Are You Uncomfortable w/ Religious Rites at Inaugural? (Al Franken, free speech, bias)
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.
Originally posted by nononsenseguy
Though the founders recognized the importance of freedom of religion, the freedom to worship God in your own way, free from persecution and with no single officially recognized church, such as was the Church of England the only officially recognized church, they in no way intended that the government should be free "of" religion. They did not envision a "secular" government, nor would they have believed that such a government, with no acknowledgement of, or trust in God, could succeed. Quite the contrary.
I agree. There is a difference between "freedom of" and "Freedom from" religion. In that sense I believe in the separation of church and state.
No one cares what you do in private, that is your own decision and does not affect me.
You're purposely reading your bias into the question.
This church was NOT founded on a god-thing.
We do NOT have a religious country and there is/should be a separation of church/state.
Well, you also need to read a little American History. Have you ever even read The Declaration of Independence?
Where do your Rights come from? Are they endowed by "government" or God. If by government, they can be taken away.
We do not have "separation of church and state" in the sense that people today think we do. That phrase can be found nowhere in any of our founding documents.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." means exactly what it says. It does not mean that there shall be no acknowledgement of God in government, schools, or anywhere else that is public.
More importantly, what the founders had in mind with that clause was that the government shall not establish a certain "sect" (such as Episcopal) as the official church, such as had been the Church of England. They were not referring to Christian vs. another world religion.
Learn it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
Do what you want but I draw the line at religion interfering with government.
Is ones reliance on the wisdom of God, and asking for his help in making important life decisions, especially as those decisions might affect others, a vice, and to be avoided?
I wonder how it would be possible for anybody to completely divorce themselves from their deeply held beliefs when considering what might be the right thing to do in a given situation (especially in considering impodrtant legislation, or evaluating a person on their character and qualifications to serve as judges, etc.). How sad for our nation if they ever do, and how dangerous such a person would be in a position of authority.
It would seem like a recipe for the appointment of unjust leaders, or the passing of unjust laws (which already happens far too often).
Our survival as a free nation is in question if we abandon God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
TnHilltopper: Although if he whipped out an obsidian blade and sacrificed a goat in front of the Lincoln Memorial, then I would be quite concerned.
Isn't this practice of religion of the same value as the christian religion?
_____
I found the inaguration invocation too religious and turned it off.
The religious play dumb on this issue. The concept is simple: We all pay our dues in this club we call the United States of America, and as dues paying members, we share in the services and responsibilities thereof. But these religious members continually try to argue that it is indeed their club and the rules should benefit them unduly in the form of laws catered to their worldview, what schools teach children, and what science will be allowed. All secular Americans want is for the religious to play by the rules. The religious are free to proclaim their love of Jayzuz as loudly as they wish, they can enjoy their tax free churches, they can vote their conscience. Secular Americans want laws and government to be administered fairly w/o religious preference. "So help me god" should not be written into the oath - it's my government too, but if Obama wants to say it, it's his freedom to do so. The same goes with prayer breakfasts and all that. If Obama wants to have a gaggle of priests over, fine. But I should not foot the bill as a taxpayer.
Instead of honoring this simple, easy to understand line, we get religious individuals arguing that actually they founded the country and the Founding Fathers would in fact prefer that we discriminate against others based on church attendance. It is a weak and desperate example of religious entitlement.
Is it government that grants you your rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If government, they can be taken away.
But even when I wasn't a christian, public prayer like this never bothered me. Obama is a self proclaimed christian, and he wanted a prayer to Jesus for himself, his family and his administration. The way I see it, he has that right as an American citizen--even if he is president. If he were Jewish or Bhuddist, it would not bother me one bit if he did one of those prayers, because it is an expression of his personal faith. he wants God to bless him and it is his right to seek that blessing however he sees fit.
You're looking for that same line...the one between an individual politician with his or her religious rights, and the government with no legitimate power in the area of religion at all beyond the protection of individual rights. The Inauguration itself is staged by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies using federal tax dollars. Render unto Obama what is Obama's, and unto the JCCIC what is the JCCIC's. Obama may well have the right to ask that Rick Warren or anyone else be invited to speak. But the national platform that projected Warren into tens of millions of American homes was provided by the JCCIC and it erred in allowing Warren to abuse that platorm in promoting quite specifically one particular religion over all others. There is no place for that within a goverment of, by, and for all the people.
From ( Separation of Church and State ) "It is true that the literal phrase 'separation of church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, but that does not mean the concept isn't there. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Having interacted in the past with Yeledaf on this forum, I have come to understand through my own magical powers of perception that English is likely not this person's first language and I cut him or her a little slack accordingly. It seems like an appropriate thing to do. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm sure he'll be very flattered to learn your opinion of him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
As for your post, perhaps people who live in grammatically incorrect glass houses ought to not throw improperly punctuated stones.
There are typo's, there are errors and omissions, there is vernacular, there is alteration for emphasis, and then there is simply not knowing, or for other reasons wandering totally away from, the way in which the language actually works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
FYI, you would seem, according to my innate magical powers of perception, to be in the 9% of Americans who disapproved of Rick Warren's selection.
Another crash-and-burn scenario for these quite Wile E. Coyote-like magical powers of yours. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeew...SPLAT!!! Obama can invite anyone he wants. The question is whether tax dollars may be used through the JCCIC to allow simply anyone to say simply anything he wants to say. There is a theory that if the JCCIC could not have said it, then no one they have hired or otherwise retained or designated may say it on their behalf. The guests may be expected to play by house rules, in other words...
Go re-read the words of our founding fathers. This nation was founded for the glory of God on a biblical foundation. No other nation is as explicitly Christian as this country is and has been from its inception by its founders.
No, ours was founded as an explicitly secular government, to the end that the individual religious aspirations of each of its citizens might most expeditiously be met. There were folks of your ambition in secret session in Philadelphia in 1787. From time to time they raised their "No King But Jesus" clamor, and each time they were shouted down. To the everlasting benefit of our nation...
Obama embraces religion in his family and also knows that to bring this country together from the divide that the wackos on the far left have created that he can't abandon the moderate right (which is most of the right).
Did you listen to his address? No More Reagan. No More Bush. We Need and Will Turn to Just What Works.
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.