Anyone need a wedding ring?

[Dakoth]

Whether the church was supposed to be protected from the state or the state was supposed to be protected from the church is a moot point. The two institutions were supposed to be separate. Religion was not supposed to enter into government, and government was prohibited from entering into the practice of religion. That means that creating laws based on religious belief and forcing those laws on everyone is a no-no.

 

 

I agree with this ~Di but please tell me where the underlined portion of your post has happened; or is it a preventetive measure the atheists are taking to prevent the possibility? I thought preemptive strikes were looked down apon by the left.

 

 

It's also wrong for pastors to be telling their constituents how "God" wants them to vote... but they do it anyway. It's a violation of their so-called neutral tax-exempt status. So my position is that if the church wants to get into politics, it damned well better pay its taxes like any other citizen with the same right of political involvement.

 

What I am seeing right now is not a trend toward government taking away the rights of religion to worship as they see fit. But I am seeing a trend toward religions insisting that the rights of those who do not believe as they do are taken away, and replaced by laws enforcing their beliefs on the populace. This was created as a secular nation with religious freedom. For the past few decades, that has eroded substantially. It's little wonder that many folks are concerned about that, IMHO.

 

So unions should be taxed because their representatives tell their people to vote democratic because one of the gaols of the democrats is to help the working class is that a correct assessment?

 

Yet you see no laws being passed that are forcing religious veiws on you you are still free not to believe, you still have the right to abortion (Clinton even gave you the right to late term abortions) heck your right to not have religious refrence any where in government is considered more important than somes belief and want to have it there. Is prayer in school legal? I am not talking about school sponsored prayer I mean a teacher or student sits down for lunch do they have the right to say a prayer before lunch, out loud? Not a speach or a proclimation but audible enough for lets say the people sitting next to him/ her to hear?

 

What I have been arguing against is the fact that atheist believe there should be no rference to anything religious in our government. They have attacked some thing even as benign as the phrase in god we trust that appears on our money. My question is why do they care it is only a refrence to religion it is not forcing them to worship, or to believe.

 

Edit: On the union note in the state of Illinois union BAs go out on election day to known democratic voters and motivate them to vote. You see for every evil the church comits there is a secular body that does the same the fact that people turn a blind eye to that is what makes the maddest.

[Antagonist]

Just to lighten up the atmosphere

 

[Dakoth]

Just to lighten up the atmosphere 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am from Illinois care to comment? I don't feel like being lightened right now. :D

[Cantousent]

If the world and the Democrats keep insulting the intelligence of folks living in the "red" states, then we'll undoubtedly see another Republican victory during the mid-term elections. *shrug* I live in California and I tend to think that there are a variety of factors that skew this particular state by state assessment of IQ.

 

Actually, what I find genuinely light-hearted is that many of the progressives I know attack the very idea of IQ tests and how they're adminstered.

[deganawida]

And where did this table come from? What tests were administered to determine the IQ of the individuals in each state? When were the tests administered? There are a lot of questions that I have regarding this table, and they keep me from taking this thing seriously. They do NOT, however, keep me from being grossly offended by this blatant attack on the intelligence of those who live in "the red states" or who voted for Bush.

[Volourn]

Not to emntion the fact that say in Ny, Kerry won I belive 58% of the vote which mean Bush won about 40%. That means a lot of the so called high IEQ of the NYers voted for Bush. Oh, I know, it's the ones in Ny who had low IQ that voted for Bush. R00fles!

[mkreku]

Someone at CNN must dislike Bush..

[Darque]

Omg

[Volourn]

Old news which you don't apparantly have all the facts.

[Weiser_Cain]

Not to emntion the fact that say in Ny, Kerry won I belive 58% of the vote which mean Bush won about 40%. That means a lot of the so called high IEQ of the NYers voted for Bush. Oh, I know, it's the ones in Ny who had low IQ that voted for Bush. R00fles!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to know that this is the case in every state.

[Volourn]

"You have to know that this is the case in every state."

 

I do which is why I find it hilarious where people lists the so called demo states and say look at them; they all smart and all the Repub states are stupid. It's not (normally) that clear cut.

