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 Supreme Court disagrees in previous rulings on similar cases. Do you have any specific objections to their decisions, or do you just want to rant and rave about some imagined communist takeover of the US government?
Yes I do have objectionswith their decisions when more and more things they have been ruling on lately are not mentioned in the constitution and therefore should be sent back to the states. Communist takeover of the United States? That began back in the 1960s KCfromNC. You were either not born or asleep and didn't see it. But back to my answer. "Separation of church and state" does NOT appear in our constitution or even bill of rights. If it does, then find it and show it to me please!!
Here, let me help you
ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.
1936 CONSTITUTION OF THE USSR
That's nice. Make sure to deny your essence to these communist infiltrators. That'll show 'em!
Now, back to the topic at hand. What specific objections do you have to the logic used in past rulings which removed pictures of religious figures from public schools? You can start by quoting the ruling you disagree with and then move on to showing why it is wrong. Until you let me know what your issue is with these past decisions, there's really nothing to discuss here.
That's nice. Make sure to deny your essence to these communist infiltrators. That'll show 'em!
Now, back to the topic at hand. What specific objections do you have to the logic used in past rulings which removed pictures of religious figures from public schools? You can start by quoting the ruling you disagree with and then move on to showing why it is wrong. Until you let me know what your issue is with these pas decisions, there's really nothing to discuss here.
I have been trying to figure out what the Constitution of the USSR has to do with whether it is OK to hang a picture of Jesus in a school in the USA. So far, the USSR seems to be entirely off-topic.
However, the Supreme Court is entirely ON-Topic. If anybody wants to go search the Court decisions for some reasoning that makes a religious picture in a public building OK, here's a link to Supreme Court decisions regarding the establishment clause of the First Amendment:
No they just need to include a blank picture to accomodate the small minority of atheists.
A statement that shows you entirely fail to understand anything in this thread or anything about peoples issues with the topic. The topic is a secular one for a start, not an atheist one, and theists can be secular too.
Plus it would not be a blank picture that would represent atheist thought anyway. So it seems you also fail to understand that too. You would require a picture made up of 1000s of tiny pictures each with a different person represented in them.
Because while you guys worship your "one" god and your "one" Jesus we are not so limited. Our world view and opinions and morality and so forth are informed by the entire wealth of human achievement and literature. To us, if he even existed, Jesus was nothing but one more in a long line of human philosophers and we can draw our ethics and philosophy from many sources. Not just one. We see no reason to elevate Jesus as being any better or worse than any other contributor to human ethical philosophy. A bit of light torture at the end of your life does not make you a supreme philosopher.
And further, as can be seen if one studies the works of Socrates and Plato... our sources do not even need to have had to exist for us to be able to draw on them. While there is little evidence that Jesus existed, you the theist must cling to the notion he really did exist. We are not so limited. One common atheist world view is that it is WHAT people say, do or write that is important not WHO is doing the sayings, actions or writings. If it could be somehow proven tomorrow that Socrates and/or Plato never existed it would not take away one iota of the value of the words attributed to their name.
This is not a claim I think one could coherently make about your Christ religion however. Actually on that note I recommend a reading of Guy Thornes "When it was dark". I am assured by one of my CityData groupies that it can be read for free here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWD39
So you are saying Jesus really had no influence on mankind and is just as important as a fictional character? Wow.
I did not see him saying that anywhere. So the only "wow" here is that you have tried and failed once again to put words in peoples mouths and misrepresent their positions entirely.... despite the fact that the only person who seems to fall for these attempts by you... IS you.
A statement that shows you entirely fail to understand anything in this thread or anything about peoples issues with the topic. The topic is a secular one for a start, not an atheist one, and theists can be secular too.
Plus it would not be a blank picture that would represent atheist thought anyway. So it seems you also fail to understand that too. You would require a picture made up of 1000s of tiny pictures each with a different person represented in them.
Because while you guys worship your "one" god and your "one" Jesus we are not so limited. Our world view and opinions and morality and so forth are informed by the entire wealth of human achievement and literature. To us, if he even existed, Jesus was nothing but one more in a long line of human philosophers and we can draw our ethics and philosophy from many sources. Not just one. We see no reason to elevate Jesus as being any better or worse than any other contributor to human ethical philosophy. A bit of light torture at the end of your life does not make you a supreme philosopher.
