| Posted: 10 Jul 2007 14:44 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 122
Join Date: Feb 2007
|
|
In God we trust not enough.. Looks like this ACLU is a pretty bad thing for you guys.
|
| Posted: 10 Jul 2007 15:56 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
The Amendment works both ways- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". THEREFORE, just as courts find again and again, the state cannot establish a religion as you repeatedly call for. Putting up pictures in state buildings does that. Putting up religious monuments does that. That isn't getting in your way of your right to make a religious display. You have the freedom to convert this website from one about comic book characters to a religious display at any time. Bro I so got you got you on this, Danny.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof What's the first word Danny? Congress and what is it that Congress won't do? I think it says make no law If they can't make a law that respects or prohibits then they can't tell a court house what it can or can't post religiously because it stops right there with Congress that's a bunch of congressman can not make a law prohibiting religion. You tell me what words in there say anything about a court house or any other government facility please. I can't help it if everybody else in these old ACLU court cases can't read, but there it is in black and white. I don't know how in the world they can get away with adding things that aren't there just to suit them.
Quote:
Do you honestly believe that liberals are working for the downfall of this country? Cuz thats what you're saying. Well yeah. Whether they know it or not is another matter.
Quote:
But knock it off with your divisive bs But it's fun to make jokes pal. I can't help it if you can't hear the tone I'm writing this stuff in, but I'm smiling the whole time. Trust me.
Quote:
What you think is your business, but I have to speak up when you come out insulting people.
I haven't insulted you yet have I? Never mind don't answer that. Just focus on the fact that Congress shall make no law. Again that's very very neutral don't you think? No law means no law one way or the other because you can't have any rules of engagement if there can be no law made. I know you'll squirm your way around this somehow by telling me about all the court cases blah blah blah, but in the end you can't add words to what's there pal. Politics is a bunch of bull really when you think about it. To think the ACLU has been able to pull this kind of sham for so long.
__________________
|
| Posted: 11 Jul 2007 00:11 Last Edited By: Pole805 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
I got theis new hat I really like it it's says
"Untied We Stand" with an american flag.
AWESOME, pour some sugar on me!
|
| Posted: 11 Jul 2007 05:04 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
__________________
|
| Posted: 11 Jul 2007 18:06 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof What's the first word Danny? Congress and what is it that Congress won't do? I think it says make no law If they can't make a law that respects or prohibits then they can't tell a court house what it can or can't post religiously because it stops right there with Congress that's a bunch of congressman can not make a law prohibiting religion. You tell me what words in there say anything about a court house or any other government facility please.
What words in the Constitution say we have to drive on the right hand side of the road? None, but that doesn't mean it is your constitutional right to drive on the left. We also tend not to see legal arguments about the color of the drapes on a court house. Not surprisingly, the constitution doesn't restrict congress's power on that either. But for something that is a big deal to large segments of Americans, like religious or racial minorities- what goes on government buildings does become a court issue.
As much was intended for the judicial branch. Allow me to remind you of one of the ACLU's more important court victories- Brown vs. The Board of Education. I think the system is working well.
And when the constitution says Congress can't make any rule establishing a religion- that does not mean the President or the courts now have that job. Congress is simply the law making body. Of course, the very first thing ruled out for them to do is establish a state religion.
That means this country isn't in the business of establishing or endorsing religions. I'm not the first person to say this:
"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform".
-James Madison, Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789, pages 730 - 731
Personally, I think that a picture of Jesus on a court house wall compels men to worship God in a manner that is contrary to their consciences, not least because that picture is guaranteed to be inaccurate. Nobody knows what Jesus looked like, so I don't want the speculation posted on a government building funded by tax payers.
Furthermore, if Congress can't establish a state religion by law, then why can a court do so, especially if higher courts have found public religious monuments to be unconstitutional?
But maybe you still think the courts have the right to spend our tax money on religious monuments. Since we ARE talking about court buildings and since the legal system of United States does determine what is legal and what is not- I can't think of anybody better to rule on this than the courts. Congress can't because the Constitution bans them from doing so.
And you are correct that the courts agree with me that religious statements made by the government are not legal.