[~Di]

Whether the church was supposed to be protected from the state or the state was supposed to be protected from the church is a moot point. The two institutions were supposed to be separate. Religion was not supposed to enter into government, and government was prohibited from entering into the practice of religion. That means that creating laws based on religious belief and forcing those laws on everyone is a no-no.

 

 

I agree with this ~Di but please tell me where the underlined portion of your post has happened; or is it a preventetive measure the atheists are taking to prevent the possibility? I thought preemptive strikes were looked down apon by the left.

 

I believe that when "Under God" was codified into law and shoved into the Pledge of Alligiance, religious belief was forced upon those who did not share it, since the pledge has been recited daily in just about every school in the country for the past several decades, and refusing to take part in it has resulted in disciplinary action and/or ostracization of the children involved. I believe the same about the change of the country's motto to "In God We Trust", which was then splashed all over our currency. Some citizens do not trust in God, dammit, and that is the point.

 

There are doubtless tons of specific examples on all levels, but not having the files of the ACLU et al, I don't really want to Google 'em up. Suffice it to say that in many places around this country laws are being written to support religious conviction, from "dry" counties to no work on sabbath laws that affect every citizen. I believe it is wrong.

 

 

So unions should be taxed because their representatives tell their people to vote democratic because one of the gaols of the democrats is to help the working class is that a correct assessment?

 

Sure.

 

Yet you see no laws being passed that are forcing religious veiws on you you are still free not to believe, you still have the right to abortion (Clinton even gave you the right to late term abortions) heck your right to not have religious refrence any where in government is considered more important than somes belief and want to have it there.  Is prayer in school legal? I am not talking about school sponsored prayer I mean a teacher or student sits down for lunch do they have the right to say a prayer before lunch, out loud?  Not a speach or a proclimation but audible enough for lets say the people sitting next to him/ her to hear?

 

That's actually distorted. Sure, I'm free not to believe in God... but if I announce that I don't believe in God I will be ostracized in most communities in this nation, and excluded from the social fabric of the community. I will also be treated differently in a courtroom where the judge has the ten commandments or Jesus Saves! bannered over the bench, don'tcha think? :D I've already given you instances where law has forced religious belief on the non-religious; there are tons more examples if you care to look.

 

Yes, prayer in school is legal. Anyone can say grace in a public cafeteria, or in a school cafeteria, or anywhere on the school grounds for that matter. However, teachers can certainly not hold "prayers" for certain students in those public arenas, which automatically excludes those students who do not share the faith. Also officially having prayers is not, and that includes using the school's public address system to call upon God, Budda, or Allah loudly around a public school campus. I certainly would agree with those restrictions.

 

What I have been arguing against is the fact that atheist believe there should be no rference to anything religious in our government.  They have attacked some thing even as benign as the phrase in god we trust that appears on our money.  My question is why do they care it is only a refrence to religion it is not forcing them to worship, or to believe.

 

That phrase is not so benign, in my opinion. It was shoved down our throats legislatively by the Christian majority during the McCarthy godless commie days, as I have mentioned. It also puts religion into official governmental function, which is undeniable... and in my opinion, unconstitutional.

 

Edit:  On the union note in the state of Illinois union BAs go out on election day to known democratic voters and motivate them to vote.  You see for every evil the church comits there is a secular body that does the same the fact that people turn a blind eye to that is what makes the maddest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The church has a tax exempt status based on the fact that it has promised to be non-political. It has clearly and repeatedly broken that promise. Now I have no problem with unions being taxed; I certainly believe that churches should be taxed. Everyone has a right to participate in the political process... except those entities who have promised not to in return for financial benefit.

 

Then again, maybe churches figure they're tight enough with God that lying to man and breaking promises to the government doesn't count as a sin, eh?

[Vincent_Valashar]

Its not ameasure of intelligence, it is a measure of tolerance and understanding one's fellow human being. Its not about how stupid one is but how open minded one is for change and accepting others even when they are different. Such as today I saw two homosexual women doing moderate acts of public affection. Typically what you see a heterosexual couple do on their 4th to 6th month of their relationship. It didn't even register to me as odd till I was 3 blocks away and realized it didn't phase me one bit. Now if I was a traditional Christian I would have been disgusted and started a ranting rampage in their face.

[Commissar]

Just as they can not force their non belief on the Christians my problem with Vincent and Commissar ~Di is they seem not to understand that.  Comissar flat out said the separation of church and state had nothing to do with the church being protected from the state and then said they should be taxed because they back political canidates, an odd statement since no atheist is taxed because he/she chooses to back a canidate.  Also some atheists through the courts seek to remove all references to religion from government while claiming separation from church and state.  I assert that a complete removal of anything that had to do with religion was never what the founding fathers wanted which is why through tradition or other wise we swear an oath to the truth on a bible in court, in God we trust is on our money, and the president is normally sworn in over the bible.  Weather these things are just traditions or not is irrelevent to the arguemant if they wanted no religion references in our gooverment they would have never let them in in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. I said that separation of church state was designed to create a wall between religion and government. It goes both ways. Church doesn't interfere with government, government doesn't interfere with church.

 

You want to see James Madison's manifesto against what we would today call faith-based initiatives? How many quotes do I have to put up here? In fact, I've put up all kinds of historical evidence and all you've done is appeal to words on the dollar bill and the (mistaken) belief that we need to swear an oath on the Bible. The Constitution prohibits anyone from ever having to swear an oath; instead of saying, "I swear" you can say, "I affirm" and do it on whatever the hell you want. The first edition of the Superman comic, if that's your god.

 

But since you seem to have no problem with elements of religion in the government, I'm sure you'd have no trouble backing an amendment to change 'In God We Trust' on the dollar to 'In Allah We Trust.' Or maybe a statue of Buddha in the Supreme Court building? Those are both religions that people in America follow, and since they can bleed into government at will, it's only fair that they get some representation, no?

 

And for the last time, THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID NOT PUT THAT MOTTO ON THE DOLLAR. How many times does Di have to say it? Jefferson and Madison didn't even put the word 'Creator' in the Declaration of Independence; it was added later at the Congress when certain states wanted it, and Madison and Jefferson fought fiercely to keep it out...and lost. These guys wrote the Consitution. Keep telling me they wanted even a hint of a theocracy. You've got absolutely no evidence for it, and you never will, because it ain't true.

[Commissar]

The church has a tax exempt status based on the fact that it has promised to be non-political.  It has clearly and repeatedly broken that promise.  Now I have no problem with unions being taxed; I certainly believe that churches should be taxed.  Everyone has a right to participate in the political process... except those entities who have promised not to in return for financial benefit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly. Exactly exactly exactly. By the way, Dakoth, atheists are taxed - I've got the return to prove it. If an atheist group formed and managed to get tax-exempt status and then started running adds or telling its members to vote a certain way, I'd suggest they get that status revoked. That's what we're saying with churches. When a preacher stands up and says something like, "God spoke to Moses through a bush. Bushes are occasionally one of the ways God speaks to the world. You could say that what a bush says, God says," they cross the line. They support a political candidate, clearly, and are no longer apolitical, which is what the tax code requires them to be to avoid paying taxes.

[AlanC9]

I believe that when "Under God" was codified into law and shoved into the Pledge of Alligiance, religious belief was forced upon those who did not share it, since the pledge has been recited daily in just about every school in the country for the past several decades, and refusing to take part in it has resulted in disciplinary action and/or ostracization of the children involved.  I believe the same about the change of the country's motto to "In God We Trust", which was then splashed all over our currency.  Some citizens do not trust in God, dammit, and that is the point. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, this is a good thing. That kid's going to be alienated from his fellow countrymen all his life. He might as well find out young.

 

The big problem would be alienating the kid from the USA, which is what happened to me. But I eventually recovered --- more or less.

[Dakoth]

I believe that when "Under God" was codified into law and shoved into the Pledge of Alligiance, religious belief was forced upon those who did not share it, since the pledge has been recited daily in just about every school in the country for the past several decades, and refusing to take part in it has resulted in disciplinary action and/or ostracization of the children involved. I believe the same about the change of the country's motto to "In God We Trust", which was then splashed all over our currency. Some citizens do not trust in God, dammit, and that is the point.

 

While I don't adovocate the forcing of anything, how does it make you believe?

 

That's actually distorted. Sure, I'm free not to believe in God... but if I announce that I don't believe in God I will be ostracized in most communities in this nation, and excluded from the social fabric of the community. I will also be treated differently in a courtroom where the judge has the ten commandments or Jesus Saves! bannered over the bench, don'tcha think? I've already given you instances where law has forced religious belief on the non-religious; there are tons more examples if you care to look.

