The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on January 28, 2010, 10:30:10 PM
-
...Mother Teresa:
An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."
The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp — and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the "darker side" of Mother Teresa.
The stamp — set to be released on Aug. 26, which would have been Mother Teresa's 100th birthday — will recognize the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize winner for her humanitarian work, the Postal Service announced last month.
"Noted for her compassion toward the poor and suffering, Mother Teresa, a diminutive Roman Catholic nun and honorary U.S. citizen, served the sick and destitute of India and the world for nearly 50 years," the Postal Service said in a press release. "Her humility and compassion, as well as her respect for the innate worth and dignity of humankind, inspired people of all ages and backgrounds to work on behalf of the world’s poorest populations."
But Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations.
"Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can't really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did," Gaylor told FoxNews.com.
Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
"In fact we honored Father Flanagan in 1986 for his humanitarian work. This has nothing to do with religion or faith," Betts told FoxNews.com.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584165,00.html
More time than brains.
-
How many times do we have to explain what Jefferson was referring to?
-
We need to petition the post office for an atheist stamp. A picture of Jesus giving them the bird.
-
We need to petition the post office for an atheist stamp. A picture of Jesus giving them the bird.
LMAO...that is a great idea for a bumper sticker.
-
I wish that I had so much money that I didn't know what to do with it because I would tie these assholes up in court. There is NO "Freedom From Religion" mandated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It DOES allow the free exercise thereof. In my opinion, they are violating MY (amongst others) civil rights.
-
How many times do we have to explain what Jefferson was referring to?
I've done everything but write it in crayon for the morons like this that come here.
Nothing will budge their head from their ass on this topic.
-
How many times do we have to explain what Jefferson was referring to?
They don't care. They are so concerned about possibly being exposed to a religious belief that the actual intent of the founders is not needed.
-
They don't care. They are so concerned about possibly being exposed to a religious belief that the actual intent of the founders is not needed.
Which just goes to show their weakness.
I've been exposed to truckloads of religious sentiment. theology and philosophy...
...and I'm still a cruel, debauched, shallow-souled asshole of a rabbit.
-
Which just goes to show their weakness.
I've been exposed to truckloads of religious sentiment. theology and philosophy...
...and I'm still a cruel, debauched, shallow-souled ******* of a rabbit.
Why do you keep talking about atheists as though you're not one? I mean, I realize that bashing athiests is an easy way to win friends at right wing forums but don't you ever feel silly bashing a category you belong to? Well, perhaps I'm assuming too much. After all, I have yet to hear you deny the existence of the Lord. That seems to be a line you won't cross.
-
I wish that I had so much money that I didn't know what to do with it because I would tie these assholes up in court. There is NO "Freedom From Religion" mandated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It DOES allow the free exercise thereof. In my opinion, they are violating MY (amongst others) civil rights.
Yes, the Founders wanted a nation in which people are free to worship or not worship and the fact that they drafted a secular Constitution which makes no mention of any god or any religion is an undeniable indication that they wanted total separation of church and state.
Borrowing from Ronald Reagan, Christopher Hitchens said it best: "Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall!"
-
Why do you keep talking about atheists as though you're not one? I mean, I realize that bashing athiests is an easy way to win friends at right wing forums but don't you ever feel silly bashing a category you belong to? Well, perhaps I'm assuming too much. After all, I have yet to hear you deny the existence of the Lord. That seems to be a line you won't cross.
I didn't realize that nihilism required a sworn oath. I only thought it required...nothing.
Still...
You suggest claims of religious sympathy are a means to gain popularity.
But then you seek to entice me to renounce belief in the divine.
Methinks what you're after is only to have me rejected by my fellow conservatives.
Or maybe you are a militant atheist only to curry favor from your fellow liberals.
Such petty machinations and so shallow as to be insulting. Do you really imagine I would never have anticipated you poking your crooked little beak into this thread? Do you really imagine yourself to be so stealthy and sly? You do us both a disservice with such vain musings.
I have no issue with atheists. DJones and BadCat are also professed atheists and I've never had an issue with them. How stupid of you to ignore the qualifier assigned to the subject.
It is the self-contradicting prosletyzing atheists that twist my neurons. I have found most of them to be so weak they could never survive on their own and I see no reason why their semi-existence should be propped-up by the labors of others. They're little better than veal calves but not nearly as tasty.
-
I didn't realize that nihilism required a sworn oath. I only thought it required...nothing.
Still...
You suggest claims of religious sympathy are a means to gain popularity.
But then you seek to entice me to renounce belief in the divine.
Well, in my experience I've found that when people refuse to deny the existence of the Lord it's usually because they're either afraid of offending the Lord or they're afraid of offending people. Which camp do you fit in?
-
Well, in my experience I've found that when people refuse to deny the existence of the Lord it's usually because they're either afraid of offending the Lord or they're afraid of offending people. Which camp do you fit in?
