Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
It already does refer to a particular deity. There is only one religion that names its deity that and spells it that way. Inclusion of the phrase on coin and currency amounts to the provision of free advertising space to that religion. Image that the phrase Dodge Trucks -- Ram Tough had been included instead. Do you think Ford and GM et al would have had any valid complaint over that?
I've never heard that. Which one?
One of the returns of a quick search was :"The name God refers to the deity held by monotheists to be the supreme reality. God is generally regarded as the sole creator of the universe."
Looking at a coin and a bill, you couldn't even say it was God rather than god as all the letters are the same size/case. I've always taken it to be a somewhat generic reference representing no particular god/religion.
I know you're not being patronizing, and I appreciate that.
But is it possible -- just possible -- that the Supreme Court (which opens easch session with a prayer) may have gone too far in protecting us all from the horror of religion? So far that many of the current rulings are doing much more harm than good, and robbing our children of hope and our country of its heritage, all to satisfy the tortured reasoning that so often ends up being an insult to our common culture, while providing a source of amusing trivia to attorneys?
No, I don't think so. While it's not likely that anyone will be hurt by a prayer at a high school football game (which, by the way, still happens all the time, at least in Texas) I think that, especially in these times of religious zealotry, it's important to keep very clear lines drawn between religious activities and publicly funded events.
"Robbing our children of hope and our country of it's heritage"????? Is it possible that you've just had a long week are are feeling tired and worn out right now? I can't see how keeping officially sanctioned prayer out of public schools (as an example) harms anyone at all, as long as they can pray at every church, restaurant, Scout meeting, home, revival, summer camp, etc. etc. they go to.
Here are at least many of the most popular religions practiced in the world today. See how many of them worship a deity that is named God and spell it that way...
Looking at a coin and a bill, you couldn't even say it was God rather than god as all the letters are the same size/case. I've always taken it to be a somewhat generic reference representing no particular god/religion.
Looks can be deceiving. Examine the history that surrounds the appearance of these words on our money. Ask what purpose they were intended to serve. Ask what purpose on earth they actually do serve...
No, I don't think so. While it's not likely that anyone will be hurt by a prayer at a high school football game (which, by the way, still happens all the time, at least in Texas) I think that, especially in these times of religious zealotry, it's important to keep very clear lines drawn between religious activities and publicly funded events.
"Robbing our children of hope and our country of it's heritage"????? Is it possible that you've just had a long week are are feeling tired and worn out right now? I can't see how keeping officially sanctioned prayer out of public schools (as an example) harms anyone at all, as long as they can pray at every church, restaurant, Scout meeting, home, revival, summer camp, etc. etc. they go to.
Quick note: I'm old enough to remember prayer, Bible reading, etc., in public school. (Heck, I even remember the Pledge BEFORE "under God" was added!).I don't think any of us was harmed by that experience (and deep down inside, I don't think you think kids would be harmed, either). But we were exposed to the King James Bible and Jacobean English. It was beautiful. (It became the basis for my academic career.) It is the foundation of much of our literature and art. It is a unifying part of our Western heritage. Don't you think that we are shortchanging our children by telling them that that two thousand year history of aesthetic and moral inspiration is now somehow forbidden and off limits to them?
Quick note: I'm old enough to remember prayer, Bible reading, etc., in public school. (Heck, I even remember the Pledge BEFORE "under God" was added!).I don't think any of us was harmed by that experience (and deep down inside, I don't think you think kids would be harmed, either).
Ah, well...I've heard tell that many of the masters didn't think slavery was doing any harm either. Perhaps if you'd been a member of the disadvantaged class, your vision might have been different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
But we were exposed to the King James Bible and Jacobean English. It was beautiful. (It became the basis for my academic career.)
Couldn't have bought and read a Bible of your own? I thought you were against such dependence on the government...abdication of personal responsibility and all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
It is the foundation of much of our literature and art.
Also much of our bigotry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
It is a unifying part of our Western heritage.
It's divisive and exclusionary by defintion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Don't you think that we are shortchanging our children by telling them that that two thousand year history of aesthetic and moral inspiration is now somehow forbidden and off limits to them?
Religion is an adult topic. Why are you in such a rush to inculcate it into young and impressionable minds that are as yet unable to process the complexities of it? Don't you think it's brainwashing our children to be piling religious dogma and propaganda on them at such an early age? Borders on child abuse if you ask me...
Ah, well...I've heard tell that many of the masters didn't think slavery was doing any harm either. Perhaps if you'd been a member of the disadvantaged class, your vision might have been different.
That's up to your standards of discourse.
Couldn't have bought and read a Bible of your own? I thought you were against such dependence on the government...abdication of personal responsibility and all.
The school is not the government.
Also much of our bigotry.
Education teaches people to recognize the difference.
It's divisive and exclusionary by defintion.
As is all learning. The flip side is that it's unifying and encourages brotherhood. You folks always have trouble with ambiguity, don't you?
Religion is an adult topic. Why are you in such a rush to inculcate it into young and impressionable minds that are as yet unable to process the complexities of it? Don't you think it's brainwashing our children to be piling religious dogma and propaganda on them at such an early age? Borders on child abuse if you ask me...
Funny, but it never was inculcated in my young and impressionable mind. To this day, I remain unmoved by it. But the poetry lives in me.
I do so pity folks who get off on retailing narrowness and fear.
I think we may have hit on our difference. I do not view the church as a fixed organization or building. My view of the church is the fellowship of people. Your priest views the church as the institution rather than it's fellowship.
I do see the responsibility of the fellowship to the church, but I also see the church's responsibility to it's fellowship. It is not a one way street in either direction. If the Priest felt that the church had no responsibility to the members of the church, then I am sorry, but I feel he is a very poor example of a church leader. I am hoping that you misunderstood his message in this regard and he was only expounding on a specific duty to the church rather than a comprehensive relationship.
First off, I want to thank you Johnrex62 for posting a very elequent post. One that describes pretty well what I failed to do in another post.
now to this specific quote. How it is described in the Holy Bible
MATTHEW 18:20 NKJ
20 "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."
With God being the head of the church, you can say where two or more gather in his name, is a Church.
That is a nice speech, but our Founding Fathers were pretty explicit that men should be able to follow any religion they want and that Christianity should not be linked to the government as the "superior" religion. Here's a few excerpts.
Pardon me not not repeating all of the quotations. Each of these support the concept of freedom of religion for all religions and religious sects. I whole heartedly support this thinking and fully support your proposition that the 1st amendment is designed to protect that tolerance of religion.
I think that by singling out a particular religion and barring it from freedoms excercised by other religions is a poor way of following this ideal, however. The wall of separation has been exercised in ways to prohibit Christian use of public facilities while other groups still have access. Watchdog groups do not file lawsuits when native american shaman art is publically displayed, but catholic icons are forbidden in schools. Crucifixes are forbidden while Buddahs adorn vestibules. I don't have a problem with any of it being on display, but it seems that every time I hear about someone suing over these displays it is always based on the 1st amendment, and I just don't see the basis.
None of the quotes you supplied argue that religion should be isolated from public areas. The only commentary I have ever heard of that comes close is when congress refused to fund bibles on the basis that other groups would want bibles and congress did not want to set a precedent of buying materials for any religious group. Even this did not preclude non-financial support of religious groups and activities by congress.
I whole heartedly support this thinking and fully support your proposition that the 1st amendment is designed to protect that tolerance of religion.
In general, the First Amendment establishes religion as an entirely individual enterprise. The state does not have a role to play and must remain neutral on the matter. It may not either endorse or denigrate a particular religion or religion in general, and neither may it limit (except where there might arise cases of compelling public interest) the religious practices of the worshippers or adherents of any religion or sect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62
I think that by singling out a particular religion and barring it from freedoms excercised by other religions is a poor way of following this ideal, however.
So would the courts. If you are aware of actual examples of this, contact your local ACLU. They are very good at resolving what may be administrative excesses in either direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62
The wall of separation has been exercised in ways to prohibit Christian use of public facilities while other groups still have access.
There is a substantial body of law devoted to the principle that groups may not be discriminated against (or for) on the basis of religion when it comes to access to public facilities. A failure of being accorded preferential treatment is not however an example of having been discriminated against.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62
Watchdog groups do not file lawsuits when native american shaman art is publically displayed, but catholic icons are forbidden in schools.
Each is permitted as evidence of history or culture. Each is prohibited if serving as a means of proselytizing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62
None of the quotes you supplied argue that religion should be isolated from public areas.
Because no one argues that it should be. Mention of the concept at all tends to come only from those groups desiring preferential treatment who are denied it, then seek to describe that denial as an attempt to remove religion from public life. This is propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62
The only commentary I have ever heard of that comes close is when congress refused to fund bibles on the basis that other groups would want bibles and congress did not want to set a precedent of buying materials for any religious group.
The matter of precedent would enter into it only after the permissibility of the act per se had been established. The funding of Bible purchases is not something that would be automatically waved through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrex62
Even this did not preclude non-financial support of religious groups and activities by congress.
The government interacts with religious groups and organziations all the time. There is nothing to preclude it so long as the purpose of such interaction is secular, its effects do not either advance or inhibit religion, and there does not arise any undue legal entanglement between the parties. An example might be the provision of food aid by the US Government through the auspices of Catholic Relief Services...
I think that the government should participate in Religious activities. It should prosecute all of them as organized fraud.
If people must have religion check out my post on separating church and state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
