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.
Sorry my Faith annoys you. No, I'm really not sorry!
Where did I say it annoys me? I said, "This proves exactly what mordant was saying... ". You have no proof, no facts, no evidence to support your claims. It is simply your opinion. Going by your post earlier, where you said, "According to you- "truth" is whatever your opinion happens to be!", you seem to be lacking in understanding of what the word hypocrite means. Your "truth" is only your opinion, with no backing evidence other than a book.
I feel sorry for anybody who is "traumatized" by a book in a closed drawer in a bedside stand.
It must be a terrible thing to allow a book to have THAT MUCH power over your life!
Where did I say it annoys me? I said, "This proves exactly what mordant was saying... ". You have no proof, no facts, no evidence to support your claims. It is simply your opinion. Going by your post earlier, where you said, "According to you- "truth" is whatever your opinion happens to be!", you seem to be lacking in understanding of what the word hypocrite means. Your "truth" is only your opinion, with no backing evidence other than a book.
Your "truth" is your opinion- so we have something in common with each other and everyone else!
Your "truth" is your opinion- so we have something in common with each other and everyone else!
So your point is, everyone has their own truth? So what? That doesn't make anyone's truth worth more than someone else's. The difference however, lies in what constitutes "truth". For you, a book with words you like written in it is all the "truth" you need. For thinking men, that simply isn't enough. We rely on things like evidence, reason, and logic.
I feel sorry for anybody who is "traumatized" by a book in a closed drawer in a bedside stand.
It must be a terrible thing to allow a book to have THAT MUCH power over your life!
I agree. Similarly, getting upset because someone objects to someone else putting a book in a closed drawer bedside stand really is no better.
As I said, that isn't really the point. It is still tax money being spent on a favored religion.
Well, considering Christmas has turned into a holiday that is not religious for the majority of people, it really isn't the same thing. If they are putting up religious symbols as Christmas decorations, then yes, someone will campaign against it.
You have no proof that Christianity is being favored here and other religions are being excluded.. Until you do, your argument falls flat. The point is atheists have twisted the concept of seperation of church and state to such extremes that they want any state entity to treat religion like a dangerous virus. Stay away and don't expose yourself to it!
But such an extreme divorcing is just not realistic or logical. Your tax payer money paid for the Pope's visit. Would you have preferred to tell the Pope to take a hike or visit on his own dime? My tax payer money goes to fund things I don't like it. I don't complain because I don't consider it my money anymore. It's the government's money. Since your side loves to declare the Supreme Court as the final authority on such issues then I'm sure you completely agree and have no problem with their ruling here:
Quote:
Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, 551 U.S. 587 (2007), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of expenditures by the executive branch of the government. The issue was whether taxpayers have the right to challenge the existence of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.[1] The case centered on three Supreme Court precedents: Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988), and Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982).
In a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court ruled that the Foundation did not have standing to sue and ordered the Appeals court finding reversed.
For the record not all of us non-believers object to Gideon bibles in motels, even state-run ones. It's the vocal extremists whining about this, sort of like the extremist Christians demanding Creation be taught in our schools and marriage be denied to same-sex couples. Most of us are quite reasonable. This forum is probably not a good window into either side's mainstream thinking. Just my opinion. I could certainly be wrong. Again.
You have no proof that Christianity is being favored here and other religions are being excluded.. Until you do, your argument falls flat.
The fact that the university in question stopped the practice of distributing Bibles, rather than simply issuing a statement re-affirming their policy of inclusion of all religious groups kind of tells us that allowing any and all religious organizations to use their lodging as a distribution channel for literature was not what anyone had intended.
I am fairly sure that this was not a conspiracy or plot. Likely the hotel management came from the private sector, and was used to this, and so continued to do it even though as a state owned facility the rules are different. When it was brought up to them, I am sure they consulted their lawyers and realized they were in the wrong, and corrected it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
The point is atheists have twisted the concept of seperation of church and state to such extremes that they want any state entity to treat religion like a dangerous virus. Stay away and don't expose yourself to it!
That would be one approach. The other is to equally and without discrimination accommodate all religious views. Usually that option is not the one chosen because, quite frankly, it is much more costly and difficult. Also it often doesn't go over well, as evidenced by the drama in Florida over the Satanic Temple's coloring book.Turns out that many people don't really want equal access for all religions... Who knew?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Since your side loves to declare the Supreme Court as the final authority on such issues then I'm sure you completely agree and have no problem with their ruling here:
Yep. And while I think they got it wrong (at least 5 of them did... ) the fact remains that their decision is binding precedent. I understand their concerns about separation of powers, but I am not convinced that the Executive branch should be immune from taxpayer lawsuits challenging their actions. This is such a narrow issue, however, that I think in the long run it will not matter much.
Take note how angry and bent out of shape I am about this... Oh wait, I'm not. Even though I am skeptical of the outcome, this is what it looks like when the system works.
You have no proof that Christianity is being favored here and other religions are being excluded.. Until you do, your argument falls flat. The point is atheists have twisted the concept of seperation of church and state to such extremes that they want any state entity to treat religion like a dangerous virus. Stay away and don't expose yourself to it!
But such an extreme divorcing is just not realistic or logical. Your tax payer money paid for the Pope's visit. Would you have preferred to tell the Pope to take a hike or visit on his own dime? My tax payer money goes to fund things I don't like it. I don't complain because I don't consider it my money anymore. It's the government's money. Since your side loves to declare the Supreme Court as the final authority on such issues then I'm sure you completely agree and have no problem with their ruling here:
The "proof" is that they are favoring Christianity by allowing the books to be placed in a state run lodging, which is paid for by taxes. Simple question for you, Jeff.
If your local federal building had Quran's laying around in every room, what would you think? Would you think they were favoring Islam? Would you think they were endorsing Islam? Would you think, "Well, someone must have given them the books, so it's cool"? What would you think? I won't hold my breath waiting for you to answer.
I would much prefer that the Pope pay his own way. The Catholic church could certainly pay for it, so why should American tax payers? You are right though, it is the governments money once they take it from us, but the fact is, they can't use it to endorse or favor a religion. The Pope visiting was about much more than simply religion, which is why we paid for it.
Oh, and the Supreme Court IS the final authority in such things.
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.
) the fact remains that their decision is binding precedent. I understand their concerns about separation of powers, but I am not convinced that the Executive branch should be immune from taxpayer lawsuits challenging their actions. This is such a narrow issue, however, that I think in the long run it will not matter much.
