Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bodhi on August 26, 2003, 09:58:16 PM
-
I was just reading the article in regards to Judge Moore of Alabama placing the "10 Commandments" monument in the state court house two years ago, and it disturbs me to see what has happened. Before I go on, I do not think it is right to force religion on anyone, or tell them how they should believe, that is up to personal choice. That said, I also believe that our forefathers founded this country as "One Nation, UNDER God" It is written into our "Pledge of Allegiance", that until recently used to be said in the classroom. I remember saying it when I was in school. The problem that exists is one where too many people are abusing the constitution and misinterpreting it's meanings. Lawyers who feel they are slighted because they do not like the "monument" and it offends them sue to remove it... then the courts support that suit, even though our laws were founded on Judeo-Christian Ethics.... those very laws that allow this travesty to continue. Where are these same lawyers when I see that imbecile with 60 piercings hanging out of his/her face, and Tee Shirt blaring to the world "I hate God", or "***** the World"... those things offend me, how come they aren't removed from my sight? Why, because I am able to turn a blind eye to those actions, behaviors, and opinions. When another American burns a flag, it turns my stomach, but I am not allowed to stop it... why, because it is their right to expression. SO I am forced to turn a blind eye. Well guess what, over 95% of this country acknowledges the existence of God. And over 80% of those people are of Judeo-Christian Beliefs. Last time I checked, this place was a democracy, majority rules.
Leaving that monument in the state court house does not hurt anyone, but removing it hurts far more. It shows the children that not only will we turn a blind eye to God, and not defend him, but it shows we will back the denial of his existence.
As for the 20% that do not acknowledge the Old Testament, learn to look away, and leave it that. Because I for one, am tired of having to conform to a minorities petty antics aimed at governing how I live my life. Enough is Enough. It is time for those that believe in what I have said to stand up for what they believe in and take this country back from those that are ripping it apart.
-
How many of these flag burners and people who wear offensive shirts and have piercings hold a public government position, and openly do these things at their workplace? I too would not be happy if those representing me did such things.
It's not about the monument itself. It's about the government not allowing affiliation with any religion. I don't care where the monument sits, as long as it's not in a place funded by taxpayers. As an athiest, how am I supposed to believe that I'm about to get a fair trial if such a radically religious judge is presiding over my case? I doubt that you would want to turn a blind eye to the monument if it was based on radical islamic values.
About the children? I think it's important that they learn early on that we have to be tolerant of other's beliefs and we can't try to force our beliefs on others. We don't need generations growing up believing that their religion is more important than the values of others, and the value of freedom of religion on which their country is based. We know what happens in other regions of the world when children are religiously brainwashed from a young age. Teach your children religion, but also a thing or two about American Government.
Leaving that monument in the state court house does not hurt anyone
It hurts my faith in my country when government officials try to infringe on the separation of church and state. It's a thorn in the side of those who believe anything other than the most popular view on religion. And who does it help if it stays? Does the fact that the commandments are written on a 2-ton rock make them any more significant than those written on paper? Shouldn't a good Christian know these without having to refer to a 2-ton rock? Can I put a 2-ton rock next to it that says "There is no God?" Lets see how many Christians turn a blind eye to that. Same argument, different side.
Ditch the rock, retain our values.
-
I refer you to:Alabama Judge Roy Moore (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=94468&referrerid=1760)
Your a tad late.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Because I for one, am tired of having to conform to a minorities petty antics aimed at governing how I live my life. Enough is Enough. It is time for those that believe in what I have said to stand up for what they believe in and take this country back from those that are ripping it apart.
Amen. (no pun intended)
I have a great deal of hope that when the torch is passed to the younger generation, they/we will reverse this self destructive process.
Its completely out of control, although an indicater of how good we actually DO have it; people have nothing else to complain about.
-
Right on Bodhi:)
-
Thank God for separation of church and state.
-
Well written Bodhi. You 'da man!!!:)
Les
-
The term "Under God" was written into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s, not by our founding fathers. That child that hates her parents enough to jam 50 pieces of metal into her body and who wears a shirt declaring her hatred for your imaginary friend in the sky is not a publically funded building. A courthouse, on the other hand, is. Considering that the 10 commandments have no business in a court of law (unless someone managed to replace the law of our land with biblical law recently), there's no reason to have them in the courthouse. You want to wear a shirt declaring your love for your buddy christ, that's your right...have at it.
SOB
-
SOB what you don't understand is these people belive there should be only the Republican party, run by Pat Robertson or some other Christian Televangelist and everyone that does not agree with their way of thinking is out to get them... You know, the EXACT thing the Pilgrims were running from.
-
Originally posted by SOB
The term "Under God" was written into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s, not by our founding fathers. That child that hates her parents enough to jam 50 pieces of metal into her body and who wears a shirt declaring her hatred for your imaginary friend in the sky is not a publically funded building. A courthouse, on the other hand, is. Considering that the 10 commandments have no business in a court of law (unless someone managed to replace the law of our land with biblical law recently), there's no reason to have them in the courthouse. You want to wear a shirt declaring your love for your buddy christ, that's your right...have at it.
SOB
Then they have a lot of work ahead of them. We're gonna have to remove it from the oath when you're swearing in jurors, witnesses, politicians, and even judges.
-
You have been watching too much TV. You do not HAVE to swear "To God" when taking an oath. A person may affirm.
-
Time to grow up, God doesn't exist.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Time to grow up, God doesn't exist.
Tell him that when you meet him.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
You have been watching too much TV. You do not HAVE to swear "To God" when taking an oath. A person may affirm.
Actually, I served on a jury in March.
Maybe YOU'VE been hugging too many trees.
-
Then you know I am correct. :)
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Then you know I am correct. :)
I know you don't HAVE to do anything, but they still say it.
Whether you chose to affirm or not, they say it. JUST like they do when you get sworn into office.
-
The Pledge of Allegiance
A Short History
by Dr. John W. Baer
Copyright 1992 by Dr. John W. Baer
Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).
Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.
The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.
In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'
In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.
What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:
It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...
The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?
Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...
If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.
Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'
A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
even though our laws were founded on Judeo-Christian Ethics....
Bzzzt, wrong.
You can trace most of it to Germanic tribal customs and Roman Law. Western laws are mostly founded on Pagan Ethics!
-
My views echo those of MarkVZ.
Originally posted by Bodhi
Leaving that monument in the state court house does not hurt anyone, but removing it hurts far more. It shows the children that not only will we turn a blind eye to God, and not defend him, but it shows we will back the denial of his existence.
Bodhi,
I'm afraid I disagree. First and foremost, that 2-ton rock does not belong on a courthouse. The words inscribed upon it belong in a book, available to those who want to read it. Law and Justice should not be affiliated with Religion, especially when the First Amendment to the US Constitution is taken into account. That's the one that promises to allow each citizen to practise the religion of his/her choice - within legal limits, of course. The whole point of that First Amendment, and even the existence of the United States itself, was to deliver the settlers from the religious persecution that they might have suffered in the old country. But here is a Judge who is clearly going to be somewhat biased if he is to try someone who might have broken no law but is, in the eyes of the Judge, a sinner or one who has violated God's law. For example, imagine if that judge were to be presiding over a dispute in a divorce settlement case, and it turned out that the plaintiff was an aggrieved wife who was trying to squeeze more money out of her estranged husband, who had moved on from a dead marriage and had since found a new girlfriend. Adultery is not a criminal offence, but what are the husband's chances of fair treatment, when there's a rock outside with the words "Thou shall not commit adultery" emblazoned across it?
-
Religion should be as far away from government and state as humanly possible. You just need to look at certain middle Eastern countries for the reasons why.
If you want to practise your religion, go to a church, mosque, temple or synagogue. Keep it out of my face and out of my government.
-
strange how ppl can't see that a majority of our problems begin with a lack of a belief in the Divine
ppl are selfish and do not want the guilt of their actions to bother them so they choose not to believe - easier for them to live their lifestyle.
strange how these same ppl categorize anyone who believes in God a "religious, right wing nutcase, Pat Robertson clone".
wtg bodhi
-
IDOL WORSHIPPERS!
MAY YOU ALL BURN IN HELL!!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
strange how these same ppl categorize anyone who believes in God a "religious, right wing nutcase, Pat Robertson clone".
wtg bodhi
Bill and Hillary attended church every Sunday.
-
Maybe it's time we tear down all those crucifixes in Arlington Cemetery and replace them with secular retangular headstones. If those stiffs want to be buried with a symbol of religious oppression planted over their heads, let them get a private plot. And make sure there is a tall wall around it so the rest of us can't see it when we walk by. That's what the Constitution is all about.
ra
-
So Jewish soldiers are buried under the cross of Christ?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
So Jewish soldiers are buried under the cross of Christ?
Jewish soldiers get a Star of David engraved on their tombstone, Christians get a crucifix engraved. There are, however, many crucifix memorials throughout the cemetery. As all of this is paid for by the government, it is obviously an attempt to establish religion.
ra
-
Jewish soldiers get a Star of David engraved on their tombstone, Christians get a crucifix engraved.
So it comes down to personal choice as to how your grave is marked rather than an automatic blanket representation.
There are, however, many crucifix memorials throughout the cemetery. As all of this is paid for by the government, it is obviously an attempt to establish religion.
Of course, legislation is both created and acted upon within cemetries, affecting how people can pursue their lives and interact with society.
-
The Constitution says "Freedom of Religion". If anyone wants "Freedom from Religion" then I suggest you move. There are too many negative people in the US just looking to invent flaws and an uncanny desire to expose them.
I personally am not a deeply religious person, but I live and let live.
-
'Religion' = 'Way of Life'
A belief system is not specified. Freedom from the influence of organised religion does not neccesarily mean lack of any religion at all.
-
Ahh, the extremists views, the exact reason there is separation of church and state.
Think about it, somewhere in the middle east, there are people saying the same thing you are. That society is being torn apart because we are getting away from our islamic beliefs. And that western influence and non belief in God is tearing the nation apart.
Yet, if we were to hear that countries in the middle east were creating a separation of church and state, and that the Koran could no longer influence political thinking, we would see this as a great breakthrough. That the middle east is coming of age. And if there were people trying to prevent this change, you would call them religious extremists.
And don't try to say that their religion is bad because they stone their women, they can find fault in your religion too, that argument doesn't fly.
I prefer to be loyal to my country over my religion. And what this judge is doing is the exact opposite.
-
Its never enough when your delaing with "religious physcos". I woudlnt want to be anywhere near them.
;)
-
"Of course, legislation is both created and acted upon within cemetries, affecting how people can pursue their lives and interact with society."
So the government should only be restricted from buying and displaying religious icons if legislation is being done nearby? I haven't heard that distinction being made before.
"A belief system is not specified. Freedom from the influence of organised religion does not neccesarily mean lack of any religion at all."
The people who wrote the constitution also swore oaths of office on the Bible, and had references to God in their state mottos. They didn't think that conflicted with the 1st amendment which they wrote, and no one believed we were living under a theocratic government.
Swearing an oath on the Bible is much more of an endorsement of Christianity than displaying the 10 commandments, which is not specific to Christianity. Yet our system of government survives.
Leftist lawyers do everything they can to secularize all things public. Then, when Bible-thumpers protest, the lefty lawyers declare "See, these are the wackos we are saving you from". I for one am getting sick of lawyers always trying to save me, the Bible-thumpers were never a threat in the first place.
ra
-
Bumper sticker I saw the other day:
'You stop praying in our schools and courts and we'll stop thinking in your churches. Its a win-win situation! Deal?'
I agree with beetle's post.
The problem is not that a religious icon is being removed... its that it was in a goverment facility.
I wonder what would happen if instead of removing it, say, a group of hindu's, buddhists,jainists,etc,etc. decided to put 2 ton rock statues of their own dieties or symbols of their religion in the same courthouse.
The government would of course be paying for it and for their maintainance.
Gov. is supposed to represent everyone equally no?
