kumquatq3 Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Link to story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorth Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 I'm not really that much into internal north american politics, but doesn't that sound like, erh... thwarting the purpose of seperation of state and church and freedom of (and from) religion etc. ? >_ “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaftan Barlast Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Bush is just smooching the religiously-challenged. DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted December 9, 2004 Author Share Posted December 9, 2004 I'm not really that much into internal north american politics, but doesn't that sound like, erh... thwarting the purpose of seperation of state and church and freedom of (and from) religion etc. ? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langky Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 I can understand keeping religon out of schools (no need to force it on them) but this monument appears to be part of the towns heritage. You might as well burn down the local church its just as likely to "influence" people as this monument. How did this idiot ever get into power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargallath Abraxium Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 How did this idiot ever get into power? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...Daddy's influence, how else... ...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!... A long, long time ago, but I can still remember, How the Trolling used to make me smile. And I knew if I had my chance, I could egg on a few Trolls to "dance", And maybe we'd be happy for a while. But then Krackhead left and so did Klown; Volo and Turnip were banned, Mystake got run out o' town. Bad news on the Front Page, BIOweenia said goodbye in a heated rage. I can't remember if I cried When I heard that TORN was recently fried, But sadness touched me deep inside, The day...Black Isle died. For tarna, Visc, an' the rest o' the ol' Islanders that fell along the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langky Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 How did this idiot ever get into power? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ...Daddy's influence, how else... ...WHO LUVS YA, BABY!!... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And his cousin (or brother dont know probably both through some very twisted interbreeding :D ) who happily counted Florida's votes for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted December 9, 2004 Author Share Posted December 9, 2004 I can understand keeping religon out of schools (no need to force it on them) but this monument appears to be part of the towns heritage. You might as well burn down the local church its just as likely to "influence" people as this monument. How did this idiot ever get into power? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are plenty of places to display the towns religious heritage A courthouse should not be one of them I have a problem when a judge starts to rule by his own morality rather than the Laws of the United States of America. I know there is some wiggle room there, but when a judge feels the need to put the 10 commandments out on display despite peoples objections......that tells me there is a bias. It's not like if someone wanted to see the ten commandments they would have much trouble finding a copy, so then ask yourself, why put them out on display? O, using your train of thought, you would be ok with having your judge and trial reside in a Muslim House of prayer, as thats not going to influence anything right? but what can you expect when are constitutional rights are being crushed left and right. The damn ACLU can't even keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaftan Barlast Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 -Have you honored you father and mother today, son? -No, its.. -Well, well! Then I guess its the chair for you, buddy! ..or the buddhist version Note outside locked courthouse: All trials for this kalpa cancelled. The Boddhistatva is currently busy contemplating its rectal shakra but sends his words that all wrongdoers will be reborn as that kind of mold that settles on a vindaloo thats been in the fridge too long. Thankyou, may your current incarnation be a pleasant one. DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Man, I hate Bush. If this religious bullcrap is going to go much farther we seriously need to drop this president in a 6 foot ditch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oerwinde Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 -Have you honored you father and mother today, son? -No, its.. -Well, well! Then I guess its the chair for you, buddy! ..or the buddhist version Note outside locked courthouse: All trials for this kalpa cancelled. The Boddhistatva is currently busy contemplating its rectal shakra but sends his words that all wrongdoers will be reborn as that kind of mold that settles on a vindaloo thats been in the fridge too long. Thankyou, may your current incarnation be a pleasant one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the whole world should convert to taoism and we all have to honor the Yin and the Yang at least once a day with a union of opposites. Preferrably male and female :D The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertHawk Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Thank goodness for the ACLU. If it wasn't for them the fall of this country would be sudden