I fit in your mom.
-
I fit in your mom.
See? Now what would you do without me to get your blood flowing? :-)
-
See? Now what would you do without me to get your blood flowing? :-)
I'd still be doing your mom.
-
Well, in my experience, I've found that when people refuse to discuss their religious beliefs it's usually because they're fed up with obnoxious assholes who can't mind their own business.
-
Well, in my experience, I've found that when people refuse to discuss their religious beliefs it's usually because they're fed up with obnoxious assholes who can't mind their own business.
I had to stop discussing religion with my brother because we just ended up fighting. I think I finally got through to him when he couldn't tell me what harm there was in me being a Christian. However, we haven't tried to discussing it since.
-
Yes, the Founders wanted a nation in which people are free to worship or not worship and the fact that they drafted a secular Constitution which makes no mention of any god or any religion is an undeniable indication that they wanted total separation of church and state.
Borrowing from Ronald Reagan, Christopher Hitchens said it best: "Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall!"
Bullshit!!! God is mentioned in the Constitution several times, albeit a non-denominational God. The "wall of separation" was in a letter that Jefferson wrote to some Baptist church in Va, you dumb bastard.
-
Bullshit!!! God is mentioned in the Constitution several times, albeit a non-denominational God.
No gods are mentioned in the Constitution. This is by design.
-
No gods are not mentioned in the Constitution. This is by design.
OK, I concede your point. I suppose that I was thinking about the Declaration of Independence, whereas "God" or "Creator" is mentioned several times. Regardless, there is NO requirement for a separation between Church and State. I stand by that statement until ANYONE can prove otherwise.
-
OK, I concede your point. I suppose that I was thinking about the Declaration of Independence, whereas "God" or "Creator" is mentioned several times. Regardless, there is NO requirement for a separation between Church and State. I stand by that statement until ANYONE can prove otherwise.
The separation is implicit.
-
The separation is implicit.
The rights of individuals to practice their religion without government interference is inviolate. That includes those who are in the government. No where does it say that people are protected from being exposed to the religion of others.
How does a postage stamp with a religious figure interfere with anybody practicing their religion?
-
I'd still be doing your mom.
Meeeee-owwwww.
Bunny gots claws.
No...wait, that didn't sound right.........
-
On purely technical grounds:
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
One could argue they ONLY included it because it was the only dating convention in operation at the time but if all one wanted to due was declare a date "Year of our Lord" seems superfluous for a doument devoid of flourishes.
The separation is implicit.
And the freedom of religious expression is explicit.
Have you ever read the Massachusett(e)s state constitution written by the Adams brothers? It actually allows for the state to fund the building of churches and the retention of salaried ministers. While later repealed apparently at the time it was in perfect accord with the COTUS. I wonder what that implies.
-
On purely technical grounds:
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
One could argue they ONLY included it because it was the only dating convention in operation at the time but if all one wanted to due was declare a date "Year of our Lord" seems superfluous for a doument devoid of flourishes.
And the freedom of religious expression is explicit.
I don't really have a problem with purely ceremonial uses of religious expression.
-
The rights of individuals to practice their religion without government interference is inviolate. That includes those who are in the government. No where does it say that people are protected from being exposed to the religion of others.
How does a postage stamp with a religious figure interfere with anybody practicing their religion?
People in government are allowed to practice religion. What they may not do is use government to promote or inhibit the practice of religion.
-
People in government are allowed to practice religion. What they may not do is use government to promote or inhibit the practice of religion.
And how does putting Mother Teresa on a postage stamp do either of those things?
-
I don't really have a problem with purely ceremonial uses of religious expression.
Well, thank Dog you're here to tell us what YOU want.
How are you fixed for ceremonial prayers before high school football games?
And while you're at it stop ingoring stuff:
Have you ever read the Massachusett(e)s state constitution written by the Adams brothers? It actually allows for the state to fund the building of churches and the retention of salaried ministers. While later repealed apparently at the time it was in perfect accord with the COTUS. I wonder what that implies.
-
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
Jefferson was appalled at the monopoly the Church of England held over the Virginia colony. A series of VA statutes made it a crime for parents not to baptist their children, prohibited other religious meetings, or distribution of their books. Children could be removed from their parents, and offenders barred from employment and military service, or expelled from the colony. Anyone accused of heresy against the Church of England could be burnt at the stake.
His "wall of separation" was his firm belief that government be excluded from intruding into the realm of religion, and vice versa.
-
And how does putting Mother Teresa on a postage stamp do either of those things?
I'm not against putting Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu stamp... which isn't to say that I consider her above criticism.
-
I'm not against putting Agnesë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu stamp... which isn't to say that I think she was beyond criticism.
So, in other words, you agree that the Atheists filing this lawsuit are out of line. Why did you decide to become argumentative in this discussion if that is the case?
