Seperation of Church and...on its last legs...

[dilloduck]

They don't. I'm wondering how white male christians are being discriminated against by complaining about a SCOTUS nominee... unless you're using that point to say that they're not...

I answered your question, do you have an answer for me now?

An imbalanced ratio of blacks and/or women to white men ratio has been used in the past to establish racism. No one in the group had to jump up and say "we hate minorities". The left hates the idea of a Christian judge but will not jump right up and admit the truth. They simply use other means to achieve the same discriminitory goals.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

An imbalanced ratio of blacks and/or women to white men ratio has been used in the past to establish racism. No one in the group had to jump up and say "we hate minorities". The left hates the idea of a Christian judge but will not jump right up and admit the truth. They simply use other means to achieve the same discriminitory goals.

So you're using the flawed logic of another group to make your point?

 

[dilloduck]

So you're using the flawed logic of another group to make your point?

I never know what kind of reasoning a lib wants to try to use from minute to minute so I used that one.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I never know what kind of reasoning a lib wants to try to use from minute to minute so I used that one.

So then ultimately you don't think that complaining about the judge is discriminatory to white, Christian males?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

This reasoning is old, and invalid. You didnt even respond to what I said about it, instead you went into robot mode, DNC talking head points, and repeated the same ol, same ol without addressing the FACT that it only is meant to stop the FEDERAL govt from imposing a FEDERALLY sponsored DENOMINATION over another. We know that for a FACT because many of the states, (then called colonies, which four are still called commonwealths) had LEGAL, OFFICIAL, STATE SPONSORED RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS.

To continue to repeat the same ol same ol without responding to the above, just is a continuation of the degragation of any credibility you may have.

Yeah, and the state-sponsored religious denominations were found to be unconstitutional according to the First Amendment. DUH! That's why there aren't any anymore. You can't post evidence that some things were done in the distant past as evidence that we should do them today. The framers of the COTUS wanted to abolish the religious discrimination caused by theocratic rule that they saw in England. Religious freedom is the whole reason the first pilgrims even came to America!

You guys are interpreting the government's placing Christianity on equal footing with other religions as taking away Christian rights. But Christians, just like every other type of religious person, can pray and practice their individual faith wherever and whenever they want to at any time they want to. Open your eyes and try it out sometime! Go anywhere in the US and say a prayer to God or better yet, go out and witness to somebody. If you get arrested I'll personally post an apology on this forum for everyone to see.

 

[Hobbit]

Yeah, and the state-sponsored religious denominations were found to be unconstitutional according to the First Amendment. DUH! That's why there aren't any anymore. You can't post evidence that some things were done in the distant past as evidence that we should do them today. The framers of the COTUS wanted to abolish the religious discrimination caused by theocratic rule that they saw in England. Religious freedom is the whole reason the first pilgrims even came to America!

You guys are interpreting the government's placing Christianity on equal footing with other religions as taking away Christian rights. But Christians, just like every other type of religious person, can pray and practice their individual faith wherever and whenever they want to at any time they want to. Open your eyes and try it out sometime! Go anywhere in the US and say a prayer to God or better yet, go out and witness to somebody. If you get arrested I'll personally post an apology on this forum for everyone to see.

Government oganization allow the public display of the Star of David, the Hanukkieah (sp?), Minorah, Star and Crescent, and a dozen other religious symbols, yet you can't put up a cross, Christmas tree, or even a Jesus fish. They're also allowed to say "Happy Holidays," "Happy Hanukkah," "Happy Ramadan," "Merry Winter Solstice," and pretty much anything that's not "Merry Christmas." People empowered by the ACLU spent most of last Christmas season tearing down any symbol associated solely with Christmas from any public display, while leaving other holidays in tact. How does that put Christianity on equal footing with all other religions. Must we be given a "handicap" to let everyone else catch up?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Government oganization allow the public display of the Star of David, the Hanukkieah (sp?), Minorah, Star and Crescent, and a dozen other religious symbols, yet you can't put up a cross, Christmas tree, or even a Jesus fish. They're also allowed to say "Happy Holidays," "Happy Hanukkah," "Happy Ramadan," "Merry Winter Solstice," and pretty much anything that's not "Merry Christmas." People empowered by the ACLU spent most of last Christmas season tearing down any symbol associated solely with Christmas from any public display, while leaving other holidays in tact. How does that put Christianity on equal footing with all other religions. Must we be given a "handicap" to let everyone else catch up?

Please give examples of where Hannukah or any other non-Christian religious symbols are displayed on government property. They aren't. But Christian symbols are, so they are the ones that get taken down. The same thing would be happening to Jewish symbols if they were the ones being displayed on public property. Don't you see that it appears as if the government is giving preferential treatment to Christianity when it displays Christmas symbology on its property but doesn't display Ramadan, Hannukah or any other religion's holiday symbology? Are you just incapable of seeing things from a non-Christian's point of view?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Wait, I'm sorry, but how does complaining about a SCOTUS nomination make you discriminating against white male Christians?

If you complain that it wasnt:

Female
black
other minority
non Christian

then you would be complaining about HIS non blackness, minority status or being a Christian

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yeah, and the state-sponsored religious denominations were found to be unconstitutional according to the First Amendment. DUH! .

No they werent. They were eliminated state by state, not by the feds. You dont respond to the point that the MEN WHO WROTE the first amendment, also lived in states that had STATE sponsored religions, which PROVES that the intention, along with the wording of the first amendment was never intended on a federal ban on religion of any sort.

That's why there aren't any anymore. You can't post evidence that some things were done in the distant past as evidence that we should do them today..

I didnt say we should have state sponsored religions today, what I said was the fact that they did at the writing of the FEDERAL constitution, tells us the first amendment was never intended to be interputed the way it is by liberals today.

The framers of the COTUS wanted to abolish the religious discrimination caused by theocratic rule that they saw in England. Religious freedom is the whole reason the first pilgrims even came to America!.

They wanted FEDERALLY sponsored religion to be illegal, so the FEDS wouldnt overrule what the individual states wanted to do. THey were upset at King George, whom they addressed personally in the D of I, that whenever they tried to establish a DIFFERENT state sponsored religion than the Church of England, King George wouldnt permit it, so one of the REASONS for the revolutionary war, was to seperate from England so they could ESTABLISH their own state (colony) religion, and they wanted to ensure the FEDERAL govt of the NOW UNITED STATES of America would not pull on them what King George had been doing.

You guys are interpreting the government's placing Christianity on equal footing with other religions as taking away Christian rights. But Christians, just like every other type of religious person, can pray and practice their individual faith wherever and whenever they want to at any time they want to. Open your eyes and try it out sometime! Go anywhere in the US and say a prayer to God or better yet, go out and witness to somebody. If you get arrested I'll personally post an apology on this forum for everyone to see.

My daughter was not allowed to say a prayer at her high school graduation.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Please give examples of where Hannukah or any other non-Christian religious symbols are displayed on government property. They aren't.?

A Dec. 16 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling may enliven the debate. The court let stand a U.S. District Court ruling that the city of Cincinnati could not bar the display of a menorah in Fountain Square. Church-state experts say the ruling may encourage city governments to display religious symbols during the holidays

 

[musicman]

Please give examples of where Hannukah or any other non-Christian religious symbols are displayed on government property.

You - and all the other devotees of this "separation of church and state" - are missing the point. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that any power not specifically granted by that document - the law of our land - to the federal government - AUTOMATICALLY reverts to the states, or to the people. In plain English, the people - at the state and community level - ARE the government. When you tell the people of a small town that they cannot have religious symbols on government property, you are TELLING THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH THEIR OWN PROPERTY. There is absolutely NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS for this kind of tyranny from on high. The intent of the Founding Fathers could not be any clearer: religion is none of centralized government's business!

 

[Annie]

You - and all the other devotees of this "separation of church and state" - are missing the point. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that any power not specifically granted by that document - the law of our land - to the federal government - AUTOMATICALLY reverts to the states, or to the people. In plain English, the people - at the state and community level - ARE the government. When you tell the people of a small town that they cannot have religious symbols on government property, you are TELLING THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH THEIR OWN PROPERTY. There is absolutely NO CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS for this kind of tyranny from on high. The intent of the Founding Fathers could not be any clearer: religion is none of centralized government's business!

I agree. 'Community Standards', unless the community is looking to break the 'federal laws' such as imposing voting tests, segregated schools, IMPOSING religion-by which I mean Christianity and any other possible religion. I don't think this means religious symbols at holidays, as long as not paid for with government money. Haven't a problem with it in town square or whatever. As long as the state, city, county allows any that wish to participate and pay for to do so.

 

[dilloduck]

So then ultimately you don't think that complaining about the judge is discriminatory to white, Christian males?

When I hear a talking head say that America already has enough " good old white men Christian males " on the Supreme Court already then I KNOW there is discrimination going on. A SCOTUS justice in NOT an affirmative action position. Affirmative action was reparation for slavery. It's over. Blacks just like to believe they are owed more---them and every other minority in the US. You want a good job or a powerful postition? Go out there and get it like all the rest of the successful minorities have.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

No they werent. They were eliminated state by state, not by the feds. You dont respond to the point that the MEN WHO WROTE the first amendment, also lived in states that had STATE sponsored religions, which PROVES that the intention, along with the wording of the first amendment was never intended on a federal ban on religion of any sort.

The men who wrote the first amendment also owned slaves and "All men are created equal" meant "all land-owning white men are created equal." Since the ratification of the constitution in 1789, a few things have changed if you haven't noticed. And cut it out will you? There is no "federal ban on religion" and nobody who matters is advocating one despite what you may have convinced yourself of.

I didnt say we should have state sponsored religions today, what I said was the fact that they did at the writing of the FEDERAL constitution, tells us the first amendment was never intended to be interputed the way it is by liberals today.

Not just liberals interpret it that way and not all libs do either. Please quit with the gross generalizations. You're just plain wrong about this issue. No free society where many different ethnicities and religions are thrown together into a melting pot can have religious symbols portrayed on publicly-owned property unless all parties agree on what can be displayed. As long as Jews, Muslims and others who are not Christian pay taxes, they have a say in how their public land is managed and they don't have to put up with their religions being trivialized by having Christian symbology enjoy preferential treatment on public property that their tax money pays for.

They wanted FEDERALLY sponsored religion to be illegal, so the FEDS wouldnt overrule what the individual states wanted to do. THey were upset at King George, whom they addressed personally in the D of I, that whenever they tried to establish a DIFFERENT state sponsored religion than the Church of England, King George wouldnt permit it, so one of the REASONS for the revolutionary war, was to seperate from England so they could ESTABLISH their own state (colony) religion, and they wanted to ensure the FEDERAL govt of the NOW UNITED STATES of America would not pull on them what King George had been doing.

States cannot show preference to any one religion because it would violate the first amendment for people living in the state who are not of the state denomination. The 14th amendment protects those people from the state.

My daughter was not allowed to say a prayer at her high school graduation.

You're telling me your daughter was restricted from saying a prayer to herself at her graduation? How'd they restrict her, put a muzzle on her? I don't believe you.

 

[dilloduck]

The men who wrote the first amendment also owned slaves and "All men are created equal" meant "all land-owning white men are created equal." Since the ratification of the constitution in 1789, a few things have changed if you haven't noticed. And cut it out will you? There is no "federal ban on religion" and nobody who matters is advocating one despite what you may have convinced yourself of.

Not just liberals interpret it that way and not all libs do either. Please quit with the gross generalizations. You're just plain wrong about this issue. No free society where many different ethnicities and religions are thrown together into a melting pot can have religious symbols portrayed on publicly-owned property. As long as Jews, Muslims and others who are not Christian pay taxes, they have a say in how their public land is managed and they don't have to put up with their religions being trivialized by having Christian symbology enjoy preferential treatment on public property that their tax money pays for.

States cannot show preference to any one religion because it would violate the first amendment for people living in the state who are not of the state denomination. The 14th amendment protects those people from the state.

You're telling me your daughter was restricted from saying a prayer to herself at her graduation? How'd they restrict her, put a muzzle on her? I don't believe you.

Pick your poison---do you want every religion to be able to express itself freely or none of em?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Pick your poison---do you want every religion to be able to express itself freely or none of em?

Definately I want all religions to be able to express themselves freely. The problem is that you have things that are public that everybody pays for but most religious followers see the iconography of other religions as heresy or as inherently evil, so in many cases they don't want to see other religion's icons on their public property. If all religions got to display their iconography whenever they had holidays or whatever, there would always be bickering between the groups about who got more publicity or that one group got a parade and another group didn't. If we truly had religious freedom, it would be awesome. We would all know more about each other's religions and there would be a lot more holidays which would definately be cool.

But how would a truly freely religious system work? If schools led children in prayer in the morning, would some kids be able to abstain from praying if they didn't believe? If it is anything like the pledge is, they can't--I know. And would teachers have to lead students in prayers respecting every religion represented by their classes? How would it work? Would you start with a Christian prayer followed by a Jewish prayer followed by a Muslim prayer followed by a Buddhist meditation?

If iconography was freely placed on public property, we would see crescents posted on the courthouse on Ramadan. We'd see menoras during Hannukah. We'd see nativity scenes on Christmas and giant crucifixes on Easter. We'd see monkeys and dragons parading through the streets depending on whatever Chinese year it was. Are you ready for that? I guess I am, but it would totally change our culture.

Is it simpler to just keep religious symbology off public property? What's your opinion?

 

[Annie]

Definately I want all religions to be able to express themselves freely. The problem is that you have things that are public that everybody pays for but most religious followers see the iconography of other religions as heresy or as inherently evil, so in many cases they don't want to see other religion's icons on their public property. If all religions got to display their iconography whenever they had holidays or whatever, there would always be bickering between the groups about who got more publicity or that one group got a parade and another group didn't. If we truly had religious freedom, it would be awesome. We would all know more about each other's religions and there would be a lot more holidays which would definately be cool.

But how would a truly freely religious system work? If schools led children in prayer in the morning, would some kids be able to abstain from praying if they didn't believe? If it is anything like the pledge is, they can't--I know. And would teachers have to lead students in prayers respecting every religion represented by their classes? How would it work? Would you start with a Christian prayer followed by a Jewish prayer followed by a Muslim prayer followed by a Buddhist meditation?

If iconography was freely placed on public property, we would see crescents posted on the courthouse on Ramadan. We'd see menoras during Hannukah. We'd see nativity scenes on Christmas and giant crucifixes on Easter. We'd see monkeys and dragons parading through the streets depending on whatever Chinese year it was. Are you ready for that? I guess I am, but it would totally change our culture.

Is it simpler to just keep religious symbology off public property? What's your opinion?

I'm of the "if they'll play, we'll display", with the required nod to diversity.

 

[Bullypulpit]

ABsolutely correct. The libs claim they dont discriminate against white male Christians, but we will see how many complain about the latest nomination by PRESIDENT Bush

What used to be considered mainstream, is no called far right. In the days of Washington through Lincoln and till Roosevelt, what the Supreme court ruled on the first amendment would have been laughed off, they would have been, and will eventually, be looked upon as activists who didnt have a clue what the COTUS says, nor what the SUCOTUS is suppose to do. Blinded by power, yea, it happens to judges too, but the left doesnt want to admit it, cuz they have had control of that branch for some time,,,but its ALL ENDING SOON !!!!

Unlike Harriet Miers, religion was not one of the stated reasons for offering up his nomination. It was his experience before and on the bench. It will not be an issue in his confirmation hearings. That he is a right wing ideologue will, however, be an issue.

What is becoming the "mainstream" was never the "far right". It was the lunatic fringe.

 

[dilloduck]

Definately I want all religions to be able to express themselves freely. The problem is that you have things that are public that everybody pays for but most religious followers see the iconography of other religions as heresy or as inherently evil, so in many cases they don't want to see other religion's icons on their public property. If all religions got to display their iconography whenever they had holidays or whatever, there would always be bickering between the groups about who got more publicity or that one group got a parade and another group didn't. If we truly had religious freedom, it would be awesome. We would all know more about each other's religions and there would be a lot more holidays which would definately be cool.

But how would a truly freely religious system work? If schools led children in prayer in the morning, would some kids be able to abstain from praying if they didn't believe? If it is anything like the pledge is, they can't--I know. And would teachers have to lead students in prayers respecting every religion represented by their classes? How would it work? Would you start with a Christian prayer followed by a Jewish prayer followed by a Muslim prayer followed by a Buddhist meditation?

If iconography was freely placed on public property, we would see crescents posted on the courthouse on Ramadan. We'd see menoras during Hannukah. We'd see nativity scenes on Christmas and giant crucifixes on Easter. We'd see monkeys and dragons parading through the streets depending on whatever Chinese year it was. Are you ready for that? I guess I am, but it would totally change our culture.

Is it simpler to just keep religious symbology off public property? What's your opinion?

That's impossible----holy images magically appear on toast and trees.
(ie. If I say that a public building looks Christian do we have to take it down?)

 

[Annie]

Unlike Harriet Miers, religion was not one of the stated reasons for offering up his nomination. It was his experience before and on the bench. It will not be an issue in his confirmation hearings. That he is a right wing ideologue will, however, be an issue.

What is becoming the "mainstream" was never the "far right". It was the lunatic fringe.

OK Bully, what odds are you giving for or against confirmation?