And further, as can be seen if one studies the works of Socrates and Plato... our sources do not even need to have had to exist for us to be able to draw on them. While there is little evidence that Jesus existed, you the theist must cling to the notion he really did exist. We are not so limited. One common atheist world view is that it is WHAT people say, do or write that is important not WHO is doing the sayings, actions or writings. If it could be somehow proven tomorrow that Socrates and/or Plato never existed it would not take away one iota of the value of the words attributed to their name.
This is not a claim I think one could coherently make about your Christ religion however. Actually on that note I recommend a reading of Guy Thornes "When it was dark". I am assured by one of my CityData groupies that it can be read for free here.
Relax dude, it was a joke. I figured you would applaud it since you are such a fan of mockery. I also understand the atheist need to belittle the significance and reality of Jesus Christ. Your rhetoric isn't fooling anyone.
Relax dude, it was a joke. I figured you would applaud it since you are such a fan of mockery. I also understand the atheist need to belittle the significance and reality of Jesus Christ. Your rhetoric isn't fooling anyone.
It is indeed a sad loss that "being funny" is no longer an attribute to qualify something as being a "joke". I lament this loss. Mockery and Humor has it's place indeed but only if it is representative of the idea in question. Your post was less mockery and more straw man.
Also no one is "belittling" anything. That is just your usual anti atheist mantra to wave away critique of your position. The simple fact is that actual evidence for a Jesus Christ is thin on the ground. If it was not thin on the ground you likely would have presented a shred of it by now in the face of all the people calling you on the claims.... rather than ducking and diving behind deflection generalizations mantras about atheists as you are wont to do.
That does not mean there was never such a person, but there is very little reason to think there was. And no way to verify that every word and action attributed to him was _actually_ him as word of mouth at a time like that can amalgamate stories.
What certainly is not forthcoming is even a shred of evidence supporting the supernatural and magical actions he is purported to have performed. Certainly not from you. I asked you once to pick one and substantiate it. Rather than doing so you outright falsely claimed I had asked you to validate ALL of them and went off on a duck and dive deflection rant about the unreasonable standards of evidence requested by atheists.
It is indeed a sad loss that "being funny" is no longer an attribute to qualify something as being a "joke". I lament this loss. Mockery and Humor has it's place indeed but only if it is representative of the idea in question. Your post was less mockery and more straw man.
Also no one is "belittling" anything. That is just your usual anti atheist mantra to wave away critique of your position. The simple fact is that actual evidence for a Jesus Christ is thin on the ground. If it was not thin on the ground you likely would have presented a shred of it by now in the face of all the people calling you on the claims.... rather than ducking and diving behind deflection generalizations mantras about atheists as you are wont to do.
That does not mean there was never such a person, but there is very little reason to think there was. And no way to verify that every word and action attributed to him was _actually_ him as word of mouth at a time like that can amalgamate stories.
What certainly is not forthcoming is even a shred of evidence supporting the supernatural and magical actions he is purported to have performed. Certainly not from you. I asked you once to pick one and substantiate it. Rather than doing so you outright falsely claimed I had asked you to validate ALL of them and went off on a duck and dive deflection rant about the unreasonable standards of evidence requested by atheists.
Duck and dive? No, that's your method when you stubbornly refuse to even give me your qualifications for evidence. SHow me an example of a historical figure or event that you believe wholeheartedly really happened and explain to me what is the difference between the evidence that supports this example vs Jesus Christ. But I'm sure you will refuse.
Denying the power and influence of Jesus Christ on millions of lives is most certainly belittling him.
So you are saying Jesus really had no influence on mankind and is just as important as a fictional character? Wow.
As Nozz stated, no where did I say such a thing. To do so would be illogical and fallacious. My only insinuation is that, since the evidence points to Jesus having never existed, a blank picture is just as worthy of notoriety and worship. The advantage for the blank picture representing the beliefs of atheists is that we atheists don't charaterize it as anything but a blank picture.
As Nozz stated, no where did I say such a thing. To do so would be illogical and fallacious. My only insinuation is that, since the evidence points to Jesus having never existed, a blank picture is just as worthy of notoriety and worship. The advantage for the blank picture representing the beliefs of atheists is that we atheists don't charaterize it as anything but a blank picture.
Indeed, Even Apollo and the Olympian gods had an influence on humanity.
The Hippocratic oath:
Quote:
I SWEAR by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius (son of Apollo), and Health(daughter of Aesculapius), and All-heal(other daughter of same), and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others...
Indeed, Even Apollo and the Olympian gods had an influence on humanity.
The Hippocratic oath:
Umm no, that would be Hippocrates having the influence by his own statements.
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.
