Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24
  1.    #1  
    Though not known to be much of a publicly religious person, Karl Rove continues his master manipulation of the Religious Right in the Bush administrations attempts to get the last 5% of their judicial nominees through.

    In an attempt to whip up the Religious Right; "... Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees."

    Even though the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states, "Article. VI. ... Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    It is time for rationality to return to our great Nation if it is to remain great.
  2. #2  
    that article does not say the people of faith should be excluded and that is what these people feel is happening. Even if you think they are wrong, they have a RIGHT to feel that way and a RIGHT to do something to expess themselves.
    visor deluxe->clie n760->treo 300->treo 600->treo 650 -> treo 700p -> treo 755p
    _________________________________________
    I may not know, but I'll bet my phone does!
  3.    #3  
    "People of Faith" believe that if their faith is not defended OVER others then their faith is being persecuted. The judicial check exists to prevent the majority "people of faith" from dominating the minority.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    "People of Faith" believe that if their faith is not defended OVER others then their faith is being persecuted. The judicial check exists to prevent the majority "people of faith" from dominating the minority.
    I think you could benefit from being around some different people of faith.
  5.    #5  
    Not really relevant.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    "People of Faith" believe that if their faith is not defended OVER others then their faith is being persecuted.
    I'm sorry you believe that. It couldn't imagine being so prejudicial.
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I'm sorry you believe that. It couldn't imagine being so prejudicial.
    Let me rephrase that for you then. Example; Group A wants their large religious symbol in a government building. Judicial branch of gov't examines Constitution in relation to situation and tells Group A no large religious symbol in the gov't building. Group A now runs around screaming they're being discriminated against.

    What poppycock!
  8. #8  
    I think the issue that many releigious people are grappling with is that, in some cases, the large religious symbol has been there for years, but "all-of-a-sudden" it is being presented as "unconstituional" or illegal.

    For the record, I realize that there are numerous examples of things that were legal or illegal at one point or another in the history of this great nation that this "enlightened" generation can look back on with appropriate incredulity. Various types of discrimination were legislated by those in authority.

    Perhaps the religious are the new discriminatees. It appears that there are efforts to remove all religion and religious reference from the public (however, truth be told, it is not all religions that face this. For example, some applaud announcements that government offices have been furnished based on principles of "feng shui" as appropriately progressive).

    In any case, from the perspective of citizens who practice some sort of religion, the word seems to be "it's ok to believe what you believe, just keep it in private."

    Meanwhile, the flag burner (to use an extreme case) is allowed, to express, even flaunt, his or her belief in public.

    Also for the record, I have changed my position on matters of religion in the public square as a result of discussions on this forum. I realize that the United States functions as a secular republic. However, I don't perceive that its consitution bans religious expression from public.
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I think the issue that many releigious people are grappling with is that, in some cases, the large religious symbol has been there for years, but "all-of-a-sudden" it is being presented as "unconstituional" or illegal.

    For the record, I realize that there are numerous examples of things that were legal or illegal at one point or another in the history of this great nation that this "enlightened" generation can look back on with appropriate incredulity. Various types of discrimination were legislated by those in authority.

    Perhaps the religious are the new discriminatees. It appears that there are efforts to remove all religion and religious reference from the public (however, truth be told, it is not all religions that face this. For example, some applaud announcements that government offices have been furnished based on principles of "feng shui" as appropriately progressive).

    In any case, from the perspective of citizens who practice some sort of religion, the word seems to be "it's ok to believe what you believe, just keep it in private."

    Meanwhile, the flag burner (to use an extreme case) is allowed, to express, even flaunt, his or her belief in public.

    Also for the record, I have changed my position on matters of religion in the public square as a result of discussions on this forum. I realize that the United States functions as a secular republic. However, I don't perceive that its consitution bans religious expression from public.
    You seem to be confused about separating the individual expression of religious belief versus the governmental expression of religious belief. You are not only free to express your religious belief in gov't parks and buildings
    but you are PROTECTED by the constitution in this matter (see the aclu haters thread). However, the gov't is forbidden from endorsing religious beliefs, even atheism.
  10. #10  
    I don't approach this discussion as an antagonist. These 2 questions are genuine interest in your view of constitutionality:

    1. What makes the display of a large religious symbol (as used in our example) a governmental expression?

    2. Is the theory that when one with authority allows something that could have been prevented, such a one authority is an endorser?
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I don't approach this discussion as an antagonist. These 2 questions are genuine interest in your view of constitutionality:

    1. What makes the display of a large religious symbol (as used in our example) a governmental expression?

    2. Is the theory that when one with authority allows something that could have been prevented, such a one authority is an endorser?
    Again the difference is between a government institution displaying religious symbolism, thus appearing to endorse it versus the individual's right to express their religious beliefs. For example utilizing a public park pond to play johnny baptist is PROTECTED under the constitution.

    Religion is NOT under attack in this country by anyone, other than Rove and his manipulation of the religious right for political gain.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    However, the gov't is forbidden from endorsing religious beliefs, even atheism.
    Just a thought....but isn't the "removal of all religious symbols" in fact an endorsement of atheism? It just seems to me that removal of God from a building is stating that the absense of God is fact.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    Just a thought....but isn't the "removal of all religious symbols" in fact an endorsement of atheism? It just seems to me that removal of God from a building is stating that the absense of God is fact.
    Nobody calls for the "removal of all religious symbols", as you claim. It is just about the fact that governments should not take sides in religious matters and should not favor the symbols of one particular religion. That is what the constitution in the US (and most other Western countries) says.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #14  
    There is nothing that says that the goverment can not display any religious symbols. The government can not "ESTABLISH" a religion. And as far as I know, they have not been attempting to do that.
    visor deluxe->clie n760->treo 300->treo 600->treo 650 -> treo 700p -> treo 755p
    _________________________________________
    I may not know, but I'll bet my phone does!
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Nobody calls for the "removal of all religious symbols", as you claim.
    And the removing of the 10 commandments in several government buildings is...?
  16. #16  
    My favorite was Michael Newdow, the atheist who used his daughter to try and get "Under God" thrown out of the Pledge of Allegience.

    Class.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  17. #17  
    "MOVEON.ORG, People for the American Way, NOW, EMILY's LIST, The Brookings insitute, The Mainstream Media, etc continue to Tap the Anti-Religious Left"

    Or, how's this one, "Kerry hefts five pound bible at black churches while on the campaign trail."

    Imagine that. Politicians catering to their constituency. Hmmmm. DA, maybe you should weigh in on this phenomenon in the "Why are Democrats getting flogged" thread?
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrgarza
    There is nothing that says that the goverment can not display any religious symbols. The government can not "ESTABLISH" a religion. And as far as I know, they have not been attempting to do that.
    Maybe with the exception of the belief in Iraqi WMDs prior to the last war? - Ooops, sorry, off topic, forget what I just said...!
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by RicoM
    And the removing of the 10 commandments in several government buildings is...
    ... just the removal of symbols for one particular religion from government buildings, not the removal of all religious symbols (from churches, private schools, houses, etc.).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    ... just the removal of symbols for one particular religion from government buildings, not the removal of all religious symbols (from churches, private schools, houses, etc.).

    Don't know where that just came from.... NEVER have I heard of anyone ever trying to get religious items out from personal places....I thought we were talking about public places. Your argument has no merit...because you're allowing churches to keep religous symbols?, huh?

    And back to my quote....removing of religous symbols from public places would in fact be supporting atheism.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions