Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 184
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    To summarize, your individual right to express your religious belief is a GOOD thing.
    ... as long as nobody actually hears/sees me do so. Right?
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    ... as long as nobody actually hears/sees me do so. Right?
    Yeah, because then you a right wing wacko whose not smart enough to have a hand in running a country.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    ... as long as nobody actually hears/sees me do so. Right?
    No, the First amendment prevents the gov't or any entity from restricting you from expressing your personal religious beliefs. You can stand on the steps of city hall and have a little jeebus ho-down. It is your protected right. And the ACLU would defend your right to do so.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I believe you're referring to the First amendment which A LOT of people on this board can't seem to grasp. To summarize, your individual right to express your religious belief is a GOOD thing. The gov't endorsing a religion is a BAD thing.
    Would you say there is a difference between formulating government or acting to make government changes based upon your religious beliefs and endorsing a religion?
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Chick is rolling in his grave right about now after this season..."The door's closed, the lights are out, the eggs are coolin', the butter's
    getting hard, and the jello's jigglin"

    Well, Vin Scully is still with us.
    Hopefully things will improve with the lakers next season, they say Phil might come back...........
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    What's got into the LAT lately? Must be the tens of thousands of subscriptions they lost? Or maybe it was the fact they were inflating circulation numbers in order to keep ad rates high. Anyway, they're publishing Gelertner regularly.
    Well even they figure the far right deserves a big wet kiss every now and then.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Would you say there is a difference between formulating government or acting to make government changes based upon your religious beliefs and endorsing a religion?
    I would say that when one religious group tries to apply their religious beliefs/restrictions over everyone else, then we just took one giant leap towards the Taliban.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I would say that when one religious group tries to apply their religious beliefs/restrictions over everyone else, then we just took one giant leap towards the Taliban.
    Would that apply in reverse as well - those without religious beliefs applying their non-religious beliefs/restrictions over everyone else?
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Would that apply in reverse as well - those without religious beliefs applying their non-religious beliefs/restrictions over everyone else?
    No!
    Actions only have relevance when it furthers thier cause
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    No!
    Actions only have relevance when it furthers thier cause
    lol
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I would say that when one religious group tries to apply their religious beliefs/restrictions over everyone else, then we just took one giant leap towards the Taliban.
    To make this an issue only about "religion" misses the mark -- badly. The reality is, everyone has a belief system about the world, and about how life "should be." We each come believe what we believe by any number of sources, of which one is religion. And we all go about trying to make the world become what we believe it should be. Some do so consciously. Most do so unconsciously. Some try to influence people. Some try to influence policy. Some are softer and gentler. Some are harsh. Some are more tolerant of contrary views to their own. Some are less tolerant of such. Some are more determined to have their views accepted. Some are less determined.

    And, here is the good part. This way in which we function is inherent to us, because we were created to govern and to dominate. The problem comes in when we try to govern and dominate one another. We are not intended to boss one another, but to collectively provide quality management of the earth and its resources -- not each other. We influence each other, we encourage each other, we assist each other, but we do not boss each other.

    But, when people see bossing going on, they at least want someone who believes similarly to them to do the bossing. Why? Because at least the inferior environment will me more comfortable. But, then it will always be a struggle for those who do not believe similarly.

    But, again, this would not be an issue if we were focused on our appropriate domain, rather than how to rule each other.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Would that apply in reverse as well - those without religious beliefs applying their non-religious beliefs/restrictions over everyone else?
    Depends on what you mean. If you're saying replace the currency phrase with "There are no gods" then that would be wrong. Making no mention of religious beliefs on currency would be the right thing for everyone.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Depends on what you mean. If you're saying replace the currency phrase with "There are no gods" then that would be wrong. Making no mention of religious beliefs on currency would be the right thing for everyone.
    Of course, one could suggest that we are democratic republic where a majority of the citizenry suscribes to the concept of a god in whom we trust (you know...that creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence). As such our currency accurately reflects the decision of the majority as put forth by its elected representatives.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Of course, one could suggest that we are democratic republic where a majority of the citizenry suscribes to the concept of a god in whom we trust (you know...that creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence). As such our currency accurately reflects the decision of the majority as put forth by its elected representatives.
    ...and even more important than the majority, it accurately relflects the origin of our country
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    To make this an issue only about "religion" misses the mark -- badly. The reality is, everyone has a belief system about the world, and about how life "should be." We each come believe what we believe by any number of sources, of which one is religion. And we all go about trying to make the world become what we believe it should be. Some do so consciously. Most do so unconsciously. Some try to influence people. Some try to influence policy. Some are softer and gentler. Some are harsh. Some are more tolerant of contrary views to their own. Some are less tolerant of such. Some are more determined to have their views accepted. Some are less determined.

    And, here is the good part. This way in which we function is inherent to us, because we were created to govern and to dominate. The problem comes in when we try to govern and dominate one another. We are not intended to boss one another, but to collectively provide quality management of the earth and its resources -- not each other. We influence each other, we encourage each other, we assist each other, but we do not boss each other.

    But, when people see bossing going on, they at least want someone who believes similarly to them to do the bossing. Why? Because at least the inferior environment will me more comfortable. But, then it will always be a struggle for those who do not believe similarly.

    But, again, this would not be an issue if we were focused on our appropriate domain, rather than how to rule each other.
    This is actually the crux of what I was getting at.....we're supposed to have different beliefs, values ,etc. To assume someone else needs to have the same or they are "wrong" is, IMHO, the root cause of much of the divisiveness in not only the US but also the world as a whole.

    Specifically in the US, I happen to be on the conservative ilk - primarily due to me strong belief in personal responsability (I happen to believe the FDR's New Deal began our continueing spiral down the "it's not my fault" hole and that it in reality has morphed into the Raw Deal...I digress) - but where I draw the line is telling someone else what they should think instead of persuading them and allowing them to make their own judgements. It appears to me there is an over-abundance of tellers and too few persuaders.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Of course, one could suggest that we are democratic republic where a majority of the citizenry suscribes to the concept of a god in whom we trust (you know...that creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence). As such our currency accurately reflects the decision of the majority as put forth by its elected representatives.
    Yea, but that's why the Founding Fathers included that little First Amendment thingy. See how that works now.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    ...and even more important than the majority, it accurately relflects the origin of our country
    So you're arguing the origin of the US, being one religious group oppressing a more minor religious group, as your basis for putting your religious beliefs on the national currency?

    Hmmm. Interesting approach.
  18.    #38  
    This thread, like so many others here, is spiraling off topic.

    The point is, what is the difference between when liberals, when they control government, force their legislation for what is best for you based upon their belief system as opposed to when Christians, etc., when they're in the majority force their belief of what is best for you based upon their belief system? And make no mistake, the left wing, both religious and the vehemently anti-religious has a belief system that they would love to force upon us. Does anyone remember the hey day of the '"PC" movement? Hillary Care?

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    How does posting the 10 Commandments in a court room "establish" a religion? It seems to me that #'s 5-10 are pretty much the foundation of our legal system.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    How does posting the 10 Commandments in a court room "establish" a religion? It seems to me that #'s 5-10 are pretty much the foundation of our legal system.
    Or placing ones hand on a Bible, in that same courthouse, swearing to "Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God.
    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..."
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    This thread, like so many others here, is spiraling off topic.

    The point is, what is the difference between when liberals, when they control government, force their legislation for what is best for you based upon their belief system as opposed to when Christians, etc., when they're in the majority force their belief of what is best for you based upon their belief system? And make no mistake, the left wing, both religious and the vehemently anti-religious has a belief system that they would love to force upon us. Does anyone remember the hey day of the '"PC" movement? Hillary Care?

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    How does posting the 10 Commandments in a court room "establish" a religion? It seems to me that #'s 5-10 are pretty much the foundation of our legal system.
    And what are 1,2 and 3?
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions