to grasp the concept. Funding of religion = part of the establishment of religion. Does that help ya? Clear it up?
That quote of yours is exactly what I see as establishing religion. I don't even care which one or all of them. Government has no business sending dollars their way when they turn around and use it to promote their own agenda's.
-
So let's see if I have this right...
So if there is a competition between two groups for providing a service to the community, say a meals on wheels program, and Joe's Catering bids against St. Josephs Kitchen.
Joe's comes in at 1% more than St. Joseph's for comparable service.
In order to be fair, the government is required to discriminate, on account of religion, against St. Josephs due to its church tie.
This is fair and equitable treatment... to discriminate against a group based upon their religious beliefs.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Maybe you are just not bright enough to grasp the concept. Funding of religion = part of the establishment of religion. Does that help ya? Clear it up?
The Religion is already established. First redefine: Congress shall make (no law) respecting an establishment of religion.
"No Law" is explicite. The Church of England was created by a "Law".
You are finding hidden meaning again in the first line. It is your opinion that funding is establishment of the religions that qualify under the initiative. Faith based initiatives are an alternative to government based welfare and social services. The Faith and Community based private groups are better at helping the misfortunate because they are not government buracracies.
You are defining establishment, or recognition of a group by the transaction of funds. The constitution only prohibits the creation of a U.S. federal religion by passage of a "Law" to create it.
Telling me I'm not bright enough is an interesting way to accuse me of not reading between the lines and seeing the permiutations that for you seem to be obvious and almost evil in your view of the possible out come...............
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So let's see if I have this right...
So if there is a competition between two groups for providing a service to the community, say a meals on wheels program, and Joe's Catering bids against St. Josephs Kitchen.
Joe's comes in at 1% more than St. Joseph's for comparable service.
In order to be fair, the government is required to discriminate, on account of religion, against St. Josephs due to its church tie.
This is fair and equitable treatment... to discriminate against a group based upon their religious beliefs.
The way the law stands they only discriminate against them if they try to spout religious views while they give the food. You know "here's your lunch, got a few minutes to learn about the bible" They don't do that then no there is no discrimination. But like I said in an earlier part, their seems to be no oversight so exactly what gets spent where by what church is anybody's guess. I still say all it did was allow churches to withdrawn their own money from these programs and use it elsewhere meanwhile the government picks up the tab.
-
Originally posted by bustr
The Religion is already established. First redefine: Congress shall make (no law) respecting an establishment of religion.
You are defining establishment, or recognition of a group by the transaction of funds. The constitution only prohibits the creation of a U.S. federal religion by passage of a "Law" to create it.
Telling me I'm not bright enough is an interesting way to accuse me of not reading between the lines and seeing the permiutations that for you seem to be obvious and almost evil in your view of the possible out come...............
LoL
You say I am reading between the lines but then you go read between the lines yourself. Does the constitution, actually the bill of rights, say it only prohibits creation of a "U.S. federal religion by passage of a "law" to create it?" Seems like that is reading between the lines on your part. IMO The clause is vauge on purpose so it could be wide-ranging. Not Narrow into only 1 specific act.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Telling me I'm not bright enough is an interesting way to accuse me of not reading between the lines and seeing the permiutations that for you seem to be obvious and almost evil in your view of the possible out come...............
Only reason I said you werent bright enough is because it took about 4 posts of me saying the same thing before you finally were able to grasp what I was saying. Had nothing to do with reading, or maybe it did.
-
{My apologies for interrupting the stream to respond to Toad}
Originally posted by Toad
Sea, thanks a lot. I'll be checking it out. Scanned it when it came up before but not as much as I desired.
Tell me quick and dirty.... is being a Universalist a really, really bad thing?
We'll probably chat more in detail later.
Toad,
Let me put it to you simply, Universalism is a clear contradiction of the teaching of the Bible (and the the teaching of Christ) regarding Heaven and Hell, Redemption, Salvation, and Eternal Punishment.
In its modern permutations it is a new theology and only really took hold after enlightenment rationalism began to discourage a belief in the inspiration of scripture, and philosophers began to critique what they regarded as the "moral failings" of the bible (they also asserted that a superior morality could be deduced by unaided reason.)
Usually, in order for a denomination to embrace universalism, most of the other supernatural elements of the bible also have to be dispensed with and few if any denoms that believe in the Deity of Christ have embraced it. It is generally considered about as heterodox a belief as is possible.
For a scholarly history and critique of modern universalism in particular check out: The Rise of Modern Universalism (http://www.sbts.edu/resources/publications/sbjt/1998/1998Summer2.pdf)
- SEAGOON
-
Hmmmmmmmmmm... OK, stop right there and let me catch up. Maybe I misread something earlier and have a misunderstanding of what Universalism represents.
I have to educate myself.
Thanks for the link. TTYL.
-
Whew...OK, I'm NOT a Universalist.
More later. ;)
-
nash said.. "When you get off your ridiculous obsession with "getting pinned", scoring points, and winning, and all the other BS, lemme know. "
oh come on nash... if Bush or one of the consevatives on this BB would have blown it as bad as you did you would have made a huge deal out of it.
I don't think the church should vote out members based opn poilitics but if they do... that is their right... probly not a smart thing to do tho. lose folks that way I would imagine.
I think that nash is comfortable with democrats trying lamely to clap in time with gospel singers in all black holly roller churches or Republicans pretending to enjoy church services at mostlyu white churches... I just think he is uncomfortable if he thinks that they may not be pretending.
lazs
-
I think it was one of those 'near-pins' like in the WWF where Seagoon had Nash down, but the ref (Toad?) was looking the other way for a second cause Raider was lifting up a folding chair then Nash did that arched back hump thing and bounced Seagoon off just when Toad was looking back....
I'm pretty sure thats what really happened.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
The way the law stands they only discriminate against them if they try to spout religious views while they give the food....
That is not the way the policy is administered however.
To use another example, In public schools a bible study group cannot get a spare classroom for a lunchtime meeting but a flyfishing club can. No complusion to attend, no sponsorship above what any secular organization receives, yet the religious group is discriminated against on account of their religious belief.
-
Hi Guys,
It has been my experience that the majority of Americans have never read the actual letters that were exchanged between the Danbury Baptist Association and President Thomas Jefferson and that the only portion they are familiar with are the four words "separation of church and state" devoid of any of their original context (witness the title of this thread). Therefore, here are the original documents, along with some further context and perhaps a brief comment or two, which is perhaps necessary because as a culture we have become a good deal more unenlightened than the civilization we sprang from.
