Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 68
  1.    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    The very fact that prayer and Bible-backed oaths have each been such a long standing practice in government proceedings is indication that it is not a Constitutional violation. ...Offensive to some? Perhaps. But, that is not the same as unconstitutional. Insulting? Perhaps. But, not unconstitutional. Irrational? Perhaps. But, not unconstitutional.
    I beg the difference.
    Firstly, that Bible-backed oaths are still being used is wrong. It is wrong for all the reasons an average Christian would be upset if tomorrow, in the US, instead of the "common" bible we'll start using the Koran as in Koran-backed oaths. And so on and so forth (chose any for of the many written "bibles").
    Surly you can argue that Bible-backed oaths' longevity is some sort of a proof to such argument (the "if it ain't broke -- don't fix it" mantra), but it means little in the face of America a la 21st century.
    The bible, like it or not, DOES represent something very religious and I see no escape from it.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    It is really only a "problem" for those who don't like religion in the public square.
    I don't think Congressman Ellison has a problem with religion in the public square ... as long as it is HIS religion.
    If US is to remain secular (and this can be debated as a good or a bad thing), then the only way ALL religions can be treated equally is to minimize the role that they all play in governance. (And yes, we can do that and still have a country of just laws.)

    Otherwise one religion will always be more equal than others.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    ...but it means little in the face of America a la 21st century.
    ...
    In my estimation, this is the key phrase.

    It is one thing to say, "This is what I desire in America today." It is yet another to say, "That is 'unconstitutional.'"

    Our nation was founded on a premise of we want this not that. There is a new "revolution" underway with the aim of doing away with the founders' "this." I suppose another 200 years from now, the Americans (if she still exists) will have their own "This."

    Such is life.

    Only know that it was the founder's "this" that gave rise to the ability to make such choices. Perhaps that should not be thrown away so hastily.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    I don't think Congressman Ellison has a problem with religion in the public square ... as long as it is HIS religion.
    If US is to remain secular (and this can be debated as a good or a bad thing), then the only way ALL religions can be treated equally is to minimize the role that they all play in governance. (And yes, we can do that and still have a country of just laws.)

    Otherwise one religion will always be more equal than others.
    One religion has always been more equal in this country. However, it has never been mandated by the state.

    The question is, can a civilization remain where all beliefs are treated as equal? Do not beliefs have consequences? How can just laws remain when the rationale that undergirds them is perceived as just one of many equal "good ideas"? On what basis can we continue to promote the notion that murder is unacceptable? If all beliefs are equal, then the belief that some lives are not worth the the air and water they consume is a valid view.
  5. #45  
    Very valid and important questions. These should be debated, discussed rationally. Laws should not be made based on "my religious text says it should be thus" or "my old bearded mullah/preacher/priest says it should be thus".
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    Very valid and important questions. These should be debated, discussed rationally. Laws should not be made based on "my religious text says it should be thus" or "my old bearded mullah/preacher/priest says it should be thus".
    We agree.

    At the same time though, I don't think we should disregard source data on the basis of it being "religious text" or disregard sound advice because it is spoken by an "old bearded mullah/preacher/priest."

    Of course, one obstacle is that there are those who conclude all things religious as irrational, and consider their "rational" thought to be more equal than other ideas.

    However, in the debate and discussion, one needs only follow many thoughts to their logical end and/or trace thoughts to their logical origin.

    With that in mind, shall we begin?

    Using the example I raised, on what basis do we determine who is worthy of existing?
  7. #47  
    To me, all sources of ideas are welcome. However, justifying them or attacking them on the basis of religion/faith is not.

    Who deserves to exist? Anything that is not opposed to the existance of others.

    Do carnivores deserve to exist? yes because they have no other way to exist themselves.

    Do plants deserve to exist? Clearly, there is no universal answer to your original question.

    This thread is getting hijacked. Let's stay on topic of the merits of the Congressman's POV.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    To me, all sources of ideas are welcome. However, justifying them or attacking them on the basis of religion/faith is not.

    Who deserves to exist? Anything that is not opposed to the existance of others.

    Do carnivores deserve to exist? yes because they have no other way to exist themselves.

    Do plants deserve to exist? Clearly, there is no universal answer to your original question.

    This thread is getting hijacked. Let's stay on topic of the merits of the Congressman's POV.
    Which congressman?
  9. #49  
    Ellison. See the first post in this thread.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  10. #50  
    I wasn't sure if we were proceeding with Goode's POV or Ellison's.

    What is Ellison's POV?
  11. #51  
    I meant Goode. Got the names mixed up. Ellison's views are up for debate as well ...
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  12. #52  
    Or, maybe, just maybe, Goode's disdain for Ellison has nothing to do with his religion. Ellison, a Muslim convert, is a young African-American born in Detroit. (Just in case we're running low on controversial ideas).
    Gimme the P-Funk!
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzi View Post
    Or, maybe, just maybe, Goode's disdain for Ellison has nothing to do with his religion. Ellison, a Muslim convert, is a young African-American born in Detroit. (Just in case we're running low on controversial ideas).
    Are you saying Goode has a problem with people from Detroit?
  14.    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Are you saying Goode has a problem with people from Detroit?
    Don't we all? (OK, just kidding!)

    I still maintain that no matter how we dissect and assume the real intentions of the US forefathers when they drafted The Constitution, the use of Bible-backed oaths is wrong (not unconstitutional; not yet).
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by impish View Post
    Don't we all? (OK, just kidding!)

    I still maintain that no matter how we dissect and assume the real intentions of the US forefathers when they drafted The Constitution, the use of Bible-backed oaths is wrong (not unconstitutional; not yet).
    Hmmmmm. Isn't it difficult to interpret the Constitution apart from the intent of the authors?

    "Not unconstitutional" - We agree.

    "Not yet" - If it is not today, why would it become so in the future?

    "Wrong" - On what basis?
  16.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Hmmmmm. Isn't it difficult to interpret the Constitution apart from the intent of the authors?
    No more so than the bible. Besides, the authors, one would assume based on their wisdom, left the Constitution open for revisions: Amendments were made to reflect the mood and attitude mostly appropriate with the time. The bible has no amendments to reflect change.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    "Not yet" - If it is not today, why would it become so in the future?
    See my comment below.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    "Wrong" - On what basis?
    On the basis of fairness to all people regardless of their religious background. All Americans live within their constitutional rights stemmed from the Constitution. Yet, not all people believe in the bible/Koran/Torah and think they are worth putting their hand on them.
    If I may sum it this way:
    Bible = (personal) beliefs; Constitution = (everyone's) law.
  17. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #57  
    There`s one thing I have to know about this Ellison. Since he swears on the Quran, does this mean he supports the act of "stoning" people to death, in the event they are found guilty of a crime according to the law of islam?

    http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm
    I gotta have more cowbell
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002 View Post
    There`s one thing I have to know about this Ellison. Since he swears on the Quran, does this mean he supports the act of "stoning" people to death, in the event they are found guilty of a crime according to the law of islam?

    http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm
    That would apply to anyone swearing on the bible too wouldn't it, I'm sure there's some 'hot stoning action' going on in the bible? I can't get my head around this fuss, it's normal in courts/legal ceremonies to swear on whatever book is holy to you isn't it? I'm sure it is the the UK, where church and state aren't separated. As an aside, MPs in the UK have to swear allegiance to the queen before they can sit in the House of Commons, which is why Sinn Fein MPs will never take their seats. But we have several MPs of different religions with no problem whatsoever.
    Animo et Fide
  19. #59  
    All the more reason to _really_ separate (any) religion and state ...
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  20. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #60  
    People used to be stoned to death according to the bible back in ancient times, but are stonings still carried out in the name of the bible's teachings today, in "modern times" and modern, civilized cultures though?
    I gotta have more cowbell
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions