Main > Everything Else
This is more than a little scary
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: mr.Curmudgeon on February 04, 2005, 11:40:05 am ---
No, I read your post just fine. You seem to be suggesting that using a broad, inclusive term such as "Winter Break" somehow invalidates a specific religious celebration (ie: Christmas, etc). My question to you (with copious amounts of sarcasm) was, what would you rather have it called? Anything, in my mind, that must specifically referrence the Christian theology is just a selfish cry for validation, which would led one to believe other belief structures are seen to be invalid.
Maybe I am tired....debating religion does tend to make me sleepy.
--- End quote ---
No, I wasnt suggesting any such thing. I was simply asking how he came to the conclusion that a "name" of something is fine in one instance, but not in another. It was in reference to another post of his, that's all.
And for the record, it doesn't bother me that it's called Winter Break, as Hannukah (sorry to those of you wishing it spelt differently....and the "spelt" is for danny) falls near there as well, and I think it's probably offensive to Jews that we celebrate Christmas, rather than their holidays. I'd have no problem if we moved the week to include their holiday time there, and still keep it "Winter Break".
I was suggesting nothing of the sort you read into it.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: Ravant on February 04, 2005, 01:24:54 pm --- If we're supposed to eliminate all remnants of religion within government, removing laws surrounding murder and theft would be the only logical way of *completely* ridding the government of religion.
--- End quote ---
Now you're on to something. You know, I remember talking in church. I guess talking must be religion too. No more talking in government.
Religion didn't invent murder, and it certainly didn't invent the will to live. Consider for a second how little credit you give your intelligence. Do you really think that it would be beyond to you figure out for yourself that you don't want anybody killing you or taking your things or saying bad things about you? You think that you'd go about mindlessly murdering people if you had never seen the sentence: Thou Shalt Not Kill? These are conventions that would exist in any group of people that decided to work together to create a better life for everyone (a society, I mean).
fredster:
--- Quote ---So you prove my Point.
The point is, the language is neutral...for a reason.
--- End quote ---
No, the point is that there is no basis in the law for separation of church and state. Only that they won't enact laws to establish it.
It's vague, that's all. It doesn't say all that does it? It just says""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
It doesn't say that the govenment won't let people put up christmas trees or monuments to the 10 commandments either. It just says the government won't found a church.
This whole thing is going to blow up pretty soon. You can't keep pissing off 85% of the population without some backlash. As a non-believer, I don't care. People can believe what they want. It think it's just as bad to preach non-belief to the believers as vice versa. Worse, because it serves no purpose to deny people who can't handle reality a little dose of help. I'm glad that a philosophy gives people so much hope.
Any religion or ideology can be taken to the extreme. There's Jim Jones to the facsists. Either one is bad if taken to the extreme. Now secular zealots are pushing thier "beliefs" in non belief to everybody. That to me is very very sad.
shmokes:
I think there is a slight, but significant difference in what us secular zealots are pushing, as opposed to our god-fearing friends. We're not asking for signs or iconography that says that there is no god. We are asking for the government to stay out of it altogether.
As far as the wording of the Constitution, the most common method of applying the establishment clause to Government actions is the three-pron Lemon test. It's pretty reasonable. They consider the following three things:
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
Here's an article that looks pretty informative that discusses some other methods that have been employed recently to guide church & state cases. I just found it through Google, so don't jump down my throat if you think its biased.
The article also mentions that in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, the Supreme Court ruled that the establishment clause is one of the
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: shmokes on February 04, 2005, 05:57:47 pm ---We're not asking for signs or iconography that says that there is no god.
--- End quote ---
To quote you from an earlier thread....AMEN!
I couldn't have, and as of yet haven't, said it better. Now can't we all just get along?
mrC