-
How are you fixed for ceremonial prayers before high school football games?
I'm not against high school atheletes being given the opportunity to join in prayer before a game but I don't think they should be led in prayer.
Have you ever read the Massachusett(e)s state constitution written by the Adams brothers? It actually allows for the state to fund the building of churches and the retention of salaried ministers. While later repealed apparently at the time it was in perfect accord with the COTUS. I wonder what that implies.
What is there to say? Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution is clearly not in accordance with the US Constitution and the fact that it was amended serves to underline the disparity.
-
So, in other words, you agree that the Atheists filing this lawsuit are out of line.
That sounds about right.
-
People in government are allowed to practice religion. What they may not do is use government to promote or inhibit the practice of religion.
No, what they may not do is use the resources of the State to "establish" a particular religion. That would is a much narrower term of art than, say, "promoting or inhibiting the practice of religion" which is broad to the point of inanity.
-
No, what they may not do is use the resources of the State to "establish" a particular religion. That would is a much narrower term of art than, say, "promoting or inhibiting the practice of religion" which is broad to the point of inanity.
What the EC says is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. So, the EC is a lot more broad than you think.
-
What the EC says is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. So, the EC is a lot more broad than you think.
Very good. At least you can read - when you want to - to paraphrase Haughty Harry. A law that is one "respecting the establishment of religion" is one with the purpose of establishing a state religion. It is not one that merely has the ancillary effect of acknowledging that religions exist and that they mean a lot to their various adherents.
Putting up a menorah, but not a creche, is not the "establishment of religion" nor is it an act "respecting [the] establishment of religion."
-
What is there to say? Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution is clearly not in accordance with the US Constitution and the fact that it was amended serves to underline the disparity.
Mass. ratifified the COTUS in 1788. They ratified their own constitution 1789. The BoR was adopted in 1791 but COTCOM wasn't repealed until 1917.
Got a new theory?
-
What is there to say? Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution is clearly not in accordance with the US Constitution and the fact that it was amended serves to underline the disparity.
Actually if you read the history of the Massachusetts Constitution, this article was not amended because it conflicted with the "Establishment Clause" in COTUS, it was amended in antiquity due to the influx of new denominations to the state, which, until that point had been dominated primarily by one group religiously.........
During the post-colonial era there were more than one state to "establish" a recognition for a particular religion, but in those times, lawmakers adhered to the philosophy that COTUS actually meant what it says, and didn't attempt to make a "living document" out of it......
As the state(s) became more religiously diverse, the "people" chose to recognize that fact.......funny how that works.....
doc
-
Actually if you read the history of the Massachusetts Constitution, this article was not amended because it conflicted with the "Establishment Clause" in COTUS, it was amended in antiquity due to the influx of new denominations to the state, which, until that point had been dominated primarily by one group religiously.........
During the post-colonial era there were more than one state to "establish" a recognition for a particular religion, but in those times, lawmakers adhered to the philosophy that COTUS actually meant what it says, and didn't attempt to make a "living document" out of it......
As the state(s) became more religiously diverse, the "people" chose to recognize that fact.......funny how that works.....
doc
Yes but TNO doesn't want stuff and that's what really matters.
Your vote is merely ceremonial.
-
Yes but TNO doesn't want stuff and that's what really matters.
Your vote is merely ceremonial.
I find it amusing to watch educated liberals work themselves up into a lather over those pesky "enumerated powers"............for some reason they can't seem to comprehend what that is all about.......
doc
-
I don't know why people always say "this or that" is implicit in the Constitution. The writers seem pretty direct so if they wanted separation of church and state why wouldn't they just say so? Everyone from the very religious to athiests were there. My God, these men just fought a revolution, friends, sons, fathers, died for freedom, I highly doubt they'd suddenly become limp-wristed and vague writing the very document meant to preserve that freedom.
Cindie
-
I don't know why people always say "this or that" is implicit in the Constitution. The writers seem pretty direct so if they wanted separation of church and state why wouldn't they just say so? Everyone from the very religious to athiests were there. My God, these men just fought a revolution, friends, sons, fathers, died for freedom, I highly doubt they'd suddenly become limp-wristed and vague writing the very document meant to preserve that freedom.
Cindie
What are you implying?
*runs*
-
The separation is implicit.
And your interpretation of what the separation means is nothing but retarded.
It was put in there to prevent what happened in England from happening here...specifically the head of the country also being the head of the only recognized church of the country as well.
If Obama went on the air tomorrow and said that all religions except that of the AME Church was outlawed and henceforth EVERYONE in the country was required to become a member of the AME Church...THAT would be a violation of the separation of church and state.
Saying a prayer before a football game or having the Ten Commandments on display at a Federal building is NOT a violation.
And it seems your fellow Libtards enjoy playing fast and loose with which religion is not supposed to be on display and which isn't.