On the other hand, i wonder if those high profiled people in alabama screaming that it should not be removed, I wonder if they would be willing to just MOVE the thing to a privately owned lot of land..even if its in front of the courthouse..and have them pay for its maintainance?
In all honesty, I think their faith and their enthusiasm will literally cease when it hurts their pockets.
-
It’s now become a rule of law. The state supreme court and a federal judge said to remove it. Therefore, remove it.
Regardless of the argument we all have to abide by rulings from the judiciary regardless of their subject. If we become complacent with what court orders to the point that we will and will not obey them depending on the subject matter then whose rule of law do we follow?
As you argue that it’s a basic fundamental freedom of speech issue I will argue that the rule of law and order trumps that. A ruling has been made, pure and simple. If the decision is not to your liking then get it argued at the federal Supreme Court level.
Refusal to follow a court order because it doesn’t suit your “beliefs” is a whole other can of worms. I’m sure it would play hell on custody agreements… court rules person A gets custody. Person B disagrees and takes the child anyway.
Why not, a judge in Alabama did it.
-
Home run for the Supreme Court.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Bill and Hillary attended church every Sunday.
"church" is a state of mind
don't think these two were even close
-
Eagler,
Just out of curiosity, what would you be saying if the situation were exactly the same, except that 2-ton rock said that God doesn't exist?
I would be just as adamant about removing that, because it too defies the separation of church and state, and it's just not respectful of the beliefs of others.
Would you turn a blind eye, or would you want the atheist rock removed?
-
Originally posted by MarkVZ
Eagler,
Just out of curiosity, what would you be saying if the situation were exactly the same, except that 2-ton rock said that God doesn't exist?
I would be just as adamant about removing that, because it too defies the separation of church and state, and it's just not respectful of the beliefs of others.
Would you turn a blind eye, or would you want the atheist rock removed?
I would want the judge removed if he did not believe in a Higher Power than himself
-
And over 80% of those people are of Judeo-Christian Beliefs. Last time I checked, this place was a democracy, majority rules.
Exactly why we have laws. The measure of a democracy is how well it protects the minority, not how well it serves the majority. The Bill of Rights is not up for a vote Bohdi.
Thank God!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I would want the judge removed if he did not believe in a Higher Power than himself
Seeming this judge is ignoring powers higher than himself, maybe you are right.
-
Originally posted by MarkVZ
Eagler,
Just out of curiosity, what would you be saying if the situation were exactly the same, except that 2-ton rock said that God doesn't exist?
I would be just as adamant about removing that, because it too defies the separation of church and state, and it's just not respectful of the beliefs of others.
Would you turn a blind eye, or would you want the atheist rock removed?
Ok not wanting to nit pick but which God are we talking about here - cause there's quite a few out there....
-
The measure of a democracy is how well it protects the minority, not how well it serves the majority.
Which minority? There are about 280 million of them. And democracy happens with voting and legislation, not in front of a judge.
-
it's still in the building
Alabama Ten Commandments Moved from Public View (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20030827/ts_nm/religion_alabama_dc)
it still has it's "power" over the judge's judgement :)
-
"Rev. Robert Schenck, a spokesman for the protesters who have demonstrated against the removal as an affront to their Christian faith, said a building staff member told him the monument would be moved to an employees-only hallway, where it would not be covered.
It was not clear how long this arrangement would last. "
If these extremists care so much about this monument, why don't they just bring it to their church and put it on display there?
-
A monument does not make the judge unfair. Maybe he being an bellybutton does, but the decor does not.
And for all those saying "what if it were a Buddhist or monument or a large picture of L Ron Hubbard and John Travolta :eek: ", well, that's fine too. Seriously. There is nothing in the First Amendment that says religion and religious things should be forbidden on Gov't land.
It says, "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."
To me, it's fairly obvious what the intent was here. The gov't cannot officially endorse a religion, and the citizens may choose any religion (or none) they want.
-
Heres an idea If you dont agree with it dont look at it:D
-
Schadenfreude,
Doesn't matter. Insert your God of choice and see how it would strike you.
Eagler, you sidestepped the question. Same situation, except the rock is blatantly anti-Christian. Would you want the rock removed? Honestly, what would you want done?
The difference between us is that even though I am an atheist, I will not hesitate to point out when other athiests have crossed the line. If an atheist judge had installed a rock supporting his (lack of) beliefs, I would call for it to be removed as well. On the other hand, I see many Christians supporting that rock simply because it fits their beliefs. Did you see the fanatical man on the news a little while ago, screaming and shouting to put the rock back? I see so much hate and intolerance in that man that I can't sympathize with his cause. I do, however, applaud the cooler heads in the crowd who tried to calm the man down.
Personally I'd rather have a judge that believes in his own abilities and is not prejudiced one way or another on the topic of religion. I don't want a judge who feels that his beliefs are more pertinent than the laws of the United States.
If the Christians don't enjoy our separation of church and state, they can go ahead and disregard the very principle that freed them from oppression in Europe. Please don't ruin it for those who still appreciate it and rely on it.
-
I think youre all looking at this in far too much detail.
I read Bodhi's post not as 'pro-religion' or 'anti-seperation,' but rather as an example that shows the division in our country between those who are Liberal in their views and Conservative in their views. For purposes of clarification, Im using the two terms in their definition sense of the word, not necessarily in their political meaning.
con·ser·va·tive: 1.) Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change
lib·er·al: 1.) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas. 2.) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
This is not to say that Conservatives are automatically religious maniacs, as many of us detest the same firebrand types as you (Liberals) do.
We're we differ can be seen above in the simplet definitions available; one side of the argument is happy with the way things are and we wish to maintain our way of life. The other side is discontent with many things and wishes to bring change to society.
Change is a good thing in many respects. The views of a Liberal minded person are most welcome in many circumstances, and in most cases, I think you will find that many Conservatives will jump on the boat with you once a convinceing arguement is made and agree that change, in a particular area, is necessary and would improve life for the vast majority of the population.
The problem today, as I see it, is that there are no problems.
Speaking from a purely domestic point of view, what is wrong with our country?
Sure we have poor, but we also have rich. Thats capitalism. Of course we have homeless, but again, thats a byproduct of capitalism. We do everything in our power to help these people along in the form of shelters and mana's, but at the end of the day, this is the land of opportunity, not the land of free handouts.
These are irritations in the grand scheme of things.
The conservatives' frustration comes from the fact that no matter how many times we take a step back and agree that something should change, its never enough. Liberal minded people seem to be constantly searching for something wrong with everything.
Lets be honest here, how many of you are grossly offended by the fact that hurricanes dont have racially diverse names? How many of you are honestly offended by a plaque of the 10 Commandments outside a courthouse? How many of you are loosing sleep because the State of Florida wants a Muslim woman to remove her veil for a drivers liscence photo?
These are not problems. They are simple issues that people disagree on. Disagreement is ok, but its no excuse to be marching off to the Supreme Court foaming at the mouth.
You dont want to read the 10 Commandments? Dont read them. Why is it that the people in the gay thread preaching about tolerance and acceptance are the same people in this thread preaching about intolerance for somethign else? Are you only tolerant of behavior that you dont see a problem with? Being tolerant of something suggests that whatever you are tolerant of is something you disagree with. I disagree with homosexuality, but Im tolerant of it. I dont go knocking down doors of the local gay population and try and catch them pushing their **** in. I let them do what they like - Im tolerant.
You, on the other hand, take a different approach, and its the approach that causes even more anger. You do in fact knock down doors in an attempt to change the way people live their lives. You are not tolerant. You want change, and if change is not wanted by the rest, you lobby Congress for laws that force others to conform to your wishes. Liberalism today is the ultimate incarnation of hypocracy. How can you champion tolerance, acceptance, and totallack of bigotry, while at the same time, utilize meathods completely at odds with your mindset to achieve your aims?
I believe Bodhi's point was that the Liberal segment of the population has grown too large and too used to getting what they want as long as they use keywords like 'harrassment,' 'bigot,' 'caveman,' or 'discrimination.' By contrast, the Conservative segment of the population is fed up with bending over backwards in an attempt to appease you.
Where does it end? It started with the Civil Rights movement, a most worthy cause, and an instutution deserving of change, as agreed upon by both ideologies... but then you decided that cartoons were too violent, soda was bad for you, cigarettes should cost $5 a pack, and you, under no circumstances, should be complimenting a woman on the way she looks in the workplace.
What he is saying is that this trend needs to stop.
These colonies, and indeed this country were/was founded on a single principle: Freedom. In the United States, we believe in freedom, liberation to attain that freedom, and force to protect that freedom.
Our government for the passed 200 odd years has reflected this. Freedom to be an individual, ungoverned by a ruling class, is why people came here. Freedom FROM government.
Lately, it seems that this trend is dying. Some of the legislation over the past 15 years is almost scary. No longer is our government protecting our rights to be individuals in a free and safe society, but it has folded to public pressure from individuals confused enough to stand in front of an Israeli bulldozer, and is now dictating HOW we should live our lives.
Bodhi's, mine, and many other peoples' concern is that this trend has continued for long enough and at this point is only causing a wider rift between people and inflicting damage along the way.
Not everything needs to be changed. Most of the flaws have been worked out after 200 years of operation. Sure there are more, the healthcare debate, the threat of extremists terrorist organizations, and others, but they will all be dealt with in time.
Whether or not we've ever had a 'Hurricane Jay-Z' is not one of the big issues facing our society today - so please - stop treating it as such and expecting us to take you seriously. And after you figure out that we're not listening, please dont resort to taunts of 'caveman' and 'racist.' Its growing tiresome... especially when the usage of such terms is aimed only at forcing conformity through shame or embarressment.
Not everyone is interested in conforming to your rules or your definition of what the status quo should be. As Americans we are ALL different. Different in culture, race, and creed.
This is something to be celebrated, something to take pride in... it is not to serve as the fuel for some of you to continue in your crusade further sterilize this country by removing every shred of human emotion, desire, and belief.
Liberals claim to be tolerant of all - so why not let all of us be different?
-
Can you put that in two sentences please?
-
If the Christians don't enjoy our separation of church and state, they can go ahead and disregard the very principle that freed them from oppression in Europe. Please don't ruin it for those who still appreciate it and rely on it.
Yawn. "The Christians" wrote the constitution you pretend to care so much about.
Your hypothetical situation where a judge installs a rock delaring that there is no God has a simple solution. People would use the democratic process to petition for the rock's removal, and if he insisted on keeping it, they would petition for his removal. In this case, if the people who want the rock removed lose, they lose. There is no need to run to a federal court and have the rock declared unconstitutional. If the judge delcared that only aetheists were entitiled to justice, that would be different.
-
Lets be honest here, how many of you are grossly offended by the fact that hurricanes dont have racially diverse names?
I am. There should be a hurricane MoFo.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Can you put that in two sentences please?
Ill do you one better and tell you how you'll feel about it based on your previous posts.
You disagree.
-
See, that wasn't so bad
-
mark
blatantly anti- god would have to be santanic
I think it would be removed
our laws are a by product of the ten commandments - sorry - that is history
they are not a by-product of some atheist beliefs or the lack of
the cameras run to every nutbag zealot at something like this as to try to paint us all with the crazy brush
so is moving the rock to another hallway good enough? I mean it is still in the gov building "infecting" the employees in their hallway preventing you from a fair trial :rolleyes:
-
Where in the constitution does it mention the ten commandments?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Where in the constitution does it mention the ten commandments?
Read the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, often considered the predecessor of the U.S. Constitution.
In part, it states that the Governor and his council would “have power to administer justice according to the laws here established; and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God.”
-
Does it mention the ten commandments in the constitution?
-
Guess what the constitution dosnt mention it. The founders of our country were mostly deists. Not baptist nutjobs who give out handjobs for christ or whatever they do in that church.
At least my ancestors were never converted to that silly middle eastern religion. All these religions that come out of some crappy place with alot of sand are evil. They promote converting everyone around them and if someone believe's in something that is different its wrong. It's like if a 5 year old came up with a religion.
Where's my statue of Odin dammit!
-
Personally I don't think that the rock was "infecting" anybody. I believe that Christianity is good for our society in some of it's teachings. I am thankful that some otherwise nasty people feel that they have to answer to a higher power, and therefore are kept under control. That's not directed at anyone in this thread, I'm just saying that it has brought some order to our society.
But I feel that more and more people are finding that they don't need to be religious to live good lives and be good people. As an athiest I don't feel the need to steal or murder or to cheat people. I respect people because of my character; I don't need somebody to tell me to do that. Sure those values were probably founded in Christianity, but I can have those values without being a Christian.
I just don't want to see religious beliefs affiliated with our government. If you were in the minority (about 25% of the country is not Christian according to religioustolerance.org) I'm sure you would want the same thing. I'm not against Christianity. I'm against any religion trying to gain affiliation with my government. Put the rock in a church where people who truly appreciate it can see it and enjoy it.
I don't consider myself a liberal or a conservative. I take things on an issue-by-issue basis and make my own conclusions. I feel that both sides have their strong and weak points.
And what about the old "if you don't like it, don't look at it" argument? On anything other than taxpayer-funded property, I would agree with you. This is not the case, however.
-
mark has the right idea. If this is allowed its just a slipperly slope to a christian theocracy. And then ill have to become a gun owner.
-
This goes from one extreme to the other.
-
John Quincy Adams:
"The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws. . . . Vain, indeed, would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to find so broad, so complete and so solid a basis for morality as this Decalogue lays down."
Alexander Hamilton:
“which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”
-
Is that in the constitution?
-
oh snap its not
-
oh snap, neither is anything about banning anything religious from public property.
-
yea there is, seperation of church and state. OH NO
I think ill go put a big picture of satan rapeing a baby at that courthouse. why you say. Well we gotta represent all the religions. If you bow down to the wish's of one you gotta give in to all of them. Next thing you know L Ron hubbards Picture will be hanging on court house walls.
-
but what faith were your parents? anyone you looked up to in your formative years?
how many of those ppl were athiests? did you have a bad experience with organized religion?
just wondering...
I don't think 1st gen athiest are a problem.. by the time it gets to a 3rd or 4th - think that would change
and if you think I'm a bible thumper - you think wrong :)
-
hey eagler im 4th generation atheist. My family has never had anyone put in jail or devorced. except one. My uncle who became a born again and refuses to talk to my grandmother anymore for not raiseing him to believe in religion. After he found "god" he has been through 2 devorces(only one in our family's history) and spent some time in jail.
-
"yea there is, seperation of church and state. OH NO"
Ummm, read the 1st Amendment.
And I already invoked the sacred name of L Ron and declared Him good. ;)
-
Here are some good quotes, pros & cons.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html
-
seperation of church and state. Keeps the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Good stuff apache. I like hearing from where our founding fathers came from and their mindsights. Thats how you understand where America came from.
-
John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
-
Originally posted by Dnil
seperation of church and state. Keeps the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Ahh, ok.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"
That is a bogus and misleading quote
-
the constitution isnt the bible dnil you cant keep changing meanings to suit your needs
-
here is a better one then.
Thomas Paine:
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
see they did believe in god though!
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
hey eagler im 4th generation atheist. My family has never had anyone put in jail or devorced. except one. My uncle who became a born again and refuses to talk to my grandmother anymore for not raiseing him to believe in religion. After he found "god" he has been through 2 devorces(only one in our family's history) and spent some time in jail.
thanks for proving my point
-
That said, I also believe that our forefathers founded this country as "One Nation, UNDER God" It is written into our "Pledge of Allegiance"
Bodhi
Confusing the Pledge of Allegiance with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (let me guess, you haven’t read either?) is a great way to start the discussion. In the next environmental debate I think I’ll pull out “America the Beautiful” as a source.
Where are these same lawyers when I see that imbecile with 60 piercings hanging out of his/her face, and Tee Shirt blaring to the world "I hate God", or "***** the World"... those things offend me, how come they aren't removed from my sight? Why, because I am able to turn a blind eye to those actions, behaviors, and opinions.
When another American burns a flag, it turns my stomach, but I am not allowed to stop it... why, because it is their right to expression. SO I am forced to turn a blind eye.
Bodhi
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like if you weren’t “forced” to turn a blind eye you would be more than happy to see their freedom of expression eradicated. It’s a good thing we live in America with its many freedoms. And be thankful that you live in a country where others are forced to respect your rights, since we too have to turn a blind eye to disagreeable expression.
It shows the children that not only will we turn a blind eye to God, and not defend him, but it shows we will back the denial of his existence.
Bodhi
As opposed to showing children that the Christian god is the one true god, and you had better get used to it?
As for the 20% that do not acknowledge the Old Testament, learn to look away, and leave it that. Because I for one, am tired of having to conform to a minorities petty antics aimed at governing how I live my life. Enough is Enough. It is time for those that believe in what I have said to stand up for what they believe in and take this country back from those that are ripping it apart.
Bodhi
Did you write this yourself Bodhi, or did you pull it from one of Herr Goebbels speeches? The tone, and even the language sound the same. You keep some good company with the majority rules arguments found in the Former Soviet Union, Communist China, Nazi Germany, Iran, the Taliban... Not to suggest that you would support some kind of Final Solution for these undesirable elements, but would marginalization, scorn and discrimination be too far off?
strange how these same ppl categorize anyone who believes in God a "religious, right wing nutcase, Pat Robertson clone"…
I would want the judge removed if he did not believe in a Higher Power than himself
Eagler
No comment needed
Why is it that the people in the gay thread preaching about tolerance and acceptance are the same people in this thread preaching about intolerance for somethign else? Are you only tolerant of behavior that you dont see a problem with? Being tolerant of something suggests that whatever you are tolerant of is something you disagree with. I disagree with homosexuality, but Im tolerant of it. I dont go knocking down doors of the local gay population and try and catch them pushing their **** in. I let them do what they like - Im tolerant.
Saurdaukar
I have worked with a homosexual, for a Jehovah’s Witness and had an evangelical working for me. The only one of the three that didn’t try to “convert” me was the homosexual. For a true believer, in the old school evangelical sense,
prostelizing is a key tenant of the faith. Those who support the Judge are being, at the very least, dishonest in not acknowledging this basic fact. His comments make it clear that his intention is along those lines. So why not come out in the open and say, “Is there anything wrong with helping people find the one true path?” instead of trying to dance around the issue. As for my personal tolerance, I had no problem allowing the evangelical keep her “is this a choice” photo of a fetus on her cubical. However, I did have a problem with her leaving Bible Tracts (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0079/0079_01.asp) on my chair.
our laws are a by product of the ten commandments - sorry - that is history
Eagler
As I believe MT pointed out in the other thread, only about two of them are – stealing and murder. I don’t think it took the 10 Commandments to determine that those are not acceptable behaviors. Perhaps he should put a stature with Liviticus in the courtroom?
For Apache and Ra, some counter positions from our founding fathers. Many were in fact masons, which believe in good deeds and spirituality, but not really in organized religion. In fact, evangelicals have a problem with Masons "Is Masonry a religion? Former Mason, William Schnoebelen, author of Masonry, Beyond the Light, quotes from two high-level masons, Albert Pike and Albert Mackey. Pike states: "Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion and its teachings are instructions in religion." Mackey removes all doubt for the Bible believer: "The religion of Masonry is not Christianity."
In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said, "Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
Thomas Jefferson:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
John Adams:
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
Thomas Paine:
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."
James Madison:
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Charon
-
Some Problems with Separation of Church and State Extremism (http://www.mindspring.com/~careyb/rf_prob.html)
-
Well thank god both sides of my family have a good share of church-goers, or I'd surely be a horrible horrible person. It's not fear of an imaginary father figure in the sky that keeps me from doing wrong, Eagler, it's the fact that I'm a good person. If you're a bad guy by nature who would do evil things were it not for your fear of punishment when you die, then I guess I'm glad you believe in God.
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
Well thank god both sides of my family have a good share of church-goers, or I'd surely be a horrible horrible person. It's not fear of an imaginary father figure in the sky that keeps me from doing wrong, Eagler, it's the fact that I'm a good person. If you're a bad guy by nature who would do evil things were it not for your fear of punishment when you die, then I guess I'm glad you believe in God.
SOB
No SOB
my thought is you have grown up under the influence of others that do/did believe in a Higher Power. If you have kids and raise them godless, they may not turn out as well as you and I bet their kids turn out worse then them ... why wouldn't they
-
Originally posted by Eagler
why wouldn't they
Why would they?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Some Problems with Separation of Church and State Extremism (http://www.mindspring.com/~careyb/rf_prob.html)
Much more likely, and reasonable, is the notion that they didn't pass the First Amendment to support a separation of church and state extremist agenda. They passed it instead to prevent the establishment of a national Christian denomination within the United States. They had only to look to the history of Europe to note the severe problems that arise when a nation adopts a particular Christian denomination as an official state religion.
Bovine scatology.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Is that in the constitution?
Separation of church and state is not in the constitution either, it is a phrase taken out of a letter written by Jefferson. The 1st amendment was originally interpreted as preventing government from interfering with any church, or adapting an official church. The new interpretation of the 1st amendment is that it requires government to refrain from any mention of God, lest someone be offended or intimidated. If that was the intent of the people who wrote the constitution they sure hid it well.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
What law are we talking about in Alabama?
-
Are all modern religions monotheisitic?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
No SOB
my thought is you have grown up under the influence of others that do/did believe in a Higher Power. If you have kids and raise them godless, they may not turn out as well as you and I bet their kids turn out worse then them ... why wouldn't they
Because I would instill my values in my kids, and they would instill their values in their kids, etc... I don't see why they would be any more likely to become an ******* than a Christian. And if fear of going to hell is the only reason they're being nice, then they're an ******* anyhow.
SOB
-
This reminds me the of the post about the pet rabbit that died and the guy sauteed it for dinner...
Bodhi you the master fisherman!!
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Why would they?
-- Todd/Leviathn
seems logical without any belief in a hereafter or reincarnation, one would gravitate towards an extremely selfish mindset and lifestyle - even worse than is in existence now
if you are not held accountable via karma retribution, why not grab all you can while the grabbin is good
look around, it is happening as we speak
listen to the music, watch tv geared to our youth - open your eyes
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Why would they?
-- Todd/Leviathn
Presumably because children raised without the ethical standards of a moral-based religion would have no incentive to behave accordingly other than their own version of 'right and wrong.'
Increasingly, the 'wrong' is being removed from our society. The proper term nowadays is 'Right and 'Im tolerant of it.'
Im not religious in the slightest bit, but I do recognize the role that the principles of religion play in shaping the psyche of a child.
-
Oh, and Charon... is it possible for anyone to speak out on what he believes is wrong without being called a Nazi?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
seems logical without any belief in a hereafter or reincarnation, one would gravitate towards an extremely selfish mindset and lifestyle - even worse than is in existence now
It doesn't seem logical to me. I don't treat people kindly because I worry about hell. I do so, because I expect the same treatment in return.
No man is an island.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
It doesn't seem logical to me. I don't treat people kindly because I worry about hell. I do so, because I expect the same treatment in return.
No man is an island.
How much you wanna wager a Bible thumper can find something similar in the good book?
Im willing to bet you canb trace most 'morals' back to the Bible is one for or another.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Im willing to bet you canb trace most 'morals' back to the Bible is one for or another.
I'm willing to bet you can trace them even further.
-
one more here for the religion free state.
i believe if you read th page (s) of quotes by our forfathers you will find their opinion of organized religion there.
this guy is nothing but a amway salesman ( tax free)
-
Originally posted by Dnil
seperation of church and state. Keeps the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Good stuff apache. I like hearing from where our founding fathers came from and their mindsights. Thats how you understand where America came from.
Thomas Paine :
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. (Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts from The Age of Reason". Selected Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Everbody's Vacation Publishing Co., 1945, p. 362) "
It does both Dnil. Don't try to out FF us with quotes from the obviously Christian FF's. There are just as many that mention a need to keep religion out of the government.