So, no Tim. You haven't "got" anyone with your attempt to say only congress is barred from pushing religion on the rest of us. Thank you for your blunt admission that your preferred style of debate regarding important issues is "gotcha!".
----------
HOWEVER, now that the BS is debunked, let me state that I don't have a problem with every single expression of religion on public ground or terms. Why? Well, it isn't legally correct but I really have no interest in being a huge jerk over things that aren't put forth as some sort of religious statement.
For example, Arlington National Cemetery is full of white crosses and I do NOT advocate tearing them all up to make sure everything is perfectly legal.
As Preacher Man pointed out- there is a Bible verse on the Liberty Bell. I say leave it.
The president is paid by the people to make tough foreign policy calls- is he allowed to bring his religions morals into the decision making? I wish more did, instead of just saying they did.
Yes, we have to respect the rule of law in this country. When people are using public grounds to advocate their religious points, I say that is abuse. When it goes to trial, there isn't much else an honest judge can do but apply the law as it reads- that is his or her job. But crosses in Arlington aren't making a religious point, they are there for the families of people who gave it all for this country. Wise presidents don't go around bragging about their piety, but they do consider what Jesus said before they drop bombs on people.
Perhaps most importantly to you Tim, if a kid prays in a public school, I do not care. But I don't want school to be a 24-7 religious debate and I don't want prayer TAUGHT by the sort of boneheads that attempted to teach me algebra.
Unfortunately, hard and fast answers to tough questions are often wrong and only work for the feeble minded. There are examples of such on the right and left. These debates must take place however to move the power around and not let things fester. Therefore it is good that we have the ACLU stirring things up, even when it does sometimes appear in poor taste and good that we have religious nuts always pushing the government so it stays off of all our backs. The rest of us in the sane middle shake our heads a lot, but generally it works out well for us.
|
| Posted: 11 Jul 2007 18:54 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 118
Join Date: May 2007
|
Well Danny, you might actually have a point. After all, the government school system can barely teach kids how to read, how can we possibly expect it to do a good job teaching something important?
I also agree with you that the ACLU does serve a purpose in stirring things up. However, about 70% of the time, they act like they are either completely ignorany of Amercican sitory or off their rocker.
I have a question , Danny, (and I'm not trying to set you up, I really do want your thoughts on this). What obligation does society have to rearrange itself anytime someone is offended, and defer to the offended party? We seem to be going through this patch in our culture where , no matter how long something has been there (like the Jesus painting) or how many people don't mind or don't care, all it takes is one thin-skinned person to put the brakes on and cause us as a country to shudder to a halt while we soothe their little feelings. I'm just not sure how productive that is. I acknowledge that I am offended by a great many things I see and hear, but I have no right to not be offended. What do you think?
|
| Posted: 11 Jul 2007 19:18 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
What words in the Constitution say we have to drive on the right hand side of the road? None, but that doesn't mean it is your constitutional right to drive on the left Last time I checked the ACLU was supposedly basing their arguments and law suits on the Constitution so...
Has the ACLU sued over which side of the road we drive?
Quote:
what goes on government buildings does become a court issue. I don't care, you still can't invent words or meaning in the Constitution that are not stated, otherwise it would be open for constant change on anybody's whim or nutty idea that had enough money to go to court, and a nutty judge that would listen.
Quote:
that does not mean the President or the courts now have that job. They don't have a mandate from the Constitution to create laws one way or the other either about religion. No creation of laws means back off bud. This is America pal. We love expression of ideas be it religious or otherwise, and the more public the better. Be it government of private property.
Quote:
Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law Isn't that what I've been saying? No law should be created for or against.
Quote:
nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience Danny, he's obviously using compel as word referring to some kind of force. Presenting ideas is not forcibly compelling people to worship.
Quote:
I think that a picture of Jesus on a court house wall compels men to worship God in a manner that is contrary to their consciences No it's art, if it were a some kind of disgusting insult to Jesus the ACLU would be fighting for it and you know it.
Quote:
why can a court do so, especially if higher courts have found public religious monuments to be unconstitutional?
It goes back to your idea of compelling I guess. Religious monuments are expression of ideas, a form of art if you will, until somebody makes a law saying you have to worship it. When a court does that I'll back you up.
Quote:
But maybe you still think the courts have the right to spend our tax money on religious monuments. Since we ARE talking about court buildings and since the legal system of United States does determine what is legal and what is not- I can't think of anybody better to rule on this than the courts. Well what if the judge or the people in the town pay for the monument which I'll bet is the most likely scenario. I think that would kind of blow a hole in your argument wide enough to drive a truck through.
Quote:
So, no Tim. You haven't "got" anyone with your attempt to say only congress is barred from pushing religion on the rest of us. Sure pal whatever you say. Getting over denial is the first step in healing you know. Come on you can do it. Just come clean you really don't have an argument, and you can begin the healing process.
Quote:
HOWEVER, now that the BS is debunked I thought I did, but you keep repeating yourself again.
Quote:
I really have no interest in being a huge jerk over things that aren't put forth as some sort of religious statement.
Well that's mighty decent of you.
Quote:
As Preacher Man pointed out- there is a Bible verse on the Liberty Bell. I say leave it. Now you're being reasonable.
Quote:
When people are using public grounds to advocate their religious points, I say that is abuse. Not unless you outlaw free speech and thinking on government property.
Quote:
there isn't much else an honest judge can do but apply the law as it reads you mean liberal socialist judge
Quote:
Therefore it is good that we have the ACLU stirring things up Dude I'm convinced the ACLU is a bunch of cowards as a whole. Case in point Muslims are now getting foot washes, and rooms for use in prayer in schools, and guess what no response from the ACLU. You know why, and this something even O'reilly would be scared to say? I think they are afraid that 10 percent of radical Muslims would blow them to kingdom come. It's easy to pick on Christians, they aren't likely to walk in your building with a bomb wrapped around their midsection. So yet another reason for me to disregard the ACLU has anything but cowardly commies. If they want to be honest with themselves and true to their own ideas, they need to get some balls.
But I have to say Danny to you in all fairness, I should be thankful. You may anger me from time to time, but arguing with you has made me understand why I believe what I do even more so than before. Thinking is good, expression of ideas is good. It's great exercise of the mind no matter where you do it. Maybe one day you'll understand that a person doesn't have to turn their brain off just because they've walked onto government property.
__________________
|
| Posted: 11 Jul 2007 20:29 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
Maybe one day you'll understand that a person doesn't have to turn their brain off just because they've walked onto government property
That isn't what this is about and the record shows it. This is why I think you argue in a way that is bad for everybody Tim. It isn't enough for you to make your point, you have to try to tell everyone what you think I would say.
The bottom line is that no American should be required to fund someone else's religious views and statements, even if they are the feeling of the majority. It doesn't bother me when someone says "wow, isn't Jesus great" if they're touching up the paint on the rooftop of the Capitol. That is just conversation. It DOES bother me when someone wants to use that building to promote their normally very narrow interpretation of their own religion or mine; ie, what Jesus looked like.
The few people who come across this argument who aren't totally turned off by the negativity can judge for themselves. Generally speaking, this country has usually chosen a moderate and sensible path regarding religion that does separate church and state the way Jefferson and even Christ Himself appeared to advocate. Obviously the two concepts will intermingle occasionally, but that should be a constructive thing- not an attempt for people to legislate their religion.
Honestly Tim, why not turn this site into a monument to Christianity? You'd be well within your rights to do so. Why do you get such a thrill out of getting other people to fund and support a religious monument through their taxes, when you could easily be accomplishing the same purpose yourself?
For all the time and effort put into luring me back into an argument with insults, then the time spent railing against my opinions- it would seem there are more productive and less destructive ways to do right by your morals.
Speaking of which, I need to get back to work on my contribution to society. I hope you have learned something from all our talks, but if you're more convinced than ever that your side is always right, then I have either let you down or you're beyond help. I'll be around but I'm trying to do less of this. At some point arguments aren't productive, especially when there is so much real work to be done. We've all got some REAL contributions to make to this country. Best of luck to you with yours.
|
| Posted: 11 Jul 2007 22:29 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
That isn't what this is about and the record shows it. Forgive me for trying to take what liberal minds have made complicated and bringing to a basic level of understanding.
Quote:
The bottom line is that no American should be required to fund someone else's religious views and statements, even if they are the feeling of the majority. I asked what if the judge or the people of the community paid for it out of their own funds. Does this not satisfy you?
Quote:
Why do you get such a thrill out of getting other people to fund and support a religious monument through their taxes Again, you must have accidentally skipped my solution to your problem.
To quote myself - Quote:
Well what if the judge or the people in the town pay for the monument which I'll bet is the most likely scenario.
Quote:
The few people who come across this argument who aren't totally turned off by the negativity can judge for themselves. I'm not being that negative or that positive. I'm being neutral right down the middle of the road the way you claim to be except I'm being a lot more precise about it.
Quote:
For all the time and effort put into luring me back into an argument with insults What? You think I tricked you?
Quote:
We've all got some REAL contributions to make to this country. Best of luck to you with yours.
Ok bud, but I wish you wouldn't try to make simple things so complicated. You know I really don't think our Founding Fathers being of the mind to represent the people would have chosen words that could be so easily misconstrued. It is therefore logical to assume that the most literal, and obvious interpretation of the Constitution would be the correct one. Don't you agree?
__________________
|
| Posted: 12 Jul 2007 00:56 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
That some information on the picture. It is true, most people now(where I Live) choose no.
AWESOME, pour some sugar on me!
|
| Posted: 12 Jul 2007 01:03 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
C'mon Tim. I'm trying to be fair here.
Quote:
It is therefore logical to assume that the most literal, and obvious interpretation of the Constitution would be the correct one. Don't you agree?
No, because I don't think that IS the most literal interpretation. I think your logic is incorrect.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
By your logic, what DOES that limit or grant? If anyone else in the government besides Congress can establish a state religion through state funded monuments- then why bother bringing it up? Who gave the court that authority?
If religious monuments are going to be on public property, then we pay taxes for a state endorsement of a particular religion. (Unless you want them ALL in there- a tremendous piece of pork if I ever heard of one). Sorry, I am opposed to that and the American court system agrees with me. Court decisions of this type are based on constitutional law. They become the law of the land, as the founders intended. Disagree? Please take it up with your high school government teacher. This really isn't my job.
Quote:
Well what if the judge or the people in the town pay for the monument which I'll bet is the most likely scenario.
I bet it isn't. Sigh, here we go...
Nobody can buy a court building on which to display a monument. That is partially because you can't put a price on the legal system that operates within that court. How are you supposed to sell that for private ownership? You can't purchase the DMV to make the lines faster, or I'd be writing Bill Gates. The reason is because the government service is not for sale.
Furthermore, as long as the building and the laws within operate under US law, then it doesn't really matter who paid for it- it is STILL subject to US law. There are any number of reasons why.
Off the top of my head:
If a woman gets a speeding ticket while driving through Islamicfundamentalismville USA, it is NOT okay for them to conduct her trial in a room with "Praise Allah" on the wall, then punish her for driving in the first place- EVEN if the whole town agrees, EVEN if a rich Saudi Arabian immigrant donated the building.
Why? Because all these courts are part of the same system and there is a common law within the US. And she is free according to the laws of the land, to move around in this country if she's a legal citizen or tourist.
If in Timville, you had a neon sign about Jesus on the side of your court building, then can I never move there? Or am I just exempt from taxation?
Of course, starting your own country or state within a state isn't allowed in the Constitution either.
Okay, now really- lets be done with this. I don't think there is any decision pending tomorrow.
|
| Posted: 12 Jul 2007 01:07 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Okay, one more for the Preacher Man. Thank you as well PM for an even handed response.
Quote:
I have a question , Danny, (and I'm not trying to set you up, I really do want your thoughts on this). What obligation does society have to rearrange itself anytime someone is offended, and defer to the offended party? We seem to be going through this patch in our culture where , no matter how long something has been there (like the Jesus painting) or how many people don't mind or don't care, all it takes is one thin-skinned person to put the brakes on and cause us as a country to shudder to a halt while we soothe their little feelings. I'm just not sure how productive that is. I acknowledge that I am offended by a great many things I see and hear, but I have no right to not be offended. What do you think?