 

There is one gaping hole in that theory ~Di it is the people not the words. That Judge you speak of would treat you the same no matter if those words were there or not. If he is predisposed to think badly of you because you are not a christian he will do it weather those words are there or not it is a simple fact of life, the same goes for the comunities.

 

Yes, prayer in school is legal. Anyone can say grace in a public cafeteria, or in a school cafeteria, or anywhere on the school grounds for that matter. However, teachers can certainly not hold "prayers" for certain students in those public arenas, which automatically excludes those students who do not share the faith. Also officially having prayers is not, and that includes using the school's public address system to call upon God, Budda, or Allah loudly around a public school campus. I certainly would agree with those restrictions.

 

If atheists are given the choice not to participate why not if they are not forced into religion why can not a teacher who has religion ask for a moment of silence so indiviuals can say a prayer if they wish for a student that died in a car crash.

 

That phrase is not so benign, in my opinion. It was shoved down our throats legislatively by the Christian majority during the McCarthy godless commie days, as I have mentioned. It also puts religion into official governmental function, which is undeniable... and in my opinion, unconstitutional.

 

Once again just words that don't force anything if you are atheist it should mean nothing to you. It should mean the same as having put in dogs we trust on our money.

 

The church has a tax exempt status based on the fact that it has promised to be non-political. It has clearly and repeatedly broken that promise. Now I have no problem with unions being taxed; I certainly believe that churches should be taxed. Everyone has a right to participate in the political process... except those entities who have promised not to in return for financial benefit.

 

Really well if you truly belive in the separation of church and state why are there any special conditions that need to be met? The church gets no representation in our government yet is forced to abide by its decisions and laws. Remember the Boston tea party? No taxation without representation.

 

Then again, maybe churches figure they're tight enough with God that lying to man and breaking promises to the government doesn't count as a sin, eh?

 

Quite right there are many hipocritical things the ruling members of the churches have done over the many ryears of established religion. Once again it is not the actual church or the teachings but the failings of man that have done those things. As for broken promises to the government well when they learn to keep them thats when they can come down on anyone else, until then you reap what you sow.

 

Its not ameasure of intelligence, it is a measure of tolerance and understanding one's fellow human being. Its not about how stupid one is but how open minded one is for change and accepting others even when they are different. Such as today I saw two homosexual women doing moderate acts of public affection. Typically what you see a heterosexual couple do on their 4th to 6th month of their relationship. It didn't even register to me as odd till I was 3 blocks away and realized it didn't phase me one bit. Now if I was a traditional Christian I would have been disgusted and started a ranting rampage in their face.

 

Thats funny I wouldn't have even thought twice about it even 3 blocks away. I also think its funny that you speak of tolerance all the while raging against chritians.

 

No. I said that separation of church state was designed to create a wall between religion and government. It goes both ways. Church doesn't interfere with government, government doesn't interfere with church.

 

How soon we forget.

 

Whoa, I completely missed that statement from Dakoth. That's just crap. The provision is in the constitution to protect the state from the church, not the other way around. You forget that many, many Americans ended up in America during the founding days to escape religious persecution. The founding fathers did not want church interference; they weren't worried about state interference with the church.

 

Along those lines, I think it's about time that churches start getting taxed. They've completely blown the deal; they quite clearly supported candidates during this campaign, and that alone is enough to remove their tax-exempt status.[/QUOTE]

 

If you say you are taking these words back then it ends here if not explain why now things have changed? I mean when you went on gut instinct look where it took you.

 

You want to see James Madison's manifesto against what we would today call faith-based initiatives? How many quotes do I have to put up here? In fact, I've put up all kinds of historical evidence and all you've done is appeal to words on the dollar bill and the (mistaken) belief that we need to swear an oath on the Bible. The Constitution prohibits anyone from ever having to swear an oath; instead of saying, "I swear" you can say, "I affirm" and do it on whatever the hell you want. The first edition of the Superman comic, if that's your god.

 

You know I love debating with you because everytime you post you give me all the amuntion I need. You did see where I quoted the Bill of Rights correct? Not only was religion mentioned in the fist amendment it was the first provision. I never said either of those men didn't have a problem with the clergy I said that they must have thought highly enough of religion to make it the first provisin of the first amendmant. As for your semantical game.

 

 

Swear

1 : to utter or take solemnly (an oath)

2 a : to assert as true or promise under oath <a sworn affidavit> b : to assert or promise emphatically or earnestly <swore to uphold the Constitution>

3 a : to put to an oath : administer an oath to b : to bind by an oath <swore them to secrecy>

4 obsolete : to invoke the name of (a sacred being) in an oath

 

affirm

1 a : VALIDATE, CONFIRM b : to state positively

2 : to assert (as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed

3 : to express dedication to

intransitive senses

 

Looks to me like they mean pretty darn close to the same thing, probably why they are interchangable. Also notice how the dictionary states that the use of swear or invoking the name of a diety is obsolete.

 

The first edition of the Superman comic, if that's your god.

 

Christianity is not the only established religion out there Comissar so if the first eddition of superman comic was your god then wouldn't that be the same for you as a christian swearing or affirming on the bible. Wouldn't that also infringe on the separation of church and state if a judge who believed it was his god brought it to his bench every day.

 

But since you seem to have no problem with elements of religion in the government, I'm sure you'd have no trouble backing an amendment to change 'In God We Trust' on the dollar to 'In Allah We Trust.' Or maybe a statue of Buddha in the Supreme Court building? Those are both religions that people in America follow, and since they can bleed into government at will, it's only fair that they get some representation, no?

 

See your problem Comissar is you believe me to be an extreme right wing christian when in fact those fundamentalists would call me a bad christian and lump me into the same basic group they do you. I would really care less they are only words I don't believe Buddah, or Allah are my god so they are just names to me. I also don't see where it would hurt to have a statue of Buddah in a government place I think the teachings of Buddah are for the most part good. Also a statue or a reference to a religion is far from representation in our government for if it is being run like it should no statue or phrase gets to vote on bills or sign them into laws.

 

And for the last time, THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID NOT PUT THAT MOTTO ON THE DOLLAR. How many times does Di have to say it? Jefferson and Madison didn't even put the word 'Creator' in the Declaration of Independence; it was added later at the Congress when certain states wanted it, and Madison and Jefferson fought fiercely to keep it out...and lost. These guys wrote the Consitution. Keep telling me they wanted even a hint of a theocracy. You've got absolutely no evidence for it, and you never will, because it ain't true.

 

Oh I am sorry you are quite right just like they never wrote into the constitution that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, or a public official showing he is a man of faith. AS far as Jefferson and MAdison according to you they are our only founding fathers right? It seems to me in the earliest years of our democracy people felt religion was important and voted them down didn't they.

 

Keep telling me they wanted even a hint of a theocracy

 

Once again you missconstrue my words I never said they wanted a theocracy just that I also think removing any reference to religion was not what the founding fathers were looking for either.

 

Not for their political motivations or agendas though are they.

 

If an atheist group formed and managed to get tax-exempt status and then started running adds or telling its members to vote a certain way, I'd suggest they get that status revoked.

 

Once again I bring up the Boston Tea Party and the fact that you truly don't believe in the separation of church and state. I feel you would be more comfortable with a state managed church.

 

That's what we're saying with churches. When a preacher stands up and says something like, "God spoke to Moses through a bush. Bushes are occasionally one of the ways God speaks to the world. You could say that what a bush says, God says," they cross the line. They support a political candidate, clearly, and are no longer apolitical, which is what the tax code requires them to be to avoid paying taxes

 

A tax code in a governmet that you and many others obviously feel the church should not be represented in. Again see above post.

 

Through all your arguement and debate only one thing is clear to me the seperation of church and state is a cruch for you to lean on. The real reason you don't want references to religion there is you don't believe which is fine and a valid reason, just stop hiding behind smoke and mirrors. You and many others don't want religious references in government, just relise there are many on the other side that do. Am I one of them really I could care less my religion is my buisness and no one elses, I am just tired of people not giving there actual reasons and hiding behind something that no one in todays time is actually going to know how it was meant to be taken.

 

Sorry for the long post but I am debating 2 people.

[Commissar]

I said the provision in the Constitution is to protect the state from the Church; there's nothing about that statement precluding me from suggesting that it works both ways.

 

Furthermore, your no taxation, no representation argument doesn't make any sense. Look at a corporation; a corporation is taxed, yet last I heard, IBM doesn't get a vote.

 

Taxation without representation refers to people, not organizations. If everything that's taxed had to be represented in the US government, the amount of votes cast in an election would expand exponentially.

 

Business and most other organizations in this country are taxed; they're also free to run ads for campaigns and do all sorts of other things involved with politics. Churches are not taxed; they are not allowed to be political. That's the trade-off. When churches violate those rules, they should lose their tax-exempt status. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

If you want to keep arguing that the founding fathers really tried to leave loopholes to let some religion in, I'm game. You have no historical evidence on your side, of course. I've chosen quotes from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson because they're two of the most promiment people involved in the drafting of the Constitution; if you want me to start pulling passages from Charles Pinckney or William Few or Jacob Broom or Rufus King or George Clymer, I can.

 

You say the difference between swear and affirm is obsolete...it wasn't in the late 18th century, which is why the provision is in there in the first place. I'm doing my best to understand what the hell you're arguing here, but I'm coming up blank.

 

Also a statue or a reference to a religion is far from representation in our government for if it is being run like it should no statue or phrase gets to vote on bills or sign them into laws.

 

Then how does suggesting that "In God We Trust" written on the dollar bill is proof that the founding fathers wanted religious involvement in the government? You defeated your own argument.

 

You and many others don't want religious references in government, just relise there are many on the other side that do. Am I one of them really I could care less my religion is my buisness and no one elses, I am just tired of people not giving there actual reasons and hiding behind something that no one in todays time is actually going to know how it was meant to be taken.

 

What the hell? I've said repeatedly that I don't believe in religion. This whole argument is about people like me who don't think religion has a place in government because we do not believe in it and the Constitution enforces our right not to have to deal with it if we choose not to.

[Dakoth]

I said the provision in the Constitution is to protect the state from the Church; there's nothing about that statement precluding me from suggesting that it works both ways.

 

The provision is in the constitution to protect the state from the church, not the other way around.

 

Really could have fooled me.

 

Furthermore, your no taxation, no representation argument doesn't make any sense. Look at a corporation; a corporation is taxed, yet last I heard, IBM doesn't get a vote.

 

IBM doesn't get a vote but if the CEO left the firm he could run for office. If a pastor left his calling to be in Polotics would there be a problem?

 

If you want to keep arguing that the founding fathers really tried to leave loopholes to let some religion in, I'm game. You have no historical evidence on your side, of course. I've chosen quotes from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson because they're two of the most promiment people involved in the drafting of the Constitution; if you want me to start pulling passages from Charles Pinckney or William Few or Jacob Broom or Rufus King or George Clymer, I can.

 

No debate because leaving a loop hole for a church state is not what I have said. What I said was if all the founding fathers thought as Jefferson and Madison there would have been no addition of creator, and the oath or affirmation would not take place over a holy book which ever one it may be.

 

You say the difference between swear and affirm is obsolete...it wasn't in the late 18th century, which is why the provision is in there in the first place. I'm doing my best to understand what the hell you're arguing here, but I'm coming up blank.

 

No what I was drawing attention to is this " obsolete : to invoke the name of (a sacred being) in an oath" in our day and age this is an obsolete term. So you agree that actions speak just as loud as woeds then? Good because the fact that it is normally done over a religious book should speak volumes, justa s the president is normally "sworn" into office over it.

 

Then how does suggesting that "In God We Trust" written on the dollar bill is proof that the founding fathers wanted religious involvement in the government? You defeated your own argument.

 

My point exactly it only is important if you belive if you don't it's just words, so again why do you care if you don't believe. Hell it isn't even a bible verse, or a direct quote from the christian bible. As far as I am concerned it could mean just as much in Odin I trust, or In Osirus I trust, they usually capitalised god and gods when talking about their dieties too. The thing is you atribute it to christianity because they are the religious majority that got it voted in appearantly even though the only link is it was them that pushed for it.

 

What the hell? I've said repeatedly that I don't believe in religion. This whole argument is about people like me who don't think religion has a place in government because we do not believe in it and the Constitution enforces our right not to have to deal with it if we choose not to.