-
Oh, and Charon... is it possible for anyone to speak out on what he believes is wrong without being called a Nazi?
Well, when you talk about the need to take the nation back from the hands of a degenerate minority, then you are using language that helped Hitler rise to power in 1933. I'm not saying that anybody is a Nazi, just that these arguments have been heard before, with real world results that show what can happen.
For example:
Just as liberalism after the French Revolution had various effects on every nation and people, depending on their nature and character, the same is true today for the forces that oppose it. German democracy was always a particular playground of European liberalism. Its innate tendency towards excessive individualism was foreign to us, which lost it any connection to real political life after the war. It had nothing to do with the people. It represented not the totality of the nation, but turned into a perpetual war between interests that gradually destroyed the national and social foundations of our people's existence.
National Socialism was able to overcome this condition of continual spiritual, economic and political crises only because the German people themselves regained their composure, and found a political idea and organization that corresponded to the character of the German nation. Nation Socialism is a completely German phenomenon. It can only be understood in the framework of German conditions and forces. Like Mussolini once said about Fascism, "it is not for export."
Goebbels, On the occasion of the first Nuremberg Rally that followed Hitler's 1933 takeover of power.
From now on we are going to wage a merciless war of destruction against the last remaining elements of cultural disintegration... Should there be someone among [the artists] who still believes in his higher destiny — well now, he has four years' time to prove himself. These four years are sufficient for us, too, to make a judgement. From now on — of that you can be certain — all those mutually supporting and thereby sustaining cliques of chatterers, dilettantes, and art forgers will be picked up and liquidated. For all we care, those prehistoric Stone-Age culture-barbarians and art-stutterers can return to the caves of their ancestors and there can apply their primitive international scratchings.
Adolf Hitler
Munich, July 18, 1937
From his speech at the opening of "Grosse Deutsche Kunstausstellung", an art exhibit of "approved art" symbolizing Germany and the Third Reich. It was the first of eight annual exhibits.
Germany fell into misfortune only after the individual believed he should pursue his interests at the cost of the general welfare.
Germany's misery will end when the individual sees the general welfare as the best guarantee of his own own.
Goebbels delivered this speech in Munich on 31 July 1932, the day of the national elections to the Reichstag.
Where are these same lawyers when I see that imbecile with 60 piercings hanging out of his/her face, and Tee Shirt blaring to the world "I hate God", or "***** the World"... those things offend me, how come they aren't removed from my sight? Why, because I am able to turn a blind eye to those actions, behaviors, and opinions.
When another American burns a flag, it turns my stomach, but I am not allowed to stop it... why, because it is their right to expression. SO I am forced to turn a blind eye.
Bodhi
As for the 20% that do not acknowledge the Old Testament, learn to look away, and leave it that. Because I for one, am tired of having to conform to a minorities petty antics aimed at governing how I live my life. Enough is Enough. It is time for those that believe in what I have said to stand up for what they believe in and take this country back from those that are ripping it apart.
Bodhi
Charon
-
I cant say it wasnt well played, but I still fail to draw a connection between speaches made by Nazi's and Bodhi's words.
In fact, the only connection I can draw is the similar belief that a segment of the population in each respective country was bringing down the majority.
In Germany's case, we know that it was simply propaganda aimed at creating a common enemy for the German people.
In America's case, I think the statement is spot on. Can you look back 10-20 years and say that its better now that it was then? Would you state that we have more freedom to be ourselves, or less?
-
Nostalgia is not to be trusted.
-
I cant believe I read every post in this thread .
Anyone read Robert Anton Wilson's Quantum Psychology or Prometheus Rising? They are golden.
-
its a train wreck waiting to happen. I have faith, lots of it. I am not religious at all. Not once did I state where I stand on the 10 commandments thing. I only thanked Apache for those quotes, yet the rabid atheists jump on me. Interesting.
What in you decides right or wrong? Why do you make the moral choices you do?
Do you cheat on your spouse? Do you cheat people at work? What tells you its wrong? Why is it wrong?
-
Here are some quotes from this thread, and reading them makes me sad for the writers, as I feel they are so strong up in their beliefs, they may be losing the ability to view issues from both sides.
Because I for one, am tired of having to conform to a minorities petty antics aimed at governing how I live my life.
But you are fine with forcing or exposing your beliefs on others? You are convinced that every Jewish person, every Muslim, every Buddist should have to approach the courtroom and be reminded that his chance of justice is based on the beliefs of someone who practices another religion.
and take this country back from those that are ripping it apart.
Yeah, darn those people who believe differantly than you, cause durn sure tooting your views, your religion are the one and only truth, and dang it all, lets force it down their throats? This free choice idea is obviously a bad idea, right?
strange how ppl can't see that a majority of our problems begin with a lack of a belief in the Divine
Strange how many people in this world are so sure they and the members of their church are the only ones with a clue and everyone else is the problem. I work with a couple guys who belong to the Old Apostolic Lutheran Church. They tell me that only members of Old Apostolic Lutheran Church are practicing true Christianity and as such will be the only ones allowed into heaven. A closed mind is so sad to witness, as we are seeing in this thread. Not everyone accepts your definition of the "Divine". Too bad you can't respect their right to choose.
our laws are a by product of the ten commandments - sorry - that is history
This of course isn't even close to correct, and as demonstrated in the other thread of similar vain on the board. Only two, read that, TWO commandments have laws that corrspond, no killing, no stealing. If our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, what happened to the other 8?
Next thing you know L Ron hubbards Picture will be hanging on court house walls.
Why not? Many people believe in him and his preaching, they are Americans, maybe they should have his picture on display? Why limit it? Lets hang pictures of all persons/items/animals/plants/planets that people worship in all government buildings. Whats that you say? Only your beliefs are correct so only YOUR Lords picture/preaching should hang there? Hmmm, closed minded aren't you?
Just as feverantly as you might argue that only Christianity is the true religion, others will argue the same of many many other beliefs. Many will offer examples, proofs, relics just as you offer the Bible as the word.
I am sorry, but while I would strongly defend your right to worship as you choose, to practice your beliefs and live within our countries laws as you see fit, I just as strongly feel that our government and government property should be and stay neutral in matters of religious preference.
dago
-
but what faith were your parents? anyone you looked up to in your formative years?
how many of those ppl were athiests? did you have a bad experience with organized religion?
I *believe* that my partents are Prezbyterian, don't quote me on that. Neither are very religious people, though, and don't regularly attend church as far as I know. My mother is far too busy to do so right now anyways.
I can't say that the people I looked up to were religious. I attended Bible school at a yong age, but I soon grew frustrated by it, perhaps intimidated. It all seemed like another fairy tale to me, with all the things that apparently defied physics and the terrible terrible things that would befall those who didn't act in a certain way. I haven't been to church for services in maybe 10 years now. My parents never made me go. I started questioning the whole thing in 6-7 grade and then decided within a few years that I was an atheist. I thought perhaps it was just an anti-authority thing, but I haven't "grown out of it" yet. I feel it's what I really believe. Perhaps it stems from the apparent fear of going to "hell" I learned at an early age, and when I got older I resented religion for trying to instill that fear into me. I never felt as though any God was watching over me or that I had any guidance from such a being.
So I guess you could consider me a "first generation" atheist. I'm the only one that I know of in my immediate family.
If I ever do have children of my own, I will leave the subject open for their decision, as my parents did for me as soon as I was old enough to figure things out. I'm not out to convert anyone or create more atheists. What I believe makes the most sense to me so I'm sticking with it. I want my children to be able to see all of the options and chose for themselves without any bias from me.
As far as the rock goes, it alone never really bothered me. I'm just worried about what might follow if it was ruled that it was OK to stay there. IMO the line has to be drawn somewhere.
-
In America's case, I think the statement is spot on. Can you look back 10-20 years and say that its better now that it was then? Would you state that we have more freedom to be ourselves, or less?
Frankly, I think it's better now than it has been since the founding of the country and all the "Golden Ages" in between. I don’t want to see these freedoms turned back.
1700s -1800s. Capitalists tired of paying England say "Screw You" rag tag military outlasts red coats with help from the hated French. We were founded as a slave owning country, with founding fathers that owned slaves. That has changed for the better but at a terrible cost in blood. The average person, educated or not, land owing or not can now vote. Irish and Chinamen need not apply. Swarthy Italians and other Eastern Europeans seen as an anarchist threat, pledge of allegiance becomes a way to start the day.
1900-1920. Birth of Nation shown in White House, glorifying the KKK and vilifying black former slaves as rapists of white women. Wilson says “It is like writing history with Lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.” Lynching gets a public boost. WW1 comes and goes. Women can vote in 1918. 1920s alcohol banned as part of moral crusade, which does little to stop consumption but leads to an aggressive rise in organized crime. Sex becomes acceptable for a few years. Entertainment culture starts to rise with the Movies. Actors now heroes and not looked on in the same class as prostitutes. Lets buy stock on credit. In 1907, Indiana became the first state to pass a law permitting involuntary sterilizations on eugenic grounds; at least 30 states would follow. Involuntary sterilizations, genetic manipulation, race segregation and imprisonment were justified in order to save America from the high cost of treating defective individuals, who were responsible for the nation’s social ills.
1930s - Great Depression. Strange fruit still dangling from the trees down South. Jews need not apply. Socialism (or that Communist Roosevelt) helps start pulling America out of the economic pit. Alcohol legalized when prohibition seen as full of ****. Three Stooges amuse some for unknown reasons.
1940s - WW2. German and Italian POWs still have more rights in some parts than black servicemen in uniform. Rosy the riviter proves she can get the job done and considers a broader role in society -- until the men return from the war.
The 1950s a "Golden Era" unless you happened to be a minority, attended a perfectly legal socialist or communist meeting at some point in time (house committee on un-American activities lives up to its name through unamerican activities), were a housewife looking for opportunities beyond the kitchen and bedroom, were a "company man" in the "Man in the Grey Flannel Suit" mold. WW2 vets not afraid to see real life issues portrayed in the movies. Man with the Golden Arm, etc. Experiments on soldiers using a-bombs and biological agents.
The 1960s - both a time of liberation and excess, kind of a wash. The Vietnam war, the sexual revolution, drug culture as rebellion. But, there was the civil rights movement. Separate but equal was found to be separate and repressive and unequal. Some still lament the days when the darkies knew their place.
The 1970s - boring but gradually progressive. Arena Rock was displaced by disco. Archie Bunker deals with a taboo. More minorities on TV. MASH. A miscommunication occurs between Jack, Janet and Crissy. All’s worked out in the end. Herpies and AIDs get a foothold.
1980s, greed is good, synthesizer music replaces disco. Communism falls. The rise of the moral crusade to return America to the "good old days" of the 1950s. Recession and national debt, junk bonds. My personal freedom increases dramatically with graduation from HS. Finally emerge from the haze about 1987. Education slips, recession starts.
1990s. Recession ends, Great Satan in the White House, guitars and rock return. Rap goes mainstream. White girls kiss Black boys in the media. Men kiss men, women kiss women in non porn settings. Grouchy old man Jones once again says the country going to hell in a handbasket. Individual freedoms start to decrease under Clinton in political bid to appease get tough on crime elements, which is overlooked by liberal supporters. MTV etc. increasingly crosses the line selling sex to kids. Education slips further.
2000s. Bush comes in as part of a great conservative backlash that garners support from almost exactly half of America, and picks advisors his father would have avoided. Fear of third-rate horse**** elements who got lucky once prompt hysterical reaction to further curtail freedoms. Ashcroft hits the road to sell security vs freedom. Education slips further, but remains a popular political buz word. J-lo and that tool from Pearl Harbor show how silly celebrity culture worship really is. Ripsnort posts another thread about his BMW. Charon posts another long-winded thread. FDBs eat hot wings.
Really a mixed bag. But I certainly don't believe religious freedoms are being curtailed, or that religion is under attack. Rather, I believe that people who don't want to see the book of Revelations taught in science class have to increasingly defend their rights from others who feel there is one true faith and you had better get on board.
