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.
exactly. when something annoys me I step out. everyone is entitled to opine but no one is required to be subjected.
+1
Sorry, we're talking about my government. I'm not just going to say "screw it" and bail. I won't look the other way when illegal, obnoxious things are being perpetrated by my government. It would not be very patriotic to do so.
If it's on private property, sure, but if it's on government property, then no, it's not appropriate, especially at a meeting for the public where everyone is supposed to feel like they're included.
This is all I'm trying to say. Thank you for saying it so succinctly.
nice squirm but this is not a constitutional democracy. this is not a democracy at all. it is a republic and you are correct that the christian framers went to great pains to design a sustainable republican form of government. s
got shrew?
You are playing a childish game of anal retentive word play. The U.S. is a democracy because we vote for our leaders (indirect democracy), as well as for ballot issues (direct democracy). We're a republic because we don't have a hereditary ruler or equivalent dictator or committee of dictators.
So, what was the point of that little waste of time? Are you unable to argue the actual issue? Any way you slice it, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. Do you at least agree with that? And that the first amendment contains the Establishment Clause?
Thomas Jefferson and many of the framers and Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians. Many of them had choice words for Christianity (you should read more of what Jefferson had to say), but that issue is a red herring. The religion of the framers has no bearing; the Constitution, which doesn't say anything about any god, is the law of the land. If Christians wrote the rulebook for basketball, does that make basketball a Christian game? The official basketball rules don't say anything about any god either.
What is your motivation in bringing up the religion of the framers and founders? Is that a bullying tactic to get non-Christians to shut up? Sorry, it has no merit as an argument, either way. The historical context is of academic interest, though. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the downside of entanglement of religion in Europe; it was a disaster. The intolerance different Christian sects showed toward one another was also a disaster. The U.S. did not want to copy Europe's dysfunction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dadeguy
you are also correct in stating my favorite words "to protect us from the tyranny of the majority" the tyrants being intolerant shrill citizens such as what I imagine you to be.
You know, I couldn't care less whether you love me or hate me. All I want from you is to respect other peoples' rights. It makes for a better society.
Isn't it funny how the majority labels the people they don't like, in order to justify their treatment of those annoying, stupid minorities? It does not make your case, and neither does an epistemological argument about the meaning of the word "republic". I would hope you could do better.
I'm still waiting for one of the folks who are so sanguine about the conflation of religion and government to answer the question I keep asking: Would you be okay with someone opening the Council meeting with a prayer to Satan, or Allah, or the Earth Mother?
You can't possibly think it's legal to allow one religion's prayer, but not another's.
Are any of you guys willing to tackle this question?
Location: miami, fla. enjoying the relative cool, for now ;)
1,085 posts, read 2,532,273 times
Reputation: 1063
I personally have no problem with anyone else's religious preferances though I admit that to believe that there is only one path to the true God and that is through the person of Jesus Christ. I also agree that in a pluralistic society such as ours we must all accomodate each other and each other's views with civility and respect. I agree that perhaps in a public meeting there should be no public prayer whatsoever. However I respect the right of the decision makers to pray to whomever they so desire.
if a prayer were to be uttered in a public meeting invoking any but the one true God I would at that moment be supplicating the one true God quietly to allow his holy spirit to permeate the room and to shower the decision makers with wisdom. that's what I do anyway. you don't need to know I'm doing it but I will tell you this cougarbeach I'm supplicating the one true God on your behalf as I type. I hope you are not offended.
Location: miami, fla. enjoying the relative cool, for now ;)
1,085 posts, read 2,532,273 times
Reputation: 1063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cougar Beach
You are playing a childish game of anal retentive word play. The U.S. is a democracy because we vote for our leaders (indirect democracy), as well as for ballot issues (direct democracy). We're a republic because we don't have a hereditary ruler or equivalent dictator or committee of dictators.
So, what was the point of that little waste of time? Are you unable to argue the actual issue? Any way you slice it, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. Do you at least agree with that? And that the first amendment contains the Establishment Clause?
Thomas Jefferson and many of the framers and Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians. Many of them had choice words for Christianity (you should read more of what Jefferson had to say), but that issue is a red herring. The religion of the framers has no bearing; the Constitution, which doesn't say anything about any god, is the law of the land. If Christians wrote the rulebook for basketball, does that make basketball a Christian game? The official basketball rules don't say anything about any god either.
What is your motivation in bringing up the religion of the framers and founders? Is that a bullying tactic to get non-Christians to shut up? Sorry, it has no merit as an argument, either way. The historical context is of academic interest, though. The Founding Fathers were well aware of the downside of entanglement of religion in Europe; it was a disaster. The intolerance different Christian sects showed toward one another was also a disaster. The U.S. did not want to copy Europe's dysfunction.
You know, I couldn't care less whether you love me or hate me. All I want from you is to respect other peoples' rights. It makes for a better society.
Isn't it funny how the majority labels the people they don't like, in order to justify their treatment of those annoying, stupid minorities? It does not make your case, and neither does an epistemological argument about the meaning of the word "republic". I would hope you could do better.
You will find in me a very gracious and respectful person furthermore arguing on the internet is assenine though I do admit to having a perverse delight in anonymously poking the weak minded who attempt to come off otherwise, something I would not do in person out of respect for that person's feelings. I admit it's a bit of a dichotomy but there you have it. you are so far off the mark on so many points regarding these issues, parroting what others have told you without careful consideration or performing proper research prior to forming an opinion and having formulated those opinions so long ago that they are deeply ingrained. Humans love to hold onto their prejudices. far be it from me to interfere in anyone's love affairs.
Location: miami, fla. enjoying the relative cool, for now ;)
1,085 posts, read 2,532,273 times
Reputation: 1063
I want to post a link to an interview with the notorious David Berkowitz, "The son of Sam" it is hosted on the Focus on the Family site and here is a linky to it. I think some the things discussed in this interview will shed light on the topic of this thread and the repercussions of making wrong decisions in the areas of faith. this is the third part of a three part series and all three parts are available for podcasts or for listening online. I would caution that while none of his crimes are discussed in detail and the focus is not on his self admitteddly heinous acts I found portions of the interview disturbing. this is a very compelling interview irrespective of one's religious views.
Isn't everyone tired of this discussion yet? No one is going to convince the atheists that they live in a predominantly Christian country, founded by people with traditional Christian beliefs, and who see nothing wrong with saying a prayer before conducting business. Atheists, the ACLU, and other haters want to turn this country into a human secularists playground. They've been successful at changing laws by judicial 'discovery' but they haven't changed anyone's heart so they are frustrated when people continue to express what's in their hearts, despite it now being 'illegal' under the newly interpreted laws.
Sweety, the entanglement of the two happened a long time ago. It is proven every 4 years when we vote for a Christian President
I might not agree with someone praying to Satan, but who am I to stop them from doing it. That is the very freedom we fought for so many years ago. I don't agree or disagree with the whole idea of prayer in the courtroom, but we all know that for the most part majority rules and for those who didn't want to participate they didn't have to. That is the beauty of living in this country. People pray on the train all the time, often to a God I don't believe in, but that is their perrogative. I would find it more offensive if they tried to make me join in the prayer than them actually praying.
My question now is if our money is ok to be intrusted to him, why are we not allowed to mention him? I totally understand your point, but like it or not those who wrote that constitution all believed in God. At least, I don't remember any of them being Satanists. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
It is okay to have your opinion about it. Others will disagree and that is okay too, makes for good conversation.
That really isn't the same analogy - praying isn't against the law, beastiality is. I mean seriously.
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.