 

 

What the arguement started out as for me is how some one who claims to be tolerent and open minded shuts the door when some one brings up contrary veiws.

 

Which is why I keep stating the fact that if you take a count of everyone on your side you will find at least an equal number on the other that thinks different. So before you spout about how religion isn't any good or has done horrible things understand that that same paper that protects your right not to have religion protects the other sides to have it. So please while being so tolerent of others views try not to step on their faith.

[Bastilla_Skywalker]

nope

[~Di]

I believe that when "Under God" was codified into law and shoved into the Pledge of Alligiance, religious belief was forced upon those who did not share it, since the pledge has been recited daily in just about every school in the country for the past several decades, and refusing to take part in it has resulted in disciplinary action and/or ostracization of the children involved. I believe the same about the change of the country's motto to "In God We Trust", which was then splashed all over our currency. Some citizens do not trust in God, dammit, and that is the point.

 

While I don't adovocate the forcing of anything, how does it make you believe?

 

Huh? Talk about twisting the topic until it screams. Your question has nothing to do with what I said. Being forced to recite that they acknowledge that their nation, the country they live in and they love, ascribes itself to serving a God that they do not believe in is so obviously a violation of the separation of church and state that you can't even dispute it. All you can do is pull out the lame, "well being forced to say 'Under God' doesn't actually force you to believe, does it?" I mean, get a grip. Not saying 'Under God' doesn't force believers to become atheists either.

 

The point... obviously... was that the secular nation forged by our forefathers was hijacked in the 1950's by a bunch of Christian fundamentalists who inserted God references into the everyday lives of all Americans, including those who did not believe in God... and forced them to recite it daily or be ostracized as a consequenced. This is NOT freedom of religion; it's enforced religion. (Religion does not equate to belief; if you force me into a church weekly, and tie me down to a pew, you are forcing your religion on me even if you haven't drilled a hole in my skull and shoved a copy of King James Bible into my quivering raw brain.)

 

There is one gaping hole in that theory ~Di it is the people not the words.  That Judge you speak of would treat you the same no matter if those words were there or not.  If he is predisposed to think badly of you because you are not a christian he will do it weather those words are there or not it is a simple fact of life, the same goes for the comunities.

 

Actually, that fundamentalist Christian judge with the Ten Commandments flapping from his shoulders may very well NOT treat me the same way as a secular judge would... and there are literally thousands of cases to prove it. But your argument to this is that it's okay for government to heap religious icons into its public buildings because the people in charge of those public buildings will probably ignore them and treat the atheist (or the Buddist or the Muslim) the same as they treat fellow Christians.

 

The gaping hole in that theory is that our constitution expressly forbids the co-mingling of church and state. The fact that Christians have been patiently rewriting that and reinterpreting it to set themselves up as a state religion does not change the fact that the original intent has been thoroughly bastardized.

 

If atheists are given the choice not to participate why not if they are not forced into religion why can not a teacher who has religion ask for a moment of silence so indiviuals can say a prayer if they wish for a student that died in a car crash.

 

You keep twisting topics without responding to what you must know is the basis of the discussion. *sigh* First, a teacher has a right to ask for a moment of silence to remember a student that died... why you suddenly pulled that example out of your pocket I don't know, for crying out loud. However, schools do NOT have the right to blast Christian prayers from the loudspeaker any more than they have the right to blast selected passages from Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto from the loudspeaker. Schools are there to teach from approved texts so that children can move into higher education with a modicum of basic knowledge. Schools are not there to flood young minds with religious references so that those children whose families do not ascribe to said beliefs are either ostracized, made to feel inferior ('you're going to hell.... muwahahahaha!") or just plain irritated daily with propagandizing indoctrination of any kind.

 

What is so difficult to understand?

 

Once again just words that don't force anything if you are atheist it should mean nothing to you.  It should mean the same as having put in dogs we trust on our money.

 

Well, you're nothing if not consistent. You've used the same argument for absolutely everything... "you're not forced to believe just because the government officially calls upon God at every turn."

 

And you're not forced NOT to believe if the government doesn't call on God at every turn.