Regarding the DBA letter to Jefferson: The Danbury baptists are concerned that under the ancient British laws, the practice of religion was considered something circumscribed by the government (a position supported by the idea that the King was the head of the church) and therefore that the government had the right to enforce uniformity of religious belief and practice . Under the British system therefore, the rights of religious expression are alienable. They contend that they believe that these rights are God-given and thus inalienable and that no civil magistrate has the right to assume the governance of the Kingdom of God (this belief, that the spheres of the civil government and the church were separate and that each had power delegated by God, rather than absolutely joined and acting directly for God as the Anglicans and Roman Catholic had taught, was a fundamental tennet of Reformation Christianity and a principle that informed the framers of the Constitution).
Jefferson writes to assure them that this is his understanding as well, which is not surprising, as the Virginia declaration of rights which George Mason wrote for Jefferson's beloved Virginia and which Jefferson himself endorsed states:
"That Religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other."
The letter of the DBA therefore is concerned more with fears that the government might once again conclude that the right of religious expression is a favor granted by the state, and not an inalienable right granted by God, and that the civil magistrate might seek to rule and judge concerning what men believe and say concerning religion, rather than simply judging their actions according to an equitable and impartial law.
[Please note also that Jefferson was not the author of the constitution, that was James Madison.]
Anyway here are the letters.
The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America
Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association,
Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }
*A cite for this letter could read:
Letter of Oct. 7, 1801 from Danbury (CT) Baptist Assoc. to Thomas Jefferson,
Thomas Jefferson Papers, Manuscript Division,
Library of Congress, Wash. D.C.
Jefferson's Reply
Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.
Washington, January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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 would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
--------------------
One final thought: the Danbury Baptists were partly concerned that the Government might usurp the perogative of God and seek to modify the laws and doctrines of the church by judging certain kinds of religious thought and speech to be unlawful. I have similar fears due to the increasing establishment of secular humanism as the religion of the state and the increasing tendency to judge certain kinds of teaching "unlawful hate speech" because incompatible with the presuppositions of the dominant religion of the day. Thus I fear that as in Canada, Christians might be in danger of being indicted, not for what they have done (for instance, if a Christian were to kill a homosexual) but for what they have preached (that homosexual sex is a sin).
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That is not the way the policy is administered however.
To use another example, In public schools a bible study group cannot get a spare classroom for a lunchtime meeting but a flyfishing club can. No complusion to attend, no sponsorship above what any secular organization receives, yet the religious group is discriminated against on account of their religious belief.
Thats just not true. In another thread I posted various laws regarding these exact miconceptions. I believe it was in a debate with seagoon. I am sure there were extenuating circumstances which you are not including, link please.
-
Seagoon,
Are you not remiss in leaving out mention of Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of Virginia? It was eventually passed in 1785. Section 2 being the heart of how Jefferson felt about man's freedom to worship or not without repercussion or loss of freedom.
"SECTION II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
It seems in that time the burden of personal conduct was a thousand fold heavier than in our present time of secularistic burden releif. Don't you think?
-
SECTION II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
That's great stuff.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
LoL
You say I am reading between the lines but then you go read between the lines yourself. Does the constitution, actually the bill of rights, say it only prohibits creation of a "U.S. federal religion by passage of a "law" to create it?" Seems like that is reading between the lines on your part. IMO The clause is vauge on purpose so it could be wide-ranging. Not Narrow into only 1 specific act.
The language is very direct.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Please explain what is vauge about this exact statement? It is the only one in the constitution. Ten words........ It says congress shall not create a religion by act of law. Creating Law is Congress's primary power. This is not a head of a pin theological discussion the framers based the statement on...........it is a direct limitation of a Congressional Power. The power to create a religion is also the power to enslave the natural rights and freedom of mankind.
Unless there is something here I am not seeing, are you willing to write a detailed discource? Please explain how it is a wide ranging and vauge statement..........Or is your scholorship up to the task?
-
Originally posted by bustr
"SECTION II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
My favorite part is "no man shall be compelled to frequent or SUPPORT any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever"
seems like prime anti-faith based initiative stuff to me.
-
Originally posted by bustr
The language is very direct.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Please explain what is vauge about this exact statement? It is the only one in the constitution. Ten words........ It says congress shall not create a religion by act of law. Creating Law is Congress's primary power. This is not a head of a pin theological discussion the framers based the statement on...........it is a direct limitation of a Congressional Power. The power to create a religion is also the power to enslave the natural rights and freedom of mankind.
Unless there is something here I am not seeing, are you willing to write a detailed discource? Please explain how it is a wide ranging and vauge statement..........Or is your scholorship up to the task?
Ok lets look at this no law "respecting an establishment of religion"
I see you just jump right over respecting.
Respecting as I interpret it is the key word here. See they didnt just say Congress will make no law establishing religion. They said Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion.
Respecting as I interpret it here means concerning, regarding.
That includes anything that has to do with even the beginning stage of establishing such a "national" religion. Or do you think we can just give all our taxpayers money to the churches, let them run the country, why not even let them take turns being in charge of the country. By your definition all this would be perfectly acceptable as long as Congress doesn't pass a law saying Christianity or Catholicism or Judaism is the national religion.
To me they meant to head off anything like that from the start. And that is exactly how I see the faith-based initiative. The start of the establishment of national religion or religions.
By your own post above you can see Jefferson did not agree with paying churches money.
"no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever"
Support does mean financially.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Seagoon,
Are you not remiss in leaving out mention of Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of Virginia? It was eventually passed in 1785. Section 2 being the heart of how Jefferson felt about man's freedom to worship or not without repercussion or loss of freedom.
"SECTION II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
It seems in that time the burden of personal conduct was a thousand fold heavier than in our present time of secularistic burden releif. Don't you think?
Hi Bustr,
That too is a good resource, I should have included it. Regarding your point, all of the overarching statements of civil rights both state and federal framed in this period regarding religion were essentially designed to do two things:
1) Maintain the biblical principle that the Caesar's kingdom and God's were two different spheres and that the church had no right to govern the state and vice versa.
2) To reinforce the point that the magistrate had a duty to protect freedom of religion, hence the thrust of your quote from Jefferson above.