Democracy is not easy and it has its disadvantages. Freedoms are sloppy. However, the more you shift from individual freedoms the more you move into a government that is less free and less democratic, and I believe in resisting the temptation to move in that direction.
Charon
-
Great read. Thanx Charon.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Well, when you talk about the need to take the nation back from the hands of a degenerate minority, then you are using language that helped Hitler rise to power in 1933. I'm not saying that anybody is a Nazi, just that these arguments have been heard before, with real world results that show what can happen.
Charon
Charon, I never said "degenerate minority". You put those words into my mouth. And you also accused me of being a Nazi... wrong again...
I have never advocated in ANY of my statements the removal of any one based on race, creed, or beliefs. I only advocated that the minority of this population who was anti-God grow up and look the other way.
You seem determined to drag this down to a race riot, if that's your idea, it is wasted. The problem with this "trump card" so often played is just that, it is too often played. I again state I have never done anything to warrant be called anti-minority and actually feel that I have done more to actually be friendly towards minorities. Unfortunately any time some one suggests something that goes against what the wonderous Rainbow Coalition says, we get the "your a racist or a nazi" statement. Too bad that that organisation and it's zealots are so narrow minded and misled, if they actually worked for a goal instead of personal gain, they might actually effect some changes for good.
As for those thinking I am advocating any type of organised religion, I am not. I rarely go to church, the last time was for my brother's funeral. Instead I choose to read the bible which I know to be the truth for me. If that is wrong or offends some of you, too damn bad, it is my right.
For those of you advocating that this country was not founded by CHristians, think again. Of and that wonderous statement saying that our laws are pagan beliefs, wrong again. This country actually came very close to adopting the language of Hebrew to be that much different from the English. That said, it is also proven that the founding fathers very much believed in God and therefore allowed that belief to flow over into their writings.
Oh, and for the comment stating I have never read the Constitution or Bill of Rights because I made the statement "this Nation was founded under the idea of "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" get a clue. I used the statement to empasize the fact that this Nation was founded under God. Not that the constitution, Bill of Rights, and Pledge of Allegiance were one in the same. Learn to read.
Lastly, the Constitutional Ammendment 1 says that:
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.
Nowhere in that statement does it say that a biblical writing can not be displayed on government property. Nor does displaying such a writing constitute the establishment of any religion over the state. What it does say is that the goverment CAN NOT prefer one religion over another, plain and simple. Putting a "10 Commandments" Monument in the court house (paid for by PRIVATE funds) was not a problem, taking it away because it offended a few lawyers is the wrong and a misguided action on the behalf of the high courts. Because if that one monument is wrong, then we had best remove the words God from EVERYTHING associated with the Government.
I will maintain my statements of before in saying that this country is headed for disaster with the current moral fiber being perpetuated. Violence and wrong doings are so much the norm, that many people are losing sight of this. Unless Hollywood says it is so, most don't believe it. That said, looking at the America of 60 years ago, the moral fiber was stronger and of such a quality that our way of life was not only better, but emulated by the millions who still wished to emigrate to be a part of it.
-
Well... I'm a "right" winger but I firmly believe in seperation of church and state. ANY time you allow religion to gain a foothold in a judical system your asking for trouble...why? Take a hard look at history...and current events as well.
-
Originally posted by MarkVZ
... I started questioning the whole thing in 6-7 grade and then decided within a few years that I was an atheist. ....
you had it all figured out by what 8th or 9th grade? 14/15 years old?
WOW!
LOL
-
If you are not fed with a strict diet of fairy tales, you can develop a pretty good critical thinking by 14 or 15.
"Bible school" at 8 was a weird experience for me, because everything seemed fake and ridiculous, but everyone there played alog, but by 15 I was pretty sure it was all fake. At 28 I still find it fake, but somewhat disturbing and dangerous because of people like you, Judge Moore, the ayatollahs and the taliban.
-
So you're saying one needs to hit a certain age to make a decision? Not qualified yet? Age means nothing to me 'cept for slot machines and blackjack.
What takeda said.
-
I think that "figuring it out" would be an antithesis of the point I was at then, even now as a sophomore in college. I just simply came to my own conclusion that I didn't believe in God and didn't subscribe to popular religious beliefs. I didn't and still haven't figured anything out, other than that I have no way of knowing what's waiting for me after death. I'm still a spiritual person and I ponder over our origins often.
Figuring it out won't happen for me until after I've died. All I can do is live my life the best I can, and I'll get whatever I get after I die.
I don't have you made out to be a Bible thumper, Eagler. I just see you as an opposing side to the debate.
-
Bohdi, misquoting and misinterperating does not do anyone any favors in a discussion.
Charon, I never said "degenerate minority". You put those words into my mouth. And you also accused me of being a Nazi... wrong again...
He didnt say you were a Nazi did he? If so, I don't see it, and comparing someone tactics to Nazi tactics does not constitute name calling. Comparisons can illuminate, can help make a point, or give a frame of reference. Sadly, I have to agree that some of the more fanatical rhetoric remind me of that type of mindset "its our way only, what we say is correct, and everyone else is wrong"
I have never advocated in ANY of my statements the removal of any one based on race, creed, or beliefs. I only advocated that the minority of this population who was anti-God grow up and look the other way.
To say if someone doesn't agree with you is "anti-God" is flat out assnine. Unless you are God of course. Just because some hold dear the concept of Seperation of Church and State, the freedom to believe as they would choose, and everyones right not to be forcefully exposed to religious monuments in taxpayer paid for government buildings does not make them evil.
You seem determined to drag this down to a race riot, if that's your idea, it is wasted. The problem with this "trump card" so often played is just that, it is too often played. I again state I have never done anything to warrant be called anti-minority and actually feel that I have done more to actually be friendly towards minorities. Unfortunately any time some one suggests something that goes against what the wonderous Rainbow
Coalition says, we get the "your a racist or a nazi" statement. Too bad that that organisation and it's zealots are so narrow minded and misled, if they actually worked for a goal instead of personal gain, they might actually effect some changes for good.
I dont see anyone making this a race issue but you.
Instead I choose to read the bible which I know to be the truth for me. If that is wrong or offends some of you, too damn bad, it is my right.
Read away, talk the talk, walk the walk. What you fail to grasp is some of us strongly feel everyone should be given that right, not reserved for Christians only.
For those of you advocating that this country was not founded by CHristians, think again. Of and that wonderous statement saying that our laws pagan beliefs, wrong again. This country actually came very close to adopting the language of Hebrew to be that much different from the
English. That said, it is also proven that the founding fathers very much believed in God and therefore allowed that belief to flow over into their writings.
This is so lacking in thought, I would hardly know where to begin.
Oh, and for the comment stating I have never read the Constitution or Bill of Rights because I made the statement "this Nation was founded under the idea of "ONE NATION UNDER GOD" get a clue. I used the statement to empasize the fact that this Nation was founded under God. Not that the constitution, Bill of Rights, and Pledge of Allegiance were one in the same. Learn to read.
Spend a little more time doing some research, prove your points with facts, not just your opinions or those of other who want to sway opinion.
Lastly, the Constitutional Ammendment 1 says that:
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.
Alot of us can do a google search, and I think many of us are more than familiar with the Establishment Clause. Just like the Second ammendmant, without well defined context by the framers of the Constituion, we have a Supreme Court to interpret Constituional intent.
Nowhere in that statement does it say that a biblical writing can not be displayed on government property. Nor does displaying such a writing constitute the establishment of any religion over the state. What it does say is that the goverment CAN NOT prefer one religion over another,plain and simple.
Nowhere does it say you cant have sex in court, but that isn't appropriate either.
Putting a "10 Commandments" Monument in the court house (paid for by PRIVATE funds) was not a problem, taking it away because it offended a few lawyers is the wrong and a misguided action on the behalf of the high courts. Because if that one monument is wrong, then we had best remove the words God from EVERYTHING associated with the Government.
Damn you are amazing, you decide the high courts are misquided? Since it seems your education and life of study of the Constitution and our legal system is vastly superior to the Justices of the highest court in the land, maybe you should be appointed to the Chief Justice position so you can straighten out those misquided fools?
How about if I gather some private funds and have a huge sculpture of a hand given the finger? Would that be okay? So what if it offends a few right? Maybe the offended can look the other way, so I can worship my big statue of the finger. :)
I will maintain my statements of before in saying that this country is headed for disaster with the current moral fiber being perpetuated. Violence and wrong doings are so much the norm, that many people are losing sight of this. Unless Hollywood says it is so, most don't believe it. That said, looking at the America of 60 years ago, the moral fiber was stronger and of such a quality that our way of life was not only better, but emulated by the millions who still wished to emigrate to be a part of it.
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling"
Our quality of life is better now than it has ever been. Less people die early deaths, more children than ever are afforded a decent education, less people live in poverty, more have access to medical care, women and minorities have protected rights that they were denied not long ago. I could go on and on, but when you choose to argue with unproven and flat out wrong statements, I realize you probably wont listen anyway.
Guess what, we are still emulated by millions, and you cant even begin to grasp the numbers of people who want to emigrate to our country.
I feel of greater danger to the future of our freedoms and our countries survival are those who are so darn sure they are right, they refuse to consider the rights, concerns and sensibilities of others.
dago
-
Charon, good post. I may not agree with all of it, but its a refreshing change to read something from the other side of the fence that isnt insulting to me.
There isnt much I can say that hasnt been said already, so Ill just leave it at 'we can agree to disagree.'
If you look at the posts from both sides of the arguement, I think we're all saying the same thing; 'Dont force me to think or act like you.'
-
Dago, this whole discussion is about interpretation of the Constitution. It's not enough to say "Well, the Supreme Court has already ruled on similar cases, so that's what is right." They are not infallible; if they were, there would be no reversals.
"How about if I gather some private funds and have a huge sculpture of a hand given the finger? Would that be okay? So what if it offends a few right? Maybe the offended can look the other way, so I can worship my big statue of the finger."
This is so lacking in thought, I would hardly know where to begin.
;)
-
Thanks Dago, you saved me a lot of time and I couldn't have posted it any better.
If you look at the posts from both sides of the arguement, I think we're all saying the same thing; 'Dont force me to think or act like you.'
Saurdaukar
In a nutshell, that's exactly where I'm at :) I come from a religious family (Southern Baptist) and have a great deal of respect for those who walk the walk where Jesus and his teachings are concerned. My great grandmother (who I spent quite some time with growing up) was a missionary in the East Tennesse hills. When she died in her late 90s she had 800 people attend her funeral. However, I don't recall her trying to force her beliefs on others -- just make them aware of the true path and move on if they didn't agree. She even learned to tolerate and accept my Catholic stepfather when my mother remarried :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by majic
"How about if I gather some private funds and have a huge sculpture of a hand given the finger? Would that be okay? So what if it offends a few right? Maybe the offended can look the other way, so I can worship my big statue of the finger."
This is so lacking in thought, I would hardly know where to begin.
;)
Where's the difference? Maybe if fingers dont float your boat, why not a giant Koran? or a giant Vishnu likeness?
:)
-
28,college, sry I forget
I speak to children on these boards - my apologies
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Where's the difference? Maybe if fingers dont float your boat, why not a giant Koran? or a giant Vishnu likeness?
:)
Frankly, that would be just fine with me. I am not affilliated in any way with any religion. I'm not saying it's only okay only if the religion is Christian. I'm saying the Constitution doesn't expressedly (sp?) prohibit it anywhere. It allows for freedom of choice in religion or to choose no religion at all.
-
it doesnt matter if the ten commandments are a religious symbol or not...what they are are basic laws that were crafted when the church WAS the state so they came up with a story about how god told them these were the laws...wether the story is true or not is not the point...what does matter is the message behind it
let them be there...not as a religious symbol but as a symbol of basic laws for humanity
after all...religion is just the earliest way of laws ethics and rights...and dealing with peoples fear of death (wich is of course rooted in the minds inability to comprehend nothingness)
anyway as far as i know as long as noones "rights" are being put in jeapordy it can go where it wants...
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
here is a better one then.
