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.
No, it may not say anything about staying at home, but it does tell them to shut up. Any other interpretation of the direct language which is unambiguous, is not genuine. Is attempting to shoehorn what you think into what was said.
No … In the Gospels, The Lord Jesus of Nazareth specifically sends His Disciples out to "spread the Word," most famously in Matthew 28: 16-20 ...
It seems both the Religious and Irreligious have trouble figuring out what they are looking at when the see Public Law 97-280.
It is a full-blown law...with the full force and authority of law. One can have an opinion as to its importance...but it is as "Law" as a law can get.
You can look it up in the listing of United States Statutes At Large. Click the link, Click 1982, Click Public Laws on the dropdown, Go to 97-280. FDsys - Browse STATUTE
LOL ...
Again … "Public Law 97-280" was a joint resolution of Congress requesting and authorizing a Presidential Proclamation, which was akin to the annual Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamation …
What … ??? Turkeys and cranberries were and are ILLEGAL without that … ???
The government establishes laws all the time that allocate taxpayer money for government spending. None of those laws may support one religion and not all others.
Yes … See: the First Amendment …
So, e.g., there ARE legitimate government funds lawfully appropriately to support chaplains in various government institutions, and those chaplains serve the needs of all faiths without discrimination or favor …
This is allowed because of the "free exercise clause" which means that government can and should and does favor and protect religion in general ...
I've only seen you mention 2 particular people who identify as "New Athiests", and none of them are part of the effort discussed in the OP. Like I said, if you need to continue to vent about your hatred towards them, perhaps a different venue is the right choice.
(1) Some of the postings exactly reflect the views of the "New Atheist" movement …
(2) I don't "hate" the "New A-Theists" … I simply oppose their claims and goals ...
Not at all. A lot of the turn away from religion by younger people seems to be a reaction to some religious extremists doing their best to share their faith with everyone they can. Feel free to continue to trend all you want.
I was just saying that if believers share their view about religion in public, they shouldn't get upset when other people do the same.
(1) A lot of young people today describe themselves as "'spiritual' but not 'religious'," which often means simply that they do not actively identify with a local congregation of a sect or denomination …
As a retired clergy, I am "on call" with a local funeral home … They tap me to do services for families that are presently unaffiliated but still want a pastor to officiate grandpa's funeral …
(2) In addition, there is a broad social phenomenon in America in which fewer people are "joiners" … i.e., they don't become active "members" of organizations in the way that previous generations did … So, e.g., our local senate district party has difficulty recruiting dependable volunteer workers, not as many people join bowling leagues or the VFW, etc., etc. … It's a social trend ...
It is weird how two believers have made the exact same mistake - confusing anything short of silent submission in the face of their religious claims as persecution. There's some interesting psychology at work here.
I have read the stuff published by the "New Atheists" … But again …. I thank God and the Founders for the First Amendment ...
If they have no effect, why are you so concerned about them being removed. Seems inconsistent - either them being there has a religious effect or there's no free expression issues since they're not religious in the first place. You should really pick one or the other - this flip flopping makes it look like you're just grasping at straws.
Ummm … I didn't write that "Gideon" Bibles in motel rooms "have no effect" …
I wrote that I don't see how they constitute a "threat to religious liberty" ..
The funny thing is, you've identified as a Catholic. But here, you're supporting a situation where the government is telling me in no uncertain terms that Protestant theology is correct. They're specifically endorsing a Protestant version of the Bible and from a group which supports Protestant theology. So if we're to take your claims that the government is correct here, I have to ignore anything you say about the One True Church, because you are agreeing with the government endorsement of a competing brand of Christianity.
That's the whole problem with the "let the government advertise and pick which religion is right" side of the argument. People who are in favor of it never seem to stop and think that the government might not back their particular view of The Truth[tm]. I imagine they're so convinced that they are right about their religion that they view it in terms of black and white - either you accept the truth or you're fighting against it. But the reality is that there are hundreds or thousands of mutually contradictory versions of religion in the US, and all of them have believers who think the same thing. The odds of the government picking yours as the one true answer is exceedingly small.
The formerly deep divisions between "Catholic" and "Protestant" were greatly ameliorated by the ecumenical movement … People of faith increasingly cooperate across traditions ...
Yes … See: the First Amendment … So, e.g., there ARE legitimate government funds lawfully appropriately to support chaplains in various government institutions, and those chaplains serve the needs of all faiths without discrimination or favor …
The ministers of my own religion are highly valued in that regard since they're well-versed in the religious rituals of a greater number of religions than is typical for chaplains in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teilhard
This is allowed because of the "free exercise clause" which means that government can and should and does favor and protect religion in general ...
A provision for which, the Bible, specifically, does not qualify.
The ministers of my own religion are highly valued in that regard since they're well-versed in the religious rituals of a greater number of religions than is typical for chaplains in general.
A provision for which, the Bible, specifically, does not qualify.
As a former chaplain, in my experience, most chaplains come*up*to*speed fairly quickly …
But … Yes, as long as no person of faith is denied access to her/his own preferred sacred texts, there is or should be no problem with "the Bible" being made available to Christians and Jews ...
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.