As several commentators have noted, Jefferson learned these principles not from the French philosophes of the time - who were adamantly anti-Christian and who worked to evacuate all religion from the public square, but rather largely from Reformed Christians and in particular Presbyterians like Witherspoon. Note for instance the incredible similarity between Jefferson's statement above, and the following section from the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith:
"Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance. " [Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 23, article 3]
You'll notice that all of the statements quoted from this period have a clause assuring that the right of freedom of religion shall be assured by the government, and that to quote Jefferson "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
And yet we seem to have forgotten the portions of our foundational documents that protect the free exercise of religion. We see that in the way that we are told that judges, for instance, are disqualified from serving as judges because of (to quote Chuck Schumer) "deeply held conservative religious views." What better example do we have of a man's religious beliefs being held to "diminish his civil capacity?" We have gone from protecting freedom of religion to enforcing freedom from Christian religion.
In my opinion, we are societally well on the way to institutionalizing not Jefferson's ideals but Rousseau's dream of erradicating Christianity from culture in favor of "a purely civil profession of faith, of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogma, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen and faithful subject." [Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract]
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
And yet we seem to have forgotten the portions of our foundational documents that protect the free exercise of religion. We see that in the way that we are told that judges, for instance, are disqualified from serving as judges because of (to quote Chuck Schumer) "deeply held conservative religious views." What better example do we have of a man's religious beliefs being held to "diminish his civil capacity?" We have gone from protecting freedom of religion to enforcing freedom from Christian religion.
95% of Bush judicial appointees have passed. That is a pretty good percent. Maybe if the judicial appointee would be neutral he might get his job. But instead you have these judges who strongly voice their "deeply held conservative religious views" and it does not make them look impartial. After all lady justice is blind not religous.
-
Jefferson gave substance to his beleif with his Bill that each man has the freedom to worship or not worship as he chooses, and that the state nor his fellow man can compell him otherwise in any means. This is a natural right of mankind.
Congress providing funding to faith based groups for public releif works is not compelling anyone to follow those groups theology. You might as well go the next extream step and say no U.S. citizen who is a member of a recognised Christian faith will ever be eligible for any form of federal asisstance unless first they publicly renounce their faith. But then that just means they become converts to the State Religion of secularism.
If you do not agree with what Congress is doing, you as a member of We the People are free to associate with like minded citizens and elect officials who beleive as you do. Congress only has the power to make or unmake Law.
The apperance of impropriety is not the substance of reality. Raider I think you would have felt quite at home in Paris of 1789.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Thats just not true.
Google "Bible study group denied access" and these come up...
---------------------------
In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union School District held that a local school board's policy allowing use of school property after hours for a variety of purposes but prohibiting access for a religious use was a violation of the free speech clause.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Second Circuit to hold that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause neither required nor justified such discrimination against religious speech. Nevertheless the Second Circuit again upheld a New York City School District's denial of access to a middle school auditorium sought by a church for worship services on Sunday mornings even though the schools are open to a wide variety of other public uses.
In 1997, Oklahoma University removed the website for a group of Christian faculty members from the University web server. While the university generally gives campus groups the opportunity to include their website on the university's server, this benefit has been denied to a Christian group.
That same year public school officials in North Carolina supported a teacher who forbid two students from bringing their Bibles to class and banned an informal discussion of Bible-related topics during non-class time.
PHILADELPHIA — 2003 A western Pennsylvania high school was wrong to bar a student Bible club from meeting during an activity period before the start of daily classes, a federal appeals court said yesterday.
The ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a belated victory for Punxsutawney Area High School senior Melissa Donovan, who sued last year after the district said it would no longer allow her biblical study group, FISH, to meet once school had started at 8 a.m.
--------------------------------------------------
My point is that the administration of policies is often too narrow in restricting religion in public forums.
Even though as early as 1993 the Supreme Court has upheld religious groups right to access public facilities the restrictions keep coming up and the courts have to keep deciding that freedom of religion had some merit.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
95% of Bush judicial appointees have passed. That is a pretty good percent.
Raider,
I hate to play the Family Feud buzzer sound but... BZZZZT
Here are the actual statistics:
President Confirmation Percentage, 1st & 2nd Congress
Truman 90.9%
Eisenhower 88.5%
Johnson 97.0%
Nixon 92.7%
Ford 79.2%
Carter 91.8%
Reagan 78.6%
G.H.W. Bush 77.8%
Clinton 71.4%
G.W. Bush 52.2%
Here is the US Gov't Source for the above stats (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL32122.pdf)
Maybe if the judicial appointee would be neutral he might get his job. But instead you have these judges who strongly voice their "deeply held conservative religious views" and it does not make them look impartial. After all lady justice is blind not religous.
Be neutral? Since when is Ruth Bader Ginsberg neutral about anything? She's been a torch carrier all her life for the ACLU and a vocal advocate for left wing causes including unrestricted abortion on demand and yet she was confirmed without much fuss. Why by contrast must Christian conservatives keep their own value system under the bed like pornography and only discuss it behind closed doors.
Your "no voicing religious views" point only serves to confirm what I was saying about how we no longer believe in Jefferson's phrase "nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
We may only "strongly express" points of view and expect to be confirmed if they follow the accepted civil religion otherwise they are disqualified. Even if they don't strongly express them, the Senate Digging crews will diligently unearth them. Voltaire and Rousseau appear to be strongly preferred to Jefferson, Mason, and Madison these days.
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon.. I read your link. The numbers I saw were a little different:
Truman - 75.1%
Eisenhower - 85.9%
Kennedy - 84.9%
Johnson - 91.5%
Nixon - 97.9% (:eek: )
Ford - 82.4%
Nothing past 1976?
-
Raider,.........what great harm has the christian religion enacted upon you or that you fear it will perform upon this nation under the mantel of legislative fiat? I am by no means Seagoon in my background, but it's beyond obvious your vitrol towards followers of the christian faith in the public arena and possibly in private.
I'm confused about the motivation of your vitrol...........
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Raider,
I hate to play the Family Feud buzzer sound but... BZZZZT
Here are the actual statistics:
President Confirmation Percentage, 1st & 2nd Congress
Truman 90.9%
Eisenhower 88.5%
Johnson 97.0%
Nixon 92.7%
Ford 79.2%
Carter 91.8%
Reagan 78.6%
G.H.W. Bush 77.8%
Clinton 71.4%
G.W. Bush 52.2%
Here is the US Gov't Source for the above stats (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL32122.pdf)
Be neutral? Since when is Ruth Bader Ginsberg neutral about anything? She's been a torch carrier all her life for the ACLU and a vocal advocate for left wing causes including unrestricted abortion on demand and yet she was confirmed without much fuss. Why by contrast must Christian conservatives keep their own value system under the bed like pornography and only discuss it behind closed doors.
Your "no voicing religious views" point only serves to confirm what I was saying about how we no longer believe in Jefferson's phrase "nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
We may only "strongly express" points of view and expect to be confirmed if they follow the accepted civil religion otherwise they are disqualified. Even if they don't strongly express them, the Senate Digging crews will diligently unearth them. Voltaire and Rousseau appear to be strongly preferred to Jefferson, Mason, and Madison these days.
- SEAGOON
No problem sounding the buzzer but please check your facts first.
Nice manipulation of the statistics but you purposely left out a lot.
and please next time use the actual link you got info from. The link you gave does not show the stats you used.
Lets look at bush compared to clinton for a real view on it.
Clinton 106 nominations 65 confirmed 3 withdrawn and 38 returned
Bush 66 nominations 35 returned 1 withdrawn and 31 returned.
now as you can clearly see Bush is just about right on par with clinton except in the "returned" factor. Which you just lumped in there with rejected, when in fact it was the republican controlled senate which "returned the nomination to the president upon adjournment or recess for 30 days."
Here is the rule regarding returned nominations
Senate standing rule:
“If the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.”
So the president didn't offer them back after the recess. you want to blame that on the senators or the president? You can't lump all those in when they never went through the process.
As for the neutrality thing, You name ginsberg but then go off on abortion, aclu, but see you are missing the point that she doesn't go off on her religious views.
Christian conservatives do not have to hide it under their beds but if you hold office respect the dignity of the office and practice your faith by yourself. After all you are leading people not just christians. Its a thing called respect for others religious beliefs.
Please, You think your religious views are being trampled on. How? Where can you personally not express your views? Name one place. Where can you personally not pray? name one place
And I don't mean that out loud raising cain praying, I mean silent say a few words to god prayer. Tell me that they won't let you do that in a school.
-
Oh.. this is getting good...
here is another set of numbers:
Truman - 81.8%
Eisenhower - 90.2%
Kennedy/Johnson - 89.7%
Nixon/Ford - 89.1%
Carter - 91.8%
Reagan - 81.3%
G.H.W. Bush - 77.8%
Clinton - 61.3%
G.W. Bush - 53.0%
from http://dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2983
Accept any group of numbers you like, but the bottom line is that the real politicization of the process started with or should I say against the Clinton Administration.
Maybe the real issue is this:
In 2001 George W. Bush eliminated the longstanding role of the American Bar Association (ABA) in the evaluation of prospective federal judges. ABA’s judicial ratings had long kept extremists from the right and left, off the bench. In its place, Bush has been using The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies—a national organization whose mission is to advance a conservative agenda by moving the country’s legal system to the right.
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/7.html
-
Originally posted by bustr
Raider,.........what great harm has the christian religion enacted upon you or that you fear it will perform upon this nation under the mantel of legislative fiat? I am by no means Seagoon in my background, but it's beyond obvious your vitrol towards followers of the christian faith in the public arena and possibly in private.
I'm confused about the motivation of your vitrol...........
My motivation is to provide a counterbalance to what I see as the beginning of the religious exploitation of America. I am by no means up on Seagoon's level either when it comes to the background. I do however find religion an interesting and maybe the most mentally challenging topic to debate. I am well versed in many parts of the Torah, Bible, and the Qu'ran thanks to college.
After examing all 3 religions it is obvious that they are all just used to keep the masses in check.(opiate of the masses) I do not believe in organized religion. I don't think you need a book, or a preist, or a mosque or anything material to talk to God. He hears you. I do however grasp that some people need religion. It makes it so they don't really have to take responsibility for a lot that happens in life. Not too mention it but organized religion is very intolerant. You go to hell if you don't think like they do. Sorry but my God has a little more compassion than that. He takes people based on the merits of their life not their submission to him.
Get the torches I can feel it gettin toasty round here. lol
hope no one got offended.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Google "Bible study group denied access" and these come up...
---------------------------
In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union School District held that a local school board's policy allowing use of school property after hours for a variety of purposes but prohibiting access for a religious use was a violation of the free speech clause.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Second Circuit to hold that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause neither required nor justified such discrimination against religious speech. Nevertheless the Second Circuit again upheld a New York City School District's denial of access to a middle school auditorium sought by a church for worship services on Sunday mornings even though the schools are open to a wide variety of other public uses.
In 1997, Oklahoma University removed the website for a group of Christian faculty members from the University web server. While the university generally gives campus groups the opportunity to include their website on the university's server, this benefit has been denied to a Christian group.
That same year public school officials in North Carolina supported a teacher who forbid two students from bringing their Bibles to class and banned an informal discussion of Bible-related topics during non-class time.
PHILADELPHIA — 2003 A western Pennsylvania high school was wrong to bar a student Bible club from meeting during an activity period before the start of daily classes, a federal appeals court said yesterday.
The ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a belated victory for Punxsutawney Area High School senior Melissa Donovan, who sued last year after the district said it would no longer allow her biblical study group, FISH, to meet once school had started at 8 a.m.
--------------------------------------------------
My point is that the administration of policies is often too narrow in restricting religion in public forums.
Even though as early as 1993 the Supreme Court has upheld religious groups right to access public facilities the restrictions keep coming up and the courts have to keep deciding that freedom of religion had some merit.
Like I said link please... Seagoon and I got into this exact debate awhile back and he posted something like 10 cases and in everyone of them but 1 they had violated the rules somewhere.
I am not gonna go looking for these cases, if you link to one I will happily look at
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Seagoon.. I read your link. The numbers I saw were a little different:
Truman - 75.1%
Eisenhower - 85.9%
Kennedy - 84.9%
Johnson - 91.5%
Nixon - 97.9% (:eek: )
Ford - 82.4%
Nothing past 1976?
Whoops, Sorry Midnight Target, I thought I posted the second set of stats: 1977-2003 (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31635.pdf)
My bad.