Thomas Paine:
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
see they did believe in god though!
That guy was totally disillusional.
-
my super spooks in the sky can beat up your super spooks.
-
Dago,
Bohdi, misquoting and misinterperating does not do anyone any favors in a discussion.
No, misquotes and misinterpretations do not help any one, nor does changing the context of one's intented statement as well as pretending to be an expert as you try to come off as.
He didnt say you were a Nazi did he? If so, I don't see it, and comparing someone tactics to Nazi tactics does not constitute name calling. Comparisons can illuminate, can help make a point, or give a frame of reference. Sadly, I have to agree that some of the more fanatical rhetoric remind me of that type of mindset "its our way only, what we say is correct, and everyone else is wrong"
THis is not about name calling, Charon can play little comparison games as can you which in turn are used to try and belittle my point to reinforce yours. Comparisons are likening something / someone to something else, or in other words saying they are like that to which you compare too. Gee, is that not a fancy way of calling someone names by saying you are comparing them to the epithet?
To say if someone doesn't agree with you is "anti-God" is flat out assnine. Unless you are God of course. Just because some hold dear the concept of Seperation of Church and State, the freedom to believe as they would choose, and everyones right not to be forcefully exposed to religious monuments in taxpayer paid for government buildings does not make them evil.
By antigod I meant the percentage of people within this country who are not God believeing. If you wish to look into that statement just a bit further than the surface which you excel at, you would know that I was relating it to the basic biblical philosophy that you are either for or agianst, there is no inbetween. Poor word choice, but was intended to save time, unfortunately, it did not work, and I am forced to come back and explain it to your wonderfully educated self.
I dont see anyone making this a race issue but you.
Ahh, but you see, that is the fundemental ingredient of all arguments. Had Charon not tried to insult and berate with his attempt to other an alternative opinion, and whined the minority whine, it never would have been brought up. Lastly, it was he who put the words degenerate minority in a statement and then tried to pass them off as his own.
Read away, talk the talk, walk the walk. What you fail to grasp is some of us strongly feel everyone should be given that right, not reserved for Christians only.
Say it is not so.... That was exactly the point I was trying to bring up SHerlock. No one religion or belief is more correct then others. If you choose to worship Satan, then your right to do that is your own. SO at what point did you think I was advocating only Christians have religous freedom in this country?? I see... more of that putting words in another's mouth to back your attempt at a flame.
This is so lacking in thought, I would hardly know where to begin.
Please, continue on with your wonderous insight... but before you do, where does that statement lack any less thought than what you said? It doesn't, in actuality, mine was a quickyy summary, yours was yet another attempt at being a Mr. Ima Know It All and am gonna get you.
Spend a little more time doing some research, prove your points with facts, not just your opinions or those of other who want to sway opinion.
Tell ya what, seeings that you are the most supreme and intellectual being to grace these boards, why don't you build us a time machine, and we can go back and watch what happened. Maybe sit down and interview these souls who wrote these documents and see for our selves what was on their minds. BUt my bet will rest on their guidance flowing from their religous conviction, and their belief in right and wrong which so closely resembles those very Commandments that were the reason for this post to begin with. Lastly, why don't you back up some of your statements with fact, or is it too much trouble for you to go and cut and paste out of the National Enquirer?
Alot of us can do a google search, and I think many of us are more than familiar with the Establishment Clause. Just like the Second ammendmant, without well defined context by the framers of the Constituion, we have a Supreme Court to interpret Constituional intent.
Oh, and that same Supreme Court is not infallible? I disagree on that. THe Supreme Court is not made up of unbiased and unpolitically motivated people in the least bit. Every person on that bench is there because of a political backing and financial whirlwind that makes the presidents look small. You do not suppose that their "political allegiance" does not come into play when they make a decision? THink again, the Supreme Court long ago lost it's unbiased appearence, and that is back before both of our times.
Nowhere does it say you cant have sex in court, but that isn't appropriate either.
Oh thats just golden, comparing the "10 Commandemnts" to having sex in Court as though they fit in the same discussion. That is completely lacking of any merit as a discussion, and shows what level your morals lie at. Heck, maybe we should appoint you to the ehtics board, and you can help perpetuate the downward spiral this nation is in. Maybe you'll vote to have transvestite strippers in the class room to teach 1st graders sex ed.
Damn you are amazing, you decide the high courts are misquided? Since it seems your education and life of study of the Constitution and our legal system is vastly superior to the Justices of the highest court in the land, maybe you should be appointed to the Chief Justice position so you can straighten out those misquided fools?
See what I said above in regards to the infallibility of our court system, because I am not going to repeat it again. As for me being appointed chief justice, nah, I could not be impartial to what they face. But the beauty of that is, I realise it and am able to be honest about it.
How about if I gather some private funds and have a huge sculpture of a hand given the finger? Would that be okay? So what if it offends a few right? Maybe the offended can look the other way, so I can worship my big statue of the finger.
Gee thats not cliche, but guess what wise arse, it's already been done, and while the finger in question is not in a court house, instead it sits just inside the inlet to Fort Lauderdale on the private property of a Porn Magistrate who felt it necessary to express his freedom of speech by having a 15 foot high sculpture of a middle finger set to point out to the inlet. Ohh, and your same infallible justices, they upheld his right to have it... really nice huh?! Almost as offensive as those commandments.
Our quality of life is better now than it has ever been. Less people die early deaths, more children than ever are afforded a decent education, less people live in poverty, more have access to medical care, women and minorities have protected rights that they were denied not long ago. I could go on and on, but when you choose to argue with unproven and flat out wrong statements, I realize you probably wont listen anyway.
Our quality of life is better? In some ways some things are a bit better, that is because the technology affords that. As for our moral fiber, I disagree. Crime is worse, inner cities are still decaying unchecked (guess you don't get outta the burbs much eh sport?), health care is on the verge of finacial collapse, the government is so indebt that there is no end in sight... Yeah, those are not problems at all. Shoot I probably made it all up... sure thing, why don't you take another one of those wellow pills and go back to that dream of yours.
Guess what, we are still emulated by millions, and you cant even begin to grasp the numbers of people who want to emigrate to our country.
No, say it isn't so. Seems to me, that if you were faced with an econmically desperate country and did not feel like working to help fix it, you too would look to a country that was still providing a helping hand to it's citizens as a better deal too. It still does not address the problem that our country can not continue to sustain the level of immigration that is going on.
I feel of greater danger to the future of our freedoms and our countries survival are those who are so darn sure they are right, they refuse to consider the rights, concerns and sensibilities of others.
After you climb down of that all mighty perch of yours. Think back on what you wrote and think. REally think for once and try and realise that I never advocated taking away rights, instead I advocated that what is happening in ALabama is wrong. Then again, your so full of yourself, the possibility that you could be misguided is going to be lost on you anyways. Tell ya what Einstein, you keep right on with your way of thinking, and your ilk is gonna get us one of two things; a loss of our civil rights and residence in a police state, or a total breakdown of basic services ruled by anarchy. Take your pick, not sure what is worse.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you had it all figured out by what 8th or 9th grade? 14/15 years old?
WOW!
LOL
Yeah, Mark, LOL at you. How could you not be a church going Christian with fine examples like Eagler rationally coaxing you along toward belief?
-
Snork,
IMHO, You have to be rational to be rationally coaxed.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Snork,
IMHO, You have to be rational to be rationally coaxed.
And it's lots more fun to poleax than coax, right?
-
eagler inability to bring facts into play starts him on his typical post, "damn know it all kids and their dog always foiling my plans!"
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
eagler inability to bring facts into play starts him on his typical post, "damn know it all kids and their dog always foiling my plans!"
Ok Froggy, youre still an *******, but that was funny. ;)
-
Originally posted by ra
Jewish soldiers get a Star of David engraved on their tombstone, Christians get a crucifix engraved. There are, however, many crucifix memorials throughout the cemetery. As all of this is paid for by the government, it is obviously an attempt to establish religion.
ra
The Govt. provides a headstone to any soldier buried in Arlington, and offers I believe 27 different religious symbols. There are Crosses, Stars of David and Muslim Crescents in the cemetary now.
-
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (USSC+)
Opinions
BLACK, J., Opinion of the Court
When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. But the purposes underlying the Establishment Clause go much further than that. Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion. The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs.
-
THis is not about name calling, Charon can play little comparison games as can you which in turn are used to try and belittle my point to reinforce yours. Comparisons are likening something / someone to something else, or in other words saying they are like that to which you compare too. Gee, is that not a fancy way of calling someone names by saying you are comparing them to the epithet? Bodhi
Obviously I was not comparing you to a Nazi since any religion would come in second to the Nazi party. I was comparing your line of thinking to a number of other groups (Soviet and Chinese Communists, Nazis, Taliban, etc.) where the majority was always right, and if you are not part of the majority then look out. However, the Nazi’s were a family values / nation values party in areas like the role of women in society; proper art, music and movies; sexual morality in marriage; the disdain for alternative lifestyles (the pink triangle stood next to the Star of David in the camps) and other areas and just look at the utopia that resulted.
Ahh, but you see, that is the fundemental ingredient of all arguments. Had Charon not tried to insult and berate with his attempt to other an alternative opinion, and whined the minority whine, it never would have been brought up. Lastly, it was he who put the words degenerate minority in a statement and then tried to pass them off as his own. Bodhi
Well, let’s see who’s insulting. In addition to the tone of your posts, which clearly insult anyone who doesn’t see the world 100 percent the way you do, there are the following:
… Where are these same lawyers when I see that imbecile with 60 piercings hanging out of his/her face
… as well as pretending to be an expert as you try to come off as.
… If you wish to look into that statement just a bit further than the surface which you excel at
… I am forced to come back and explain it to your wonderfully educated self.
… That was exactly the point I was trying to bring up SHerlock.
… Please, continue on with your wonderous insight
… yours was yet another attempt at being a Mr. Ima Know It All and am gonna get you.
… seeings that you are the most supreme and intellectual being to grace these boards,
… but guess what wise arse
… After you climb down of that all mighty perch of yours. [this one is really golden]
… Then again, your so full of yourself, the possibility that you could be misguided is going to be lost on you anyways. [again, golden. Isn’t excessive pride/vanity supposed to be sin?]
… That is completely lacking of any merit as a discussion, and shows what level your morals lie at. Heck, maybe we should appoint you to the ehtics board, and you can help perpetuate the downward spiral this nation is in. Maybe you'll vote to have transvestite strippers in the class room to teach 1st graders sex ed.
… Tell ya what Einstein, you keep right on with your way of thinking, and your ilk is gonna get us one of two things; a loss of our civil rights and residence in a police state, or a total breakdown of basic services ruled by anarchy.
As for bringing up the whole minority thing, perhaps you should reread your very first post:
As for the 20% that do not acknowledge the Old Testament, learn to look away, and leave it that. Because I for one, am tired of having to conform to a minorities petty antics aimed at governing how I live my life. Enough is Enough. It is time for those that believe in what I have said to stand up for what they believe in and take this country back from those that are ripping it apart. Bodhi
And, as for putting words in your mouth, I’m so sorry. Perhaps, surprisingly, degenerate was too strong a word for you to use. Please give me your definition of a culture that not only allows, but can even encourage the following:
1. Two men kissing on national television
2. A performance artist getting a federal grant for a project where he urinates on a bible
3. MTV using sex to draw in adolescents
4. The Jerry Springer show and its kind
5. A hollywood actor insulting the president
Tell ya what, seeings that you are the most supreme and intellectual being to grace these boards, why don't you build us a time machine, and we can go back and watch what happened. Maybe sit down and interview these souls who wrote these documents and see for our selves what was on their minds. BUt my bet will rest on their guidance flowing from their religous conviction, and their belief in right and wrong which so closely resembles those very Commandments that were the reason for this post to begin with. Lastly, why don't you back up some of your statements with fact, or is it too much trouble for you to go and cut and paste out of the National Enquirer? Bodhi
We don’t really have to. The founding fathers’ beliefs about religion are fairly clear from their writings. Some were strongly Christian in focus, and some were Free Masons with a very different idea about Christianity and its role in America. Since you seem to have missed those counter opinions, here are a few reposts:
* In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said, "Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
* Thomas Jefferson:
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
* John Adams:
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
* Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
* Thomas Paine:
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."
"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."
* James Madison:
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Oh thats just golden, comparing the "10 Commandemnts" to having sex in Court as though they fit in the same discussion. That is completely lacking of any merit as a discussion, and shows what level your morals lie at. Heck, maybe we should appoint you to the ehtics board, and you can help perpetuate the downward spiral this nation is in. Maybe you'll vote to have transvestite strippers in the class room to teach 1st graders sex ed. Bodhi
Speaking of the 10 Commandments again, I’m glad to see Alabama has finally gotten on board with the whole:
* 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
*'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'*'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
*'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
*'Honor your father and your mother.'
* 'You shall not commit adultery.'
* 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
I mean, stealing, murder and perjury were ok (you don’t really need the 10 Commandments for those IMO), but it was about time people entering the court knew which god they had to worship and that it was bad form to covet your neighbors donkey. BTW, doesn’t a two-ton statue of the Commandments on display in the courthouse commons smack of idol worship? I thought that was a major point of disagreement between Protestants and Catholics – the whole statue of Mary thing.
After you climb down of that all mighty perch of yours. Think back on what you wrote and think. REally think for once and try and realise that I never advocated taking away rights, instead I advocated that what is happening in ALabama is wrong. Bodhi
As with Saur we’ll have to agree to disagree (however, on a far less cordial and respectful tone). For those of you out there who wonder why agnostics, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. “overreact” to such things, it’s the though that people like Bodhi might someday have a say in our daily lives. His morality would be nirvana to him, but a hell for the rest of us and probably a hell for any moderate Christian in the end, once all the “big issues” were covered. Are we overreacting? Probably. But why go there in the first place when the Intent of Judge Moore is so clear and so overtly religious? Fortunately, I believe that among the majority of god fearing people there is a sense of fairness and moderation that would prevent a Christian Taliban from taking hold.
Charon Out
-
um so is there a short version to all that?
-
Eagler, the "kids" are making an argument that is just as good as yours.
-
Sure are a lot of people pissed off about a 2 1/2 ton piece of rock.
The 10 commandments were delivered to Moses, and Moses was a Jew, and his followers were jewish, so this monument was not solely Christian. It was Jewish as well.
As an agnostic, it at first did not bother me, as it was purchased with private funds.
However, the amount of public money spent on this controversy brings it over the line.
Seperation of church and state is not technically in the constitution. In 1802 Jefferson said that the freedom of religion part of the first amendment was intended "to create a wall of seperation of church and state"
The idea of seperation of church and state is an interpretation of the constitution by a founding father, and actually not in the document itself.
Schools not allowing the use of an unused classroom for a bible study group, sueing to change the the Pledge of Allegiance, etc are in my opinion way too extreme. Saying "under god" in the Pledge doesn't bother me as an unbeliever and as long as it doesn't cost taxpayer funds, the monument shouldn't bother anyone either.
There are more important things to worry about.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
There are more important things to worry about.
Mr. Nail, meet Mr. Hammer.
-
Bodhi wrote-
It is time for those that believe in what I have said to stand up for what they believe in and take this country back from those that are ripping it apart.
-
They remove a pile of Concrete from a building and you decide we need a revolution Bodhi!!? You didn't actually use the term revolution but how else would you take the country back...
What is the purpose of fighting over this pile of concrete in the Courthouse? If the pile of Concrete is removed do the words vanish for eternity? Are the words less powerful when the concrete is removed? To be a good christian do I have to see and read the words everyday on the concrete? Can't I memorize the Concrete words? Does a Christian God become angry when the Concrete words are not displayed as you believe?
Does a christian god believe in killing other non christians for the concrete words not being displayed in a pleasing way?
I thought Christian values were about compassion and tolerance.....
Maybe I am wrong! Wont be the first time..
T0j
-
IMHO, You have to be rational to be rationally coaxed.
In your humble opinion, Bodhi, how am I being irrational in my reasoning? If I truly am being irrational I'd like to know about it.
I'm an Aerospace Engineering major, not a Theology major. I don't know the complete history of religion from it's beginning. I am, however, happy with what I believe, and if I find something that suits me better, I'll go with it. My beliefs don't bring peace to my mind as far as the *real* answers, but I feel better than if I had pacified my mind with something that I don't truly believe. I'm not going to go to church and pretend that I'm a believer just to try to make myself look better in the eyes of others. I'm being true to myself and that's important to me.
-
Bohdi, you are so full of yourself and void of intelligent reason that I shall no longer bother myself with your nonsense. You are a very narrow minded individual who can only see his own side of any discussion and obviously you will never consider that there might be long term effects to an issue you haven't considered.
One thing I will clarify for you though:
(guess you don't get outta the burbs much eh sport?),
[/b]
For the record:
I grew up in the Gary Indiana area, spent plenty of years in the area of Chicago's south side. I know first hand about inner city decline (and rebirth)
I lived in Saudi Arabia in the 80s, where religion is mixed completely with government and I saw what narrow minded fanatics are like and the dangers the pose. (think Religious Police).
In the last 3 years I have:
* been to over 45 cities in the USA (most all large or pretty decent size cities.
* been to 9 differant countries, including several in Asia, several in Europe and one in Africa.
Now, I am sure your being so astute and able to cast assumptions around regarding others, there is no doubt you are more traveled and worldly than me, but I have had a glimpse or two of our society and others.
dago
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Eagler, the "kids" are making an argument that is just as good as yours.
It's is just not the correct one :)
what's really good about this entire thing is that something so trival (in the big picture) actually makes National/World news night after night. Brings to the forefront the fact we really don't have to much to ***** about these days...
-
Originally posted by Dago
Bohdi, you are so full of yourself and void of intelligent reason that I shall no longer bother myself with your nonsense. You are a very narrow minded individual who can only see his own side of any discussion and obviously you will never consider that there might be long term effects to an issue you haven't considered.
One thing I will clarify for you though:
For the record:
I grew up in the Gary Indiana area, spent plenty of years in the area of Chicago's south side. I know first hand about inner city decline (and rebirth)
I lived in Saudi Arabia in the 80s, where religion is mixed completely with government and I saw what narrow minded fanatics are like and the dangers the pose. (think Religious Police).
In the last 3 years I have:
* been to over 45 cities in the USA (most all large or pretty decent size cities.
* been to 9 differant countries, including several in Asia, several in Europe and one in Africa.
Now, I am sure your being so astute and able to cast assumptions around regarding others, there is no doubt you are more traveled and worldly than me, but I have had a glimpse or two of our society and others.
dago
Dago,
Again, explaing to me who is "full of himself"? Your march yourself in here and come off as though you are so intellectually superior and then have the gall to call me a know-it-all. Get a grip, your Zoloft has apparently worn off, as your social anxiety is apparently kicked in with this attempt at trying to impress me.
Your ability at taking a stance based on a warped comprehension of statements is astounding, maybe for a grand finalie you can accuse me of advocating a new "final solution' while your at it.
For the record, dip*****, I never said my way was the only way, just that I was frustrated and felt the situation in ALabama and the rest of this country to be getting out of hand. It is my belief, and apparently one shared by quite a few (concerning Alabama) as the CNN gallop poll showed 4 of 5 to be in favor of not removing the monument. So, before you try your "better than you" attitude with us again, read up on what you are talking about...
And as for your worldly travels, what is that a flipping contest? It means absolutely squat. Further more, as you obviously can not discern the meanings of what is stated in writing, it is highly doubtful you learned a damn thing in your travels, except how to ***** about "others" opinions.
So, do wahtever it is the high and mighty like you do, but learn basic reading comprehension before you come back to this board.
-
Wow nice Christian attitude you there. The sad thing is its typical of most of umm.
Is there any wonder folks dont want our government linked to your belief system?
So much for your own "moral fiber".
As for the Nations moral fiber 60 years ago you may want to remove your blinders and take a real look.
For the lilly white bourgeoisie things were great but thats hardly typical of the nation as a whole.
-
My opinion....
Religion and god are just tools mankind uses to control. before there were laws there was the fear of god to keep people in line.
-
There is no more personal relationship than one has with a higher being that they may hold in spiritual guidance.
-
nice of you to say about me DiabloTX.
-
"CNN gallop poll showed 4 of 5 to be in favor of not removing the monument."
4 out of 5 christians? And polls that mean nothing when you don't want them too?
BTW 8 of 8 judges polled chose to remove it.
-
6pence,
How can you construe a Gallop Poll with being partial as only Christians? Get a clue and then come back ok...
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
There is no more personal relationship than one has with a higher being that they may hold in spiritual guidance.
Bit worrying when the "higher being" manifests itself in voices...over here we call it schizophrenia and give them lots of drugs followed by strait jackets if so required....
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
6pence,
How can you construe a Gallop Poll with being partial as only Christians? Get a clue and then come back ok...
:confused: Who did they ask? What % of the population is christian?
Me get a clue? wow
You tell us we are making the wrong argument, yet the supreme court says we are making the right one. I bow to you, your almightyness.
"Most people's recollection of the ten commandments centers on the "thou shalt not" requirements: to not murder, steal, commit adultery, lie in court, covet the neighbor's slaves or wife, etc. Many feel that these rules are near universal, are followed by adherents of all religions, and are a useful standard to use in life. Thus the posting of the ten commandments may be viewed as an innocuous decision that should offend nobody. They may elevate the readers' spirituality and inspire them to act in a more ethical manner. But the "thou shalt not" element of the ten commandments is only part of the picture. There is also a purely theological component that people may overlook: the instruction to not having other Gods before one, not making graven images, not bowing down or serving other Gods. By posting the Ten Commandments, a government or school is in effect telling its citizens and students that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) is the only valid God, and that the Gods and Goddesses of Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Wicca and hundreds of other religions are not valid. The implication is that they are inferior deities and, by government decree, not to be worshipped. By posting the ten commandments, the government is making a strong statement against religious tolerance, and is taking a major step towards establishing an official state religion."
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
and give them lots of drugs...
All too often the wrong answer to many, many problems today.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
It's is just not the correct one :)
what's really good about this entire thing is that something so trival (in the big picture) actually makes National/World news night after night. Brings to the forefront the fact we really don't have to much to ***** about these days...
IMHO, it's never trivial when the Constitution is challenged.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
IMHO, it's never trivial when the Constitution is challenged.
rather have this argument than watching fireman on the tele dig through US rubble for bodies of latest terror vicitims ... that -"IMHO" - makes this trival
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
All too often the wrong answer to many, many problems today.
Have you ever seen so many advertisements on TV about so many different medications? Pretty soon everyone will be taking some kind of medication.
I feel a new thread coming!
-
http://bbspot.com/politics/News/2003/08/burning_cross.html
-
I think now is the appropriate time for me to tell everyone that I just got a new Leatherman Juice!!
-
Okay, surprisingly enough i read the entire thread.. (okay, not the ENTIRE thread.. i did skip some.. most..) and all i have to say for it is,
I'm fairly respectful.. no, no, tolerant of religion, but nothing pisses me off more than people who try to force thier religion upon me.
off all you hypocritical, elitist, bigoted, retard snob religious fanatics. I don't care if you think i'm going to this imaginary hell. I don't fear what doesnt exist. I'm an athiest and proud.
To clarify, i'm not calling religious people hypocritical, elitist, bigoted, retard snob religious fanatics. I'm calling the door-to-door religion salespeople hypocritical, elitist, bigoted, retard snob religious fanatics.. and anyone trying to convert anyone else.
