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: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
*snicker*
You might want to actually read an article before posting it, Eusebius.
The link you provided was an argument AGAINST Jefferson wanting kids to read Bibles in school.
From your own source:
Given Jefferson's disdain for organized religion and the fact that he totally rewrote the Bible so he could take out all of the miracles, it seems a dubious claim that Jefferson would be gung-ho for schools to force kids to read the Bible as a reader.
Eusie makes a habit of assuming headlines bolster his position, and is never embarrassed about when he is in error.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Yeah it's a STATE, and guess what, they are not establishing or even endorsing a religion here. We are talking about a matter of physical space here.
Can you put a instructional manual on bomb making? Cmon, how about being realistic here? There's a difference between a Bible and harmful material like porn.
Many would suggest the bible is more harmful. If they actually read it.
Of course they do. There is nothing restricting it.
Of course they don't. There is nothing authorizing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Of course they authorized it.
No they didn't. You're just saying whatever you want now to try to rationalize your personal preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
But they don't authorize every single minute detail that happens in that cafeteria.
Yet what they're authorized for is only that which serves the purpose of a cafeteria, a secular purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
They hire someone to make those decisions.
That person isn't allowed to unilaterally reject the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, even though that apparently ruins your narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
No. There isn't.
Yes. There is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I know you guys love to chirp about this supposed "separation of church and state" but it doesn't exist. The Constitution doesn't mention it.
But the Constitution does include the Establishment Clause which prohibits what you vacuously claim it doesn't prohibit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Dominionist?
Yes. Making rationalizations for imposing Christianity within secular, state-sponsored contexts. It's a violation of the US Constitution. Even though you don't like that it is.
Germany is a pretty bad example of religious freedom.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are denied tax benefits. Some Muslim religious groups are denied PLC status, thereby denying them the ability to benefit from Germany's church tax arrangement. There is state sponsorship of institutions of some religions, but not others: The German government subsidizes Christian kindergartens, schools, hospitals, old-age homes, and charities. Germany also subsidizes institutions aimed at fostering Jewish culture heritage and other work to restore Jewish community. However, subsidies are limited to Christian and Jewish institutions. Another example of Germany's lack of religious freedom.
Muslims are denied equal protection from baseless surveillance - in other words, there is a presumption of guilt that trumps religious freedom. Imagine if fundamentalist Christians were subjected to that in the United States, on the basis of the fact that there are extremists among them. The petty nature of the institutionalized religious persecution of Muslims in Germany includes the banning of the wearing of headscarves in some German states.
And they also crack down on Scientology and other crazy cults. And they also forbid the few religious fundies they still have from homeschooling their children in order to keep them away from evolution and sex ed. And that is how it should be. Maintaining a civilized society is more important than religious freedom.
But the Constitution does include the Establishment Clause which prohibits what you vacuously claim it doesn't prohibit.
You mean the clause that states that Congress can't do it? That one?
No biggie. The state is not congress. The founding fathers expected the states to have a lot of say in what goes on in their own states. The central government telling people what to do wasn't what they wanted--so they said that Congress couldn't.
And they also crack down on Scientology and other crazy cults. And they also forbid the few religious fundies they still have from homeschooling their children in order to keep them away from evolution and sex ed. And that is how it should be. Maintaining a civilized society is more important than religious freedom.
A society is able to do both. Only a vested interest in the practice of religious intolerance, lack of respect for other human beings, or lack of confidence in one's ability to behave in a manner consistent with religious freedom would lead someone to believe otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
You mean the clause that states that Congress can't do it? That one? No biggie. The state is not congress.
Yet the Supreme Court applied it to a school district in School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp. I guess you're wrong, but I'm sure you'll deny deny deny.
Luckily, the long-term trend is toward less and less of the kind of nonsense you spew being given credence in our society. Dominionism is dying out, finally.
Many would suggest the bible is more harmful. If they actually read it.
Only those who truly have hatred for God and have to paint everything about our faith negative. Atheists could make a flower garden sound harmful if it had anything to do with Christianity. Really what is so dark and awful about a message of unconditional love, hope and forgiveness?
Only those who truly have hatred for God and have to paint everything about our faith negative.
First, cupper3's comment was about the Bible not about God or your faith. So clearly, you're just throwing words up on the screen without really trying to respond to the comments you choose to reply to.
Second, no one here hates God. So that's just a lie you tell to try to get some shock value into your comments. Everyone in this thread has made it clear either [a] that they have love for what they think is God; or [b] that there is no such thing as God and therefore nothing to hate. The only negative feelings people are expressing in this thread is for abject obstinance, rationalization for disrespecting anything other than what you personally want to be respected, and other generalized behaviors by which people, like yourself, are trying to assert that the insinuation of your religious beliefs into the lives of others is defensible, instead of the reality, that it is an offence worthy of sanctions.
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.