and shocking instead of slow and horribly painful. <_< Fnord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I have a problem when a judge starts to rule by his own morality rather than the Laws of the United States of America. uh, the law is not absolute and is designed to be subject to interpretation. people by nature will use their "morality" to interpret the law. are you saying someone should throw out his belief system just because it offends little ole you? also, curiously, does that mean you advocate using the "morality" of atheism for the interpretation? isn't that forcing YOUR wishes on, coincidentally, the majority? I know there is some wiggle room there, but when a judge feels the need to put the 10 commandments out on display despite peoples objections......that tells me there is a bias. you're discriminating against his wishes as well, isn't that bias too? It's not like if someone wanted to see the ten commandments they would have much trouble finding a copy, so then ask yourself, why put them out on display? oh boy, it is just soooo painful to have to view somebody else's belief system just sitting in your face, mocking you... sheesh, get over it. one word: whining. O, using your train of thought, you would be ok with having your judge and trial reside in a Muslim House of prayer, as thats not going to influence anything right? uh, he's not, nor did he say so... nobody is advocating such things, either. so how is this argument relevant? but what can you expect when are constitutional rights are being crushed left and right. The damn ACLU can't even keep up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> the damn ACLU is doing the crushing... taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 To the devs: I'm going to try realllllly hard to be nice about this as I would like to continue this discussion uh, the law is not absolute and is designed to be subject to interpretation. people by nature will use their "morality" to interpret the law. First, "people" can believe whatever they want. When you are a servant of the people, things change, while you are on the job. Second, while the law is subject to interpretation and is not absolute, there is such a thing as precedent. The room for legit interpertation isn't often large for deciding guilty or not guilty. Third, nothing is absolute, but the Constitution is about as close as "laws" come to that. Now, as I said in my orginal post, there is a little wiggle room, BUT guilty or not guilty should be decided by applying the current interpertation of law to the best of ones ability. A little wiggle room is left because not all cases are equal, but the law should not be bent to fit the individual belief system of the judges. are you saying someone should throw out his belief system just because it offends little ole you? I sure as hell do, as long as he is a servant of the people and is being paid to do a job, I expect him to do that job as he was instructed to do it. When he walks out of the courtroom he can believe whatever he wants and display whatever he wants on his property. When it comes to a CIVIL SERVANT, a judge on the bench, I expect him to apply the law fairly, broadly, and with as little regard to his personal beliefs as possible. Not to meantion the courthouse does not belong to the judge and he doesn't begin to have the legal right to decide what gets displayed there. also, curiously, does that mean you advocate using the "morality" of atheism for the interpretation? isn't that forcing YOUR wishes on, coincidentally, the majority? Thats a trick question. The seperation of church and state means the absense of religion, not attacking or discrediting religion, as atheism might. Hence why churches don't pay taxes. Under a Atheist morality, that might not exist. Let me turn it around, are you advocating having judges use the bible as their tool for interperating modern law? You can ignore that little thing about seperation of church and state for this answer. But I doubt any of that makes you happy, so I will reluctantly play along with the question and answer the best I can, keeping in mind I'm in one sided territory: I said a judge should apply the laws how the laws are intended to be applied and fairly. If you think the morality of atheism is being fair and just, I'm happy you think so highly of atheism, it's good to except others, but in no way did I advocate that. BUT, religion does not have sole possesion of morality. In the absence of religion, morality remains. Right and wrong does exist without religion. For those cases that religion might dictate something different than than the law dictates, the law is pretty clear for the most part and doesn't leave much wiggle room, if any at all. you're discriminating against his wishes as well, isn't that bias too? I don't think you understand what it means to be in service of the people. A cop can't legally decide not to read you your rights if it happens to violate his beliefs. Hell, I can't even legally refuse service to someone in my store based off my "beliefs" and I'm just a citizen. And again, it's not his land either. It has a assigned purpose, as a court house for the people of the USA. Thats it. oh boy, it is just soooo painful to have to view somebody else's belief system just sitting in your face, mocking you... sheesh, get over it. one word: whining. 1. I'd looooooooooove to see you stick to that position if a judge puts out a sign that said "god is dead" or if they displayed quotes from the Quran. Or how about "one nation, under Buddah". There would be buses filled with protestors and moving down the highway within an hour. 2. You incorrectly misinterperated what I said again. I said: It's not like if someone wanted to see the ten commandments they would have much trouble finding a copy, so then ask yourself, why put them out on display? That sentance asks the reason for displaying the 10 commandments, if not for educational purposes or the like. How you got that it hurts me to look at them, I don't know. It does bother me when peoples constitutional rights are trampled on tho, yes. uh, he's not, nor did he say so... nobody is advocating such things, either. so how is this argument relevant? Let me explain my logic to you then, he said: You might as well burn down the local church its just as likely to "influence" people as this monument. His clear point was a church, like the monument, does not (in his opinion) "influence" people very much. My point was, if true, you could hold court in a muslim house of prayer then, via his logic. Because, if they hold no real influence, if thier presence doesn't matter, then it wouldn't be a problem. Via the above logic, it is a prety neutral site. Unless, of course, you believe there would be a "influence" that comes from a Muslim house of prayer that would not be contained in a church. the damn ACLU is doing the crushing... Is the ACLU advocating the erosion of church and state? Is the ACLU in support of sections of the Patriot act that are in violation of civil liberties? Is the ACLU supporting the idea that anyone called a terrorist by the goverments loose definition of the word can be held indefinatly and without a trial or even legal counsel? Dunno, sure seems like the ACLU is the peoples best friend right now. Remember, the ACLU isn't around to insure that the majority get what they want or get an extention of their liberties because they want it, they are around to help insure that no group or individual gets their liberties trampled on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langky Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I can understand keeping religon out of schools (no need to force it on them) but this monument appears to be part of the towns heritage. You might as well burn down the local church its just as likely to "influence" people as this monument. How did this idiot ever get into power? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are plenty of places to display the towns religious heritage A courthouse should not be one of them I have a problem when a judge starts to rule by his own morality rather than the Laws of the United States of America. I know there is some wiggle room there, but when a judge feels the need to put the 10 commandments out on display despite peoples objections......that tells me there is a bias. It's not like if someone wanted to see the ten commandments they would have much trouble finding a copy, so then ask yourself, why put them out on display? O, using your train of thought, you would be ok with having your judge and trial reside in a Muslim House of prayer, as thats not going to influence anything right? but what can you expect when are constitutional rights are being crushed left and right. The damn ACLU can't even keep up. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You seem to be making a lot of assumtions how do you know this guys ruling by the Ten Commandments and not just expressing his beliefs. And if he is biased then removing the 10 commandments is not going to change that. Honestly there are bigger injustices facing the world than the removal of overglorified rock . Slightly detering from the topic, I grew up in Zimbabwe with NO rights, I saw peaceful protesters fired apon with live ammunition just outside my ****ing house. I buried people who were killed simply because they werent the right SKIN COLOUR. So you will forgive me if I cant quite see anything other than absurd exaggerations . If this judge is biased then removing the rock aint going to change that so you might as well leave it there are bigger fish to fry. Take it from a person who grew up in a dictatorship they dont creep up on you, they leap on you, usually after the revolution that was meant to clense the government of evil, if you get my meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakoth Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 There are plenty of places to display the towns religious heritage A courthouse should not be one of them Name one that is not privately owned and I will agree, the problem is the extreme left doesn't want religious displays on any "public ground". I have a problem when a judge starts to rule by his own morality rather than the Laws of the United States of America. I know there is some wiggle room there, but when a judge feels the need to put the 10 commandments out on display despite peoples objections......that tells me there is a bias. Lets look at some of the laws of the land shall we? From the Bill of rights. The Preamble to The Bill of Rights Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights: A Transcription -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment I 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people I am sure most of you would agree that some of these fall under the moral guide along with murder, theft, assault, racism, and many many others. People don't have a problem with our lawmakers making decisions they think are morally right untill they think they made it because they are religious. I sure as hell do, as long as he is a servant of the people and is being paid to do a job, I expect him to do that job as he was instructed to do it. When he walks out of the courtroom he can believe whatever he wants and display whatever he wants on his property. When it comes to a CIVIL SERVANT, a judge on the bench, I expect him to apply the law fairly, broadly, and with as little regard to his personal beliefs as possible. Not to meantion the courthouse does not belong to the judge and he doesn't begin to have the legal right to decide what gets displayed there. Mayor Dailey doesn't asscribe to this policy, by the words of the Constitution we have the legal right to own fire arms, yet he staunchly defends Chicago's ban on fire arms because he believes differently. Secondly I will say it again you can not seperate a person from their beliefs because it is part of what makes them themselves. Thats a trick question. The seperation of church and state means the absense of religion, not attacking or discrediting religion, as atheism might. Hence why churches don't pay taxes. Under a Atheist morality, that might not exist. Let me turn it around, are you advocating having judges use the bible as their tool for interperating modern law? You can ignore that little thing about seperation of church and state for this answer. I will ask this again why did the government feel it would have been ok to tax the religions to begin with? Seperation of church and state after all. Why is it there is nothing to really protect a religion from being taxed into non existance if our government feels they need to do it? [quote}I don't think you understand what it means to be in service of the people. A cop can't legally decide not to read you your rights if it happens to violate his beliefs. Hell, I can't even legally refuse service to someone in my store based off my "beliefs" and I'm just a citizen. And again, it's not his land either. It has a assigned purpose, as a court house for the people of the USA. Thats it. Ah but he can pick and choose who he enforces the law on and to what extent, you have heard of racial profilling right his only compass being his morals what he believes to be right and wrong. That sentance asks the reason for displaying the 10 commandments, if not for educational purposes or the like. How you got that it hurts me to look at them, I don't know. It does bother me when peoples constitutional rights are trampled on tho, yes. Really what ever happened to freedom of religion, and freedom of speach, and expression? His clear point was a church, like the monument, does not (in his opinion) "influence" people very much. My point was, if true, you could hold court in a muslim house of prayer then, via his logic. Because, if they hold no real influence, if thier presence doesn't matter, then it wouldn't be a problem. Via the above logic, it is a prety neutral site. Unless, of course, you believe there would be a "influence" that comes from a Muslim house of prayer that would not be contained in a church. So under your logic if a church was remodeled into a court house this would violate the seperation of church and state? Thats funny because those buildings only hold importance because we give it to them, thus as soon as the priest, or cleric leaves it becomes nothing more than an abandoned building just like anything else. Now if you are talking about building court houses on to existing churches well thats just absurd you know that will never happen. If this judge is biased then removing the rock aint going to change that Oh my you mean some one else understands this besides me holy poop. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 You seem to be making a lot of assumtions how do you know this guys ruling by the Ten Commandments and not just expressing his beliefs. Well, in that specific case, the guy was screaming to bring god back into the courtrooms nightly on the news, iirc. But in general, it doesn't matter. A judge shouldn't be expressing anything but the law, to the extent possible, while he is working So you will forgive me if I cant quite see anything other than absurd exaggerations I'm sorry that happened to you, but to prevent things like that happening here (or even starting to aproach that) you must protect civil liberties If this judge is biased then removing the rock aint going to change that so you might as well leave it there are bigger fish to fry. So because you can't remove the judge, tho the judge in this case was removed, you should let him do whatever he wants? Take it from a person who grew up in a dictatorship they dont creep up on you, they leap on you, usually after the revolution that was meant to clense the government of evil, if you get my meaning. True enough in most cases, but I'd rather be safe than sorry, tho this is getting away from the main topic a little. Name one that is not privately owned and I will agree, the problem is the extreme left doesn't want religious displays on any "public ground". 1. Church land is tax free so that it can be used a a place for these kinda of things. Religious land holding in America are substantial. It's not like they are hurting for space. 2. There are no real religous sites here like there are in the middle east. The need to have a monument to something or declare a religious monument are not the same. 3. They don't want religious displays on public ground because were does it end? And when does a "display" become preeching. How do you make sure that the displays of one religion are fair for the others, in comparison. You enter dangerous territory. 4. Lets not start with the extreme left or radical right stuff 5. It all depends. If there is a good reason that it needs to be on public property, I'm listening. Say if there is some kind of religious fair that wants to use the park for a couple of days, go for it. Or a church group wants to use the school gym after school, knock yourselves out. Mayor Dailey doesn't asscribe to this policy, by the words of the Constitution we have the legal right to own fire arms, yet he staunchly defends Chicago's ban on fire arms because he believes differently. As you said, by the wording. How said law is used in practice, the precedent for such things in American law, are two different things. and he bans concealed firerms, or carrying them in public, you can still own them. Secondly I will say it again you can not seperate a person from their beliefs because it is part of what makes them themselves Nope, people do it all the time. I'm sure lots of pharmacists that are highly religious give out birth control or doctors. I reallllly am late for leaving for work, but I promise I will respond to the rest of your post when i get back (7 hours) and the bills part I skipped, but that will take awhile. I'm not running Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.E. Sawyer Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Canada just recognized the legitimacy of gay marriages while still making it clear that a religious clergyman/woman cannot be forced to marry two people of the same sex if it is against their personal beliefs. Meanwhile, the United States can't remove an amended fifty year-old "under God" phrase from its Pledge of Allegiance nor can it take religious icons out of public spaces. gg twitter tyme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakoth Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 1. Church land is tax free so that it can be used a a place for these kinda of things. Religious land holding in America are substantial. It's not like they are hurting for space. 2. There are no real religous sites here like there are in the middle east. The need to have a monument to something or declare a religious monument are not the same. 3. They don't want religious displays on public ground because were does it end? And when does a "display" become preeching. How do you make sure that the displays of one religion are fair for the others, in comparison. You enter dangerous territory. 4. Lets not start with the extreme left or radical right stuff 5. It all depends. If there is a good reason that it needs to be on public property, I'm listening. Say if there is some kind of religious fair that wants to use the park for a couple of days, go for it. Or a church group wants to use the school gym after school, knock yourselves out. 1. As I said one that is not privately owned you can not do it can you? 2. I am sure Native Americans would dissagree with what you just typed. 3. A nativity scene falls under this arguement, does a nativity scene preach anything? 5 How bout the people of the town want it there or how about the majority of the people want it there. As you said, by the wording. How said law is used in practice, the precedent for such things in American law, are two different things. and he bans concealed firerms, or carrying them in public, you can still own them. Hmm so the gentleman that was arrested for shooting the burgler that broke into his house 2 nights in a row knowing his family was home wasn't arrested for owning a fire arm in a city that had banned it? Nope, people do it all the time. I'm sure lots of pharmacists that are highly religious give out birth control or doctors. I reallllly am late for leaving for work, but I promise I will respond to the rest of your post when i get back (7 hours) and the bills part I skipped, but that will take awhile. I'm not running Those are horrible examples, if a person is strict catholic they would never give out any birth control because it is against catholic doctrine, just like no doctor is abliged to perform an abortion. There is really no need to adress the only reason I put it there is to underscore the fact that our lawmakers are governed by morals and that weather the reason they have them is religious or not does not make that wrong. Canada just recognized the legitimacy of gay marriages while still making it clear that a religious clergyman/woman cannot be forced to marry two people of the same sex if it is against their personal beliefs. Meanwhile, the United States can't remove an amended fifty year-old "under God" phrase from its Pledge of Allegiance nor can it take religious icons out of public spaces. gg It seems to many of us in America want things "our" way. We should follow Canada's example and things would end up making both sides happy. If you remember previous posts that is exactly what I suggested as good middle ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Product of the Cosmos Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I can understand keeping religon out of schools (no need to force it on them) but this monument appears to be part of the towns heritage. You might as well burn down the local church its just as likely to "influence" people as this monument. How did this idiot ever get into power? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They can move it off federal grounds... But that would just be a deception. lol. Most of us pretty much know our country is heading towards a Church/State marriage, and somewhat martial law. But seriously... It's just a piece of stone on federal land. This is some stupid insignificant story compared to current world situations. Its like this is something someone wants us to talk about instead of other things(like a number of Iraq War vets already homeless in the streets of America!). 1. Church land is tax free so that it can be used a a place for these kinda of things. Religious land holding in America are substantial. It's not like they are hurting for space. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errantry Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Dakoth - You tend to generalize seperate peoples far too much. Not all Catholics' beliefs are exactly the same. For example, a very kind doctor of mine, who happens to be Catholic, performs abortions. His reasoning? He feels that it is unfair to torture two souls. If the mother does not want the child, she would most likely not care for he/she adequately. The mother would still have to go through the stress of pregnancy, and the child would possibly have to suffer an indifferent or blatantly cruel parent. Also, the mother may have some sort of drug addiction, thus increasing the chances of having a deformed child or having complications during the pregnancy, possibly killing both the mother and child. There is no reason to force that on anyone. In an ideal world, the mother would simply give the child up for adoption, and a good family would adopt the poor kid. This is not an ideal world. And as for displaying religious symbols in public, I feel it is unnecessary and can be used as a ploy to aggravate members of other religions. It a person truly believes in a religion, then they need no tangible evidence of their belief. It is terribly offensive to assume every person believes the same as you. As a Buddhist, from my opinion any overt display of religious belief is unneeded. Displaying the Ten Commandments to a non-believer has no point. Saying 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance has no purpose, and I generally skip that part. As a final thought: Government is meant to rule 'the people' as a whole. By combining it with religion, it is unable to serve its purpose. A Buddhist cannot be ruled by Jewish beliefs, and a Christian cannot be governed with Muslim ones. To keep government and religion completely seperate is by far the best strategy to keep a country united, especially a republic, - as the United States is - due to the incredible amount of cultural diversity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakoth Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Dakoth - You tend to generalize seperate peoples far too much. Not all Catholics' beliefs are exactly the same. For example, a very kind doctor of mine, who happens to be Catholic, performs abortions. His reasoning? He feels that it is unfair to torture two souls. If the mother does not want the child, she would most likely not care for he/she adequately. The mother would still have to go through the stress of pregnancy, and the child would possibly have to suffer an indifferent or blatantly cruel parent. Also, the mother may have some sort of drug addiction, thus increasing the chances of having a deformed child or having complications during the pregnancy, possibly killing both the mother and child. There is no reason to force that on anyone. In an ideal world, the mother would simply give the child up for adoption, and a good family would adopt the poor kid. This is not an ideal world. And as for displaying religious symbols in public, I feel it is unnecessary and can be used as a ploy to aggravate members of other religions. It a person truly believes in a religion, then they need no tangible evidence of their belief. It is terribly offensive to assume every person believes the same as you. As a Buddhist, from my opinion any overt display of religious belief is unneeded. Displaying the Ten Commandments to a non-believer has no point. Saying 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance has no purpose, and I generally skip that part. As a final thought: Government is meant to rule 'the people' as a whole. By combining it with religion, it is unable to serve its purpose. A Buddhist cannot be ruled by Jewish beliefs, and a Christian cannot be governed with Muslim ones. To keep government and religion completely seperate is by far the best strategy to keep a country united, especially a republic, - as the United States is - due to the incredible amount of cultural diversity. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually I generalised nothing I used his criteria. He said there are people that are highly religious that dispence birth controll while there are religious people who do this, that doesn't make them highly religious people. Does the Pope, or any Cardinals believe in it? I believe myself a religious person but there are things the church teaches that I just don't believe in, gay marriage being wrong is one of them, not using birth control and not performing abortions are 2 more, I also would never consider myself highly religious. Just so you guys know too I was born and raised Luthern about as close as you can get to being catholic with out actually being it. So where is this unity you speak of when all these people speak of seperation of church? I have never said I want a church state what I have said is a compromise needs to be met because all both sides ever do is alienate the other. What I think needs to be done is both sides pick more important things to argue over than a nativity scene being set up next to the town sign, because if that is all the wrong in your life then you have it pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errantry Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Dakoth - "f a person is strict catholic they would never give out any birth control because it is against catholic doctrine, just like no doctor is abliged to perform an abortion." "There is really no need to adress the