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.
I'll answer, but I'd like an answer to how can liberals complain about intolerance of others, when they cannot tolerate any opinion that disagrees with theirs. Many act like spoiled brats- crying, whining, and protesting because they can't have their way. I'm generally conservative, but I do believe police have little or no accountability, and I do not support any troops or involvement in the Middle East (besides supporting Israel). We need to solve our problems- not other peoples. This includes not creating more problems by letting illegals and muslims into America.
Secularism and 1A are really two distinct things -- 1A is about the Federal Govt, specifically Congress, to not make any religion the official religion of the US.
In 1925 SCOTUS sided with Communists and its attorneys (ACLU) and really set the stage for Feds getting involved and banning local schools from reading the Bible, which is ridiculous, and very far outside the Contract.
Not making sense here...
How can it possibly be argued that reading the Bible in a public school doesn't promote that Holy book and/or religion over others, and therefore equates to the government making that religion the official religion of the US?
Or take any other book or religion that might be chosen by government officials to be taught just like math or science or geology or geography, again back to the universal truths vs religions. How/why should any religion or any religious book be part of a curriculum devoted to teaching kids these subjects beyond debate, over the right or wrong of this faith versus another?
How in the world can "banning local schools from reading the Bible" be considered ridiculous as far as you or anyone else is concerned? Do you feel the same way about the Book of Mormon being banned? Or the Koran?
Why should any of these books be taught in public school where we all of different spiritual beliefs come together? Why when we can all go to where others of the same faith or belief can congregate outside of the public arena? That no religion or religious book be taught in public schools is not to promote any faith or atheism for that matter. To leave religion out of public schooling is simply to leave neutral the choice and/or promotion of what to believe. Leaving freedom of religion to the individual to be exercised as they wish without imposition of others through the state.
Think about this. Why would you argue that me or my children should hear the reading or teaching of the Bible in school, as if somehow sanctioned by the state, if we do not share the faith that makes the Bible worthy of such promotion? What if we are Buddhists, for example, or agnostic? Why is it not obvious that no such teaching of any such spiritual nature be banned by the state, for all concerned? What can be more neutral, fair and even handed all considered?
"Far outside the contract" you say? The truth of that statement is perhaps a matter of some controversy, left for our court system to decide as best it can. Clearly those cases and/or decisions are what prevails today whether you agree or not, but more importantly..., how can the teaching of any holy book or faith or religion in public schools be considered appropriate given the even more controversial question of which book or faith is representative of truth worthy of teaching?
This is the essential question even beyond what the Constitution directs that ultimately leads to secular education that is clearly the most appropriate and fair all considered, thankfully as our legal system in this country has also ruled.
Heck, I wonder how we can still be listening to "in God we trust" in this country when it comes to the swearing in of public officials. According to who? Which God? Seems the more we "trust in God," the more we divorce ourselves of our senses, the more we are divided as to what that even means and the more we are inclined to trust that killing one another is better than giving up on all that nonsense already...
If we told the founders, delegates and ratifying legislatures that 1A will empower the Feds to stop kids from reading the bible aloud in school -- US Constitution and its Amendments would have been trashed in a heartbeat by the ratifying legislatures.
So, the issue is not really about separation of church from the state -- that is a wrong premise.
The correct premise is -- separation of religion from the Feds. If NYC's City Council one day voted to make the curriculum atheist -- Feds should have no say. It's just not their business.
Just like Feds should have no say if Little Town, Alabama decides to read the bible aloud at elementary school.
Feds' overreach is the problem here, for me. If you want to discuss Secularism, that's a different topic.
I cannot disagree more...
If we told the founders that the Constitution would allow future generations to decide how/if government at any level should be allowed to promote any holy book or religion and that ultimately the decision would be to ban any religious teaching over another, I am very sure the founding fathers would be proud, most certainly TJ.
I could be wrong, however, because our founding fathers were impressive people with incredible minds, but they were backwards in terms of certain thinking as compared to what we know better today. Like with regard to blacks for example, many of our founding fathers owned slaves as you well know. Perhaps they would have reacted in the same way you say they would if they knew that eventually slavery would also be banned by the government at all levels.
We now know better than they did about such things, and as such, secular public education stands today and also rightfully so!
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions, I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."
"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Hispanic families? People from other countries? What are you talking about? I don't know of any conservatives that fears anyone here legally and assimilates into our society.
I do!
Maybe not "fear" in every sense of the word, but surely we all know that a good many conservatives, too many, are at a minimum concerned about the change of demographics in America that are shifting the numbers toward minorities becoming majorities over whites. This fear or concern is what is fueling the populous or nationalist sentiments that helped Trump become POTUS along with right-wing movements in Europe. It is not JUST the argument against illegal immigrants that conservatives like to hide behind. Scratch not much deeper and out comes the anti-minority sentiments in general, legal or not, "over running" our local towns and schools and countries. Or maybe you haven't read the many comments posted along those lines in these many threads...
All wars fought by America and European countries are wars of interests
And is not based on legitimate texts of the Bible or the Bible
These wars are also defensive
It is necessary to preserve the democracy of the West and protect its strategic interests
The defensive war is not rejected and shared by the Christian
But the Christian rejects only offensive war and assault
One of the most important features of Western wars is that it does not say it is fighting for God
The name of God is far from war Great Britain has spread its colonial domination over many countries
But she did not impose her religion and did not say she wanted to spread Christianity to power
God has no direct relationship with America's wars
The US is not fighting for God
This is true
He fights for America's greatness and America's interests
He also fights for humanity sometimes
While we note the opposite in the wars of Islamic countries
It fights for God
A Muslim kills his Christian neighbor for the sake of God
All wars of Muslims are based on the verses of the Koran
And supported by the texts of the Koran
And the connection between war and God
It is a distortion of truth and an insult to God too
The Muslim wants to destroy Israel
Because it is written in the Koran
The hostility to the Jews is well known in the Koran
If the Indian Muslim asked what his attitude towards the Jews was
He will tell you that they are enemies of God
The reason is the Koran
So the connection between God and war
It is the biggest abuse of God by Islam
The spread of Islam in power is one of Islam's most important goals
I think if Muslims had half of the Western power of military technology
The world will become Islamic by excessive force
Thank God, Muslims do not have that technological power
For if they were to destroy them, they would judge the world in the name of God
The world will become a black spot in which to live
With all due respect, and I'm trying to muster whatever of that I can...
I will like to hear what a true Muslim in America might say to all this biased hogwash you are obviously promoting from an anti-Muslim perspective, just like others can do with regard to the "evils" of Christianity through the ages.
There are over 3 million Muslims living in America you are directly addressing here, and needless to say, they are not out to kill anyone for any reasons you want to suggest is part of their religion or faith!
How/when will this religious nonsense end already?!?
WWI - Democrat Wilson put the US into this war against the wishes of the US population
WWII - Democrat FDR put the US into this war against the wishes of the US population, and turned away Jewish refugees
Korea - Democrat Truman put the US into this war against the wishes of the US population, and was the first POTUS to send us to war without a Congressional Declaration of War
Vietnam - Democrats JFK and Johnson put the US into this war against the wishes of the US population, and did so based on a lie about an incident in the Gulf of Tonkin
Drone War - Democrat Obama conducted this war after winning the Nobel Peace Prize
Not exactly the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For example...,
One day after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR went to Congress to ask for a declaration of war against Japan. The Senate unanimously approved the resolution 82-0, while the House of Representatives vote was 388 to 1.
Not exactly "against the wishes of the US population" by any means...
There is no argument that the word of God / teachings of Jesus and your support of killing and hate are not compatible. Those standing outside heaven's gates with a resume of supporting pre-emptive bombings, defending cops who gunned down innocent unarmed black kids, and turning their backs on refugees/homeless/the hungry/etc are finding they're being turned away as they did to others.
Fact is the BLM movement killed many innocent cops . They are the haters for sure.
Guess what? There was WAR in heaven when God kicked out Lucifer and one third of the angels who rebelled and Lucifer wanted to be God .
Today Lucifer is transformed into an angel of light leading many into death, destruction and stealing their lives . Lucifer has many paths for people to take to destroy themselves.
God has a narrow path and getting more narrow as the world gets more evil. Satan is the great deceiver and their are many false religions and teachings that lead people into sin, deviant behavior and confusion.
God has grace for the sinner but grace should not abound that sin grows. Man can justify and rationalize all kinds of behavior . This is dangerous to many who follow this path.
Laws should be obeyed, and many disregard the law. This is wrong.
We need to take care of our own citizens first. This is what God said in his word. There is an order of things that should be followed. If not we have chaos.
81% of evangelicals backed Trump. More evangelicals supported Trump than supported Bush over Kerry in 2004. Being that the 2004 election was primarily about religious right issues, that says a lot.
President Trump did much more for Christians than Bush ever did and Bush said he was born again.
I'll answer, but I'd like an answer to how can liberals complain about intolerance of others, when they cannot tolerate any opinion that disagrees with theirs. Many act like spoiled brats- crying, whining, and protesting because they can't have their way. I'm generally conservative, but I do believe police have little or no accountability, and I do not support any troops or involvement in the Middle East (besides supporting Israel). We need to solve our problems- not other peoples. This includes not creating more problems by letting illegals and muslims into America.
I often read this sort of whining about the same thing, intolerance of other opinions, but how about a bit more in the way of specifics?
Who is doing this whining and what does that mean? Obviously, conservatives are forever complaining about the liberal point of view and vice versa. Is this what we're whining about here? The expression of disagreement? The protest? The anti-this or that bumper sticker? The banner against this or that? Somehow this is the mark of just liberals? Or is this the universal expression from those with a contrary point of view?
Whining or demonstrated disagreement?
For the most part, all of us with strong political and/or religious opinions and convictions are tolerating others who don't agree with us. Me and my family are tolerating the ridiculous violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, for example. The constant protests over Planned Parenthood, those not willing to allow women the right to choose, not allowing gays to marry... Conservatives go on about being tolerant or that liberals are not tolerant while in the same breath demonstrating abject intolerance for others, like those who are of Muslim faith for example...
There is no argument that the word of God / teachings of Jesus and your support of killing and hate are not compatible. Those standing outside heaven's gates with a resume of supporting pre-emptive bombings, defending cops who gunned down innocent unarmed black kids, and turning their backs on refugees/homeless/the hungry/etc are finding they're being turned away as they did to others.
" How do you conservatives square love of Jesus with intolerance for minorities and love of war?"
How do you liberals come up with such garbage?
I disagree with your premise, therefore so other reply is necessary.
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.
