dilloduck
Diamond Member
jillian said:Actually, the founding fathers did their darndest to make sure there wouldn't be any state-sanctioned religion.
that doesnt mean they were hoping it would be wiped off the face of the map
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
jillian said:Actually, the founding fathers did their darndest to make sure there wouldn't be any state-sanctioned religion.
dilloduck said:that doesnt mean they were hoping it would be wiped off the face of the map
jillian said:No one wants it wiped off the map...at least not anyone normal. What most don't want is the dogma of one particular group enacted into law or adjudicated into law through the back door of the Court. Not an unreasonable expectation.
dilloduck said:What rights existed in 1800 that any religion has succeeded in abolishing?
dilloduck said:What rights existed in 1800 that any religion has succeeded in abolishing?
Dr Grump said:It's not about abolishing, it is about putting a particular religion on a pedestal within govt....
dilloduck said:Can secular people respect the rights of religious people to worship publically or do they have to hide at home and do it----maybe secularists could just close thier eyes like they ask religious people to do with porn on TV .
Dr Grump said:I do not think there is anything wrong with worshipping publically (such as going to church etc)..however, using state or govt monies to promote such is a no-no, unless of course they are willing to spend such monies evenly on al religions...
Of course, those "pernicious bevvy of lawyers willing to misread the constitution to enact defacto discrimination against specified religious groups" actually represent the theocratic Christian religious right, who are indeed a minority, but are not being oppressed in any manner at all; and Christians in general (a vast majority) are certainly not being oppressed--at least not by the government, and not by those who wish to protect the constitutional wall separating church and state.rtwngAvngr said:Or courts and a pernicious bevvy of lawyers willing to misread the constitution to enact defacto discrimination against specified religious groupsjillian said:Yes, a majority can be oppressed by the minority. But that only occurs when the minority has political/military power to enforce its will on the majority.
Except that they have no right to infringe upon the rights of those who subscribe to other religions (or none) by endorsing, or promoting, or placing on firm basis with a favorable position to gain full recognition, or acceptance, of any religion--including (and most importantly) Christianity, that very religion held by the majority of the electorate.rtwngAvngr said:Christians as individuals have the right to shape society through the democratic and constitutional processes available to them, just like individuals of other faiths.
Really? Tell that to Presidential candidate Pat Robertson, tell it to Pat Buchannon, tell it to the Reverend Jesse Jackson, tell it to Al Sharpton, tell it to Mr. Federal funding (rather than the collection plate like it's supposed to be) for faith-based initiatives, tell it to the all the Christian fundamentalists who are trying to inject their bullshit superstitions into the science classrooms of our country's 12 year olds, under the guise of "intelligent design."rtwngAvngr said:Nobody's trying to theocratize the country.
Maybe, but so is "Separation of church and state is going to take away Christmans."rtwngAvngr said:This is paranoia.
Why does the theocratic Christian right think that placing a statue of Jesus on the front lawn of a governemnt building cannot be construed by anyone in any manner as governmental endorsement of Christianity?rtwngAvngr said:Why does the aclu was time suing about decorations at christmas time?
TESTIFY!rtwngAvngr said:Christians as individuals have the right to shape society through the democratic and constitutional processes available to them, just like individuals of other faiths.The ClayTaurus said:Something tells me that if it actually were individuals of other faiths, you wouldn't be quite so comfortable with that statement.
Thomas Jefferson (I think) made this point in the federalist papers, but not as the key to controlling a democracy, but rather as the means by which a secular state, which requires no religious qualification for citizenship or public office, prevents a majority religion from establishing a theocracy because regardless of being the most popular religion, it's mambers cannot constitute a majority compared to the members of all other religions.dilloduck said:I had a government prof tell me that the key to controlling a democracy was having each individual person be a member of multiple minorities. This way any time members of a single minority would try to organize thier power would collapse due to infighting amongst other minority affiliations. I don't know if this plays out as true or not but I thought it was an interesting commentary.
I'm saying that the segment of Christian society that maintains there is nothing wrong with a little Christianity in the governemt; segment of Christian society that asserts that this country was founded on Christian principles, by Christians, for Christians; has earned that anti-Christian bias (and earned it well) from those who prefer liberty.rtwngAvngr said:We're just saying. There is a heavy anti-christian bias in large segments of society.
dilloduck said:Do you have any idea how much you taxes would go up if religious people stopped donating to the poor??? You don't have any problem with religion paying to do government work do you?
The government could never afford to return the amount of money that churches have given freely to the sick and needy.
Dr Grump said:Which has what to do with govt spending monies of religious endeavors? Most religions give to charity...
dilloduck said:Whatever pittance the govt spends on supporting religion is overwhelmingly overshadowed by what religion spends for the government.
dilloduck said:Whatever pittance the govt spends on supporting religion is overwhelmingly overshadowed by what religion spends for the government.
I do not think there is anything wrong with worshipping publically (such as going to church etc)..however, using state or govt monies to promote such is a no-no, unless of course they are willing to spend such monies evenly on al religions...
You seem to wish to assert that the rights in existence in 1800 were not in existence before, and could be abolished, somehow. If so you'd be wrong.dilloduck said:What rights existed in 1800 that any religion has succeeded in abolishing?
jillian said:No one wants it wiped off the map...at least not anyone normal. What most don't want is the dogma of one particular group enacted into law or adjudicated into law through the back door of the Court. Not an unreasonable expectation.
Loki said:Why does the theocratic Christian right think that placing a statue of Jesus on the front lawn of a governemnt building cannot be construed by anyone in any manner as governmental endorsement of Christianity?
ScreamingEagle said:Exactly. Such as the Secularist dogma of the ACLU and other Left wing extremists who are basically coming from a Communist orientation. They are as back-door as you can get.
Speaking of spending public money, why should we allow for government money to go just toward Secular programs? Why should the government take money from Christian people and then only allocate it to non-Christian agendas? Isn't the government supposed to represent ALL the people, especially the majority?
rtwngAvngr said:It COULD be construed by some ignorant person that way. That person just needs to have it explained to them real good. Must we sanitize society to the extent that idiots never become confused?
jillian said:Secularism is not a religion. Though I think soome people go OTT in regard to certain issues which are really non-issues and hurt no one.
jillian said:What secular programs? And government IS secular...what should the money go to religious programs endorsed by a particular group?
jillian said:As for the rest, I'm not going to explain the Constitution. The first amendment is very clear about no law furthering the status of any religious group. And no, goverment does not represent any "religious" group. That's up to the church of your choice or no choice at all. And first, one particular segment of Christians does not equal the majority and even if it were, luckily everyone else is protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Why do some people need to see their religious beliefs codified?
jillian said:Well, how would you feel if muslim or jewish religious symbols adorned government buildings instead of christian ones?