Page 10 of 29 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213141520 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 566
  1. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #181  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    It may have solidified it, not really arguing that. My point was people had been walking around with "In God We Trust" in their pockets for a hundred years by then. It's not like there was a Religious Revolution all of a sudden, and bam, God is on money.
    If I was borned before the Bolshivic era, I probably wouldn't care. My beliefs are arrived at after reading about communism. How communist regimes trash and burn all religious literature and persecute all religious groups.
  2. #182  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    If I was borned before the Bolshivic era, I probably wouldn't care. My beliefs are arrived at after reading about communism.
    If you were born before the Bolshevik Revolution, I'd be amazed you still have your wits about you.
    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. #183  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    God bless precedents.
    Indeed!! My favorite was Reagan.
    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..."
  4. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #184  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    If you were born before the Bolshevik Revolution, I'd be amazed you still have your wits about you.
    Not a chance. You think my fingers would still work?
  5. #185  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    It was a blanket statement on purpose, because 1) That's exactly how this country was founded. People weren't happy with how they were being treated so the packed up and moved and found a new life for themselves
    People moved hear arguably for freedom of religion (among other things). They did not want a state sponsored church. As a christian, I do not want God mandated on everything. Why? Because as of this moment, I am in the majority (at least according to recent polls that people believe in God.) What happens in 10 years where everyone believes Buddism (a little far fetched...but hold on). So in 10 years, I am now in the minority and the majority replace God with Budda. Where does that leave me? So now because I don't like it, I should just pack it up and move right? How about if we just follow a strict interpretation of the establishment clause and not mix the Govt. with religion. Everyone is still free to express themselves religiously, without the Govt. involvement.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    and 2) In this country, you still have the right to do that. If you're not happy, you don't have to put up with it. You can pack up and leave. Not everyone enjoys that freedom.
    Totally agree that not everyone enjoys that freedom...but that doesnt mean that if I don't share the same religious beliefs as the majority that I am no longer welcome. Christianity is about inclusion, not exclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    But like I said, there are laws that supercede religious tenets. Ask the Muslim girl who just got her drivers license revoked because she refused to remove her veil for the photograph. Florida statutes state that your entire face must be clearly identified in the picture, and if that violates one of your religious tenets, so be it. Driving is a priviledge, not a right.
    I have no problem with this. This happens with other religions as well. I am not sure how this is connected with the US Govt. endorsing a particular religion over others?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    What I'm tired of is the fact that 98% of this country has to put up with the sensitivities of 2% of the country, instead of the other way around. I haven't figured out yet when the tide turned that the needs of the few suddenly outweigh the needs of the many.
    Wow. Isnt that why there is a democracy? To protect the rights of the few? (arguably if you are in the majority, you don't need your rights protected because everyone believes in what you believe.) Think about the Bill of Rights...they are to protect the minority from the majority (mob rule). Issues like womens rights, the right to vote, the right to bear arms, illegal searches and seizures, etc. are all rights to protect you from the majority saying "Go ahead, its ok to do that to him."

    Plus, this discussion is not just focusing on 'sensitivities', most of this has been in relation to the establishment clause (which affects the Government and its agencies/representatives) and freedom of religion in the 1st amendment (which focuses on the individual rights you and I have.)

    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Here's to hoping that Roberts gets confirmed before this reaches the Supreme Court (gulp).
    ? He won't reach the Supreme Court unless he is confirmed.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. #186  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    People moved hear arguably for freedom of religion (among other things). They did not want a state sponsored church. As a christian, I do not want God mandated on everything. Why? Because as of this moment, I am in the majority (at least according to recent polls that people believe in God.) What happens in 10 years where everyone believes Buddism (a little far fetched...but hold on). So in 10 years, I am now in the minority and the majority replace God with Budda. Where does that leave me? So now because I don't like it, I should just pack it up and move right? How about if we just follow a strict interpretation of the establishment clause and not mix the Govt. with religion. Everyone is still free to express themselves religiously, without the Govt. involvement.

    Totally agree that not everyone enjoys that freedom...but that doesnt mean that if I don't share the same religious beliefs as the majority that I am no longer welcome. Christianity is about inclusion, not exclusion.

    I have no problem with this. This happens with other religions as well. I am not sure how this is connected with the US Govt. endorsing a particular religion over others?

    Wow. Isnt that why there is a democracy? To protect the rights of the few? (arguably if you are in the majority, you don't need your rights protected because everyone believes in what you believe.) Think about the Bill of Rights...they are to protect the minority from the majority (mob rule). Issues like womens rights, the right to vote, the right to bear arms, illegal searches and seizures, etc. are all rights to protect you from the majority saying "Go ahead, its ok to do that to him."

    Plus, this discussion is not just focusing on 'sensitivities', most of this has been in relation to the establishment clause (which affects the Government and its agencies/representatives) and freedom of religion in the 1st amendment (which focuses on the individual rights you and I have.)

    ? He won't reach the Supreme Court unless he is confirmed.

    you are exactly right about the Bill of Rights (and majorities not needing to be protected)

    I agree with all you wrote (well except for the christian part )
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  7. #187  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    You are right, Christmas (celebrated on the 25th of Dec.) is a clear expression on the birth of Jesus Christ, the central figure in Christianity.
    This may be true nowadays, but the date 25th of December is in fact a pagan date the Christians "borrowed" as a marketing tool in order to superimpose Christian traditions over older ones.

    For instance, the Egyptian god Amun Re was (allegedly) also born on December 25th, as well as the Roman god Mithras. The Roman "Sol Invictus" celebration on the same date was the reason why Christians also started using that date in the third century AD.

    Basically, December 25th is just the date when the days start getting longer again after the winter solistice. That's a good reason to celebrate for most religions, and also non-religions.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #188  
    Think about the Bill of Rights...they are to protect the minority from the majority (mob rule).
    No. The bill of rights defines and/or clarifies what citizens are entitled to do, and conversely what fellow citizens are not allowed to prevent.

    Where does this concept of "democracy exists to protect the rights of the minority come from?"

    NOTE: I know it is a Biblical concept to tend to the least among us. I just did not know it was "constitutional" as well.
    Last edited by shopharim; 09/16/2005 at 07:46 AM.
  9. #189  
    In response to my question regarding the distinction between "god" and "creator" daThomas responded:
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    For me? None. Both imply consciousness intent.

    If
    I thought that would be the answer. In fact, the line of reasoning that has been laid out requires that conclusion.

    But, then that raises a concern: If "God" and "Creator" are principally the same, it seems the POA should be of no concern. It is no more a means of establishing or coercing religion than the Declaration of Independence:

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....
    In declaring this territory a "separate and equal" power, the founding fathers stated what they found to be "self-evident," namely:

    1. All men are created equal
    2. (and) are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights

    They further stated that the purpose of government was and is to secure those (Creator-endowed) rights.

    Upon this premise, they went on to set forth the argument that they were justified in commandeering the monarchy's resources for their own purposes. Then they set out to defend their actions and "their" territory --to the death. Our republic and her flag are a testament to their success.

    Subsequent to that successful independencization ( )the founders set out to establish a framework by which they could live out their self-rule.

    Nowhere in the resulting constitution do we witness a retraction of the "self-evident" tenets upon which the whole experiment was based. Rather, what we do see is a concentrated effort to prevent tyranny of religion or regulation, so as to avoid the conditions from which they had just escaped. Their creation included three separate areas of authority and established the means by which each of the three branches could curb or oppose the efforts of either of the other two.

    The founders had no problem being subject to their Creator. To the contrary, they expressed the sentiment that the very rights they were asserting were endowed by the Creator. As a citizen, resident, or visitor to this republic, you operate here under that very same understanding, and enjoy its subsequent rights-- whether you subscribe to the supposition underpinning them or not.

    Now, for the topic at hand.

    Can we at least be honest?

    This effort is not about consitutionality of the POA. As stated above, the POA no more asserts religion than the Declaration of Independence. Does it affirm a belief in god? No. It reaffirms that underlying tenet of the whole experiment.

    This whole matter is about the efforts of an increasingly vocal minority to assert their ideology on the republic (an effort which, by the way, they are in their full Creator-endowed rights to pursue). The effort is making progress, in part, by taking advantage of the sentiments of many well-meaning citizens who believe that the protection of the minority from the majority is of highest priority. Our highest priority is securing the Creator-endowed rights--for all of us. There is nothing about being in some demographic minority that makes you more entitled to the inalienable rights.

    In fact, I submit that several of the amendments to the U.S. Consitution were not necessary. The problem was not the absence of the rights. It was the failure of the government to secure them.

    Be that as it may, as it relates to the effort to modify the POA, if the litigants were really concerned about "coersion" they would oppose the POA altogether. "Under god" or not, the POA compels people to pledge (make a binding promise or agreement) allegiance (devotion and loyalty) to a geo-political organization and its insignia. If there ever was a "state religion," that would be it.

    This case is not about establishment of religion. This is another declaration of independence. Only this time, it is not the tyrannous monarchy's goods being scarfed up. Instead it is an effort to rebuff the Creator whose provisions we have been enjoying over the life of the republic. It remains to be seen whether this bid will be as successful as the prior one.

    If the Atheists are correct in their belief, the coup undoubtedly will be successful, for the Emperor (not you, Barye) would be proven to have "no clothes."

    If not, then it is more than "redcoats" for which we need be concerned.
  10. #190  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    No. The bill of rights defines and/or clarifies what citizens are entitled to do, and conversely what fellow citizens are not allowed to prevent.

    Where does this concept of "democracy exists to protect the rights of the minority come from?"
    Hear hear! There are no "rights of the minority". The Bill of Rights protects everyone equally. My rights as a majority can be violated just as easily as anyone else's rights as a minority.

    The POA discussion is exactly about the sensitivies of the 2%, as "under God" in no way, shape, or form implies any sort of federally-mandated belief in Judeo-Christian religion. To say that it does, and to say that it violates your First Amendment rights, is complete bunk.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    ? He won't reach the Supreme Court unless he is confirmed.
    Read again. I said (with new comments added in bold for clarification) "Here's to hoping that Roberts gets confirmed before this (ie, the POA appeal) reaches the Supreme Court (gulp)."
    I'm back!
  11. #191  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    as "under God" in no way, shape, or form implies any sort of federally-mandated belief in Judeo-Christian religion.[/i]
    well if they 'force' kids to use this sentense I'd say it sure looks like it could imply that..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  12. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #192  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    "Here's to hoping that Roberts gets confirmed before this (ie, the POA appeal) reaches the Supreme Court (gulp)."
    I thought the conservatives have the edge. After reading your comment, I'm not too sure about it now. It's more like a race to the finish line. Do associate members of the supreme court have the power to hear a case? If they are allowed, are they allowed to rule on a case without the presence of a chief justice?
  13. #193  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    I thought the conservatives have the edge. After reading your comment, I'm not too sure about it now. It's more like a race to the finish line. Do associate members of the supreme court have the power to hear a case? If they are allowed, are they allowed to rule on a case without the presence of a chief justice?
    If there is no Chief Justice, the Senior Associate (which I believe is J.P. Stevens) takes that role until one is appointed.
    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..."
  14. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #194  
    It seems Stevens is a former conservative turned moderate. If he decides to hear the case, then it can all be decided before Roberts gets there.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens
  15. #195  
    Interesting twist showing the opposite side of the same coin...

    My oldest daughter (7) attends a Christian school. Every morning, they say three pledges: to the US, to the Christian flag, to the Bible.

    As I've well disclosed, I'm a born-again Christian. By all accounts of those who "KNOW" (wink, wink) the Christian agenda, I should be applauding this kind of "programming".

    Instead, I approve of the first one and disapprove of the second two.

    Huh???

    As I've written earlier in this thread, the POA is a secular pledge to a secular institution. I believe that it's very affirming for active citizens. The second two are secular pledges to spiritual institutions. Completely out of sync. Plus, the Bible doesn't call for re-affirming allegiances (which scripture has the Christian flag in it???) and it misses the scriptual point anyway.

    Now, I'm not going to tell my seven year old to not say anything during the second two pledges. We handle all spiritual matters at home as a family. Making a scene at school only hinders her socially and little girls just don't need that.

    Bottom line: My daughter's parent's dislike for a school pledge should not be taken any further than my own head. I'm not going to make the school, county, country bow to my own wishes. This is a family issue and we handle it as a family.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  16. #196  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    No. The bill of rights defines and/or clarifies what citizens are entitled to do, and conversely what fellow citizens are not allowed to prevent.
    You are right in your characterization of the Bill of Rights...but by implication, that means if the mob (majority) want to impose their will onto the minority, if it violates the Bill of Rights, then they legally can't. The Bill of Rights safeguards everyones rights and its especially effective from the minority group's point of view.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Where does this concept of "democracy exists to protect the rights of the minority come from?"
    Arguably we left England to not be under the tyranical control of a King. One of the functions of a democracy is to give all citizens a voice (stake) in the government. I am not intending to limit democracy to a single role of protecting the minority, but by giving each person the same rights, it essentially evens out the playing field (we have done this in other ways, for instance, because we don't trust the mob rule (majority) in creating laws in this country, we balance out the power of the House of Representatives (based on population) by having the Senate (2 votes for every state regardless of population-giving equal power and sometimes more power to states that have smaller populations...ie small states not ratifying certain amendments.)

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    NOTE: I know it is a Biblical concept to tend to the least among us. I just did not know it was "constitutional" as well.
    There are probably other examples as well...like the electoral college. We don't trust the majority to pick the president so as a safeguard, we have electors do it.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  17. #197  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    well if they 'force' kids to use this sentense I'd say it sure looks like it could imply that..
    I guess in the same sense that Americans are forced to use American currency, with "In God We Trust" stamped on the back, for our monetary transactions.

    Again, I guess hypocrasy knows no bounds.
    I'm back!
  18. #198  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    I thought the conservatives have the edge. After reading your comment, I'm not too sure about it now. It's more like a race to the finish line. Do associate members of the supreme court have the power to hear a case? If they are allowed, are they allowed to rule on a case without the presence of a chief justice?
    My comment was slightly in jest, as it generally takes a long time for an appeal to reach the Supreme Court, and since Roberts is already in confirmation hearings (and most likely will be appointed), he will be in the SC long before the case makes it there.
    I'm back!
  19. #199  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Interesting (which scripture has the Christian flag in it???) ..
    I didnt even knew there was such a thing.. what does it look like?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Now, I'm not going to tell my seven year old to not say anything during the second two pledges. We handle all spiritual matters at home as a family. Making a scene at school only hinders her socially and little girls just don't need that..
    I agree with you on that one, but you also show why I have a problem with that whole pledge thing..
    for you kids sake you dont want to make a big fuss, but you know it is not right..

    Seperation of church and state should mean nobody would feel like they are 'forced' to say a pledge with religious implications.
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  20. #200  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Bottom line: My daughter's parent's dislike for a school pledge should not be taken any further than my own head. I'm not going to make the school, county, country bow to my own wishes. This is a family issue and we handle it as a family.
    Which is exactly the OPPOSITE approach Newdow took, as he is forcing HIS sensitivies on THOUSANDS of school children.

    Again, the needs of the minority outweighing the needs of the majority.

    I'm sure his daughter is facing the same kinds of issues at school you are protecting your daughter from.
    I'm back!

Posting Permissions