The final stats are the final numbers from both studies for Judicial appointments during the first and second Congresses as provided by The Economist, a British magazine (which is where I first read the numbers). Here is there actual graphic from an article on the subject:
(http://professorbainbridge.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/cus743.gif)
I'm no mathematician, but even an idiot like me can review the second set of official stats and easily come to the conclusion that Bush's #'s are the lowest of all of them...
- SEAGOON
-
It all started to slide with Clinton. So maybe this is retribution for republicans doing it to Clinton. I will not withdraw my 90% claim as bush has so many returned nominees that he is not sending back to the Senate he can only blame himself for his low numbers.
-
The First Amendment protects all citizens whether in ellected office or private practice. When you become president, you do not take a vow to renounce your rights proteced by the constitution because someone may be offended by your beleifs. Your supporters elected you to office because of their faith in you and all that it means to be you.
How does the dignity of the office superceed the Rights protected by the constitution? Freedom of Speech is protected, and freedom of concience, well is granted by the creator. The dignity of the office is what ever the holder makes it. Clinton got quickies, Bush prays to the Creator.
Prayer in school was one of those hidden 1000 lines of text not in the first line of the First Amendment just like there is no amendment concerning education in the first place. It gets back to the funding issue so the federal government could impose those hidden 1000 lines of text. Education is a state concern. The constitution has no provision for the federal government to fund primary education. The 1965 ESEA Act allowed them to stick their nose under the tent so to say. Congress enacting a Law which has a side effect of imposing secularism on children in grades 1-12 and punishing by Law any open manifistations of christianity in public. Oh my mistake, in federaly controled space.
So the reverse to whispering your prayer is you don't listen. Both are equaly valid solutions. There are no hidden lines of text in the constitution protecting your right to not be offended.
-
Hi Raider,
[Regarding the numbers: See my post to MT and his reply for a substantiation of the stats. Raider, The "returned" pile is valid because these picks die in committee. That's the whole point, they never make it to the floor for an up or down vote especially because of the threat of fillibusters if they ever do - that's the whole matter of the current fight, its over whether or not they will ever have the chance to be voted on. Regardless, no matter how you boil the stats they certainly are nowhere near the 95% you proposed]
Now on to your post:
Originally posted by Raider179
As for the neutrality thing, You name ginsberg but then go off on abortion, aclu, but see you are missing the point that she doesn't go off on her religious views.
Christian conservatives do not have to hide it under their beds but if you hold office respect the dignity of the office and practice your faith by yourself. After all you are leading people not just christians. Its a thing called respect for others religious beliefs.
Raider, those are her religious beliefs. She has a worldview, she holds many beliefs by faith, for instance, that the world will be a better place if people have unrestricted access to abortion. Her belief system happens to be called liberal secular humanism, this doesn't however make it any less of a system of beliefs than Islam, Xorastrianism, Hinduism, Scientology, etc. Secular Humanism, as much as modern Secular Humanists wish to deny it, is a faith. Even the Philosophes recognized that it was in fact a civil religion. It has its own dogmas, morals, organizations, sacred books, holidays, and teachers.
Personally, I find it to be one of the least credible and most intolerant of rivals of the world religions but I'm not going to deny your right or Ginsberg's to practice and espouse it freely.
Please, You think your religious views are being trampled on. How? Where can you personally not express your views? Name one place. Where can you personally not pray? name one place
And I don't mean that out loud raising cain praying, I mean silent say a few words to god prayer. Tell me that they won't let you do that in a school.
Raider, under the system you frame above, Christians were free to pray in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, oh as long as they never did so audibly... That's religious freedom???
How would it be if I told you that your freedom of speech meant that you could think of any dissenting opinions you want to, as long as you never speak or publish them.
"Raider, you are free to come to the town hall meeting on the location of the new city dump in your backyard. We will be loudly proclaiming our support of the project, and using banners, displays, marching bands and presentations. You may of course freely express yourself on the matter as well. Just as long as such expression remains silent and unobserved! Hey it's a free country."
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Like I said link please... Seagoon and I got into this exact debate awhile back and he posted something like 10 cases and in everyone of them but 1 they had violated the rules somewhere.
I am not gonna go looking for these cases, if you link to one I will happily look at
Translation: Please deliver me from ignorance, I am to lazy to do it myself.
I find it amazing, that even I as an agnostic can see the intolerance towards religion of the secular world that is just as bad as the intolerance for alternate religious belief among those who are god fearing.
-
Originally posted by bustr
So the reverse to whispering your prayer is you don't listen. Both are equaly valid solutions. There are no hidden lines of text in the constitution protecting your right to not be offended.
When you are talking about children its different. If it were you and me in a library I would have no problems with you praying out loud. But children are very susceptible to indoctrination of religion and especially if they see it at school.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Translation: Please deliver me from ignorance, I am to lazy to do it myself.
I find it amazing, that even I as an agnostic can see the intolerance towards religion of the secular world that is just as bad as the intolerance for alternate religious belief among those who are god fearing.
translation: I didnt post the links because I didnt want you to read the case. How hard is to post the link to the case if you are right there cutting and pasting?
I even asked you to post links before you went and did that.
As I said I have been over this topic before and have no desire to go on a hunt for these "examples" when I know where they lead. I think I even recognize some of the examples you use. And I gotta tell ya none of the examples were just because they wanted to use the classroom. It always revolves around showing religious films, or giving out bibles, or any other violation of the rules regarding religion and schools.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Raider,
[Regarding the numbers: See my post to MT and his reply for a substantiation of the stats. Raider, The "returned" pile is valid because these picks die in committee. That's the whole point, they never make it to the floor for an up or down vote especially because of the threat of fillibusters if they ever do - that's the whole matter of the current fight, its over whether or not they will ever have the chance to be voted on. Regardless, no matter how you boil the stats they certainly are nowhere near the 95% you proposed]
Now on to your post:
Raider, those are her religious beliefs. She has a worldview, she holds many beliefs by faith, for instance, that the world will be a better place if people have unrestricted access to abortion. Her belief system happens to be called liberal secular humanism, this doesn't however make it any less of a system of beliefs than Islam, Xorastrianism, Hinduism, Scientology, etc. Secular Humanism, as much as modern Secular Humanists wish to deny it, is a faith. Even the Philosophes recognized that it was in fact a civil religion. It has its own dogmas, morals, organizations, sacred books, holidays, and teachers.
Personally, I find it to be one of the least credible and most intolerant of rivals of the world religions but I'm not going to deny your right or Ginsberg's to practice and espouse it freely.
Raider, under the system you frame above, Christians were free to pray in the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, oh as long as they never did so audibly... That's religious freedom???
How would it be if I told you that your freedom of speech meant that you could think of any dissenting opinions you want to, as long as you never speak or publish them.
"Raider, you are free to come to the town hall meeting on the location of the new city dump in your backyard. We will be loudly proclaiming our support of the project, and using banners, displays, marching bands and presentations. You may of course freely express yourself on the matter as well. Just as long as such expression remains silent and unobserved! Hey it's a free country."
- SEAGOON
1) like I said blame your republican controlled senate for doing it to clinton. Whats it called oh yeah paybacks a mofo.
2) Thats funny I can't remember seeing ginsberg saying anything about God telling her to do this or do that. Or her saying God says we should do this or do that. So I am not buying on her liberal secular humanism thing.
3)World view does not equal religion
4)This is not the USSR
5) You cannot compare freedom of speech to freedom of religion.
nice try though.
6) like I said you are comparing apples and oranges.
Freedom of speech is one thing freedom of religion is another.What if I was to go to school and scream at the top of my lungs throughout the entire class? would that be ok? I do have freedom of speech right? the obvious answer is of course no. There are limits on your freedoms.
I don't feel religion should mix with politics at all.
I dont feel religion has any place in schools.
I don't see how that those two statements infringe on your freedom of religion at all.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
translation: I didnt post the links because I didnt want you to read the case. How hard is to post the link to the case if you are right there cutting and pasting?
No... the translation is that I used several sources, the first is the very first one that comes up when you
Originally posted by Holden McGroinGoogle "Bible study group denied access" and these come up...
I used the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth hits on the search, went to the ninth district court of appeals website, among several others.
It is not just one case, hence not just one link will show the full scope. There are 379,000 hits on that particular Google search.
But since you have no desire to go on a hunt for these "examples" when I know where they lead.
you assume your station.
Hunting for information is how we learn.
-
Ritz crackers and Cheez-Whiz!
-
Originally posted by Raider179
When you are talking about children its different. If it were you and me in a library I would have no problems with you praying out loud. But children are very susceptible to indoctrination of religion and especially if they see it at school.
So then they get indoctrinated instead in "Secular Humanistic Multicultural Rainbowism UNism" a religion by which Congress tacitly enabled control over the public schools in 1965 by "Making A Law". And they get one of crappiest educations in the free world courtesy of the religion that is not a religion that is not indoctrinating our children.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
In the case of Christianity and public schools, congress established a religion, prohibited the free exercise of another religion, while prohibiting the free speech of those who follow the religion, all in the federaly controlled public school system. And the high preisthood of this religion is the NEA and related subchapters. But golly since they are not a recognised religion, they can lobby congress to make more laws. Pretty good deal.
I'm more scared of my local grade school teachers than any of the clergy I know.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
No... the translation is that I used several sources, the first is the very first one that comes up when you
I used the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth hits on the search, went to the ninth district court of appeals website, among several others.
It is not just one case, hence not just one link will show the full scope. There are 379,000 hits on that particular Google search.
But since you you assume your station.
Hunting for information is how we learn.
well considering I have already been over this subject before, I have no desire to go searching again. If you cant be bothered to link to those cases then I can't be bothered to debate them, again. A coulpe of your cases have incomplete information, no names, generalities
like this one,
PHILADELPHIA — 2003 A western Pennsylvania high school was wrong to bar a student Bible club from meeting during an activity period before the start of daily classes, a federal appeals court said yesterday.
or this one
That same year public school officials in North Carolina supported a teacher who forbid two students from bringing their Bibles to class and banned an informal discussion of Bible-related topics during non-class time.
I mean come on holden. You can do better than that.
Here I will bite on your first one.
Lamb's case
New York law authorizes local school boards to adopt reasonable regulations permitting the after hours use of school property for 10 specified purposes, not including meetings for religious purposes.
pretty simple. NY law says no use except for the 10 specified reasons. Know what else isn't on the reasons list, Politics. So they don't allow politics and religion at afterhour meetings at the schools.
Now you can explain why you think taxpayers should pay the bill for religious or political groups to use the school after hours? The school system is trying to be neutral not taking christian or catholicism nor democratic or republican sides. I applaud them. Go use a park or better yet the church. I can never understand why people are so hell bent on using the school for religious gatherings. What is wrong with your churches?
-
Originally posted by bustr
So then they get indoctrinated instead in "Secular Humanistic Multicultural Rainbowism UNism" a religion by which Congress tacitly enabled control over the public schools in 1965 by "Making A Law". And they get one of crappiest educations in the free world courtesy of the religion that is not a religion that is not indoctrinating our children.
I'm more scared of my local grade school teachers than any of the clergy I know.
1) I have no idea what you are talking about.
2) really? know any catholic priests?
ok #2 was a cheap shot but it was too easy. lol sorry for offense
-
I have no church. I am agnostic.
However, if the school or other public arena is open to say, nightly volleyball for those wishing to play volleyball, I see no reason why the same rules should not be applied to any group.
The supreme court said so, but we keep having this crap come up.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I have no church. I am agnostic.
However, if the school or other public arena is open to say, nightly volleyball for those wishing to play volleyball, I see no reason why the same rules should not be applied to any group.
The supreme court said so, but we keep having this crap come up.
I was using the "you" as general not intended for you personally.
They actually call the school a "limited public forum" .
It reasoned that the school property, as a "limited public forum" open only for designated purposes, remained nonpublic except for the specified purposes, and ruled that the exclusion of the Church's film was reasonable and viewpoint neutral.
-
Our tax payed for public schools indoctrinate our 1-12 graders in Secular Humanisim. Secular Humanism, then, can be defined as a religious worldview based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical relativism.
Since it's not recognised in the iconic sense as a "Religion" like being a Methodist, it's followers are well hidden in the halls of public education and local, state and the federal government. Congress shall make no law.........ethical relativism abhors the constitution and finds so much of the hidden text and meanings lost to the uninitated rabble called "We the People".........
So allowing children or adults to use public school property for christian related activities is anathma to ethical relativists. They will actually teach and learn right from wrong.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Our tax payed for public schools indoctrinate our 1-12 graders in Secular Humanisim. Secular Humanism, then, can be defined as a religious worldview based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical relativism.