And that in itself is a violation.
-
And your interpretation of what the separation means is nothing but retarded.
It was put in there to prevent what happened in England from happening here...specifically the head of the country also being the head of the only recognized church of the country as well.
If Obama went on the air tomorrow and said that all religions except that of the AME Church was outlawed and henceforth EVERYONE in the country was required to become a member of the AME Church...THAT would be a violation of the separation of church and state.
Saying a prayer before a football game or having the Ten Commandments on display at a Federal building is NOT a violation.
And it seems your fellow Libtards enjoy playing fast and loose with which religion is not supposed to be on display and which isn't.
And that in itself is a violation.
exactly, Sarge!! (on all counts)
-
If Jefferson had any intention of limiting the practice of religion, he would not have purchased Bibles for the public schools.
He most certainly did not intend that our government force the religion of secular humanism/atheism/Darwinism on every child and on all public property. He also did not intend that the free speech of Christians on private property be held captive to threats of massive taxation. But then, Jefferson actually READ all those words printed in red...unlike the rabid leftists that use our court system to silence as many as they can.
-
ummm, question for TNO: Not that he wouldn't have been able to ask, but how would Thomas Jefferson have known the intent of the Framers of the COTUS? He wasn't there, but rather was in France. Your argument is based upon his correspondence with a church stating that there should be a wall of separation. Do you have anything for this wall from Madison? Washington?
-
If Jefferson had any intention of limiting the practice of religion, he would not have purchased Bibles for the public schools.
Let me guess... Wallbuilders?
David Barton is a hack. You have been misled.
-
ummm, question for TNO: Not that he wouldn't have been able to ask, but how would Thomas Jefferson have known the intent of the Framers of the COTUS? He wasn't there, but rather was in France. Your argument is based upon his correspondence with a church stating that there should be a wall of separation. Do you have anything for this wall from Madison? Washington?
My argument is based on the fact that God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Like I wrote earlier, this is by design.
-
My argument is based on the fact that God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Like I wrote earlier, this is by design.
Your argument is irrelevant as the Constitution as written before the Bill of Rights is simply the layout of a governmental system.
Read it... http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
There is no more a need or cause to mention God in that any more then there is in writing down a recipe for a pie or cake.
It simply does not apply and to try to claim there was a meaning is just nonsense and stupidity.
That was immediately followed by the Bill of Rights with the first amendment being as follows.
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.
http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm
It is perfectly clear in the language that there was to be no state religion nor was there to be a denial of anyones rights to exercise their own.
To suggest that any display of anything religious in nature is somehow banned by the Constitution is just plain a lie.
-
To suggest that any display of anything religious in nature is somehow banned by the Constitution is just plain a lie
Any law which allows the placement of a religious display on religious grounds is by definition a law respecting an establishment of religion.
-
Any law which allows the placement of a religious display on religious grounds is by definition a law respecting an establishment of religion.
Complete and utter bullsh!t.
Is use of a public facility by UNICEF or a demonstration on the Washington mall by groups from the left or the right establishing anything?
No it is not unless you disagree and then you need to condemn anti war activists for staging a religious meeting when they protest unless they go to privately owned ground.
-
Any law which allows the placement of a religious display on religious grounds is by definition a law respecting an establishment of religion.
Dunno about that, but it is pretty clear that any law prohibiting it is "by definition" prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
-
Dunno about that, but it is pretty clear that any law prohibiting it is "by definition" prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Dammit ya bloody Aussie, you stole my words!!! :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
Let me guess... Wallbuilders?
David Barton is a hack. You have been misled.
Nope, it was written about in some of the letters on the Jefferson site. In his own words. I guess you don't read his letters, either. I don't blame you, you'd be very upset at your misperception of the man.
-
I wish that I had so much money that I didn't know what to do with it because I would tie these assholes up in court. There is NO "Freedom From Religion" mandated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It DOES allow the free exercise thereof. In my opinion, they are violating MY (amongst others) civil rights.
Ya know Rob, freedom of religion and freedom from religion are pretty much one and the same.
By way of the 1st amendment there can be no compulsory religious belief (or disbelief) ergo freedom from religion if one so chooses.
-
Ya know Rob, freedom of religion and freedom from religion are pretty much one and the same.
By way of the 1st amendment there can be no compulsory religious belief (or disbelief) ergo freedom from religion if one so chooses.
Other arguments aside for a moment, I would offer that if someone were exercising their "freedom of religion"...... that we are also blessed with "freedom of movement"......and if you disagree with that person, you are certainly free to remove yourself from the proximity of the "religion".........or do you liberals demand that religious people only practice their faith where you see fit for them to do so?
doc
-
Other arguments aside for a moment, I would offer that if someone were exercising their "freedom of religion"...... that we are also blessed with "freedom of movement"......and if you disagree with that person, you are certainly free to remove yourself from the proximity of the "religion"........
