You must be a Nazi :chuckle:
Separation gone too far - the making of a secular state
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Even Nazi's have their use.
He never managed to say anything that interested me, but he kept saying an awful lot of it. :think: No idea. He probably walked a low road. I take it he's had a comment or two for me. I'm sure it's all issue oriented. . . I mean, if I can be considered an issue.
Speaking of public interest...
You should put yourself on ignore just to see if it impacts your posts. :shocked:
You're missing out, [MENTION=15579]1Mind1Spirit[/MENTION] is one of the funniest people here and very smart in the scriptures. He's a very honest and humble MissourianHe never managed to say anything that interested me, but he kept saying an awful lot of it. :think: No idea. He probably walked a low road. I take it he's had a comment or two for me. I'm sure it's all issue oriented. . . I mean, if I can be considered an issue.
Speaking of public interest...
You should put yourself on ignore just to see if it impacts your posts. :shocked:
Anyone can quote scripture, shoot a handgun or play piano, if they have a mind to. I'm more interested in how they're using the first, where they're pointing the second, and what they play to wrap up.
Those two words never got anyone ignored by me, so I think I'm going to differ with you.
Ah, okay, the humble, scripture quoting Christian from Missouri showed me something here:
Later, he took a stab at explaining that into a different, less offensive context, but still one out of bounds for someone using his mouth to quote scripture with regularity, so I decided to split the difference and cut him loose.
This one's my fave.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
You should really be more like Danoh.
Anyone in the know knows it's suck never blow.
Google what a below job is and get edge-a-kated.
Not only that, that's not when or why you put me on ignore.
Lyin' freak.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Headphones are a nice invention, one can crank em and not offend anybody.
Unless they think you're ignoring them.
No wonder scripture says all men are liars, hunh?
Now laughing at myself.
Last edited:
Thank you, 1M1S.
Lon
Well-known member
Because government should not stand in the way, and even participate as spectator of anything good and positive, including religion or religious observance and value that promoted a good, loving, caring, and mutual society. We need tolerance and appreciation, not eradication. For instance: Government having a Christmas party at work? Yes. Should be done. Celebrating anything is celebrating. Just don't make these mandatory. Celebrations of anything has no connection to the separation clause because they are all voluntary. The point is to stop lemon-suckers from sucking life out of each and every good thing celebrated in our society. Let's not bow to the inept, inane, and disgruntled. They rarely have any good point or something positive to complain about. I'd suspect you are on page: Frivolous lawsuits should require the disgruntled to pay for all court costs if they lose. It would stop the inane. We are all separated enough without the need for even more partisan interests to further it. Most of us prefer unity and appreciations and getting along where at all possible. -Lon
“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~ Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~ 1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”
~ Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
“The civil government functions with complete success by the total separation of the Church from the State.”
~ Founding Father James Madison, 1819, Writings, 8:432, quoted from Gene Garman, “Essays In Addition to America’s Real Religion”
“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”
~ Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791
“No religious doctrine shall be established by law.”
~ Founding Father Elbridge Gerry, Annals of Congress 1:729-731
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/04/35-founding-father-quotes-conservative-christians-will-hate/
Jose Fly
New member
Surely you appreciate that what is or isn't "good and positive" is a subjective call, especially when it comes to religious belief. Even within Christianity there is a lot of disagreement over such things.
To some Muslim, Christian, and Mormon citizens, it's "good and positive" to prohibit the consumption of alcohol. To other citizens it's "good and positive" to require women to dress modestly. To some Jewish citizens it's "good and positive" to not work on the Sabbath. To Catholic citizens it's "good and positive" for people to go to confession.
See the point? You're saying that the government should be in the business of evaluating religious beliefs and practices and picking which ones to promote. And that comes with a flip side, where if your beliefs and practices aren't selected for promotion by the government, a reasonable person could conclude that the government has decided your beliefs aren't "good and positive".
And nothing is being eradicated.
You're only thinking of this in terms of your faith being promoted by the government, which is a good indication of what this is really about for you. Imagine being a Christian employee in a government agency where your supervisor and most of your co-workers are Muslim. They decide to hold voluntary celebrations of every Muslim holiday. Would you feel in any way that not attending or participating might affect your status in the office or your relationship with your supervisor? Most reasonable people would.
And what if you requested to celebrate Christmas and Easter and your supervisor said "Well, you're the only Christian in this office so it wouldn't really be worth the effort"?
See, you can only think of this in terms of you being in the majority position and being the one whose religion is being promoted by the government.
So those who say "I don't want the government coercing me to follow a religion I don't believe in, or spending my tax dollars to promote that religion" need to just learn to shut up?
This is exactly what I mean.....you're only thinking of this in terms of you being in the majority position.
And to you, "getting along" means "the government promotes my religion, and anyone who doesn't like it can just shut up".
I also have to wonder....if this is what you think the founding fathers truly meant for this country to be, why didn't they just write it down? Because what we have from them strongly indicates that their intent was for us to have a secular government. Surely if they actually wanted the opposite, they could have just said so in clear terms.
You'd be O.K. with it being a combination Christmas, Hanukka, Kwanza, Druidic Solstice celebration? Or is it just for your particular belief system?
That's not a rhetorical question. I'd like to hear what you think.
Then you wouldn't mind if the Muslims and Wiccans brought their stuff, too? Let me know. See, the sticking point for me, is that new exclusion you want to add...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless the establishment is entirely voluntary; 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.
If you think that would be a better law, why not start a move to amend the amendment? And since the celebration would be entirely voluntary, if your boss happened to be Jewish, and decided the voluntary celebration would be Hanukka, but not Christmas, would that be O.K.?
Who gets to decide? Can Satanists have theirs at your party, too? Tell us about it.
Lon
Well-known member
A guy closing his eyes and saying 'thanks?' Ain't buying it. Neither are you....
You are just playing the silly game. A guy saying thanks, or a guy bowing to Mecca doesn't hurt you one bit. "IF" you contemplated it, you'd not be a jerk about it like the guy/gal that complained in this case. It was mean-spirited complaining and stupid.
In my state, they even list those good traits and suggest teachers use their discernment when such comes up in curriculum, even using those religious observances 'for' the reinforcement of those good citizenry skills.
Hogwash, the man was fired. You are incorrect
I disagree that 'those' people are 'reasonable.' Voluntary is voluntary.
And? So I'm the only one there? Congress shall make NO law.....
Nope. It is NOT your or any government's business to tell me when and when I cannot pray. You nor government are my thought police. In fact, after the game is already over? People already driving home? None-ya... You have a 'right' to walk out of the stadium.
Nope, no coercing. Again you have a right to walk out on your own two feet. The right to start a frivolous lawsuit? :nono: No, I'll stand up and say not.
No, I'm talking about the difference between trying to shut up people's values and embrace 'no values' and worse. I'm talking about religious 'freedom' not repression.
I don't care what it promotes if it isn't against the most loving things. At this venture, we are talking about someone simply thanking God (or anybody) for a safe game, and thanking God (or anyone) for safety, etc. Is it really your intention to shut down any and all good expressions of thanks? Why? WHEN is such against your religion or lack thereof? It isn't, is it? Be honest. In the same way it doesn't offend me, it shouldn't offend you either. He/she is expressing their own thanks for a thing. Why in the world would that be a thing to be shut down? How could it be a thing to try and shut down? It is making a law respecting somebody's 'religious' sentiments against another's at that point, something our government is prohibited to do. Secular atheism is equally offensive. I'd rather see about ANY religious celebration than 'no' celebration because that doesn't support any value. The vacuum left in the wake of denial leaves us all worse off. It is why we have Columbines and more every new year: There is NO VALUE left in the wake of complaint. There is no 'this is wrong' taught in society any longer. I don't care if a Satanist comes and says "First do no harm! then do as you will..." That quote is right out of their writings. There is no opposition to that sentiment that would benefit society to shut off. It is brain-dead to think such is promoting Satanism. It is promoting society. The ACLU is just inane and the judges who allow those mindless suits are just as inept. It is NOT promoting Satanism, it is promoting 'doing no harm.' I disagree with the last half, but not so much that "Do no harm" should come off the walls. It isn't a poor quote. We have grown stupid, imho, to teach 'nothing' of values and morals. That is dumber, more inept, and unconscionable.
They did. How ignorant of history are you? I aced these classes. It is only very recently that any government official ever thought that separation meant they couldn't even participate. That is rubbish. The ONLY thing they are prevented from doing is preventing religious expression. You know, as well as I do, that a crèche is a 'celebration' NOT something shoved down the throat. Inept and inane attacks are celebrated these days. THAT is why we have Columbines. The ACLU celebrates hate speech, not the rest of us. Think about that. Even you celebrate Christmas. Did it EVER cause you harm? Nope :nono: It never did.
Lon
Well-known member
Yes. A celebration is a celebration AND voluntary. Yeah, I may not want to participate, but I certainly don't want to condemn it or make it go away. We had a Kwanza celebration in one of our schools. It didn't bother me. Hanukah either.
I'd rather see celebrations, if not participate in them, than to have all values and celebration of life eradicated from the lives of our kids. ANYTHING is better than celebrating a video game by bringing a bunch of weapons into school and shooting up classmates. Values of any kind that celebrate life are much to be preferred than the lack thereof that allows a student to shoot up his school without a thought.
It makes it easier to get those when you use the quote feature correctly. It places a notification that helps ensure there is a response, else nobody would know you quoted them or asked for a response.... :think:
No, but again, I said 1) a shared value and 2) one that was voluntary.
Again, you read that that religion has no rights in government, I read it that government can't make a law restricting anything religious. We have VERY different expectations regarding the way we interpret that law. Until very recently, it was ALWAYS interpreted the way I do. It is only abuse and harmful reinterpretation of secularists that has about ruined my and other's constitutional rights. "No, a coach should not be fired when he silently prays thankfully on a football field." That is separation taken to the absurd and ridiculous. He was hurting nobody AND it was nobody else's business but his own. The game was over and I don't care who you are, you have no right 'to just not see that.'
Nobody is talking about usurping one for another. Why not two or combined? But yeah, I'd rather see somebody expressing values that we all share, if even in a different way. That doesn't mean I want a 'worship' service out of either.
Ther aren't many Satanists. I'm not sure how much we'd hold in common as far as values are concerned. That said, if they threw one and invited me, we are still talking voluntary attendance, no? Sure. Let them if they desire. Satanists don't pray to Satan, so there'd be no bow to him on the field. If there was, how would you know? If he is silent about it, why would you care? What business is it of yours or mine?
No coach was...Kennedy was disciplined for deciding to disregard the district holding on point, after initially going along with it. His punishment? He was put on paid leave until his contract expired and it wasn't renewed.
Disagreed for the reasons stated prior, regarding agency and coercion.
They don't have to, since the country is still mostly Christian. It follows that most displays will be Christian ones and that most coaches will be in the Christian prayer group.
Once you open that door what you want won't really control anything.
I just showed you that religion has the rights. It's government that doesn't. Government is prohibited from promoting a religious event, rightly so.
This is not an imposition on anyone. For example, my daughter was an officer of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Since the school allowed private clubs of students to use rooms for meetings, so her group was able to meet and worship in school. It's just that the school was not allowed to sponsor or interfere.
What's wrong with that? It seems to me as it seemed to the founders, to be perfectly fair and reasonable.
No, until recently, it was interpreted exactly as written. Madison and Jefferson argued that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. Madison pointed out that the wall protects religion.
Yes, in the last century, there were a lot of violations by various governmental entities. But we've moved back toward the intent of the founders.
And that's a good thing.