Alright, fair question. We do have some obligation, but obviously it has to start and stop somewhere. The lines will always be hard to define, hence the ongoing debates.
A big part of the merit in an offense is whether it comes from another citizen or the government. For example, I understand the anger when people they say that they shouldn't pay taxes for education if they don't have kids or if their kids go to a private school.
I don't agree with them, as I think they derive a huge benefit from living in an educated society. But I understand where they are coming from. I think they're wrong, but I don't write them off as whining.
These things usually break down just the way you'd assume they would. A minority of any sort, be it religious, ethnic or otherwise will get an inch and take a mile. Not because they are bad, but because they are human beings and that is what human beings do. White Protestant males do this too. Chalk it up to human nature.
On the other side, the majority- especially the majority with the most political power tends to see this as whining. Sometimes it IS whining. Sometimes the other side has a point. If some of the claims seem frivolous, realize that the same argument has been made every time a minority of any kind has gone up against a powerful majority until the clash became serious. Only when we are in the minority or the oppressed group do the claims seem real to us.
Okay- as Pole might say- way, way, too much typing.
In short, I agree that things can get out of hand. Some people make being offended their full time occupation. But there are some legitimate claims that need to be addressed, therefore all this stuff will have to be decided upon case by case. There is also a difference between being mad at Don Imus and being mad at the US government. You can always turn Imus off.
The USA does as good a job as probably can be done weighing all this out, especially given our diverse society. If we were all to decide that anybody who is ever offended should just shut up and nothing should be changed, because that was the way it has always been- we wouldn't be America.
|
| Posted: 12 Jul 2007 01:23 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
That was what I would say!!!
AWESOME, pour some sugar on me!
|
| Posted: 12 Jul 2007 04:16 Last Edited By: preacher man |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 118
Join Date: May 2007
|
Danny, though you and I no doubt disagree on the particulars, and we would no doubt occasionally come down on different sides of the "case-by-case basis", I find your response more reasonable than you have probably been given credit for.
Given all that, I think it's also fair to say that as our society changes and our values shift, a lot of those case-by-case cases wind up being decided quite differently than they would have been decided 50 or 60 years ago. Watching that shift happen before our eyes, and feeling that not all of the changes we see are good, is a source of heartburn to people like myself and people like Tim.
So when the ACLU starts rattling its sabers and tilting its windmills for the umpteenth time some of us look around and go "What is is with these guys?"
|
| Posted: 12 Jul 2007 15:26 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
By your logic, what DOES that limit or grant? If anyone else in the government besides Congress can establish a state religion through state funded monuments- then why bother bringing it up? Who gave the court that authority?
There is no authority given to establish a religion. The President can't create new religions or laws, neither can the Supreme Court at least their not supposed to. They are supposed to interpret the Constitution. That's it. New laws have to go through congress so your point is mute.
Quote:
If religious monuments are going to be on public property, then we pay taxes for a state endorsement of a particular religion. It's not an endorsement. It's free speech, and if you say they can't have religious monuments then the next thing that would have to go is any other piece of art in a public facility that might have represent any sort of idea, and knowing how far some groups can go, that just about covers everything. So basically you want all government facilities to be as cold and lifeless in appearance as possible.
Quote:
If a woman gets a speeding ticket while driving through Islamicfundamentalismville USA, it is NOT okay for them to conduct her trial in a room with "Praise Allah" on the wall Good thing we are a Christian nation. Seriosly if that towns people doesn't care what's on the wall. I don't care. If they do care they can vote out the judge or whoever else's idea it was. Now if the person is treated unfairly for the speeding ticket. That's two different issues. One doesn't have to effect the other.
Communities shouldn't be told by the feds or by the ACLU what they can and can't put on or in their buildings. I say put it to a vote. If a monument offends someone then have the town vote on it. That's the American way! The few don't rule the many in America. It's a democracy otherwise it's a strange form of dictatorship where only the minorities rule.
You know the ACLU morons have probably helped in this lawsuit happy culture we have now. The first thing that comes to mind about as intelligent as some of these ACLU claims is the multi-million dollar pants law suit going on right now. They say it's going back to court again. It shouldn't even be allowed in a court room. The guy suing needs a shrink, and so does some of these ACLU guys suing over a painting.
__________________
|
| Posted: 12 Jul 2007 15:42 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
One more thing to ponder about the picture of Jesus. Even from your point of view, you must realize that a painting of Jesus doesn't reflect one certain religion. The term Christianity itself reflects a massive group of religions including Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons, and on and on and on. Even Muslims think of Jesus as a phrophet, and to anyone else he's at least an historical figure. A picture of a person does not endorse the person's views for that matter. So even in your logic or fear of endorsing a particular religion I don't get it, Danny. Doesn't work logically from even your point of view. Of course my veiw is it's just art. Monuments with words would be freedom of speech expressing ideas.
__________________
|
| Posted: 12 Jul 2007 17:36 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Here are our major differences:
Quote:
It's not an endorsement.
Quote:
Good thing we are a Christian nation.
Very simply, this is just something we won't ever see eye to eye on. I say we're a nation that has many people who predominantly call themselves Christian in one form or another. We are by no means a Christian nation, any more than we are a Jewish or Muslim nation. Our laws are not made in accordance with the Bible or by religious figures, hence their tax exempt status. The Constitution even explains that government officers won't be subject to a religious test.
Regarding the nature of the monuments in dispute: I say these are religious statements, the US Court System seems to agree with me. They are no more legal than the recently ruled upon "Bong hits for Jesus!" statement. They don't belong in a court, otherwise religious minorities won't feel they are receiving proper justice. I don't blame them.
Additionally, the US, nor any other well functioning democracy does not ignore the will or rights of the minority. That is a huge misconception regarding democracy. It is partially a result of the intense political warfare that has driven this nation into a ditch over the past few years. Thank God our system was and is well constructed enough to handle all the stupidity.
Simply put, just because a majority wins in a democratic election, that does not mean it has the right to destroy, antagonize, oppress or go out of their way to offend a minority. Read ANY book on democracy as a political/philosophical concept or pick up a newspaper and read about what is wrong with Iraq.
It seems VERY unlikely that fundamentalist conservatives will be represented as anything other than a minority in our government about 20 months from now. Despite the fact that I rarely agree with the things you say Tim, I have faith that our government will not start overstepping its bounds on your deepest beliefs simply because that is where the majority has now found itself. It is my deepest wish to see your basic freedoms protected as well, despite the fact that your opinions are/will be, in the minority.
Finally, regard Jesus pictures- it really doesn't matter if everyone in this country were Christian, which was almost the case when the nation was founded. There are many differences between Christians and you and I are perfect examples of that. We couldn't possibly hope to make them all happy in the public arena- so why try? That is part of the wisdom of the founders. They didn't want an "establishment" of religion. People can do that better themselves.
How is the economy better left alone by the government but something as successful as Christianity seems to need Big Brother's help? Doesn't that sound a little like... communism? In my opinion, the government needs to stick to fighting wars, putting out fires and picking up the garbage. There isn't any reason to get it involved in mangling religion. The parking at church is already screwed up.
From a religious perspective, I certainly don't support public displaying pictures of Jesus that make Him look Nazareth was in Norway.
I think the closest "picture of Jesus" I've ever seen was some researched speculation about men in Palestine from that time period. I think I saw it in Time Magazine. Of course, Time didn't claim to have the definitive example of what He looked like and nobody tried to post it at the DMV. If I ever try to start a church in my basement, maybe I'll make a poster out of it but I won't demand YOUR money for my weird ideas.
|
| Posted: 12 Jul 2007 21:43 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
|
Quote:
the US, nor any other well functioning democracy does not ignore the will or rights of the minority. Huge difference in recognizing their rights, and recognizing their will.
Look Danny if the founders were so desperate to seperate Christianity from government to the extent you are they wouldn't have mentioned God so much in all of their speeches, and everything else. Our entire system of rights depends on the fact that we are all created equal. It was their belief in God that they believed allowed us to demand rights otherwise we would have no foundation. It was the Christian foundation that allowed for tolerance of all religions.
As evidenced by the Declaration of Independence
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.
with a firm reliance on the protection of divineProvidence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
on the Liberty Bell
"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof - Lev. XXV,
Moses is on top of the building the Supreme Court resides in.
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.
As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Patrick Henry
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
Lincoln mentioned God a lot in second innagural address
Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
So what happened. I tell you what happened when our great founders were making all these buildings, and making speeches there wasn't any ACLU idiots around to stop them. Mark my words if the most powerful army on the face of the earth couldn't stop George and his boys, do you think the ACLU would have had a chance? The fact they have gotten away with their crap and that you support them is a sad commentary on the state of this nation, and if my friend every man, woman, and child sided with the ACLU I would still side with our founding fathers and declare their motivations as unjust and ungodly as the king of England in the Colonial War days.
Heck Bible verses have been all over this land in every area of government and have only been removed when they've been removed because of the ACLU. What about the will of the people? Whose will wins out here, a bunch of creepy lawyers, or the average American?
Quote:
It is my deepest wish to see your basic freedoms protected as well, despite the fact that your opinions are/will be, in the minority. Gee your swell. Point of fact George Washington and the rest of our founders were a minority of sorts. They took on the most powerful nation on the Earth to form a more perfect union. They won. Why? Because they were right, because they prayed to an Almighty God. If God be for us then who can be against us? You do realize that Danny for all of your delusions considering your majority status I believe a lot more Americas would agree with me more than you regardless of the state the media is in or parts of our court system. California might be a different story, but middle America is on my side. Not that it matters for shaping my opinions of course. Don't confuse the recent attitude toward republicans with anger toward the ideaology of conservatism. No, if anything republicans suffer for turning their back on conservatism thus losing their base.
Quote:
that does not mean it has the right to destroy, antagonize, oppress or go out of their way to offend a minority You are right, but the other side of that is they dont' have to kiss their behind either.
After reading your latest remarks on the Jesus painting debate, I'm afraid I don't get how they related to the argument I presented you. It just doesn't address what I said specifically.
In God we trust, that is still on our money isn't it?
__________________
|
| Posted: 12 Jul 2007 21:45 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
I'll bet I could go on for like 10 years straight finding instances of our founders mentioning God in their public dealings one way or the other. To define so-called seperation of church and state as you have defined it, is sheer liberal fantasy.
__________________
|
| Posted: 13 Jul 2007 01:23 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
Okay, first it's ALCU then its religon?????
AWESOME, pour some sugar on me!
|
| Posted: 13 Jul 2007 05:24 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 118
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
Imagine the reaction if we tried to make a Liberty Bell today and word got out that there was going to be a BIBLE VERSE on it!
|
| Posted: 13 Jul 2007 15:49 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Yeah, I know. They'd freak out. I swear the more I think about it the more and more resolved I get that the ACLU is a bunch of God haters resolved to turn America into some socialist haven devoid of any mention of God whatsoever. I'm willing to bet the farm if they ever get God completely out of every public place the church is the next place to attack. In fact the libs have already gearing up to use hate speech as an excuse to tell preachers what can and can't be said in church.
__________________
|
| Posted: 13 Jul 2007 23:47 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
Still...
AWESOME, pour some sugar on me!
|
| Posted: 14 Jul 2007 03:13 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Tim, have a look.
This very moderate and sensible passage explains it better than I could. However, I do want you to read above what I said I would do with various public displays of religion. I don't agree with picking out every single religious mention from public life and said as much a few posts ago.
With regard to your assertion that middle America agrees with you- that is certainly subject to debate. I grew up here, not in DC, not in CA and I have always met people who wanted competence- not ideology.
Also, I wrote my piece on the Jesus painting not to argue with you specifically, but to make my own point. Believe it or not, I am not always attempting to argue with you.
In response to Preacher Man, I whole-heartedly agree that it is very difficult to watch extremists from the other side trample over the things that are important to you. I've been there myself. It is for this reason that some people are trying hard to find common ground in this argument among others. Like you said, the ACLU does do some work that you would probably agree with. They also do some pushing against likewise extreme positions on the other side. Hopefully these things strike a balance that lets everyone have some of what they want.
|
| Posted: 14 Jul 2007 09:55 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 264
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
A couple more things...
Quote:
Because they were right, because they prayed to an Almighty God.
The founding fathers reached some amazing heights, and I wouldn't say God didn't help. But that doesn't change the fact that EVERYBODY thinks God is on their side, especially when it comes to war.
Second, I looked for the Patrick henry quote and I found it here.
Does that mean it is a fake? I'm not sure, but I would like to see the source.
I also began searching for the source of some of your other claims Tim and I was stunned by what I found.
For some reason, a great deal of your post appeared verbatim on Snopes.com. This website is dedicated to, among other things, debunking urban legends. It often cites erroneous things passed around in e-mails.
|
| Posted: 14 Jul 2007 15:51 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
I have gottan one one of those passed in my e-mail, but I think I ignored it.
|
| Posted: 14 Jul 2007 19:10 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Ok on this http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8.htm Seems to me you are backtracking just a little. So what if Moses or the 10 commandments are up there but only with other items of ancient lawgivers. I mean from my perspective it still works. All I want is for monuments, art, and other expressions of ideas to be placed wherever be it public or private by natural means, meaning not forced by the feds or the ACLU, just a natural expression of the builders or the people living or working in said building. In other words ACLU back off what isn't none of your business. If the ACLU did some good in the past then the knowledge of that has given them a moral superiority complex to think they can demand just about anything they deem morally superior to we uneducated hay seeds in the south. They suffer from the delusions that they know better than the average American.
As far as Patrick Henry's quote well your source can't say definitely that it's not true for one, two there is no denying that in the Declaration of Independence these words are written.
As evidenced by the Declaration of Independence
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.
with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
It is also no doubt that is extemely doubtful such a country as ours could have formed and survived against the most powerful army on earth at the time without the hand of God.
I concede I found some of the quotes in a hurry and didn't have time to research all of them. It ticks me off that some things get posted without getting it straight, but even the first link you gave acknowledges the presence of Moses and the 10 commandments in the supreme court, right? As Mulder and Scully always said in the X-files, Trust no one. Not even people on your own side.
And of course there are instances of the Bible in public places everywhere, or at least there were till the ACLU started systemattically suing to take them out everywhere. I don't suppose you can dispute the fact that congress has someone pray before every meeting. There is still more than enough evidence to support my contention that seperation of church and state is a myth in it's present form as defined by the ACLU.
But just to humor me, exactly where would you find historical quotes that cannot be questioned, and I mean a place that wouldn't just post quotes that support liberal agendas. I mean a historically accurate website. Doesn't the government have stuff like that?
Well if you can't find it, hopefully I'll find it eventually. I'm pretty sure the government would have it on one of their sites.
__________________
|
| Posted: 14 Jul 2007 19:20 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 1825
Join Date: May 2007
|
|
same here
|
| Posted: 14 Jul 2007 22:03 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Ok Danny, in looking out for official sources I found something that might have helped out with some of our previous discussions on this gov site.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/histryotln/national.htm
"Most notable among them was the American Bible Society, founded in 1816. Social activism inspired by the revival gave rise to abolition-of-slavery groups and the Society for the Promotion of Temperance, as well as to efforts to reform prisons and care for the handicapped and mentally ill."
This is in reference to the Second Great Awakening, which was a Christian revival particularly in the Baptist (that's me) and Methodist circles. Christianity was against slavery. In fact it would appear from history that Christians were the first social activist. So it confirms one thing I've said all along and that's the closer men get to the Bible and understanding it the more they reject slavery and other injustices.
I'm still looking. Please tell me if I'm somehow wrong about this link being an official type source of history.
__________________
|
| Posted: 14 Jul 2007 22:11 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 1989
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Thomas Jefferson, stands in the shrine dedicated to his memory. "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/histryotln/monument.htm I thought that was pretty cool.
__________________
|
|
|
