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.
your personal freedoms have been questioned. Could you elaborate on it?
This is like a test right? I also like how you phrased, 'personal' freedoms. That's good.
I guess if I am to take this personally and to elaborate---my children did not grow up receiving the same rights in the public schools that I did.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains three clauses that impact individual liberties related to religion. These three include the "Establishment Clause, " the "Free Exercise Clause," and the "Free Speech Clause" :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof 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.
U.S. CONST. amend. I.
Prayer is banned thus reflects the undermining of the, free exercise clause and the, free speech clause:
Quote:
School Prayer
School Prayer - A Legacy of First Amendment Revision
School Prayer was removed from the U.S. public education system by
slowly changing the meaning of the First Amendment through a number of
court cases over several decades. The following is a summary of three
pivotal cases in the early 1960's:
Quote:
Religion in U.S. Public Schools quotations
"A Congress that allows God to be banned from our schools while our
schools can teach about cults, Hitler and even devil worship is wrong,
out of touch, and needs some common sense." Rep. James Traficant,
(D-OH) 1999-APR-27.
I recognize this ban encompasses all people who practice prayer.
In further elaboration we still pledged to the flag, but not any more will they be allowed to do that.
Then we come to Pledge of Allegiance controversy. What's wrong with the pledge?
Quote:
What's Wrong With The Pledge of Allegiance - By Robert Greenslade - Price of Liberty -
To most Americans, the Pledge of Allegiance is that 15-second annoyance that signaled the start of another school day. The ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, concerning the constitutionality of the words “under God,” turned this distant memory into a firestorm of debate. What’s ironic about the Court’s decision is the “under God” provision, which the Court ruled unconstitutional, is the only part of the Pledge that is factually and historically accurate.
The wording of the Pledge makes several inferences concerning the system of government established by the Constitution.
And so we get this:
Quote:
'Under God' Faces Supreme Scrutiny - CBS News
(CBS/AP) Faced again with where to draw the line between church and
state, the Supreme Court was hearing arguments Wednesday from a
California atheist who objected to the phrase "under God" in the daily
pledge recited in his 9-year-old daughter's classroom.
Michael Newdow sued her school and won, setting up the landmark appeal
before a court that has repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from
classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.
The government is leaning so far away from the 'establishment' clause so as to appease people, they are no longer, neutral and in so doing they are stamping out, free exercise and free speech. It is those rights in which I have elaborated on, in which I see have taken a few good hits.
As people continue with their little ice pick picking away at them, they will one day---disappear, just like ice.
By culture, yes. By law, no. The whole problem with this argument is that people will use the past to justify the present or future.
Edit: this from the article in the original post:
Perhaps if prominent Christians practiced what they taught, that is not to judge, then Christian values would be more universally accepted these days.
And I read where Graham's father is upset with him. Just so you know...all people are changing. That's why I do not like it when people group people. Not everyone in a group thinks the same.
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin
Could you first tell me where in my post I said anything about the Constitution giving religion the right to influence the legislature or that God forms the basis for the nation? I don't believe I said anything of the kind. Why can't you just address what is said instead of making stuff up? What my point was is that those who interpret the law as prohibiting any religious symbols, practices, utterances, or anything else that really means freedom from religion is misinterpreting the Constitution. I never said anything close to what you claimed. I'm not sure where you even came up with that.
May I remind you that the post you responded to was strictly dealing at constitutional level, emphasizing on nation as a whole not of personal beliefs which you would like to use.
From my posts, I'm pretty sure you would see me as an agnostic, if not an atheist. But is that a fact? I will leave it to your imagination. My religious or non-religious beliefs are mine. I would hate to make it representative of the entire populace, even symbolically, just as the founders did using the constitution. They kept their personal beliefs out of the national document. It was an exceptional thing to do, and the least one could do is to acknowledge it, instead of putting a spin using where they stood in their personal lives.
Could the Jefferson quotes be any clearer on the very intent of keeping religious mob mentality out?
This is like a test right? I also like how you phrased, 'personal' freedoms. That's good.
Somehow I feel you took offense to emphasis on personal freedoms when it is fundamental to the foundation of this nation's constitution and structure. And this is supposed to be a debate. If you want to take it as a test, you've the personal freedom to assume so.
Quote:
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains three clauses that impact individual liberties related to religion. These three include the "Establishment Clause, " the "Free Exercise Clause," and the "Free Speech Clause" :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof 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.
U.S. CONST. amend. I.
And I see nothing has changed. People can still assemble to pray or worship, on their own. I'm a part of it. Not sure where you get the idea that you can't.
Quote:
Prayer is banned thus reflects the undermining of the, free exercise clause and the, free speech clause:
Now banned from having a national day of expression through prayer: Christians banned from National Day of Prayer
And, I can pray any time I want, and anywhere I want. That was the right granted to me, and still is. Did someone arrest you for praying? Did someone tell you, you can't pray or worship? I bet the answer is no, but you're PO'ed because you're not seeing a "nationalization" of religious activities. And no, the Pentagon is NOT a church. It is a federal institution. People who want to pray are not banned from doing so. I'm not an idiot who would buy into that rhetoric. They can do so outside of government sponsorship. What next, a Muslim, a Jew, a Zoroastrian, a Scientology, a Hindu, a Mormon, a Buddhist, a Jain, an assembly of atheists... events at the Pentagon?
Quote:
In further elaboration we still pledged to the flag, but not any more will they be allowed to do that.
What? Elaborate as this makes absolutely no sense.
Quote:
Then we come to Pledge of Allegiance controversy. What's wrong with the pledge?
Because it added affirmation of an establishment, and was done in the 1950s, by politicians who couldn't resist the temptation of bringing religiosity into politics.
Quote:
And so we get this:
The government is leaning so far away from the 'establishment' clause so as to appease people, they are no longer, neutral and in so doing they are stamping out, free exercise and free speech. It is those rights in which I have elaborated on, in which I see have taken a few good hits.
The government isn't just meant to be far away, but there should be a solid wall of separation between establishment and the government as the constitution expects, and the quotes by Thomas Jefferson on the subject clarify. This isn't putting a limit on free speech. That is a whole other issue. You seem to have this persecution complex for no reason at all, but the idea that you want religion to be able to influence politics. THAT couldn't be farther from the first amendment.
PS. I missed this gem...
Quote:
"A Congress that allows God to be banned from our schools while our schools can teach about cults, Hitler and even devil worship is wrong, out of touch, and needs some common sense."
Rep. James Traficant, (D-OH) 1999-APR-27.
Looks like James Traficant hates Hitler while involuntarily supporting his ideals. To quote...
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people"
- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933
"We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press. . .we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess"
- Adolf Hitler
Don't tell me you disagree with Hitler on these issues, and James Traficant is an automatic.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 05-12-2010 at 07:40 PM..
Witness the fact that Tokyo was destroyed, yet the Japanese did capitulate. Hiroshima was destroyed, and still the Japanese did not capitulate. Three days later, Nagasaki was destroyed, and yet the Japanese still did not surrender. It was three days after that, as the US was preparing a third weapon when the Japanese finally surrendered.
You omitted the documented fact that Japan was asking for peace terms through the Soviet embassy in July, 1945. At issue was mainly whether we would kill their emperor. We didn't kill him anyway, but just to prove we could if we wanted (i.e. unconditional surrender), we killed an extra 120,000 noncombatants.
Quote:
Opinions on nuclear weapons are highly subjective. More people were killed in the fire-bombing of Tokyo than the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. In what way are nuclear weapons more horrific than conventional weapons, well obviously they aren't.
True. We should've done neither.
Quote:
The use of nuclear weapons has nothing to do with being christian or not, or being religious or not. It has to do with common sense and practicality.
You are correct. On the other hand, the use of incendiary bombs against noncombatants, whether the bombs are nuclear or conventional, has a lot to do with one's moral commitments--regardless of whether one is Christian or secular.
E:
Somehow I feel you took offense to emphasis on personal freedoms when it is fundamental to the foundation of this nation's constitution and structure. And this is supposed to be a debate. If you want to take it as a test, you've the personal freedom to assume so.
****
I was not offended, but I thought it was a test, like I haven't been paying attention to past/current events. Like I was unaware of prayer being taken out of the schools and the pledge of allegiance is no longer recited. Little did I know it was not a test at all, but you skipping over that entire section, exclaiming nothing has changed, clearly shows where you are blind sided by your notions.
Which is I now understand too, why you used the words 'personal' freedoms. As the loss of these freedoms does not seem to effect you so therefore they fail to effect anyone.
Yes this is a debate. One in which I have enjoyed and one I'm sure has lost clarity in its topic.
Quote:
E:
And I see nothing has changed. People can still assemble to pray or worship, on their own. I'm a part of it. Not sure where you get the idea that you can't.
****
You see as nothing as changed clearly by this omission of my points so as to further your cause, and give no clear rebuttal.
This is change in people's freedoms public prayer: Free Exercise Clause
School Prayer - A Legacy of First Amendment Revision School Prayer was removed from the U.S. public education system by slowly changing the meaning of the First Amendment through a number of court cases over several decades. The following is a summary of three pivotal cases in the early 1960's: School Prayer
Quote:
E:
What? Elaborate as this makes absolutely no sense
E:
Because it added affirmation of an establishment, and was done in the 1950s, by politicians who couldn't resist the temptation of bringing religiosity into politics..
*****
Again you took out my points.
This is change in people's freedoms to speak the pledge of allegiance: Free Speech Clause
California atheist who objected to the phrase "under God" in the daily
pledge recited in his 9-year-old daughter's classroom.
Michael Newdow sued her school and won
What added affirmation? The wording of the Pledge makes several inferences concerning the system of government established by the Constitution. So what. It still doesn't establish (create) a religion.
The words 'under God' there is not a law the never was one that says, one must recite the pledge. But there is a law now that says you can't. So bye bye free speech.
However, it is observed these days that it is better to disrespect the country and not recite the pledge than to respect the country and recite it. (respect meaning love and that's not me saying this, that's the public masses) So people fail to see the little ice pick picking away at the block of ice. The block of ice represents our freedoms. And our National Anthem is the next to go.
Quote:
E:
The government isn't just meant to be far away, but there should be a solid wall of separation between establishment and the government as the constitution expects, and the quotes by Thomas Jefferson on the subject clarify. This isn't putting a limit on free speech. That is a whole other issue. You seem to have this persecution complex for no reason at all, but the idea that you want religion to be able to influence politics. THAT couldn't be farther from the first amendment.
****
Thomas Jefferson did not write the constitution. James Madison wrote the constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter. (Politics has been influencing religion since the hanging of Jesus Christ.)
The limits that are being placed on free speech are there because the system is slowly changing the 1st Amendment over a the course of our life time and will continue to do so in the future. Which by the way, Thomas Jefferson didn't write that either. He wrote a letter. The closets document that we have to the Wall is the letter! How is it that holds up in court again? I should hit the legal system, cause that's just and always has been ignorant to file rulings based on a letter instead of a legal document. Find those words in the constitution, then well talk. Madison wrote the constitution, he didn't use those words from Jefferson's letter!
Quote:
E:
Looks like James Traficant hates Hitler while involuntarily supporting his ideals. To quote...
******
You took that and you twisted it out of reason. I fail to see an involuntary support of Hitlers ideals from that quote of James Traficant. You will need to be more specific from the those quoted words of Traficant.
Quote:
E:
Don't tell me you disagree with Hitler on these issues, and James Traficant is an automatic.
Hitler's end did not justify his means. Hitler's actions carry far more weight behind them than his words ever will.
Now, can you show me where those court rulings on free speech and free exercise has not effected out rights as individuals and diminished them?
Just because a person is still free to go into a church does not mean that person is still free to exercise his/her beliefs in the public sector. Free, we are not.
Still the Wall all keep talking about---is based on a letter by Jefferson, who didn't even show up for the meeting of the adoption of the constitution. Also there is irony behind Jefferson being the person to write the Declaration of Independence.
And I see nothing has changed. People can still assemble to pray or worship, on their own. I'm a part of it. Not sure where you get the idea that you can't.
When I was in high school, we often said a group prayer before competing in sports. This was always led by a student and was always voluntary. We were never directed to do so by the coach and people didn't have to participate if they didn't want to. When we graduated the speakers often thanked God or made similar reference. There was also a prayer led by a minister at graduation. My kids now in high school have been told they are not allowed to lead a group prayer before a big game. This is a student or group of students wanting to pray, but being told they cannot. This isn't even during school hours. At school where I teach I'm one of three who choose the students to be the grad speakers. We choose three. The principal always makes it a point of citing the board policy that the speakers can't thank or mention Jesus or even God in general. How is it establishing a religion by allowing students who are thanking their teachers, parents, etc., to mention God? Who is being hurt by it? I've heard of many other schools where it is the same.
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.
retraction