only reason I put it there is to underscore the fact that our lawmakers are governed by morals and that weather the reason they have them is religious or not does not make that wrong." "It seems to many of us in America want things "our" way. We should follow Canada's example and things would end up making both sides happy." I apologize if I misinterpreted your meaning - my comments were mostly in reference to the first two quotes. However, in my defense, the statement, "[T]hey would never give out any birth control because it is against catholic doctrine," implies that a person cannot be a strict Catholic unless they are against birth control. And as for the second quote, I have to bring up Texas, and Mr. Bush. During his reign over Texas, Mr. Bush executed over 150 people - most of which were denied the use of DNA as evidence, because Mr. Bush does not believe in DNA. The same happens currently. A man was recently released after almost thirty years in prison for a rape he did not commit. He was not allowed the use of DNA; the girl was not tested, and she spoke against the man. However, the girl was told to protect her cousin (who was really the one who raped her), and thus sent an innocent man to the slammer. Now a good chunk of the man's life is gone, and the girl only recently decided to 'fess up. I do not feel this sort of thing should be allowed, and I apologize if you feel differently. The third, while I did not make many comments on it before, I now bring up. It is difficult to reach a compromise between extremes, and that is what you are suggesting. Several sects of Christians, as you know, do not approve of gay marriage. Should it be allowed, or not, then? I, personally, am perfectly fine with same-sex unions of any sort, because I feel it takes away civil rights and freedoms to ban marriage to some types of people. However, that is off topic. To return to my point, some groups of people will disagree simply because they will not give up their ideal government and community. And I agree that it seems petty, with wars going on right and left, that people argue over sign posts in their communities. Sometimes you wonder if they really have nothing better to do - something, mayhap, productive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted December 11, 2004 Author Share Posted December 11, 2004 O man, got alot of reading to do in this thread, but quick points: 1. As I said one that is not privately owned you can not do it can you? But you say that like you should have the right too They give you private land, and lots of it, tax free....but thats not good enough? Let me put it this way: Would you be happy if all religions got equel exposure? I'm guess not. 2. I am sure Native Americans would dissagree with what you just typed. excellent point, which is something I did not think of In those cases, maybe there should be public monuments allowed. I'm sure you can see how that would be different than: "I want a monument, because..." 3. A nativity scene falls under this arguement, does a nativity scene preach anything? It is placed there is celebration of a religious holiday that not everyone believes in. You could argue the purpose of it, but needless to say, it's not the same thing as say a X-mas tree. imo. 5 How bout the people of the town want it there or how about the majority of the people want it there. Your walking a dangerous path when you allow the wants of the many to overrule the rights of the few. Hmm so the gentleman that was arrested for shooting the burgler that broke into his house 2 nights in a row knowing his family was home wasn't arrested for owning a fire arm in a city that had banned it? I think the issue was the type of firearm, not that he had one, iirc Those are horrible examples, if a person is strict catholic they would never give out any birth control because it is against catholic doctrine, just like no doctor is abliged to perform an abortion. I see where my example failed The key difference is a pharmascist can't be fired for religious beliefs, or even practicing them to a degree. He is doing a job in the private sector. A civil servant, on the other hand, must serve all the people. Hence why they must stick close to their job description and the laws of the land. There is really no need to adress the only reason I put it there is to underscore the fact that our lawmakers are governed by morals and that weather the reason they have them is religious or not does not make that wrong. No, it doesn't nessasarily make them wrong. Thats why we don't have to argue that murder is wrong, etc. Because morality exist out side of religion. But when it comes to something like abortion, and you are against it because your religion tells you to be against it, then you need to not transfer that over to work if your a civil servant. Not that it is "wrong" to believe that, but others should not have to face penalties because of your religious beliefs. Do you see the difference? But this isn't really the arguement, the arguement is about putting a monument to your religion out on public land ( a court house). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted December 11, 2004 Author Share Posted December 11, 2004 Meanwhile, the United States can't remove an amended fifty year-old "under God" phrase from its Pledge of Allegiance Which, for all of you watching at home, was not originally part of the pledge. It was added several years later. The only saving grace of it is that "God" isn't a specific (tho it was meant to be) endorsement of any religion. Which is, I suppose, better than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now