Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
rtwngAvngr said:AJ, Christianity is not a state religion. Must we make all aspects of the world immune from the misinterpretations of an ignorant child with bad parents? That seems like a tall order.
Again, stop it with your childish attacks on christianity. You're paranoid.
That would be over the line. A public sign saying merry christmas is not.ajwps said:No Chrisitianity is not a state religion thanks to the Founding Fathers of this great country. What is wrong with teaching children about their religion and beliefs in their homes, churches and on privately owned religious facilities? Why make small children of the Hindus, Jews, Zoriastrians, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists and others say prayers in public schools to Jesus?
Boo hoo. Have your recovered?Why the priority? Don't tell me that it doesn't happen because I grew up in Texas public schools where I either said the prayers or had to leave the home room along with a few other outcasts. This probably is difficult for you to understand but it is painful to remember the disgrace of being isolated from my friends and classmates at the forced prayers and Christmas carols sung in my taxpayer funded elementary and secondary schools. The same ones my parents paid local and state school taxes to support.
So you feel threatened when I have never intended any attack on Chrisitanity or you. A bit paranoid are we?
rtwngAvngr said:I'm just curious aj, do you think all cultural expression should be controlled so no one feels in a minority of somekind? This is the logical extension of your statements to this point. What do you really think of it?
rtwngAvngr said:That would be over the line. A public sign saying merry christmas is not.
Boo hoo. Have your recovered?
I don't feel threatened. Not at all.
musicman said:AJ:
In the first place, why don't you drop the "Pollyana meets Joan of Arc" routine? You've hurled plenty of invective at me, so your attempt to play the martyr comes off as, to say the least, disingenuous.
Ah, there it is - the emotional appeal. Gonna tug at my heartstrings with the old *what about the children* routine, eh? Well, in the first place, my children do not enjoy a Constitutional right not to have their feelings hurt.
Your children certainly do not have a Constitutional right to have their feelings hurt but they do have a legal right to not be forced to pray to Allah in their classrooms by an Islamic teacher exercising some Constitutional right to have her students pray to her god. In the second place, if I don't like what's going on in my community, I'm going to address it in my community, not go crying to the feds. It's a community matter, and - as such - none of the federal government's business. Same thing if I think that "public taxpayer properties" are being used to "promote a state majority religion". There are remedies available to me within my community, or in my state, without my making an ostentatious show of how put upon I am, and bringing in Big Brother.
As to the Supreme Court, it's powers and responsibilities are clearly outlined in the Constitution. It's job is to determine whether a given law meets the standard of constitutionality. It's one, immutable guiding constant is the U.S. Constitution. And, the Constitution states that ALL powers not specifically granted to the federal government revert to the states, or to the people. The framers couldn't have been any clearer if they were buttonhooks in the well water. The Supreme Court overreaches it's constitutional authority when it meddles in matters that the framers clearly understood to be the province of the people.
What do you mean, "valid"? As in symbolic, or holding some special significance? Actually, the answer is, "no". I do not carry a replica of the cross around, nor do I afford it any special powers. The Second Commandment states, "Thou shalt make unto thee no graven images". A crucifix is such an image. So, actually, by your yardstick, I should be crying to the ACLU every time I see a cross.
The Second Commandment, as I just related it, does not appear in the Catholic Bible, nor in Catholic teachings. I know - I was raised Catholic. Do you seriously deny that there are dramatic differences between Catholicism and Christianity? If you did. you'd be wrong - there are many. That's why I get angry when people try to blame everything from the Inquisition to Adolf Hitler on Christianity. It's just plain wrong.
ajwps said:RWA you'r curious? All cultural expressions are not controlled but when the Constitution of the US is violated by promoting one particular religion, then there is no public property exempt from the law of the land.
All logical extensions of truth and all truths that logic can warrant must turn upon meaning in the sense of intension.
We agree. Why the continual combative tone?ajwps said:Over the line you say? Small children forced to say prayer to one religion not their own is over the line for sure?
Hollow dogma? How does trimming penile skin represent a covenant? It seems a bit silly to me. You'd think god would have a pen and paper to do a normal contract. Right? can't god make pens and paper and afford the best lawyers to draw it up?Thanks I have recovered but there are many people now grown who have lost their faith because of a concerted effort to evangelise in elementary schools. Including many Christians who have given up Christ for beliefs in agnosticism or atheism because they found this religion a hollow dogma and makes no sense. Good try but you still lack understanding of other people with your own certainty in faith.
You wouldn't but you will......
rtwngAvngr said:The agreement is "congress shall make no law...", not congress shall rewrite the history of the u.s. and remove all references to christianity.
Turn upon meaning in the sense of intention? You're fading out aj. come back to us.
Still, your argument turns on the assertion that damage is done if one feels NOT in the majority. Explain it more thoroughly. I would like an anecdote about a child scarred by exposure to a nativity scene.
You know aj. The holocaust ended long ago. You can stop villainizing christians.
ajwps said:Unfortunately it is not Congress or the US Supreme Court trying to rewrite the Framer's Constitution. There is nowhere in the Constitution of the United States that has any references to Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. You just can't find a guaranteed freedom for Christianity to be the religion of this country.
The main concerns of US courts appear to be twofold: The compulsive nature of prayer. Although most state laws which attempt to allow school prayer usually permit the student to excuse themselves and wait in the hall, the courts still see an element of compulsion. By separating themselves from the rest of the class, the student risks later harassment and abuse by fellow students.
The risk of religious indoctrination. The 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution states that there shall be no law regarding the establishment of religion. The courts view prayer in the classroom to be one example of the government approving one religion over another. Even a student-selected, student-given, non-sectarian, non-proselytizing prayer still carries with it the stamp of approval of the state - i.e. the state approves of, and is seen to promote, belief in G-d (and whatever other religious content that the prayer might have).
The US Supreme Court ruled against mandated daily school prayer in Engel v. Vitale (1962). In 1963, it struck down laws in Pennsylvania and Maryland which mandated Bible reading and prayer. In other words, the government is not in the business of preventing anyone's religion from being practiced but a free society cannot promote one religion above another.
There is no anecdotal evidence of scarring any child by the mandated prayers or religious observances in tax payer public schools. The US Constitution does not prohibit prayers or bibles or religious icons in private religious secular schools.
You are beating a dead horse with twisted logic. You misread the Framer's intentions as illustrated in their written words.
Sometimes the only protection Americans have is the legal recourse to prevent well-meaning but damaging systems from changing the nature of a fuly democratic society where everybody is equal under the law. NOT JUST CHRISTIANS....
Sorry but the holocaust did not end long ago but continues to this very day when people of other religions are murdered because of their race, religion, skin color which does not conform to the ideations by one's certainty of the truth of his or her religion or rights over others.
Yes it is. It's liberal members of congress and liberal activist judges. All religions are to be celebrated:except christianity. It's oppressive.ajwps said:Unfortunately it is not Congress or the US Supreme Court trying to rewrite the Framer's Constitution.
Right. We allow all religions to practice. Even the majority religion. Imagine that? Can you?There is nowhere in the Constitution of the United States that has any references to Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. You just can't find a guaranteed freedom for Christianity to be the religion of this country.
And the courts are screwed in the head. As are you. The only solution to "problem" you cite is an active indoctrination into a homogenous state culture, one that erases historical and ethnic differences, and every other prosocial value in the process.The main concerns of US courts appear to be twofold: The compulsive nature of prayer. Although most state laws which attempt to allow school prayer usually permit the student to excuse themselves and wait in the hall, the courts still see an element of compulsion.
They're idiotic liberals. They're allowing students to do as they please.The risk of religious indoctrination. The 1st amendment of the U.S. constitution states that there shall be no law regarding the establishment of religion. The courts view prayer in the classroom to be one example of the government approving one religion over another.
You're getting confused between "allow" and "promote". Look em up, Doc.Even a student-selected, student-given, non-sectarian, non-proselytizing prayer still carries with it the stamp of approval of the state - i.e. the state approves of, and is seen to promote, belief in G-d (and whatever other religious content that the prayer might have).
This decision is fine. The underlying impetus of all this is fear of christians however. And the threat they pose to attempts to ruin america with socialism.The US Supreme Court ruled against mandated daily school prayer in Engel v. Vitale (1962). In 1963, it struck down laws in Pennsylvania and Maryland which mandated Bible reading and prayer. In other words, the government is not in the business of preventing anyone's religion from being practiced but a free society cannot promote one religion above another.
There is no anecdotal evidence of scarring any child by the mandated prayers or religious observances in tax payer public schools. The US Constitution does not prohibit prayers or bibles or religious icons in private religious secular schools.
I'm reading it fine. Even the majority has religious protections in this country.You are beating a dead horse with twisted logic. You misread the Framer's intentions as illustrated in their written words.
That sounds good to me. But your positing the right to not be exposed to a majority religious as an actual right, when it is in fact, an illusion.Sometimes the only protection Americans have is the legal recourse to prevent well-meaning but damaging systems from changing the nature of a fuly democratic society where everybody is equal under the law. NOT JUST CHRISTIANS....
Sorry but the holocaust did not end long ago but continues to this very day when people of other religions are murdered because of their race, religion, skin color which does not conform to the ideations by one's certainty of the truth of his or her religion or rights over others.
dilloduck said:I had no idea that holocaust=hate crime.
DKSuddeth said:its the same thing, just on a very large scale......a very LARGE scale.
rtwngAvngr said:Kind of like how murder is like a pinch, but just on a very large scale?
DKSuddeth said:not a good analogy.
rtwngAvngr said:Kind of like how murder is like a pinch, but just on a very large scale?
rtwngAvngr said:Yes it is. It's liberal members of congress and liberal activist judges. All religions are to be celebrated:except christianity. It's oppressive.
Right. We allow all religions to practice. Even the majority religion. Imagine that? Can you?
And the courts are screwed in the head. As are you. The only solution to "problem" you cite is an active indoctrination into a homogenous state culture, one that erases historical and ethnic differences, and every other prosocial value in the process.
By separating themselves from the rest of the class, the student risks later harassment and abuse by fellow students.
They're idiotic liberals. They're allowing students to do as they please.
You're getting confused between "allow" and "promote". Look em up, Doc.
This decision is fine. The underlying impetus of all this is fear of christians however. And the threat they pose to attempts to ruin america with socialism.
I thought you'd have a tough time with that.
The supreme court should allow students to pray or read bibles in public school, when appropriate, and of course, noone should be forced. Why is that not ok? You phantom theory about low self esteem from not being in the majority? That's crap and you know it.
I'm reading it fine. Even the majority has religious protections in this country.
That sounds good to me. But your positing the right to not be exposed to a majority religious as an actual right, when it is in fact, an illusion.
How about your ideations of the truth. As as far as I can tell your a bit whacked out in the head. What kind of doctor are you anyway?