Amen to that !!
.........or do you liberals demand that religious people only practice their faith where you see fit for them to do so?
doc
I can't speak for "us Liberals" as my opinion may or may not be in line with other Liberals.
I can speak for myself though.
My personal belief is that religious people can practice their faith wherever they choose, with the obvious exception of private property.
-
Any law which allows the placement of a religious display on religious grounds is by definition a law respecting an establishment of religion.
There are at least 6 depictions of the 10 Commandments on the Supreme Court building.
-
Ya know Rob, freedom of religion and freedom from religion are pretty much one and the same.
By way of the 1st amendment there can be no compulsory religious belief (or disbelief) ergo freedom from religion if one so chooses.
and Nick, ya know what?? You're forgetting the "Free exercise thereof" segment.
Other arguments aside for a moment, I would offer that if someone were exercising their "freedom of religion"...... that we are also blessed with "freedom of movement"......and if you disagree with that person, you are certainly free to remove yourself from the proximity of the "religion".........or do you liberals demand that religious people only practice their faith where you see fit for them to do so?
doc
Exactly, Doc. I don't like Islam, but I won't get bent out of shape when they practice their religion wherever they want to. Where I DO get bent out of shape is when one religion is given preference over another, such as Islamic prayer rooms and foot baths in the airports, whereas other religions are not given a damned thing. After all, equal protection under the law and equal rights for all.
-
and Nick, ya know what?? You're forgetting the "Free exercise thereof" segment.
Au contraire, The "free exercise thereof" essentially begets freedom from religion.
-
Au contraire, The "free exercise thereof" essentially begets freedom from religion.
One does not have the right to be protected from exposure to the religious beliefs of others other than by removing themselves from the area. If a group begins praying in public, their right to free exercise of religion would supersede the supposed freedom from religion of anybody else in that area, so I don't think you can make that argument.
-
One does not have the right to be protected from exposure to the religious beliefs of others other than by removing themselves from the area. If a group begins praying in public, their right to free exercise of religion would supersede the supposed freedom from religion of anybody else in that area, so I don't think you can make that argument.
Is that not freedom from religion? It isn't a question of exposure but freedom of choice in terms of participation.
-
Is that not freedom from religion? It isn't a question of exposure but freedom of choice in terms of participation.
Okay, I think it was more an issue of semantics we had there. I agree that we all have the freedom to participate or not in religious activities, but not the right to avoid exposure to religion.
-
My personal belief is that religious people can practice their faith wherever they choose, with the obvious exception of private property.
I'm going to borrow your tactic of "parsing" a response, and ask does your limitation on "private property" extend to churches, and property owned by the believers...........
doc
-
Okay, I think it was more an issue of semantics we had there. I agree that we all have the freedom to participate or not in religious activities, but not the right to avoid exposure to religion.
:cheersmate:
If I may add, at least not in public. We can avoid exposure in the privacy of our own homes, depending upon who we're living with of course.
-
I'm going to borrow your tactic of "parsing" a response, and ask does your limitation on "private property" extend to churches, and property owned by the believers...........
doc
before I respond, clarify that question for me please. What type of limitations are you thinking of specifically?
-
before I respond, clarify that question for me please. What type of limitations are you thinking of specifically?
You indicated here:
My personal belief is that religious people can practice their faith wherever they choose, with the obvious exception of private property
.....that religious people are free to practice their faith anywhere that they choose, except for "private property".........referring to another thread, where you endlessly parsed a discussion where the phrase "all liberals" was used, I was just wondering if your statement indicated that religious prople (in your opinion) could be restricted from practicing their faith in a church, for example, which is.....after all.....private property......
doc
-
I suspect "private property" in this context means property not owned by the public and without consent of the property owner.
-
I suspect "private property" in this context means property not owned by the public and without consent of the property owner.
He is quite good at parsing generalizations ad nauseum........it was a "gotcha" moment......
doc
-
You indicated here:
.....that religious people are free to practice their faith anywhere that they choose, except for "private property".........referring to another thread, where you endlessly parsed a discussion where the phrase "all liberals" was used, I was just wondering if your statement indicated that religious people (in your opinion) could be restricted from practicing their faith in a church, for example, which is.....after all.....private property......
doc
Yes, but not by me, it would be up to the church, congregational, synagogue leadership. I understand there are restrictions in Mosques regarding non Muslims praying in or near them, even entering them, in Catholic churches non Catholics are not authorized to receive communion (course I've honestly never seen them enforce this rule). It is up to the property owner though as to which restrictions, if any apply, not me or the government. So the short answer is...... yes.
