This is more than a little scary

[rerstad]

It's one thing to believe that business should win over the environment or that the war in Iraq was necessary to stop some then-believed weapons program.

[Mameotron]

I only read the first article you posted because everything Bill Moyers says is so jaded and leftist that it is not even possible to try and see his point of view.

Everything he says about the "Left Behind" series and the Bible is simply not true.

[fredster]

rerstad,

I read the articles. It's nothing new, and these are pre-election rethoric articles written by people with an agenda.

Sure there are ultra religious people. (I'm not) and sure, they believe that with all their heart. But that doesn't mean it drives the policy of the US to war.  There were lots of reasons for the war, and if I remember correctly, they were all sounded out by about every politician that holds office on the news during the time, every night on every channel and in every newspaper.

These 2 articles are just some way to diminish and minimize the policymakers and a government they don't agree with.  It makes them feel better to catagorize the other side as zealots and crackpots.

Bill Moyers and the publication the second article come from, salon.com and tompayne are all from the same perspective. These sob's must be crazy and here's why. 

Bill is retired now.  Salon and tompayne are out for the fringe to read. Bush won.  We have work to do.  We have to come together and finish the job at hand.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Sure there are ultra religious people. (I'm not) and sure, they believe that with all their heart. But that doesn't mean it drives the policy of the US to war.

Bush thinks God chose him to be president. That doesn't prove it drives his policy on iraq, but it sure doesn't help when it proves he's a nutjob.

To me, it also tells me exactly what he thinks of Democracy.


mrC

[shmokes]

You mean.....

...Jesus...........


......isn't coming soon?   

[fredster]

Nice closed logic MrC.

Explains it all in a tight little package. 

[DrewKaree]

You mean.....

...Jesus...........


......isn't coming soon?   

LMAO @ you!

That's jebus to YOU, mister!

And all the first ladies talked to dead people....I think I may run in the next election for local office on the "Magic 8 Ball" ticket.

[Dexter]

Bush thinks God chose him to be president.

Wow! God was rigging the election machines too?? I thought it was just diebold!

[Goz]

You mean.....

...Jesus...........


......isn't coming soon?   

No worries my son, I am right here   

[RayB]

Watch a documentary called "The World According to Bush". It contains lots of interviews with very intelligent, rational people (some of them who were high-ranking members of CIA and other parts of government under Bush until last year). And part of it covers the religious angle to the Bush administration.

Did you know the top administration often start their day with bible study at the whitehouse? How does that fit in with running the country?!

Imagine your employer and all his/her top executives having a bible study meeting every morning. How would that make you feel about how they run the company and how they makes some of their corporate decisions?

And I love this line: "...believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming apocalypse". It's the kind of thinking, like, I can call myself psychic, announce your death is imminent, and then I stab you. It's a little too easy to make something come true if you decide to make it so. Sheesh.

-------------------
PS: Is there a direct link to page 2?

[Stingray]

Jesus is coming. Everyone try to look busy.

-S

[ChadTower]

Did you know the top administration often start their day with bible study at the whitehouse? How does that fit in with running the country?!

Does it have to?  What if they watch a football game?  Does that fit in with running the country?  What if they wipe their ass from the back rather than the front?  Does that fit in with running the country?

[RayB]

Does it have to?

[Sephroth57]

Did you know the top administration often start their day with bible study at the whitehouse? How does that fit in with running the country?!

Does it have to?

[ChadTower]

It sure is a problem if they do it as part of how they decide their policies. Imagine deciding foreign policy on whether or not the Patriots make it to the superbowl! The Reagans consulted with psychics. Were you ok with that??

Have they told you that they make policy decisions based on their bible studies, or are you assuming that? 

I think foreign policy SHOULD be based on the Patriots.  They're PATRIOTS.  Besides, considering that I live within throwing distance of Gillette Stadium and in the same community as pretty much all of the Patriots players, you're asking the wrong guy that question.     Tom Brady for President!

When the Reagans were consulting psychics I was not only in elementary school but I lived in Canada.  I wouldn't have any problem with that anyway, seeing as how it's not the sole determinant in a decision. 

[shmokes]

Did you know the top administration often start their day with bible study at the whitehouse? How does that fit in with running the country?!

What if they wipe their ass from the back rather than the front?  Does that fit in with running the country?

Am I to take from this that you WOULD[/i] trust someone who starts in the back to run the country ?!!!!!!!!!   WTF?

[Mameotron]

Did you know the top administration often start their day with bible study at the whitehouse? How does that fit in with running the country?!

Imagine your employer and all his/her top executives having a bible study meeting every morning. How would that make you feel about how they run the company and how they makes some of their corporate decisions?

The US constitution specifically allows people religious freedom.

[shmokes]

Whadya mean?  We don't ignore religion.  We attack it.

[fredster]

Imagine your employer and all his/her top executives having a bible study meeting every morning. How would that make you feel about how they run the company and how they makes some of their corporate decisions?

My company does that. They hand out a nice bonus every year, they take care of people if they have problems, they donate to charities all over the community.  They are very very nice people. The company grows every year and hires more people and makes more money.

In the late '70's the union that was in their shop voted themselves out.  Our company pays as much as any other around, and people from the shop floor move to management. We have over 500 people now.  The founder of the company is a very nice man who bought the bank that refused him his first loan.  He made sure that I qualified for a loan to build my house.

So no, I don't mind, not one bit. I am not by any means a religious person, I've always been an atheist, but I don't mind people expressing themselves that way. It doesn't get in my way at all.  After all, they are as free to believe as I am to dis-believe.  That's what it's all about.

After all, We won't know if we are right until we are dead.

[Ravant]

Whadya mean?

[shmokes]

Holy mother of god, you are slaughtering your facts. 

The enormous 10 commandments sculpture was IN the courthouse, not in a church by the courthouse. 

Nobody wants churches to be required to marry gay people.  They want county clerk offices to issue marriage licenses to gay people.  They want gays to have the legal rights that go along with marriage such as custody and visitation, etc.  Nobody thinks that gays have an inherent right to be allowed into a Mormon temple.  WTF?

And, of course, the President is allowed to read the bible.  He just isn't allowed by the constitution to require it or have an official bible reading session at work.   He could, perhaps, have a "do what you want" time in which many people chose to read the bible, but he could still run afoul of the constitution if it was in reality just a thinly veiled bible study that created a hostile atmosphere for people who did not want to participate in the religion stuff.

[Ravant]

"The enormous 10 commandments sculpture was IN the courthouse, not in a church by the courthouse. "

I wasn't talking about the national issue. I'm referring to a local incident where a church, across Route 24 from the court complex in Riverhead, NY, was forced to take down their statue because a group of people decided the church placed it there to purposely influence the courts' judgements. It was a BS call though, because the church and the statue were there for about 30 years longer than the court complex.

"Nobody wants churches to be required to marry gay people.  They want county clerk offices to issue marriage licenses to gay people.  They want gays to have the legal rights that go along with marriage such as custody and visitation, etc.  Nobody thinks that gays have an inherent right to be allowed into a Mormon temple.  WTF?"

Actually... I was pulling the "forcing churches to marry" from another local leftist group that actually attempted to take a friend's pastor to court because he refused to perform the marriage. Instead of going elsewhere, and peacefully getting the legal rights via other means, they decided to attempt to have the pastor nailed for discrimination against homosexuals.

"And, of course, the President is allowed to read the bible.  He just isn't allowed by the constitution to require it or have an official bible reading session at work.   He could, perhaps, have a "do what you want" time in which many people chose to read the bible, but he could still run afoul of the constitution if it was in reality just a thinly veiled bible study that created a hostile atmosphere for people who did not want to participate in the religion stuff."
I agree with you on that. The moment he starts requiring bible studies, or otherwise forcing his religion into other people's lives is the moment he oversteps his bounds. He doesn't require them. They happen on everyone's own choice. This kind of goes along with the "moment of silence" in public schools. What is so bad about it that leftists have to fight it? I mean, granted, I haven't actively participated in any religion since Junior High School, and think they're all farsical, I still see no wrong with a moment of silence. Here's what digs at me the most. Back when I was in junior high school, I nearly got expelled for taking a day off to get my Confirmation. Now granted, it wasn't all that important to me, and I WAS using it as an excuse to get out of class that day, doesn't mean they have to threaten to expell me. My parents were the ones who wanted me to get my confirmation... so I did. I'm going to be penalized by the system for my religion? I mean, when my family spoke up and threatened to take it to court for religious discrimination, they shut up REAL quick about expelling me, but still. The fact that they even discussed trying annoys me.

[ChadTower]

He could, perhaps, have a "do what you want" time in which many people chose to read the bible, but he could still run afoul of the constitution if it was in reality just a thinly veiled bible study that created a hostile atmosphere for people who did not want to participate in the religion stuff.

A "do what you want" time?  What is this, second grade?  ALL work is a "do what you want" time, but if what you want isn't work, you get fired.

As for the Democrats attacking a President for reading the Bible, they are not attacking a President.  They are attacking a Republican.  If Clinton had been a Bible studier it would never have become an issue nor would anyone have ever heard about it.

[DrewKaree]

He could, perhaps, have a "do what you want" time in which many people chose to read the bible, but he could still run afoul of the constitution if it was in reality just a thinly veiled bible study that created a hostile atmosphere for people who did not want to participate in the religion stuff.

What if he called that "do what you want" time a different name, though?  What if he called it "Winter break" or "Spring break" instead? 

Those terms are used and some here have said those are "thinly veiled" religious celebrations.  Why don't they run afoul of the constitution?  Aren't those terms used to disguise a hostile atmosphere for people who don't want to participate in the religion stuff?

  

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What if he called that "do what you want" time a different name, though?  What if he called it "Winter break" or "Spring break" instead?

What I don't understand is why you need everyone else (including public institutions) to constantly validate your religion? As long as they aren't stopping you from practicing outside of their property, what's the problem? We live in a country with many different faiths, what makes you so comfortable with ignoring others?

Is it just a coincidence that "Winter Break" and/or "Spring Break" occur at time that allows you to celebrate the two largest Christian holidays? Has it stopped you from getting your kids Christmas presents now that it's called it "Winter Break?"

Would it make you happier to call them "Christians Are Better Than You Break" and "All Other Religions Worship a False God Break?"

My preference, just for the record, is "Get Off The Cross, We Need The Wood Break"....

[DrewKaree]

What I don't understand is why you need everyone else (including public institutions) to constantly validate your religion? As long as they aren't stopping you from practicing outside of their property, what's the problem? We live in a country with many different faiths, what makes you so comfortable with ignoring others?

Somewhere you read a post and mistook it for mine.  It's ok.  I can forgive you.  

Is it just a coincidence that "Winter Break" and/or "Spring Break" occur at time that allows you to celebrate the two largest Christian holidays? Has it stopped you from getting your kids Christmas presents now that it's called it "Winter Break?"

Would it make you happier to call them "Christians Are Better Than You Break" and "All Other Religions Worship a False God Break?"

My preference, just for the record, is "Get Off The Cross, We Need The Wood Break"....

I guess reading and comprehension of the points put forth is asking a bit much.  I'll come back after you've had a chance to read it, digest it, and put forth an intelligent response.  Oh, and to listen to everyone else re: religion, it's not celebrating a Christian holiday, it's celebrating a pagan holiday that the Christians adopted. 

For the record, you didn't really answer the question you quoted.  You simply made a tired attempt at sarcasm.  I understand the question kinda leaves you in a pickle.

I'm wondering how long it'll take Dexter to jump in to this discussion and speak of the low level of intelligence that requires "resorting" to sarcasm....oops....there's more of it.  Mebbe Dex locked the double-standard door.

Something tells me you fell off the wrong side of the bed this morning, C.  Clear those cobwebs from the ol' noggin and let us know when you've figured out what you're reading. 

[ChadTower]

I don't really have anything to say, but I think it's my turn, so I'll try to fit in with the pattern that has developed.

Religion, Bush, Christianity should not be tolerated by anyone, snotty remark snotty remark, snotty remark.

Winky face.

[shmokes]

Well...first of all, a "break" doesn't automatically have religious conotations.  A break that is deliberately scheduled to fall on a christian event does.  I get two fifteen minute breaks at work, for example, in addition to my lunch hour every day.  If I want to read the bible (and there is at least one lady here to does every day) during that break I can.  More than one employee can head over to the breakroom and do it together if they want.  But as soon as it becomes apparent that people in authority postitions at my work are expecting or encouraging the employees to read the bible (I work for the government remember) it becomes unconstitutional (even if they continue calling it just a "break", which is what I meant by a thinly veiled blah blah blah...

I didn't really think they would call it, "Do what you want" time, Chad.  Please, for the love of god, be more charitable with my arguments and respond something of substance in them.  My point is that reading the bible at work is not prohibited.  As soon as someone is punished for not participating it's unconstitutional.  It's also unconstitutional for G.W. to have official bible study groups, e.g., he's prohibited from doing things such as sending out a memo on Whitehouse letterhead to all the employees inviting them to the bible study.

As for the end, that's quite a revelation.  Democrats are acting like partisans  OMG!!!  Republicans never do that.  Gimme a break.  Anyway, you're only part right.  Many democrats in congress, though I wouldn't say most would attack the practice even if it were Clinton.  And you can bet your ass the ACLU would attack.

[fredster]

Exactly what article of the constitution prevents the state from having religious items in it?

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

I have gone over this document several times, I really don't see it.

Shmokes, being that you are so smart and all, can you find the exact passage that prevents people from having religion in school, church, or in public building?

I bet your momma is so proud of you doing so good in class and being so smart.

[Stingray]

As for the Democrats attacking a President for reading the Bible, they are not attacking a President.  They are attacking a Republican.  If Clinton had been a Bible studier it would never have become an issue nor would anyone have ever heard about it.

Obviously I'm not going to attempt to speak for the entire Democratic party here, only myself. I voted for Clinton twice. I would not have voted for him either time if he thumped the bible and claimed that god wanted him to be president in the manner that Bush does. I do indeed find that kind of behavior to be "more than a little scary".

-S

[ChadTower]

Maybe Bush meets with Terrell Owens.

[Dartful Dodger]

BUSH WON!!!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Still doesn't make you any smarter... or your point any more salient.

[ChadTower]

Dude, seriously.  This time ALL you included was the insult to his intelligence.  What was that, the abridged version?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Dude, seriously.  This time ALL you included was the insult to his intelligence.  What was that, the abridged version?

Intelligence?? wha?

[ChadTower]

Eh, just go back to your cowbell.   

[DrewKaree]

...snotty remark snotty remark, snotty remark.

Winky face.

*edit* this woulda been funnier if I got it right the first time 


OMG Chad, I can't believe you just directed that snotty remark at me!  How do you live with yourself after saying such things as that!

Winky face, Big Grin smiley

[jbox]

Dude, seriously.  This time ALL you included was the insult to his intelligence.  What was that, the abridged version?

Nah, he was counting on getting triple word score for using the word "salient".

[Ravant]

Exactly what article of the constitution prevents the state from having religious items in it?

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

I have gone over this document several times, I really don't see it.

Shmokes, being that you are so smart and all, can you find the exact passage that prevents people from having religion in school, church, or in public building?

I bet your momma is so proud of you doing so good in class and being so smart.

It's a separation of church and state issue. In order to further distance them from eachother, all religious items from any religion, are usually kept out of governmental buildings. It's an interpretation of the constitution. Just like people have many interpretations of poetry, from the bible, from anything literary, there will be interpretations of the constitution.

[ChadTower]

My religion uses the fire exit as the symbol of our devotion.  I want all fire exits removed from all government facilities.

[fredster]

It's an interpretation of the constitution

Where is it in the Consitution? Show me.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Somewhere you read a post and mistook it for mine.  It's ok.  I can forgive you.  

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.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Where is it in the Consitution? Show me.

For a rebuttle to that tired old argument, see here: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg1.htm

My personal favorite quote: "To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution."


mrC

[shmokes]

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

I have gone over this document several times, I really don't see it.

Perhpas you should read the entire document instead of just the portion you linked to:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

[fredster]

So you prove my Point. That's Mr.C.  Thanks for the non answer Shmokes!

"The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles"

It's not there either. So It's assumed. It's interpreted. (I'm not for it either), but with the proper backing, this "interpretation" can be changed with a stroke of the pen from the Supreme Court.

Where is it exactly? - Is this supposed to tell me that (Article 1) ?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

So that can be interpreted as having stained glass windows up, but not making people bow to them.  Tell me that people can't run with that in either direction.

People can say that because these religious icons are removed they are somehow injured and they can no longer practice the free exercise thereof;

[Ravant]

Where is it in the Consitution? Show me.

It's not directly in the Constitution, but corrupt political authorities, in conjunction with lawyers have twisted the words of the Constitution to meet their own needs. The Religious Freedom clause in the Constitution was set up to protect our government from the Pope. At the time, the Pope was the most powerful man in the world. We didn't want to be under his power. Protestants from Europe established the nation, and therefore wanted to keep the Catholic Church from meddling in governmental affairs. Also, by keeping religion out of the government, the Constitution effectively destroys the "ruling by devine right" excuse.

Here's a quick example of how badly politicians skew the Constitution. (Mind you, the following example has NOTHING to do with what I'm ranting about, it's just a simplified example.)

public void showStupidity(String name1, String name2)
{
name1: Cows produce methane gas. Methane gas contributes to the hole in the Ozone layer of the Earth. Therefore, cows are contributing to the hole in the Ozone layer of the earth.

name2: This just in, name1 is on a relentless vendetta against all cows. He said that cows are contributing to the hole in the Ozone layer of the Earth, therefore changing their national image, and is making people hate cows so they would kill them.
}//End example.

Above was an example of what politicians MIGHT do in that situation to bolster their own public image. The politician will also use his ties with the media and other connections to have Scientist Pete silenced, so the Politician's vendetta against polluting cars can continue.

In the terms of the Constitution, while separating church and state, people tend to view this as "Abandon religion at all costs" and therefore make every effort to have any religious symbols from any religion deleted from anywhere within, or around any governmental establishment. Our major laws revolve around the 10 commandments and the 7 Pilars of Islam, and more. Are we to do away with all laws and become a complete anarchy because we follow some morality within two or three religions?

[shmokes]

That's totally bogus.  How long has it been, exactly, since you've actually read the 10 commandments?  Here they are for your enjoyment:

1:  'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

2: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

3: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

4: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

5: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

6: 'You shall not murder.'

7: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

8: 'You shall not steal.'

9: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

10: 'You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's.'

You have to go to #5 before you get anything even resembling what might have made it into our lawbooks.  #6 is the first commandment with an outright correstponding law and is joined only by #8.  #6 and #8 are the only ones with outright laws.  You could possibly suggest that libel and slander are related to #9 and that legal guardian stuff applies to #5.  But it's certainly not against the law to talk back to your parents or tell them that you have no respect for them.

The 10 Commandments do not form the pillar of our laws.  Our laws do not "revolve" around the 10 commandments.  We live in a society.  The benefits to society at large of having no murder or theft are pretty self-evident.  I'll go out on a limb, in fact, and suggest that people were likely pretty keen about not being murdered BEFORE old Moses came down the mountain with his tablet.

[Ravant]

Well, first, #9 can be associated with purgery. That said, lemme make a point. Our laws are following half of the 10 commandments. So sue me, I made a generalized statement. And because 6 & 8 are actual laws, why not do away with all laws regarding murder and theft, because they're in the 10 commandments? 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.

Besides, you missed the point of my post. My post was focusing more on how skewed the Constitution's meaning has become compliments of corrupt scumbags that human stupidity allows in office. Anyone who wins an election, should probably not hold that office.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So you prove my Point.

The point is, the language is neutral...for a reason. You can no more drop a ten-ton monument of the ten commandments in a court house, than you can have a teacher tell a Muslim that there religion is inferior by hanging only a crucifix in homeroom.

I don't understand why it's so hard for religious folk to understand that to have a public institution acknowledge their 'one true religion', is to ignore everyone else. Neutrality is the only acceptable way to allow these ideologies to co-exist in locations we all equally share, and pay for.

If religious people didn't come across as so fanatical about it, I'd have no problem with my kid taking a social studies class that incorporated into their curriculum, a multi-week course on all the various religions of the world. In fact, I think it would broaden our children's understanding and acceptance of others. I don't think that would ever be allowed to happen however, as it seems inherent in every single religion the idea that everyone else is wrong.

To me, the separation of Church/State has never been about disregard, or lack of respect for religion (even though I have my own philosophy anathema to this)...it's a matter of exclusion vs. inclusion.


mrC

[ChadTower]

You can no more drop a ten-ton monument of the ten commandments in a court house, than you can have a teacher tell a Muslim that there religion is inferior by hanging only a crucifix in homeroom.

The only reason a child would think that is because someone like you would tell them it says Islam is inferior.  The concept of universal exclusion to prevent potential offense is flawed.  It screws everyone and benefits no one.  Let's just bring us all to the lowest common denominator of nothingness, shall we?  That way NO ONE gets to celebrate. 

We're looking at a case where nearly all of the religious students in our state would fall somewhere under that crucifix.  The ones that don't have no reason to be offended by it.  They should simply be able to request a Star of David, or mathematically less likely, whatever the Islamic equivalent symbol is.  In other words, we should be including everyone present, not excluding everyone.

[DrewKaree]

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.

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]

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.

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]

So you prove my Point.


The point is, the language is neutral...for a reason.

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]

We're not asking for signs or iconography that says that there is no god.

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

[fredster]

I always thought people went too far on both sides. Me, I thought it was just another thing to divide people, especially in school.  I didn't know until I was 15 I was supposed to dislike catholics, because, well, they are catholics.

But I couldn't see how taking down the 10 commandments served me either. I still don't see why I have to push back on religion.  Most people are believers, and hey, that's their right. Removing it in public places serves no purpose.  I don't think we have to bend the rules of 1000 to serve the needs of 1. 

If the local people of a community want to decorate their court house with stained glass and crosses, fine, that's great.  It doesn't stop them from doing the business of government, and might even make them more forgiving.  If some jewish group wants a symbol, let them pay for it and put it there.  No skin off my chin. 

Pushing back will just create a backlash that will cause more problems than it's worth, because it's worth nothing to me to keep fighting a idea war that nobody wins at.

And I can't prove my "non religion" either.  So resistance is futile.

[Ravant]

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.

Now you're on to something.

[shmokes]

What's you're talking about is simply tyranny of the Majority.  The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from people who think like you and Fredster.  Think about it, if you have a majority it's easy enough to pass a law for whatever you want.  The right of the people to bare arms can't be abridged unless there is a majority in congress who decide to abridge it.  The right to assemble and freedom of religion and so on can't be abridged unless a there are a majority of lawmakers who agree to abridge it.  The point of the Bill of Rights was to guard certain important liberties from ever being taken away from the people, even if the majority in government wants to take them away.  It's not ALWAYS about what the majority wants..

And if it was we would never have had Brown v. Board of Education.

And by the way, our national motto and consequently our money did not originally say, "In God We Trust".  The Pledge of Allegience originally said, "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."  The national motto was originally "E Pluribus Unum" (I think that's spelled right) which means "Out of many, One".  Certianly not a devisive saying.

In 1954, to further distinguish America from the "godless commies" Congress voted to ADD god into government.  Perhaps if some overzealous christians hadn't added god in there to begin with us overzealous atheists wouldn't have to be busting our asses trying to get him taken back out.

[DrewKaree]

...us overzealous atheists wouldn't have to be busting our asses trying to get him taken back out.

I thought God was a she, or were are you just "mixing it up"? 

[shmokes]

...Damn it!!!

[ChadTower]

The right of the people to bare arms can't be abridged unless there is a majority in congress who decide to abridge it.

[ChadTower]

I thought God was a she, or were are you just "mixing it up"?

[fredster]

The right of the people to bare arms can't be abridged unless there is a majority in congress who decide to abridge it. 

No, they can't.  It's in the consitution to allow people to have guns, it's the basic law of the land.  That would be unconsitutional and easily proven unconstiutional.  If however there is a majority of people who want to change the actual consitution with an new article, it gets ratified into the consitution, well yah, then it happens.

Think about it, if you have a majority it's easy enough to pass a law for whatever you want.

Isn't that "democracy" in it's most basic form???

The point of the Bill of Rights was to guard certain important liberties from ever being taken away from the people, even if the majority in government wants to take them away.

[DrewKaree]

One of my pet peeves is ATM's too!  But for a different reason.

On a drive-up ATM, why do they have Braille on them?   

[saint]

What if the local Wiccans want to put up a pentagram in the courthouse? People will have to weigh in to let me know if I'm wrong, but I suspect the majority of Christians would object to it (and possibly Jews, Muslims, etc...). Anyone who believes the 10 Commandments belong in a court house please feel free to comment, I'm genuinely curious. What about something less controversial, such as a statue of Buddah?

And Fredster, for what it's worth, I agree with you the default language on an ATM should be English anywhere in the US.  I don't mind Spanish being available (I think English only laws are silly), but it shouldn't be the default.

--- saint

If the local people of a community want to decorate their court house with stained glass and crosses, fine, that's great.  It doesn't stop them from doing the business of government, and might even make them more forgiving.  If some jewish group wants a symbol, let them pay for it and put it there.  No skin off my chin. 

[ChadTower]

You can't make English only laws in the US because the US has no official languages. 

[SirPeale]

What if the local Wiccans want to put up a pentagram in the courthouse?

Er...that's 'pentacle' for Wiccan's...'pentagram' for Satanists.

[ChadTower]

Satanists, wiccans, it's all the same, yes?

(that's a joke, from someone from Salem, MA who knows damn well they're not, BTW)

[shmokes]

Satanists, wiccans, it's all the same, yes?

That offends me.  Don't mix my lot up with those dirty wiccans...

[ChadTower]

Hey man, I know quite a few Wicca and most of them shower.

[Harry Potter]

Satanists, wiccans, it's all the same, yes?

(that's a joke, from someone from Salem, MA who knows damn well they're not, BTW)

My friends wife is into the whole witchcraft thing and told me Wiccans are usually called 'Fluffy bunnies' because they refuse to associate with any aspect of life or religion that could be even remotely considered as slightly not nice. They are basically super-duper-goodie-goodie-two-shoes according to the witch wife. 

I wish I had known this before I uttered a similar "Satanists, wiccans, it's all the same, yes?" type fo phrase and was subjected to a long lecture on witchcraft, religion, existantialism and other stuff. 42 popped up somewhere in the conversation. 

Moral=DON'T compare wiccans to satanists, witches, priests, danny_galaga etc etc. unless you want to be bored to sleep.

[Dartful Dodger]

What if the local Wiccans want to put up a pentagram in the courthouse? People will have to weigh in to let me know if I'm wrong, but I suspect the majority of Christians would object to it (and possibly Jews, Muslims, etc...). Anyone who believes the 10 Commandments belong in a court house please feel free to comment

You are wrong.

There are 50 of them on the US Flag, and a building is in the shape of one.

[ChadTower]

My friends wife is into the whole witchcraft thing and told me Wiccans are usually called 'Fluffy bunnies' because they refuse to associate with any aspect of life or religion that could be even remotely considered as slightly not nice. They are basically super-duper-goodie-goodie-two-shoes according to the witch wife. 

None of the Wicca I know fit that description, and these aren't suburban bored teens, these are people who have been devoted to their faith for decades.

[Luxury]

If everybody just believed in the Force, then none of this would be a problem. Convert Now!

http://www.jediism.org/

http://212.168.23.160/creed/

42 popped up somewhere in the conversation.

       

[DrewKaree]

I believe in the number 33 and a magical spring said to be found in Latrobe, from which life juice pours forth and is turned into the nectar of the gods (all of them....if you have enough nectar )

[shmokes]

What if the local Wiccans want to put up a pentagram in the courthouse? People will have to weigh in to let me know if I'm wrong, but I suspect the majority of Christians would object to it (and possibly Jews, Muslims, etc...). Anyone who believes the 10 Commandments belong in a court house please feel free to comment

You are wrong.

There are 50 of them on the US Flag, and a building is in the shape of one.  Yes I know they are called pentagons, but that is also a pentagram.  Just like a cross is shaped like a crucifix, but nonChristians are upset when they see it on city flag.

To me the shapes on the flag represent states; the witches can believe whatever they want to about them.

Our laws are based on the 10 commandments.  If you don

[shmokes]

I believe in the number 33 and a magical spring said to be found in Latrobe, from which life juice pours forth and is turned into the nectar of the gods (all of them....if you have enough nectar )

If you ever suggest that there is more than one again I will strike your ass down!

[DrewKaree]

I for one would like to see more of our laws "Biggie Sized", hold the pickle and mustard, with sweet and sour dipping sauce. 

And if I could get a Frosty with that life sentence, that'd be super...mmmmkay?

I'd like to start the petition mandating the last meal at execution be the Hardee's 6 Dollar Burger Value Meal....after all, your cholesterol levels will be the last thing on your mind.

 

I know you won't strike my ayse down, regardless of the number of them....it goes against your loving nature.

[shmokes]

I command you to refer to the old testament!

[DrewKaree]

I for one would like to see more of our laws "Biggie Sized", hold the pickle and mustard, with sweet and sour dipping sauce, you know, raise a little Cain.

And if I'm Abel could I get a Frosty with that life sentence, that'd be super...mmmmkay?

I'd like to start the petition mandating the last meal at execution be whored out like Jezebel, and force the Hardee's 6 Dollar Burger Value Meal be served....after all, your cholesterol levels will be the last thing on your mind.

JeezYeshua, get a Job....I go spouting various Proverbs and you're on me like stink on Dexter....why pick on me?  I'm a nice Gentile soul 

Better?

[saint]

Not sure if your reply is serious or not, so I'll respond as if it is.

Other than the fact that they all have 5 points, the various items aren't the same at all. At least, not as I understand them.

A pentacle (thank you Peale), is a hollow 5 pointed star surrounded by a circle. Like this:



or this:



or this:



--------------

The stars in the American flag are not surrounded by a circle, and are filled in, like this:



or this:



----------------

whereas the Pentagon, the building, looks like... well, a pentagon, like this:



which has nothing star like or pentacle like that I can see.

-----------------

So if I'm wrong, it's not because people will see a pentacle and say: "Oh gee, look - part of the American flag. How nice." or.... "Hey, it's the Pentagon! What a proud symbol of Americana." ....

I expect the reaction to be much more along the lines of "What the heck's that?" or "Hey, isn't that that satanic symbol?" (yes, confusing satanism with Wicca. I know the difference). Don't guess we'd ever have the chance to see, but I'd bet money there'd be a big outcry if a Wiccan attempted to hang a pentacle at a courthouse in their home town.

What about satanism now that we're on the topic? One obviously has to draw the line somewhere. Someone claiming to worship a can of beef stew probably has no case on wanting to hang a picture of it on the wall of their courthouse, but satanism (which I know admittedly little about) is a religion numbering hundreds to thousands of followers, apparently (http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/religions/satanism/faqcrt.html).

What if a tax-paying satanist wanted to hang the Baphomet



or this symbol (whose name escapes me):



... What would the reaction be then?

I bet they wouldn't be up there for more than a few hours.

By the way, I'm not sure I've ever seen a Crucifix on a city flag - which flag is that?

As far as the commandments go, I concur with Shmokes -- regardless of whether or not you believe they came from God, only 20% to perhaps 40% of them are actually laws in this country. Given the incredible number of laws in this country, the 2 to 4 commandments that are also laws make up such a small percentage of the overall laws in the country that I'm not sure they are even statistically significant. Perhaps a number of the rest of the laws are off-shoots of the commandments that made it into law (such as stating that copyright laws are an extension of "Thou shalt not steal"), but I don't think (I state think instead of believe because I have not researched a bulk of laws) an overwhelming percentage would trace back to those 2 to 4 commandments that are also laws. For instance, "thou shalt not litter" or "thou shalt not spit on the sidewalk" or "thou shalt not own more than 2 horses" or "thou shalt not stable more than 3 domestic animals within city limits" .... do not appear to have any relation to the 10 commandments at all.

Any other Judeo/Christian/Islamic folks want to weigh in on what their reaction would be to a Wiccan or satanic symbol on their local court house wall? Along with your own personal reaction, what do you think the reaction of your local community would be? Mine would blow a blood vessel I'm sure.

--- saint

multiple edits for spelling

You are wrong.

There are 50 of them on the US Flag, and a building is in the shape of one.  Yes I know they are called pentagons, but that is also a pentagram.  Just like a cross is shaped like a crucifix, but nonChristians are upset when they see it on city flag.

To me the shapes on the flag represent states; the witches can believe whatever they want to about them.

Our laws are based on the 10 commandments.  If you don

[saint]

Channukah varies from year to year, falling anywhere from early December to very late December, occasionally falling partly in November or January even. It is sometimes not part of winter break at all. If winter break included an early December Channukah, you'd see Christmas eve and Christmas day being regular school days. 

I'm not sure exactly when Rammadan (spelling?) is.

I'm also fairly certain that Jews are not offended that Christians celebrate Christmas. I doubt they care at all, except that perhaps there are really good sales and the movie theaters are all empty

Don't forget, Christ was a nice Jewish lad!

--- saint

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. 

[saint]

I believe that's the point of an English only law - to make it the official language. And I still think it's silly.

--- saint

You can't make English only laws in the US because the US has no official languages. 

[DrewKaree]

Don't forget, Christ was a nice Jewish lad!

Yep, just a nice Jewish lad....since the Messiah hasn't yet come, we're worshipping one of their folks, which I'd think they'd see as something akin to everyone worshipping Ghandi...nice try, but yer better off praying to Baal again!

Isn't modesty something held in high esteem to the Jewish religion?  That'd make Christ almost the black sheep of the family, going around saying He's here to save everyone if they'll only believe in Him.....I bet they prolly look at Him like we look at folks like Jim & Tammy Faye.  They are of the same kind, but definitely not of the same species 

[saint]

I really don't think Jewish people think much about Christ at all - not a negative statement - just that why would a Jew think anything one way or another about Christ... How often do Christians think about Muhammed?

Don't forget, Christ was a nice Jewish lad!

Yep, just a nice Jewish lad....since the Messiah hasn't yet come, we're worshipping one of their folks, which I'd think they'd see as something akin to everyone worshipping Ghandi...nice try, but yer better off praying to Baal again!

Isn't modesty something held in high esteem to the Jewish religion?  That'd make Christ almost the black sheep of the family, going around saying He's here to save everyone if they'll only believe in Him.....I bet they prolly look at Him like we look at folks like Jim & Tammy Faye.  They are of the same kind, but definitely not of the same species 

[shmokes]

I for one would like to see more of our laws "Biggie Sized", hold the pickle and mustard, with sweet and sour dipping sauce, you know, raise a little Cain.

And if I'm Abel could I get a Frosty with that life sentence, that'd be super...mmmmkay?

I'd like to start the petition mandating the last meal at execution be whored out like Jezebel, and force the Hardee's 6 Dollar Burger Value Meal be served....after all, your cholesterol levels will be the last thing on your mind.

JeezYeshua, get a Job....I go spouting various Proverbs and you're on me like stink on Dexter....why pick on me?  I'm a nice Gentile soul 

Better?