Page 13 of 29 FirstFirst ... 38910111213141516171823 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 566
  1. #241  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    You are almost right. Schools can not force any religion on a child. They can not make them say Allah is god, there is no god, Jesus is God, etc. The statment in the POA is not in any way supporting a religion. And you forgot that seperation of church and state thing is not in our constitution.
    It is not supporting any religion, but it is supporting the belief that there is a god, which is basically the same as proclaiming a single religion. There are people with deep religious beliefs who believe there is no god. This government sanctioned statement invalidates those people.
    iPhone in the Washington DC area.
  2. #242  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    and it doesn't matter, what matters is it the will of the majority.

    Belief in God, or the word God is not religion.
    no but it isnt sports either is it?
    it may not be religion it sure is religious.. no matter of how many semantics you add..
    http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...y&va=religious
    <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?
  3. #243  
    Tangent Alert

    This is what is meant by slippery slope:

    "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."

    (CHECK)

    "wall of separation between church and state"

    (ok, Check)

    government can't endorse religion

    (um, ok, check)

    get rid of the ten commandments

    (huh?)

    no nativity scenes on public

    (you've got to be kidding)

    take that slogan off the money

    (give me a break)

    get rid of "under god" in the POA

    (why?)

    government can't endorse belief that god exists

    (WHAT?)

    no financing to effective "faith-based" programs, pelple might be come Buh-LEEvers
    churches can't use schools for meetings
    schools can't use churches for ceremonies
    religion is the enemy of science
    - - -- - - - - - -
    houses of worship can't be exist within 100 feet of any school or government building
    .........
  4. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #244  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    It is not supporting any religion, but it is supporting the belief that there is a god, which is basically the same as proclaiming a single religion. There are people with deep religious beliefs who believe there is no god. This government sanctioned statement invalidates those people.
    Ivalidates those people. God (oops Gosh), I hate it when someone gets invalidated.

    I have difficulty finding anything in here that supports your stance of the gov't must not use the word God.


    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.
  5. #245  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    Sorry, but thats the way this country works. It always has and always will.
    Not quite. If this was true, then explain to me how come legalizing gay marriages has been shot down time and time again. Is this not infringing on the minority? Why hasn't Newdow come to the rescue?
    I'm back!
  6. #246  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    That isnt exactly true. As I stated earlier:




    This can be interpreted though. Its basically talking about human rights, which dont require the existence of a god.


    Well since the Pledge didnt originally include any reference to god I dont see it that way, but your point is well taken. The most powerful documents in the US all reference god in one way or another, but there is also an implied, and stated separation of church and state. No it is not stated in the constitution, or bill of rights, but anyone who believes that our founding fathers did not want a separation of these two doesnt really understand the revolution. I believe that in modern times, where people have modern belief structures there has to be the ability for us as Americans to realize that just because there is a mention of god in these documents does not require that everyone believe in him, nor does it require that we allow our government to support a religious belief that is offensive to its citizens.


    Ok here you lost me. Exactly how is the removal of god from the Pledge and other government endorsed speeches and documents removing anything from democracy? I am also not implying that people all suddenly start believing what I believe about religion (wouldnt make much sense because im not sure where i stand yet), im just saying that the government should be neutral on the subject. And the only way to do that is to remove god from statements or documents that the government is promoting/sanctioning/etc. Doing that doesnt imply a belief that god doesnt exist does it?


    Again, were it written today it would be speaking about Human Rights, thats what theyre getting at there. Yes, they were all big believers in god, they were religious people. They believed we had rights that were given to all people (humans). The intent here seems clear to me, and i support it, there are human rights, and no one can infringe on those.


    I'll have to just flat out disagree with you on this one.


    Again, majority doesnt matter here. If the majority of people in the US decided that anyone with black skin should be a slave would that be right?
    Incorrect, your city, state, the congress, and senate vote the will of the taxpayer

    and don't confuse law, with morals.
  7. #247  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    ....or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
    While it isnt a law, the government endorsed speach of the Pledge is certainly prohibiting the free exercise of my religious beliefs. In fact the government is telling me my religious beliefs are wrong. If the government endorses the belief in a god then the government is telling me im wrong, simple as that.
    iPhone in the Washington DC area.
  8. #248  
    Quote Originally Posted by dlbrummels
    Incorrect, your city, state, the congress, and senate vote the will of the taxpayer

    and don't confuse law, with morals.
    Not sure what any of this has to do with my statements above, but thanks for the tip.
    iPhone in the Washington DC area.
  9. #249  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Not quite. If this was true, then explain to me how come legalizing gay marriages has been shot down time and time again. Is this not infringing on the minority? Why hasn't Newdow come to the rescue?
    This issue is far from decided. Time and time again it is legalized in legislation or courts and then overturned. Are you suggesting this issue has been resolved?
    iPhone in the Washington DC area.
  10. #250  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    This issue is far from decided. Time and time again it is legalized in legislation or courts and then overturned. Are you suggesting this issue has been resolved?
    It is legalized by liberals and overturned by the conservatives.
  11. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #251  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Contact Barye. He will prescribe appropriate penance.
    Thanks for the offer, but I think I need to lay low until I can stop thinking about Rastafarian.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #252  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    While it isnt a law, the government endorsed speach of the Pledge is certainly prohibiting the free exercise of my religious beliefs. In fact the government is telling me my religious beliefs are wrong. If the government endorses the belief in a god then the government is telling me im wrong, simple as that.
    How does it prohibit the free exercise of your religious beliefs? Are you saying that because children in school have the option to say under God you are forced to believe in a diety.
  13. #253  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    This issue is far from decided. Time and time again it is legalized in legislation or courts and then overturned. Are you suggesting this issue has been resolved?
    I wouldn't say it's ever been "legalized". You get some crackpot mayor in SF who is pandering to his constituents and feels he has the authority to override state and federal processes and passes an order legalizing it, and it's immediately struck down as unconstitutional or illegal.

    I don't think the issue has resolved, unless you consider that there is a proven track record of voters vetoing amendment propositions to legalize it, or courts overturning an overzealous politician time and time again.

    However, if the will of the minority truly ruled in this country, as you implied it did, this point would be moot by now.
    I'm back!
  14. #254  
    [/QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    This can be interpreted though. Its basically talking about human rights, which dont require the existence of a god.
    That is a broad interpretation. If they were only talking about human rights, there would be no need to identify the source as the creator
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    Well since the Pledge didnt originally include any reference to god I dont see it that way, but your point is well taken. The most powerful documents in the US all reference god in one way or another, but there is also an implied, and stated separation of church and state. No it is not stated in the constitution, or bill of rights, but anyone who believes that our founding fathers did not want a separation of these two doesnt really understand the revolution.
    They stated that they didn't want government establishing religion, not that they did not want the two to any interaction whatsoever. If so, then they sure had a funny way of showing it (See Section 1. Findings )
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    I believe that in modern times, where people have modern belief structures there has to be the ability for us as Americans to realize that just because there is a mention of god in these documents does not require that everyone believe in him,
    Agreed
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    nor does it require that we allow our government to support a religious belief that is offensive to its citizens.
    Using lack of citizen offense as a standard would render every law null and void
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    Ok here you lost me. Exactly how is the removal of god from the Pledge and other government endorsed speeches and documents removing anything from democracy?
    Our democratic republic stands on the charter documents. The Creator is central to the argument of the Declaration of Independence in particular. The other documents are means of establishing the separate, equal power called for in the Declaration. If you take a central tenet from the Declaration, you undermine its whole message. And you take the strength from the other documents. Thus pillars of are republic are effectively removed (perhaps to be replaced by something else)
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    I am also not implying that people all suddenly start believing what I believe about religion (wouldnt make much sense because im not sure where i stand yet), im just saying that the government should be neutral on the subject. And the only way to do that is to remove god from statements or documents that the government is promoting/sanctioning/etc. Doing that doesnt imply a belief that god doesnt exist does it?
    Still thinking on this. To omit is to be neutral. To delete is to take a positon.
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    Again, were it written today it would be speaking about Human Rights, thats what theyre getting at there. Yes, they were all big believers in god, they were religious people. They believed we had rights that were given to all people (humans). The intent here seems clear to me, and i support it, there are human rights, and no one can infringe on those.
    Agreed. Except they specifically identified the Creator as the source of those rights. And, quite frankly, no other premise provides inalienability. Admitedly, that does not make the premise true. But, there is no other context in which you can assert inalienability. So, again, the Creator is central to the argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    I'll have to just flat out disagree with you on this one.
    OK. My reasoning behind that statement, though, is that there is a problem with circular reasoning. Eliminating the Creator nullifies the Declaration of Independence as it written. So, without the Creator it is no longer there to be relied upon. Consequently, you are left with no agreed upon basis for asserting that you have any rights at all, let alone any rights that the government must secure on your behalf.

    Consider: If someone says the Bible is not true. It makes no sense for them to later declare, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Why does that make no sense? Because they are quoting the very source they just discredited.

    Or a less contentious example: Imagine someone declaring the U.S. justice system has no authority over them. Then, that same person comes and files grievance....in that same system.

    If you nullify the Declaration of Independence, you need to find a new source to use in asserting your rights.
  15. #255  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Ivalidates those people. God (oops Gosh), I hate it when someone gets invalidated.

    I have difficulty finding anything in here that supports your stance of the gov't must not use the word God.
    Let me put it this way (again) how would you feel if you school made you kid pledge to the following :
    'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the city for which it stands, one town under satan, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'?
    <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?
  16. #256  
    http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

    In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
    mmm must be a non-religious prayer then.. :/
    <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?
  17. #257  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Let me put it this way (again) how would you feel if you school made you kid pledge to the following :
    'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the city for which it stands, one town under satan, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'?
    ToolkiT
    I have found that substitution approach very effective in helping me to see how I view such issues. In fact, I usually insert "satan" into the sentence because that reference gets me most fired up Then that helps me see how someone else might be fired up as well. That approach helped me reshape my view of religion in the schools.

    Again, it is a simple, yet effective exercise.

    I find that it does not produce the same result here because the existence of a Creator is explicitly referenced in the charter documents.
  18. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #258  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Let me put it this way (again) how would you feel if you school made you kid pledge to the following :
    'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the city for which it stands, one town under satan, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'?
    You keep saying what if the school MADE someone say this, as if you contiue to say it is mandatory it will become the truth.

    #1 It is not mandatory
    #2 The constitution does not say seperation of chuch and state
    #3 The 1st Amendment provides freedom OF religion
    #4 The statement under god does not establish a religion

    And my belief system is strong enough that I would not convert because of that statement
  19. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #259  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm


    mmm must be a non-religious prayer then.. :/
    Who is this author? I could not find his name listed in the Supreme Court Justice list, the list of US Presidents, congress or senate.

    So some individual thinks it is a prayer.
  20. #260  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Perhaps we can switch to this:



    Source: http://www.jpfo.org/alert20020522.htm
    Sadly, you'd get as much if not more objections to this jingoistic nationalistic screed.

Posting Permissions