Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Yet, it says NOTHING about it. Weird.....
|
That's only because you are either incapable or unwilling to read between the lines of the 1st Amendment. Use some inductive reasoning. I know religion is opposed to critical thinking, but I think you're smart enough to know EXACTLY how the separation of church and state is built into the Constitution but, like so many believers, you are simply ignoring reality for a fantasy in order to keep your argument intact.
Except it isn't intact. As I've said before, you cannot have freedom OF religion without also having freedom FROM religion -- and thus far you've not been able to explain how I am wrong.
Anyhow, I'm not going to write some long post about exactly HOW the separation of church and state is built into the Constitution because I've already done that numerous times. The fact that you're still preaching the same debunked argument without refuting my arguments only shows a certain degree of obtuseness that has frustrated more than a few people on this site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
As I said...it's easier to go along and get along.
|
As if these primitive Hebrew beliefs are doing anyone any favors when people like this judge stand up for them in inappropriate places. There is an entire cadre of Americans who are no better than the Spanish Conquistadors who only cared about the "Three G's." Only in the case of America, it isn't "God, Glory, and Gold" but "God, Guns, and Gold." The only things these types of Americans are willing to stand up for are the correctness and absolutism of primitive myths, the right to pack an arsenal so we can kill anyone who doesn't conform to those primitive myths, and the right to make as much money as humanly possible regardless of the consequences to the rest of their communities, their nations, or the world.
That's why we in "Murica" are fortunate enough to have the right to own a machine gun but do NOT have the right to health care if we get shot by one.
Perhaps if we actually DID "get along" instead of always trying to push Christianity and force it to be everywhere, all the time, no matter what the circumstances, we wouldn't have these weighty differences. But, then again ... what else should I expect from religion but divisiveness, the most "us vs. them" paradigm ever conceived by the human race. And for what ... invisible, non-existent, god-things ... figments of our imagination like schoolboys tussling over whether Superman is stronger than the Hulk.
What a stupid epitaph that will be on humanity's cosmic tombstone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Nor did the framers mean that private citizens could not express their religions in public. That is a lie that the left has bought into.
|
Ah, more of your famous obtuseness. I know you're smarter than what you wrote in the quote box above. That argument is altogether ... well, I shan't risk the ire of the mods for voicing what I really think.
Yes, Vizio, the framers never said that citizens couldn't express their religious views in public. And, for the record, the "left" said no such thing. You need to turn off Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the clowns on Fox and Farts and stop drinking the right-wing propaganda Kool-Aid. Trust me, you don't want to bring politics into this -- and not just because the mods will lock the thread. >:{
However, 250+ years of historical precedent has said that there are places where a representative of the government are prohibited from expressing their private religious views. Oh, never mind the fact that they get away with it all the time anyway, but they're not supposed to.
For instance, teachers are not allowed to stand up there in front of the class and tell the kids all about how awesome he or she thinks Allah is ... or Satan or Vishnu or Gaia or Krishna or Buddha or the Great Raven worshiped by the Inuits in Alaska. And if a teacher did that, you rabid Christians would go positively ballistic; you'd welcome the efforts of the FFRF because it's better that no religion be taught than a "false" one ... right? (But if the FFRF tried to stop a teacher from rambling on about how great God is, Christians like you would get angry at those trying to stop the teacher when, just a minute ago, you would have been allied with the FFRF as they tried to stop a different teacher from preaching a non-Christian religion.)
Ugh, the hypocrisy stinks.
Once more, no one said that private individuals do not have the right to express their religious views in public.
However, let's pretend for a moment that I'm not an idiot. Let's also pretend for a moment that the wool isn't being pulled over my eyes. Can we do that? Great!
Now ... the courts have consistently ruled that the government cannot even have the appearance of endorsing or supporting one religion over another. It's like watching those icky reality television shows and seeing all company logos blurred out: soda cans, product labels, even the company logos designed into the grills of cars are blurred out so that a station can't appear to be giving advertising and product placement to one particular company. If the show is sponsored by GM but the stars of the reality show drive a Toyota, yeah, the Toyota logo will be blurred.
Well ... same concept, Vizio. And no one is fooled by this "private citizen" nonsense, which is why we're pretending that the wool is not being pulled over my eyes. Again, we know the drill. Why not just drape our courthouses with crosses and Christian flags and depictions of the 10 Commandments with "Thou shalt have no other god before me" made into a huge banner and hung from hallway to hallway. In the room where weddings are performed by government representatives, there can be a huge red sign with bold black letters that tells about how homosexuals are an abomination and should be put to death.
But ... but ... that's not the
government endorsing those things, Mr. Atheist. No! All of those things were put there by PRIVATE CITIZENS expressing their religious views in public! Yeah! And just because they happen to be judges and bailiffs and clerks and sheriffs and janitors who happen to work in the courthouse as representatives of the government makes no difference!
Sorry, but no, Vizio. Let's nip that in the bud before it even starts because I can see that stupid argument brewing somewhere in the back of your mind. And if not that argument specifically, it'll be one very similar to it. Because it sounds to me like you're already trying to say that even now.
It's rubbish. A judge can express his views as a private citizen all he wishes to, but as a JUDGE and as a representative of the government of Trigg County, he can't just refuse to do his job as an expression of religious faith. Where does THAT one end?
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.
America is a Christian country. Everyone knows that.
