Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 184
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    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.
    You are not required to say that. you can affirm to tell the truth. I've done it and to be honest, was concerned how "appearing different" would affect my case.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You are not required to say that. you can affirm to tell the truth. I've done it and to be honest, was concerned how "appearing different" would affect my case.
    Yes, you're right about that. I'm just playing the anti-diety's advocate.

    Frankly I could care less one way or the other if a judge wants to hang the 10 Commandments or Miss October on his wall, or whats printed on my money (other than the numeric denomination of course).
    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..."
  3.    #43  
    I'll answer your question if you would answer the ones I presented.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    I'll answer your question if you would answer the ones I presented.
    That does answer your question.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Yes, you're right about that. I'm just playing the anti-diety's advocate.

    Frankly I could care less one way or the other if a judge wants to hang the 10 Commandments or Miss October on his wall, or whats printed on my money (other than the numeric denomination of course).
    May I ask if you are a theist?
  6. #46  
    You show me yours...
    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..."
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    May I ask if you are a theist?
    No. Thought I mentioned this once before. I'm agnostic. I doubt the exsitence, however, I can't prove there is a God, nor can I prove a negative. Nor do care really.

    If there is, I guess I'll meet Him/Her/It some day. But I can't bow down and pray to something I have doubts on while in the here and now.

    Just for clarity, in the legal sense, I believe your arguement to be the correct one. However, the presence of the word God does not bother me. Nor does a statue of Buddha or Shiva.

    Religious intolerence bothers me. Anti-religious intolerence also bothers me.
    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..."
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    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.
    I dont think there really is a difference except conservatives are pushing an agenda which many attribute to religion and liberals push an agenda that is not based on a religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    How does posting the 10 Commandments in a court room "establish" a religion?
    IMHO I think the courts have interpreted this to be 'supporting' one religion over another. The courts have upheld nativity scenes if they didnt just have the typical judeo-christian symbols. It cuts both ways...if they allow it, then it looks like they are supporting one religion. If they don't allow it, then it looks like they are violating the free exercise of religion. To eliminate the problem...how about no religious symbols in public places? (Which many courts have stuck with.)

    Thats why I go to church and have a 'private' home so I can have those things wherever I want.

    And although this has come up in another post...just because I founding fathers were religious people (God on money, Pledge of Allegiance, etc.) does not imply that they wanted the government to be religious. If so, then why did they put the establishment clause into the Constitution. I think you can have it both ways.

    Plus, one of the great things about being a Christian (or religious in general) is that you are secure in your own beliefs and that you don't push it on other people.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    No. Thought I mentioned this once before. I'm agnostic. I doubt the exsitence, however, I can't prove there is a God, nor can I prove a negative. Nor do care really.

    If there is, I guess I'll meet Him/Her/It some day. But I can't bow down and pray to something I have doubts on while in the here and now.

    Just for clarity, in the legal sense, I believe your arguement to be the correct one. However, the presence of the word God does not bother me. Nor does a statue of Buddha or Shiva.

    Religious intolerence bothers me. Anti-religious intolerence also bothers me.
    I don't consider working towards my govt's lack of endorsing one religion or religions over others to be Anti-religious intolerence.
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That does answer your question.
    Another typical non-answer. You really do have the courage of your beliefs, don't you? So much so that you should post on the "Why are Democrats getting flogged all over the country" thread and tell us how your side is going to regain the majority and start forcing your agenda on us again.

    And have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, the rise of the religous right is tied to the push of the anti-religious left?
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I don't consider working towards my govt's lack of endorsing one religion or religions over others to be Anti-religious intolerence.
    No. And I didn't mean that. As I said, in the legal sense, I think your arguement is correct.

    The last line of that post was not directed at you personally.
    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..."
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    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.
    No I am arguing the origin of the US by christian people. I never mentioned oppression and hardly think that putting in God We Trust on currency is qualified as oppression. They came here for the freedom to pratice thier religion the 1st ammendment was established to allow all people to do the same. It was NOT created to prevent it
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Another typical non-answer. You really do have the courage of your beliefs, don't you? So much so that you should post on the "Why are Democrats getting flogged all over the country" thread and tell us how your side is going to regain the majority and start forcing your agenda on us again.