-
Yes, but not by me, it would be up to the church, congregational, synagogue leadership. I understand there are restrictions in Mosques regarding non Muslims praying in or near them, even entering them, in Catholic churches non Catholics are not authorized to receive communion (course I've honestly never seen them enforce this rule). It is up to the property owner though as to which restrictions, if any apply, not me or the government. So the short answer is...... yes.
It would be nice if the government agreed with that...
-
Yes, but not by me, it would be up to the church, congregational, synagogue leadership. I understand there are restrictions in Mosques regarding non Muslims praying in or near them, even entering them, in Catholic churches non Catholics are not authorized to receive communion (course I've honestly never seen them enforce this rule). It is up to the property owner though as to which restrictions, if any apply, not me or the government. So the short answer is...... yes.
OK, however the discussion was the First Amendment, and the rights conferred thereby, therefore, property owners individual restrictions would be technically....another topic altogether......just sayn'.......
doc
-
OK, however the discussion was the First Amendment, and the rights conferred thereby, therefore, property owners individual restrictions would be technically....another topic altogether......just sayn'.......
doc
True enough.
-
The "free exercise thereof" essentially begets freedom from religion.
It gives the freedom to participate or not as you choose. It does not give you the right to use government power to confine others' practice to the venues and content of your capricious, changeable choosing.
-
Any law which allows the placement of a religious display on religious grounds is by definition a law respecting an establishment of religion.
It can also be argued that the relegating all religious displays to confined enclaves (ghettos?) defined exclusively by the state portrays a hostility of the state towards religion, abrogates free expression and promotes secularism.
The government is NOT allowed to promote secularism.
But even more important than what the state is or is not allowed to do is what the citizenry IS allowed to do and that is: define THEIR society as they see fit and not be ruled against their consent by a tiny-minded minority wielding cudgels of statist authoritarianism.
-
Any law which allows the placement of a religious display on religious grounds is by definition a law respecting an establishment of religion.
Really? Care to explain that one?
How exactly is a Christmas tree...a nativity scene or a Menorah establishing a religion?
What is the name of this suddenly established religion that magically appears at the sight of the Ten Commandments in a court room?
-
Really? Care to explain that one?
How exactly is a Christmas tree...a nativity scene or a Menorah establishing a religion?
What is the name of this suddenly established religion that magically appears at the sight of the Ten Commandments in a court room?
TNO left the thread when the actual Constitution was presented and his statement was shown to be completely ludicrous.
Gotta give him a little credit for constantly coming back for more smackdowns though.
-
Really? Care to explain that one?
How exactly is a Christmas tree...a nativity scene or a Menorah establishing a religion?
What is the name of this suddenly established religion that magically appears at the sight of the Ten Commandments in a court room?
Religions-- Judaism and Christianity. The US government is secular, not Judeo-Christian.
I don't have a problem with Christmas trees on publicly owned property because they're generally recognized as secular symbols.
-
It can also be argued that the relegating all religious displays to confined enclaves (ghettos?) defined exclusively by the state portrays a hostility of the state towards religion, abrogates free expression and promotes secularism.
Well, if we're talking about religious and non-religious displays being placed in say a boiler room then you have a point. I think that as long as the government makes a good faith effort (no pun intended) to find room for all religious displays then I don't see a problem.
-
Religions-- Judaism and Christianity. The US government is secular, not Judeo-Christian.
I don't have a problem with Christmas trees on publicly owned property because they're generally recognized as secular symbols.
Any reading of the founders shows their thoughts to be heavily instructed by religion and while they had no desire to created "Church of America" its stretches the imagination to say they could declare, "religion for me but not for thee."
They never would have founded the notion of freedom on a godless doctrine (or else they would have gotten a nation of bunnies).
This nation's history is drowning in religious philosophy. I'll wager the christians can dredge up for more citations in favor of religion guiding the nation from the founders than you can find exhortations to secularism.
-
I don't have a problem with Christmas trees on publicly owned property because they're generally recognized as secular symbols.
MSB didn't respond directly to this tripe, so I will.
Let me see, now. Christmas trees. Symbol of Christmas. A holiday that denotes the Christ child's birth.
Wanna explain just how Christmas trees are "generally recognized as secular symbols"?
Something tells me your eyes are brown. They've simply gotta be brown. For reasons which should be obvious.
-
It gives the freedom to participate or not as you choose. It does not give you the right to use government power to confine others' practice to the venues and content of your capricious, changeable choosing.
No argument from this corner.
-
MSB didn't respond directly to this tripe, so I will.
Let me see, now. Christmas trees. Symbol of Christmas. A holiday that denotes the Christ child's birth.
Wanna explain just how Christmas trees are "generally recognized as secular symbols"?
Something tells me your eyes are brown. They've simply gotta be brown. For reasons which should be obvious.
Hey Euph !! S'good ta see ya again !!
I can answer this for ya, if ya don mind. They (Christmas trees) are mistakenly regarded as secular as they are a holiday tradition with loose ties to actual Christian ritual and religious tradition. Actually though they are a pagan hold over, as I'm sure you already know but just to reiterate for all concerned, so they really aren't "secular."
-
Hey Euph !! S'good ta see ya again !!
I can answer this for ya, if ya don mind. They (Christmas trees) are mistakenly regarded as secular as they are a holiday tradition with loose ties to actual Christian ritual and religious tradition. Actually though they are a pagan hold over, as I'm sure you already know but just to reiterate for all concerned, so they really aren't "secular."
Prohibition allowed wine to be bought for Catholic Communion. No one of any other faith was allowed to taste the forbidden fruit.
The religious practices regarding Peyote and Pot are illegal for the American Indian. 6 or so thousands years of a belief and practice down the drain..
Mormon tradition allows marriage to a girl at the age of 13. Illegal
Circumcision of male infants is allowed. Jewish and Christians do it.
Circumcision of girl baby's is Illegal. Muslim.do it.
The nuance of a Muslim Temple with loud speakers blasting out 5 times a day for their call to prayer is legal.
Christian church bells rung just once a week for call to prayer are in some towns considered a nuisance.
Getting a photo ID for a woman wearing a face mask is difficult. Muslim folk are pushing for the right.
Taking your children at age 10-17 to a so called religious nudest colony is legal, allowing them to run about naked in their back yard is illegal. Taking pictures of these kids at a so called religious nudist colony is legal, taking pictures of these kids taking a bath at home is illegal.
Public schools that use corporal punishment to the kids, is illegal, religious schooling can beat the tar out of the kids.
Now we come to the goodie, Doctors and Nurses at a religious run hospital can legally refuse to do abortions. All other hospitals must give this service on demand. Who was the idiot who said people of the Catholic faith need to work in another job besides health care if they had to refuse to do as told for issues of faith.? Or YAH, that crazy woman that has no morality herself. Someone had no problem doing a lobotomy on the Kennedy daughter.
If anyone thinks that religion, yours, mine and the people next door has no say in our laws are deluding yourself, it comes creeping in the back door.
Parents of some Christian Demonation that believes in prayer to solve medical problems have been known to themselves to go to a doctor but when their children become ill, they with hold medication and or surgery from them as the child slowly dies. Dastardly actions and the parents get a slap on the wrist. Poor folks just lost a child due to their religious faith. they have suffered enough.
Those poor Hog farmers that had a farm in the Midwest for 6 generations that had to grapple with the problem that a Muslem Temple had bought the land next to there's and sued them to stop operations as it offended them. Man if this was me I would have a portable Hog cooker and every night move that darn thing so the wind was in their direction and make pork rinds, oh the smell is so good.
What next, you have the Virgin Mary in a bath tub in your garden, or a 4 foot Buddha in a Japanese garden and the neighbors are offended.?
Do you really have to give up the money for the kids education for a lawyer to get the ass hat off your case.
BLUE laws are still around and thriving in parts of this country. Each state is allowed to make its own laws. Unfortunately the religious are the ones that turn out in droves to pass laws that go with their beliefs.
Every day we are are confronted with laws and policies that are made by people not of our faith but theres. In a way I can understand the Atheist jumping on the silly problem of a stamp.
-
Hey Euph !! S'good ta see ya again !!
I can answer this for ya, if ya don mind. They (Christmas trees) are mistakenly regarded as secular as they are a holiday tradition with loose ties to actual Christian ritual and religious tradition. Actually though they are a pagan hold over, as I'm sure you already know but just to reiterate for all concerned, so they really aren't "secular."
Yo, Nick. Good to see you on the boards as well. It's been awhile!
Um, I'm well aware of the "paganness" of the Christmas tree thing as to its origin, but let's be real here -- nobody actually thinks "pagan" when we're talking Christmas trees, mistletoe, or even the giving and receiving of gifts. Nobody thinks anything but "Christ's birthday" when we think December 25, even though the actual date isn't accurate since shepherds didn't mind their flocks in the wintertime. (Most historians evidently believe that Christ was born in September, IIRC.)
For most regular people, Christmas trees are synonymous with Christmas which, in turn, is synonymous with the birth of the Christ child. Nothing pagan about that. I'm sure Pope Julius wasn't thinking "pagan" when he decreed that Christ was born on Dec. 25. Or was he? Dunno....
I'll admit, however, that most of us worship the Pagan Idol "Shopping Mall". She is a vengeful god, smiting all of us if we don't max out our credit cards, if we don't walk through slush on our way to do homage to "Shopping Mall", and if we don't waste hours and hours standing in line at the Kids R Us. ("Kids R Us" is a lesser deity than Shopping Mall, but SM does keep track.)
And not to mix apples with oranges, but nobody thinks "pagan" when we're talking about Halloween, either, although you don't have to be a Satan-worshiper to know that.
-
Yo, Nick. Good to see you on the boards as well. It's been awhile!
Um, I'm well aware of the "paganness" of the Christmas tree thing as to its origin, but let's be real here -- nobody actually thinks "pagan" when we're talking Christmas trees, mistletoe, or even the giving and receiving of gifts. Nobody thinks anything but "Christ's birthday" when we think December 25, even though the actual date isn't accurate since shepherds didn't mind their flocks in the wintertime. (Most historians evidently believe that Christ was born in September, IIRC.)
For most regular people, Christmas trees are synonymous with Christmas which, in turn, is synonymous with the birth of the Christ child. Nothing pagan about that. I'm sure Pope Julius wasn't thinking "pagan" when he decreed that Christ was born on Dec. 25. Or was he? Dunno....
I'll agree that people relate Christmas trees to Christmas(JC's birth) but, Chistmas has lost it's religious meaning for a lot of people. That doesn't kill me as you know I'm not a particularly religious person, although admittedly I have been attending mass for the past few months mostly for linguistic reasons, but by far and large Christmas has been secularized, "winter holiday," "seasons greetings," "the holidays," so on and so forth and that has reflected on public perceptions of holiday traditions like Christmas trees.
Pope Julius was probably thinking a little pagan, more to the point, thinking how to sell Christianity to the pagan masses.
I'll admit, however, that most of us worship the Pagan Idol "Shopping Mall". She is a vengeful god, smiting all of us if we don't max out our credit cards, if we don't walk through slush on our way to do homage to "Shopping Mall", and if we don't waste hours and hours standing in line at the Kids R Us. ("Kids R Us" is a lesser deity than Shopping Mall, but SM does keep track.)
The cult of "Online Shopping" is fast threatening the church of Our lady of the Holy Shopping Mall. :bow:
And not to mix apples with oranges, but nobody thinks "pagan" when we're talking about Halloween, either, although you don't have to be a Satan-worshiper to know that.
That's cool. Who'd want to bob for oranges? :thatsright:
-
For one, Nick, I refuse to be sucked in by that swirling vortex known as "commercial Christmas", "Happy Holidays", and "**** you, it's December."
Nope, it's Christmas all the way, baby!
(I go to church on Christmas Eve, honk the horns, and hold up the candles during "Silent Night" as well.)
Do you think there's any hope? Or am I doomed?
-
"**** you it's December!" OOOO I like that !! I never heard a honkin the horn though.
I haven't really gotten into all that "Season's greetings," and "Happy Holidays" crap myself. I'll still say "Merry Christmas," even though I haven't done the Christmas Eve church thing in a looooooooooooooong time.
Unfortunately St Alphonsus doesn't do a Latin Christmas Eve service, otherwise I might have tried to go.
I may add "**** you, it's December" to my holiday repitoire.
Are ya doomed? Nahhhh.
-
I never heard a honkin the horn though.
<snip>
Nick, may I remind you that I'm a Eupher? And that I also have three other implements of destruction at my disposal? Namely a Conn bass trombone (affectionately known as "The Howitzer"), a Bach large-bore tenor trombone (not-so-affectionately called "The Laser"), and a Mirafon 3/4-sized tuba (lovingly referred to as "The Mortar")?
Christmas is prime honkin' time.
:-)
-
Nick, may I remind you that I'm a Eupher? And that I also have three other implements of destruction at my disposal? Namely a Conn bass trombone (affectionately known as "The Howitzer"), a Bach large-bore tenor trombone (not-so-affectionately called "The Laser"), and a Mirafon 3/4-sized tuba (lovingly referred to as "The Mortar")?
Christmas is prime honkin' time.
:-)
Oh duh my bad. I thought you went drivin around honkin your car horn, like a football celebratory ritual.
I'll avoid invoking any cliché puns about tootin your own horn. :lmao:
-
Religions-- Judaism and Christianity. The US government is secular, not Judeo-Christian.
Really? Where is that stated in any of the founding documents?
Surely you can point it out.
I don't have a problem with Christmas trees on publicly owned property because they're generally recognized as secular symbols.
Except your Liberal brethren have banned the term "Christmas Tree" and replaced it with "Holiday Tree" because of the same stupid wrong headed train of "thought" that you have.
-
For this being a so-called secular nation by the atheists, I have a question. Why does almost every candidate for public office claim to be a Christian of one sort or another? I don't recall any ever campaigning on the fact that they were an atheist or even and agnostic.
-
For this being a so-called secular nation by the atheists, I have a question. Why does almost every candidate for public office claim to be a Christian of one sort or another? I don't recall any ever campaigning on the fact that they were an atheist or even and agnostic.
and to add to your question, why is it that nearly 80% of this nation claims some form of Christianity as their religion?? As was stated before, this is merely the minority attempting to impose their wishes on the majority. As far as I'm concerned, the minority can FOAD.