Since it's not recognised in the iconic sense as a "Religion" like being a Methodist, it's followers are well hidden in the halls of public education and local, state and the federal government. Congress shall make no law.........ethical relativism abhors the constitution and finds so much of the hidden text and meanings lost to the uninitated rabble called "We the People".........
So allowing children or adults to use public school property for christian related activities is anathma to ethical relativists. They will actually teach and learn right from wrong.
lol
Are you serious?
Let me ask you this. Is something right or wrong because Christians/Catholics/whoever teaches it is? Or is it wrong simply because it's WRONG. Ethics and Morals were around long before religion. You don't need religion to teach you right from wrong you just have to be human.
Sorry but not gonna by that Secular humanists are running the country. lmao that is ridiculous drivel.
-
Hi Raider,
Probably should have just let this thread sink into the abyss, but I thought some of your points deserved an answer, if only so we don't end up covering the same ground later on.
Originally posted by Raider179
1) like I said blame your republican controlled senate for doing it to clinton. Whats it called oh yeah paybacks a mofo.
Actually Raider, I'm not a Republican, I'm not even blessed enough to be able to call myself an American. I'm far worse, I'm one of those guys who is so much of a throwback that I have read the collected works of John Witherspoon (Scottish Presbyterian Minister, signer of the Declaration of Independence and one of the men who ratified the Constitution) and agree with him on just about everything.
Also, you don't need to respond to this, but what I don't understand about this BB sometimes is the unwillingness to concede anything. For instance, you gradually went from "What's the big deal, Bush has gotten 95% of his picks" to "well they did it to Clinton, so its fair" without at any point owning up to even the possiblity of a misstatement in the original. Now I make errors and mistakes, misstatements, and grotesque "mouth open, brain absent" blunders all the time (just ask my wife) but if you point it out to me, and it's manifestly the case, I find the best policy is always to admit that I goofed and if necessary ask for forgiveness.
I point this out only because in counseling I've found that the "I'm always right, never wrong" approach held by two people in a marriage leads inevitably to divorce. Fight and die on every hill, never give an inch, and insist on winning, and you will inevitably end up sacrificing the marriage. Win the battle, lose the war.
2) Thats funny I can't remember seeing ginsberg saying anything about God telling her to do this or do that. Or her saying God says we should do this or do that. So I am not buying on her liberal secular humanism thing.
3)World view does not equal religion
4)This is not the USSR
5) You cannot compare freedom of speech to freedom of religion.
nice try though.
6) like I said you are comparing apples and oranges.
Freedom of speech is one thing freedom of religion is another.What if I was to go to school and scream at the top of my lungs throughout the entire class? would that be ok? I do have freedom of speech right? the obvious answer is of course no. There are limits on your freedoms.
I don't feel religion should mix with politics at all.
I dont feel religion has any place in schools.
I don't see how that those two statements infringe on your freedom of religion at all. [/B]
You appear to equate religion absolutely with theism. In so doing you have just removed every non-theistic religion from Wicca to Scientology to Tao to Confucianism from consideration. No one holding to those belief systems is likely to say "God says we should do this or do that" in defending their own beliefs - does that not make them religions? In fact several new age religions would explicitly say along with you and Ms. Ginsberg "Man is the Measure of All Things" or "Man is god."
The problem seems to lie in the belief that anti-theistic secular humanism with all of its assumptions and presuppositions about life the universe and everything is simply reality and that Christianity is a collection of fairy tales whose existence must for the present be endured or tolerated to a certain extent. Of course Ruth Bader Ginsberg's belief in unrestricted abortion on demand or economic socialism aren't religious beliefs because men devised these principles and man is the measure of all things.
This creates an interesting dilemma, because the framers of the Constitution (witness the declarations of Madison and Jefferson above) held the rights of man to be inalienable because they were God-given and thus superseded human laws. To attempt to abridge or remove a god-given right was to the framers simply tyranny and usurpation of the role of God by man.
However in your system, there is no God, therefore there can be no God-given rights. All rights under your system are granted by the magistrate (or if you prefer by mutual agreement in a social compact) and therefore alienable. There are no absolutes, therefore there can be no universal or absolute rights which scenario is exactly what the Danbury baptists feared and Jefferson reassurred them about.
You've already redefined "religious freedom" in your posts so that religious freedom was actually the right to privately believe whatever fairytales you want to as long as that doesn't involve the public square.
[Incidentally, even the liberal human rights group Forum 18 out of Norway wouldn't accept your definition of religious freedom. They define it the following way:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Not as robust perhaps as Jefferson or Mason, but still note the words "public or private" and "manifest his religion" The above also includes the right to witness.]
In your redefinition the opinions of Marx and Nietschze and perhaps even Ayn Rand are fair fodder for molding the decisions of the Judiciary, but the moment Moses and Christ enter in or we use the dreaded decalogue, we have a problem. Deeply held anti-theistic political beliefs are ok, but the public square cannot tolerate deeply held conservative Christian beliefs. Those who speak and judge in the public square must believe there is no God, and no God given absolute laws. To do otherwise is to deny "reality."
Two last practical points, and then I'm done with this.
First, the idea that "You don't need religion to teach you right from wrong you just have to be human." isn't even held by most modern philosophers. Sartre argued for instance that without a fixed reference point all other points were meaningless. Most modern atheistic philosophical movements therefore are agreed on what is called moral relativism. All morals are arbitrary without absolutes and since the philosophers have concluded there can be no absolutes, therefore there can be no fixed good and no fixed evil. Good is replaced by "preferred" and as such good is subject to change at the whims of the populace. We see that in the "I can't believe you still believe that's evil behavior we've moved on from that point as a society attitude so common on these boards.
For instance, why in your system would a father having an incestuous physical relationship with his son by mutual consent be evil? Why would suicide be evil? How could we determine anything was evil or good? Wouldn't we ultimately mean, "I like this" and "I don't like that?"
Second point: Let me give you a practical example of how secular humanism can already trample on what Chrsitians would call God given rights.
In all states you are legally compelled to educate your children. The money to provide for public education is raised by compulsory taxation. Thus you already pay for one education for your child. If you cannot afford to pay twice for the education of your child, and as is the case in most states, a refund of the money you paid the state for their education is not available in the form of a voucher, you are compelled to send your child to a public school.