 

This is my country too. It is also the country of atheists, Jews, Buddists and Muslims. We have a right to NOT have Christian dogma plastered on our currency, telling us and the world that OUR NATION, the nation we love and that was founded based on secular separation of church and state, is now a Christian nation UNDER GOD, no less. That our beloved nation TRUSTS in a God that we do not believe in. That our disbelief in the God OUR NATION TRUSTS makes us different... unsavory... hell bound... and basically not as worthly as our Christian brethren who DO trust in that there God. Why can you not get this?

 

 

Really well if you truly belive in the separation of church and state why are there any special conditions that need to be met?  The church gets no representation in our government yet is forced to abide by its decisions and laws.  Remember the Boston tea party?  No taxation without representation.

 

Are you kidding me? You ARE kidding, right? 'Cause this makes absolutely no senses otherwise. Are you trying to say that churches shouldn't be taxed because there isn't a special church congress in the government (each church sends a church senator or something)? Are you trying to say that corporations, which are taxed out the ying-yang, DO have government representation that churches don't have? Care to point it out, if so? (Don't say the lobby process, because you and I both know that religions have more government lobbies than Kelloggs has corn flakes... )

 

Tax exempt entities like the scouts and certain charities do have to meet specific criteria to maintain tax exempt status... and for the church remaining apolitical is one of those criteria. To equate the politicized pulpit rallies ("God wants you to vote for Bush, and if you don't you'll go to hell") with the Boston Tea Party is... frankly ludicrous.

 

Quite right there are many hipocritical things the ruling members of the churches have done over the many ryears of established religion.  Once again it is not the actual church or the teachings but the failings of man that have done those things.   As for broken promises to the government well when they learn to keep them thats when they can come down on anyone else, until then you reap what you sow.

 

Oh, stop. Without "man" the church is just an empty building. Without "man" government is just a theory. Of course we are talking about people, people who are representing ideologies and religions. What you're basically saying that it's okay for the church to lie, to cheat, to break laws and rules, 'cause after all it's just "people" who are doing these things, right? With God's approval, of course, 'cause the people who are doing it are the only ones who God likes enough to let into heaven! And besides, everyone else does it, so that makes it okay for God-folks to do it too!

 

Do you actually realize what you are saying here?

 

It all boils down to, "It's okay for us to take over the government and the nation with our religion, force it into your everyday lives, 'cause even though we force you to read our religious mottos and recite our religious dogma, we don't actually force you to believe what you're reading and reciting."

 

Think about this. I know I do. And it's chilling.

[Vincent_Valashar]

You make several strong points here, Di, which I happen to agree with. Like I said I am very tolerant to religion, as long as they keep it private and leave me out of it.I don't want to head to the library with some guy following me yelling that I am going to hell. I don't need some group of people knocking at my door peddling their scriptures. I don't need it and want it. Follow whatever god you may, but leave me alone.

 

Thing is for most Christians it is their mandate to "spread the word" in the most annoying fashion. Christianity, and any religion, has no place in our government. Government needs to be a place of reason and objetivity so that tthe people being ruled recieve their fair share and protected under the law. The government cannot do that if it is filled with religious zealots who believe their way is the only way and everyone else is damned to go to hell.

[Ludozee]

/\

||

||

 

I totally agree

[AlanC9]

Do you actually realize what you are saying here? 

 

It all boils down to, "It's okay for us to take over the government and the nation with our religion, force it into your everyday lives, 'cause even though we force you to read our religious mottos and recite our religious dogma, we don't actually force you to believe what you're reading and reciting."

 

Think about this.  I know I do.  And it's chilling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Assuming Dakoth's actually advancing a coherent position here. I have my doubts.

 

~Di, at some point we ought to just let the babies have their bottles. This "under God " nonsense is really meaningful to these twits for some reason. I don't think it's really worth getting into a political fight over.

[~Di]

~Di, at some point we ought to just let the babies have their bottles. This "under God " nonsense is really meaningful to these twits for some reason. I don't think it's really worth getting into a political fight over.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Respectfully, it is to me because it truly destroys the basic foundation on which I believe this nation was constructed... and it does so deliberately, with the intent of overthrowing secular government with Christian dogma. If the insertion of Christian God-speak into our pledges, into our schools, into our judiciary and into our congress thereby insuring an evolution from secular society into a theocracy isn't worth getting into a political fight over, then I honestly don't know what is.