-
I'm fairly respectful.. no, no, tolerant of religion, but nothing pisses me off more than people who try to force thier religion upon me.
well,,people who try to force religion on you,need to read there bible a little more,,,do not preach apon death ears,,,somthing to that effect{ill have to go back into my old bible stuff to find it},,,,so its saying not to push religion on people,,,only tell it too people who wanna lisin,,most bible thumpers seem to forget this,,and they go door to door,,terrorizing people,,,yelling in everyones ears,,your going to hell,,no wonder some people are against it,,i live in a small town,,and go to a quite little church{somtimes when im not busy working}were we explore the bible and never go around town passing out pamplets and terrorizing people while there tring to relax in ther homes<~~thats just wrong
i have a good freind that is athiest,,but i never push anything on him,,and we get along great,,if he feals he need religion some day,,he is welcome,,if not,,he can beleve what he wants,,its his own right
as for this mounument,,,,,its just a big rock too me,,i dont beleve in gaven images of the bible or god,,i dont care if they remove it or keep it,,doesnt make a diffrence in what i beleve,,some religous fanatics take things too far
-
I'm not really an athiest, but I'm not religeous either. I have trouble deciding what to order for dinner..... no way I could pick a single religeon.
I work hard, pay taxes, dont hurt anyone, & help others when I can. I expect the same from society, nothing more & nothing less.
I FULLY respect the price of my freedom, I value it greatly.
While I cant support all of my countries political decisions, I can & do support my country. Anyone trying to burn an american flag around me will be EXTINQUISHED promptly.
With that in mind, & with the circumstances given some 4 pages of posts ago, I would say that obviously the judge was suffering from some type of mental instability. There is no place for ANY prejudice in our court systems, be it religeous, racial, financial or what have you. A judge is (supposed) to be impartial & unbiased.
A_Clown
-
From sandman's link:
The state faces fines and loss of federal funding if the cross is not removed before Friday at midnight.
^
I'd like to see how many will support the judge's decision when it comes down that!
-
Originally posted by Octavius
From sandman's link:
^
I'd like to see how many will support the judge's decision when it comes down that!
ahem... does that thing hurt Oct? Looks like a treble hook to me.
Supporters of Judge Marburger held hands on the courthouse steps and sang choruses of "Amazing Grace" and "My Mammy" during an overnight, cross-light vigil.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
ahem... does that thing hurt Oct? Looks like a treble hook to me.
Sometimes, they miss those satirical hooks... :)
-
um, did i bite something i was unaware of? i dont think I was hooked? :)
-
con·ser·va·tive: 1.) Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change
lib·er·al: 1.) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas. 2.) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
This is not to say that Conservatives are automatically religious maniacs, as many of us detest the same firebrand types as you (Liberals) do.
We're we differ can be seen above in the simplet definitions available; one side of the argument is happy with the way things are and we wish to maintain our way of life. The other side is discontent with many things and wishes to bring change to society.
Change is a good thing in many respects. The views of a Liberal minded person are most welcome in many circumstances, and in most cases, I think you will find that many Conservatives will jump on the boat with you once a convinceing arguement is made and agree that change, in a particular area, is necessary and would improve life for the vast majority of the population.
The problem today, as I see it, is that there are no problems.
Speaking from a purely domestic point of view, what is wrong with our country?
Sure we have poor, but we also have rich. Thats capitalism. Of course we have homeless, but again, thats a byproduct of capitalism. We do everything in our power to help these people along in the form of shelters and mana's, but at the end of the day, this is the land of opportunity, not the land of free handouts.
These are irritations in the grand scheme of things.
The conservatives' frustration comes from the fact that no matter how many times we take a step back and agree that something should change, its never enough. Liberal minded people seem to be constantly searching for something wrong with everything. Doesn't sound very tolerant, they must not be liberals.
Lets be honest here, how many of you are grossly offended by the fact that hurricanes dont have racially diverse names? How many of you are honestly offended by a plaque of the 10 Commandments outside a courthouse?
The 10 Commandments don't bother me at all. Neither does a Nativity scene. (I could go on about other religious displays) Many religious things don't bother me at all...as long as it's sponsored by the private sector and not on govt property. As an American I hold very dear many of our principals including the Separation of Church and State. I would object equally as much if the govt started forcing religious schools to teach evolution and started taxing the churches (for example).
Hey, as long as the 10 Commandments monument was on non-govt property and paid for by private monies, I'd think it would be a good thing.
You dont want to read the 10 Commandments? Dont read them.
This has nothing to do with our wanting or not wanting to read the 10 Commandments. It has everything to do to keep separate Church and State. Why can't you understand that?
Why is it that the people in the gay thread preaching about tolerance and acceptance are the same people in this thread preaching about intolerance for somethign else? Are you only tolerant of behavior that you dont see a problem with? Being tolerant of something suggests that whatever you are tolerant of is something you disagree with. I disagree with homosexuality, but Im tolerant of it. I dont go knocking down doors of the local gay population and try and catch them pushing their **** in. I let them do what they like - Im tolerant.
You're tolerant? Heh, by definition you must be a liberal then :) . BTW, Mr tolerant, do you support the right of homosexuals to legally marry?
You, on the other hand, take a different approach, and its the approach that causes even more anger. You do in fact knock down doors in an attempt to change the way people live their lives. You are not tolerant. You want change, and if change is not wanted by the rest, you lobby Congress for laws that force others to conform to your wishes. Liberalism today is the ultimate incarnation of hypocracy. How can you champion tolerance, acceptance, and totallack of bigotry, while at the same time, utilize meathods completely at odds with your mindset to achieve your aims?
How do we "knock down doors to change the way people live their lives?"
Seems that judge in Alabama was doing the "knocking down doors to change the way people live their lives" by going against US Law and putting that 10 Commandments monolith on govt property. BTW our very concervative Supreme Court ruled that he was violating the law by putting the religious monolith on govt property. So is the Supreme Court being intolerant because they are upholding the law, or is that judge being intolerant because he doesn't want to obey that law?
These colonies, and indeed this country were/was founded on a single principle: Freedom. In the United States, we believe in freedom, liberation to attain that freedom, and force to protect that freedom.
Our government for the passed 200 odd years has reflected this. Freedom to be an individual, ungoverned by a ruling class, is why people came here. Freedom FROM government.
Lately, it seems that this trend is dying. Some of the legislation over the past 15 years is almost scary. No longer is our government protecting our rights to be individuals in a free and safe society, but it has folded to public pressure from individuals confused enough to stand in front of an Israeli bulldozer, and is now dictating HOW we should live our lives.
40 hr work week, Child Labor Laws, Freedom from sexual harrasment in the workplace, public lynchings, Labor Unions, Anti-trust Act, FDA, EPA, Racism, Voting rights for minorities and women, etc. Yeah, things are so much worse than the "Olden days." BTW, many of these changes for the better were made by "liberal" thinking policy makers.
Are any liberals telling you that you can't go to the church of your choice?
Are they telling you what type of relations you can have with another conscenting adult?
LOL, many examples, so little room to post. ;)
Whether or not we've ever had a 'Hurricane Jay-Z' is not one of the big issues facing our society today - so please - stop treating it as such and expecting us to take you seriously. And after you figure out that we're not listening, please dont resort to taunts of 'caveman' and 'racist.' Its growing tiresome... especially when the usage of such terms is aimed only at forcing conformity through shame or embarressment.
LOL, names of hurricanes and typhoons don't really concern me, guess we're in agreement on more important issues at hand.
If anyone makes a racist statement, they should expect to be called one. Do you feel one should have the privelige of spouting racist messages without the consequences of being called on it?
Not everyone is interested in conforming to your rules or your definition of what the status quo should be. As Americans we are ALL different. Different in culture, race, and creed.
BINGO! I can't agree with you more! So why do you agree with someone trying to force his religious views on someone else?
Liberals claim to be tolerant of all - so why not let all of us be different?
How so?
BTW why do you have this need to use such a broadbrush label when describing a minority of people? By definition I must be mostly liberal. I feel I am very tolerant of different things, ideals, and people.
-
Ouch, didn't realize this thread was this long.
Charon, Absolutely outstanding posts! S!
Actually quite a few poeple had really good posts. S!
-
if the religious nuts are forced to explain more then " cause da bibble sayz so." its pretty much a lost arguement.
-
if the religious nuts
You are correct.
Its also a shame when the "religious nuts" have to resort to name calling and insults when they lack the ability to force others to their point of view. But then, when they resort to these tactics, they are admitting they have already lost the arguement. :)
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
You are correct.
Its also a shame when the "religious nuts" have to resort to name calling and insults when they lack the ability to force others to their point of view. But then, when they resort to these tactics, they are admitting they have already lost the arguement. :)
dago
It's a shame whenever anyone has to resort to name calling and insults, not just "the religious nuts."
Seems to be a debate "weapon" of the ignorant.
Doesn't matter the affiliation of the individual.
-
Originally posted by Dago
You are correct.
Its also a shame when the "religious nuts" have to resort to name calling and insults when they lack the ability to force others to their point of view. But then, when they resort to these tactics, they are admitting they have already lost the arguement. :)
dago
Dago,
Look up hypocrit sometime in the dictionary, I believe you may find a picture that interests you....
Maybe you should get royalties, eh?
:rolleyes:
-
LOL, thanks for proving my point Bohdi.
dago
-
LOL Dago, your point is lost, especially when you go back and read through your posts.
-
Bill O'Reilly makes a competent case pro Bodhi...
I was always for legalized pot, but O'reilly makes a good point why it should not be legalized as well as a take on the 10 commandments issue......
I dont personally need guidance from a higher power and have always argued for the separation of church and state, but if you look at the bigger picture my argument kinda losses weight if you consider that there are a lot of people that really do need guidance from a god..They just do.... And if having the 10 commandments outside the courtroom helps one person who needs help then leave the damned statue where it is!!! Its not going to hurt anyone leaving it where it is!
I also recommend reading O'reilly's point even if you don't like him!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95893,00.html
T0J0
-
O'reilly makes no sense, how does "And if drugs ever become legalized, he'll be able to blow that pot smoke right in your kids' face. Is that the kind of society you want, where any kind of boorish behavior is acceptable" get involved with the ten commandments? He dances off the subject and prays on your fears to persuade your thinking.
"This is about a significant power in this country that does not want any mention or reminder of spirituality in public, period"
That would be the supreme court, but why should we listen to them?
His argument comes down to " if we take the ten commandments out of government, total anarchy will break out"
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
O'reilly makes no sense, how does "And if drugs ever become legalized, he'll be able to blow that pot smoke right in your kids' face. Is that the kind of society you want, where any kind of boorish behavior is acceptable" get involved with the ten commandments? He dances off the subject and prays on your fears to persuade your thinking.
"This is about a significant power in this country that does not want any mention or reminder of spirituality in public, period"
That would be the supreme court, but why should we listen to them?
His argument comes down to " if we take the ten commandments out of government, total anarchy will break out"
If there is any chance that legalizing pot would allow any pot smoker to blow pot smoke in my 10 year olds face whenever he wanted, then it should never be legalized period...
"Thats my opinion and very many others"
When I go in front of a judge, what is it that I am asked to swear upon? "Hint"=Its a book"
How long have we been swearing on this? So help me who?
T0J0
-
Originally posted by T0J0
If there is any chance that legalizing pot would allow any pot smoker to blow pot smoke in my 10 year olds face whenever he wanted, then it should never be legalized period...
"Thats my opinion and very many others"
But what did that have to do with the ten commandments? That no ten commandments means they will legalize pot?
When I go in front of a judge, what is it that I am asked to swear upon? "Hint"=Its a book"
How long have we been swearing on this? So help me who?
T0J0 [/QUOTE]
So if you don't believe in the bible you can lie?
-
Originally posted by T0J0
If there is any chance that legalizing pot would allow any pot smoker to blow pot smoke in my 10 year olds face whenever he wanted, then it should never be legalized period...
"Thats my opinion and very many others"
Do booze hounds pour alcohol down your 10 year old's throat?
Do people taking prescription medication throw pills at your 10 year old?
Going to the extremes to make a point is often the sign of a lack of an argument.
-SW
-
Why was this thread started at all ? To rehearse everything from the original thread ?
Anyway, my opinion, a court can't afford even the appearance of bias.
A muslim/christian (for example) hate-crime is unfortunately only a matter of time before it happens.