In that school, your child will most likely be taught a system of belief directly at odds with your own beliefs, they will for instance be taught in many districts that extra-marital sex is just fine and how best to do it without getting pregnant or STDs. If after following the instructions of the health teacher, your daughter gets pregnant, in many states she can go to a school counselor and obtain assistance in getting an abortion, without her parents ever being notified. You'd need parental consent for her to get an Aspirin from the school nurse, but the state will help her to undergo a life changing, invasive, and potentially fatal surgical proceedure without your knowledge.
From the conservative Christian standpoint, the state uses legal compulsion in order that they might teach your child that fornication is normal, good, and healthy, and then show them how to go about doing it, and when and if they get pregnant, they will help them to secretly murder your grandchild.
But from the Secular Humanist standpoint, it's all "good" and Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg will help to make sure it stays that way even if you try to change it by legislative means.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Raider,
Probably should have just let this thread sink into the abyss, but I thought some of your points deserved an answer, if only so we don't end up covering the same ground later on.
Actually Raider, I'm not a Republican, I'm not even blessed enough to be able to call myself an American. I'm far worse, I'm one of those guys who is so much of a throwback that I have read the collected works of John Witherspoon (Scottish Presbyterian Minister, signer of the Declaration of Independence and one of the men who ratified the Constitution) and agree with him on just about everything.
Also, you don't need to respond to this, but what I don't understand about this BB sometimes is the unwillingness to concede anything. For instance, you gradually went from "What's the big deal, Bush has gotten 95% of his picks" to "well they did it to Clinton, so its fair" without at any point owning up to even the possiblity of a misstatement in the original. Now I make errors and mistakes, misstatements, and grotesque "mouth open, brain absent" blunders all the time (just ask my wife) but if you point it out to me, and it's manifestly the case, I find the best policy is always to admit that I goofed and if necessary ask for forgiveness.
You've already redefined "religious freedom" in your posts so that religious freedom was actually the right to privately believe whatever fairytales you want to as long as that doesn't involve the public square.
[Incidentally, even the liberal human rights group Forum 18 out of Norway wouldn't accept your definition of religious freedom. They define it the following way:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Not as robust perhaps as Jefferson or Mason, but still note the words "public or private" and "manifest his religion" The above also includes the right to witness.]
In your redefinition the opinions of Marx and Nietschze and perhaps even Ayn Rand are fair fodder for molding the decisions of the Judiciary, but the moment Moses and Christ enter in or we use the dreaded decalogue, we have a problem. Deeply held anti-theistic political beliefs are ok, but the public square cannot tolerate deeply held conservative Christian beliefs. Those who speak and judge in the public square must believe there is no God, and no God given absolute laws. To do otherwise is to deny "reality."
Two last practical points, and then I'm done with this.
First, the idea that "You don't need religion to teach you right from wrong you just have to be human." isn't even held by most modern philosophers. Sartre argued for instance that without a fixed reference point all other points were meaningless. Most modern atheistic philosophical movements therefore are agreed on what is called moral relativism. All morals are arbitrary without absolutes and since the philosophers have concluded there can be no absolutes, therefore there can be no fixed good and no fixed evil. Good is replaced by "preferred" and as such good is subject to change at the whims of the populace. We see that in the "I can't believe you still believe that's evil behavior we've moved on from that point as a society attitude so common on these boards.
For instance, why in your system would a father having an incestuous physical relationship with his son by mutual consent be evil? Why would suicide be evil? How could we determine anything was evil or good? Wouldn't we ultimately mean, "I like this" and "I don't like that?"
Second point: Let me give you a practical example of how secular humanism can already trample on what Chrsitians would call God given rights.
In all states you are legally compelled to educate your children. The money to provide for public education is raised by compulsory taxation. Thus you already pay for one education for your child. If you cannot afford to pay twice for the education of your child, and as is the case in most states, a refund of the money you paid the state for their education is not available in the form of a voucher, you are compelled to send your child to a public school.
In that school, your child will most likely be taught a system of belief directly at odds with your own beliefs, they will for instance be taught in many districts that extra-marital sex is just fine and how best to do it without getting pregnant or STDs. If after following the instructions of the health teacher, your daughter gets pregnant, in many states she can go to a school counselor and obtain assistance in getting an abortion, without her parents ever being notified. You'd need parental consent for her to get an Aspirin from the school nurse, but the state will help her to undergo a life changing, invasive, and potentially fatal surgical proceedure without your knowledge.
From the conservative Christian standpoint, the state uses legal compulsion in order that they might teach your child that fornication is normal, good, and healthy, and then show them how to go about doing it, and when and if they get pregnant, they will help them to secretly murder your grandchild.
But from the Secular Humanist standpoint, it's all "good" and Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg will help to make sure it stays that way even if you try to change it by legislative means.
- SEAGOON
I posted this about the 95% thing.
"I will not withdraw my 90% claim as bush has so many returned nominees that he is not sending back to the Senate he can only blame himself for his low numbers."
but if we say that the returns are thumbed down then ok we will go with your %.
And I do own up whenever I am wrong but in this case I am not so sure its wrong as its just different opinions on what returned means. I don't inlcude those because they were not voted on. Until I understand "returned" nominees and what really happened to them i have to stand by this.
Senate standing rule:
“If the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.”
I believe in human rights. I believe that everyone should be treated the same and that one person's rights stop where another begins.
No Religious freedom means you have the right to the public square. I do not for one find that the school is a public square to be used for any groups purpose besides educational/athletic.
I am glad to hear I don't agree with liberals in Norway.
ok now for your 2 points
1)Their is definitely Good and definitely evil. I need not hear from philosophers or anyone else as to how to identify them. I just know whats right and wrong. I understand what you are saying about its all relative but really thats a stretch. If you kill someone for no reason (i.e. not self-defense) its wrong. Point blank. I don't need a central point to bounce that off of.
Incest has been a human taboo forever. Except on the ARk where Noah and his boys only had what 4 women to repopulate the earth? Incest is wrong because it is. I cant explain it. Its inate.
I for one don't find suicide evil. Its evil to force someone who has no desire to live to live anyway, unless they just have depression or something like that.
I see what you are saying about its just "I don't like this and I don't like that" being as what I see as good and evil. Your right. That is exactly what I meant to. I don't need to be told what is right and what is wrong. It just is.
2) I understand though completely your saying you don't want certain things that go against your beliefs taught to your kids at public school. Me either. But that is the school system we deal with.