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.
Understood how religion by its very nature should be all-embracing, and that does pose a difficult dilemma in a secular world (taxpayer-supported or otherwise). But isn't this similar to the problems the EU is facing with the conflicts between certain muslim religious practices and contemporary western culture, and what do you suggest we do about all that?
Yes, it's definitely similar, as both Islam and Christianity have public and communal imperatives. The chief difference, though, is that Islam always and everywhere produces a violent, fanatical, and barbaric minority that makes life hell for everyone else, their fellow Muslims included. Islam is the only religion in the world that is constitutionally incapable of getting along with other religions, in any place, and at any time they gain sufficient numbers. Europe needs to halt Muslim immigration and incentivize their repatriation if it's going to prevent its own Islamization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45
Besides, if non-believers are expected to tolerate the occasional inclusion of religious practices in their secular life, isn't it only reasonable to expect religious folks to tolerate some occasional polite 'secularism' in return? And no disrespect intended, but in the larger scheme of things, simply omitting religious references in mixed company, doesn't sound like too much to ask now and then. And many of us would certainly appreciate the 'courtesy'.
I'm all for that, mateo, as far as it goes. We all should strive for genuine tolerance, sincere give and take, and mutual respect to the greatest extent possible. But the clash of values is real and also needs to be addressed systemically. Some issues can be handled more easily than others. Education, I think, is fairly easy to solve. There's no reason why any faction has to have a monopoly. But other issues are not so simple. Abortion and same-sex "marriage" are not topics that admit compromise from either side, and the latter is a zero sum game. In the long run, a common religious culture is necessary on some level if there's going to be peace.
Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 08-28-2012 at 06:20 PM..
This thread is only a few pages long. Maybe you could quote some of the "many . . . liberal apostatical atheist hypocrites and self appointed keepers of freedom" who have said that freedom of speech does not extend to the original poster.
Hey GuyNTexas!
It's been almost eight hours. How are you coming on finding some posters who argue that the original poster shouldn't have freedom of speech?
The First Amendment protects everyone equally regardless of religion.
Just because you can't handle people who aren't believers (and don't think for a second I believe your 'creator of the universe and lord of all nations' exists) standing up for themselves doesn't mean it should be revoked.
Do you think the First Amendment should only protect Christians?
Allow me to first explain how the first amendment was designed to protect non-Christians. Unless you disagree (and let me know if you do), non-Christians would have been a minority back then and Christians running the federal government or at least in high positions. There is no point of such protections for those with an overwhelming majority. The point of such protections is to guarantee freedoms who are potential targets.
You have to understand the backdrop in the minds of the founders with respect to the First Amendment. That backdrop - the 800 lb gorilla if you will - was the Church of England and its establishment. The colonies were populated with dissenters, some of whom had their own establishments now. Deists and non-Christians, though present, were not dissatisfied with the situation. Even Thomas Jefferson, among the most radical, required Anglican chapel attendance at his University of Virginia. Non-believers still thought that Christianity was a positive influence on the morals of the people and should be encouraged. Still, with the colonies being a refuge for so many diverse Christian sects, the pressing concern was that the Church of England, to which 2/3 of the founding fathers belonged, might once again assume privileges as a national church and exert a heavy hand over the others. The conflict was a "family affair", if you will, concerning various kinds of Christians with a history of squabbling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Next, your assumptions about bill of rights is about as off as it can be. It wasn't designed to protect states or the governments. It was designed to protect the people. In fact, it was suggested that states adopt these bill of rights in their own constitutions by the person who authored and presented them, and at the time he did:
"I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against."
- James Madison (The Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, First Congress, First Session, 1789)
What your Madison quote shows very clearly is that the First Amendment did not restrain the state governments whatsoever! He was of the opinion that the states should follow this example, but many of the states disagreed and would not have ratified the First Amendment otherwise.
Just the fact that something like this is published goes beyond the pale.
Did Christians take prayer out of schools?
Is creationism being taught in schools?
Are atheists being demonized?
Who is being labeled racists to push anti-religious sentiments.
Who is taking prayer out of ALL PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
Who are the ones removing Christ from Christmas
Who are the ones being arrested for having bible studies?
If God doesn't exist, why do atheists hate him? Name something else, which doesn't exist, that you hate.
Should I continue?
You may only be a sliver on that pie chart, but you wield your power under the guise of being powerless. Wolves in sheeps clothing, snakes in the grass.
Recent history suggests there is a war against Christianity.
Just the fact that something like this is published goes beyond the pale.
Did Christians take prayer out of schools?
Is creationism being taught in schools?
Are atheists being demonized?
Who is being labeled racists to push anti-religious sentiments.
Who is taking prayer out of ALL PUBLIC FUNCTIONS
Who are the ones removing Christ from Christmas
Who are the ones being arrested for having bible studies?
If God doesn't exist, why do atheists hate him? Name something else, which doesn't exist, that you hate.
Should I continue?
You may only be a sliver on that pie chart, but you wield your power under the guise of being powerless. Wolves in sheeps clothing, snakes in the grass.
Recent history suggests there is a war against Christianity.
Arrested for bible studies? That must have been one hell of a bible study. Probably lots of coke and booze involved I would assume.
Just the fact that something like this is published goes beyond the pale.[\quote]
Did Christians take prayer out of schools?
Prayer is allowed in public schools. What is not allowed is prayer led by an agent of the state (that pesky 1st Amendment, sounds like you dislike it as much as the OP), such as a teacher or a principal. But 'prayer' is not exclusively Christian. Jews, Muslims, and those of all religions are equally free to pray on their own in school. So what does this have to do with your persecution complex?
Quote:
Is creationism being taught in schools?
No, science is taught in biology class, not religious myths -- this applies to all religious myths, not just Christian ones so, again, your idea that this represents some sort of Christian oppression is moronic. Moronic, completely aside from your other moronic notion that we should teach religious myths in place of science. Yep, you really do dislike the 1st Amendment!
Quote:
Are atheists being demonized?
Duh... yeah!
Quote:
Who is being labeled racists to push anti-religious sentiments.
I don't know the answer and am just asking the question at this point. While the First Amendment once protected the rights of Christians in the United States, today it seems to be chasing Christianity back into the catacombs.
How is it possible to be "neutral" towards the Creator of the universe and the Lord of all nations? It isn't. Every man, and every nation, has to choose: whom shall you serve?
Couldn't we chase christianity back to the cross and be done with it?
What your Madison quote shows very clearly is that the First Amendment did not restrain the state governments whatsoever! He was of the opinion that the states should follow this example, but many of the states disagreed and would not have ratified the First Amendment otherwise.
Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
James Madison.
And before anyone gets all defensive about him....
If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every State, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public Treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, every thing, from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.
Same man said both, how could he be wrong?
"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."
James Madison
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." -Madison
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - John Adams
"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."
Adams
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
Thomas Jefferson
Need I continue?
The United States never has been, and never will be, a Christian nation as long as the constitution stands.
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.