    And have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, the rise of the religous right is tied to the push of the anti-religious left?
    Whipping the religious right into a frenzy was done by Karl Rove. Watch Frontline. Besides, the definition of religious right leends itself to bbeing frenzied doesn't it?
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    No I am arguing the origin of the US by christian people. I never mentioned oppression and hardly think that putting in God We Trust on currency is qualified as oppression. They came here for the freedom to pratice thier religion the 1st ammendment was established to allow all people to do the same. It was NOT created to prevent it
    The First Amendment was included to prevent political religion from coming into existence and oppressing other religions as happened to the early settlers. They also made sure the gov't could not get in the way of personal expression of religion.

    This is not hard to grasp. Best example, you can preach in a public park, even have a prayer group etc. HOWEVER the parks department cannot organize a religious event. See the diff?
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The First Amendment was included to prevent political religion from coming into existence and oppressing other religions as happened to the early settlers. They also made sure the gov't could not get in the way of personal expression of religion.

    This is not hard to grasp. Best example, you can preach in a public park, even have a prayer group etc. HOWEVER the parks department cannot organize a religious event. See the diff?
    Yes I see it! Which religious events did our gov organize that has you so miffed?
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Yes I see it! Which religious events did our gov organize that has you so miffed?
    If you see that, then you can see why endorsing the belief in a single deity on our currency is wrong. Or placing the ten commandments, the size of a small car, in a court house lobby. Or adding "under god" to the pedge of allegiance.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever

    And have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, the rise of the religous right is tied to the push of the anti-religious left?
    I would tend to agree with this but on a "bigger picture" scale.

    It seems to me, from personal observation, the root cause of the conservative backlash is caused in large part by the liberal agenda being pushed too far. I large segment of the conservative population has the mentality of "fine, it's not impacting me so have your way". Give 'em and inch and they'll take a mile seems to have played out here and the conservatives seem to be saying now "enough is enough" and the more the liberals push their agenda the more little things become big things to the conservatives.

    Should be interesting to see how the next 10 years play out...
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The First Amendment was included to prevent political religion from coming into existence and oppressing other religions as happened to the early settlers.
    So how does one square this with the current bias against "Christian values" being included - or rather the exclusion of those values at nearly any cost?

    Shouldn't the Government be proactively protecting the rights of Christians? And the arguement about preaching in a park isn't what I'm talking about....

    Seems like there are groups fighting to eliminate any and all reference to religion, primarily Christian in nature. Personally, I don't see how one can believe this even approaches the intent of the framers.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    I would tend to agree with this but on a "bigger picture" scale.

    It seems to me, from personal observation, the root cause of the conservative backlash is caused in large part by the liberal agenda being pushed too far. I large segment of the conservative population has the mentality of "fine, it's not impacting me so have your way". Give 'em and inch and they'll take a mile seems to have played out here and the conservatives seem to be saying now "enough is enough" and the more the liberals push their agenda the more little things become big things to the conservatives.

    Should be interesting to see how the next 10 years play out...
    Please help me identify this MAJOR ONSLAUGHT on the conservatives.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    So how does one square this with the current bias against "Christian values" being included - or rather the exclusion of those values at nearly any cost?

    Shouldn't the Government be proactively protecting the rights of Christians? And the arguement about preaching in a park isn't what I'm talking about....

    Seems like there are groups fighting to eliminate any and all reference to religion, primarily Christian in nature. Personally, I don't see how one can believe this even approaches the intent of the framers.
    Here too. Please point out to me where christian Values are being oppressed?!!?

    What rights need protectin? The christian pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for the morning after pill?

    What groups are fighting to eliminate references to religion!? More specifically references where? Where is this great secular evil we're all hearing so much about?
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions