God can remain, after all !!!

[the_Baron]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.


AP Photo



At least for now, the decision — which came on Flag Day — leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.


The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.


Newdow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said. Eight justices voted to reverse a lower court ruling in Newdow's favor.


Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) removed himself from participation in the case, presumably because of remarks he had made that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.


"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) wrote for the court.


"I may be the best father in the world," Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. "She spends 10 days a month with me. The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights."


The 10-year-old's mother, Sandra Banning, had told the court she has no objection to the pledge. The full extent of the problems with the case was not apparent until she filed papers at the high court, Stevens wrote Monday.


Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) agreed with him.


The ruling came on the day that Congress set aside to honor the national flag. The ruling also came exactly 50 years after Congress added the disputed words "under God" to what had been a secular patriotic oath.


The high court's lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.


Newdow's daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.


The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.


The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."


The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty of "one nation under God."


The Bush administration, the girl's school and Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.





The administration had asked the high court to rule against Newdow, either on the legal question of his ability to sue or on the constitutional issue. The administration argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.

The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued to the court.

It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson said.

Newdow claims a judge recently gave him joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.

Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and says he is an ordained minister. He argued his own case at the court in March.

The case began when Newdow sued Congress, President Bush (news - web sites) and others to eliminate the words "under God." He asked for no damages.

On Monday, Newdow said he would continue that fight.

"The pledge is still unconstitutional," he said. "What is being done to parents is unconstitutional."

Congress adopted the pledge as a secular, patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress added the phrase "under God" more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.

Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.

[Bulldogge]

I'm disappointed. Not surprised, but disappointed.

[Celtic_Emperor]

He and people that would support him will get what they want eventually and then some over time, with an inevitable ban on religious idealism everywhere public. But they are going to have to fling shit to do it and they are most likely going to look like a fringe mob as a result. I have no doubt they don't care about it though.

Athiests are just as stubborn as everyone else. After all thats been said here, both as opinions and facts, its not going change their minds.

My suggestion? Just don't make it manditory to say (not that it ever was, at least lately). If you don't believe in God fine, skip that part, or there should be two pledges. Theres no reason to deny the rest of us this wonderful part of the pledge of alligence. I think its also important that if there were two different pledges (or more) that we still say them together as one. The ideal that we can rise and salute in our own way (or not) and in eachother's company without spite or prejudice is something I'd like to see.

The only thing I worry about is the pledge being stripped down and changed radically, not just with the exclusion of God and whom you are pledging alligence to (the United States), but in all other meanings and idealogy.

Why even have a pledge if something like this is going to forever change it? It seems pretty whimsical to me. And its sad.

[The Sean Man]

Separate church and state.

The Sean Man

[Celtic_Emperor]

I think that, no matter how you slice it, this is even more about what is ideal with the times than it is in any sort of a religious context.

Yeah, now its about God, but later whose to say it won't be a problem with pledging alligence to America? Something which people should do if they are legally or illegally living here and recieving any of the benefits that America is offering them, not to mention the freedoms (with the exception of illegals in some or all cases). Its like having a neo-nazi say the pledge but HIS version of it, or taking out whom his alligence is to though he lives here and benefits from America's yield. That is not only downright un-american in my opinion, but its contemptable. Its an abuse is what it is.

While that is a radical example, it just goes to show how out of hand this could all get. There are certain values in the pledge that should not be forgotten or lost in translation or in change of being updated.

Is it even possible to create a pledge of alligence that is universal yet gives these individual groups that have problems with certain aspects of it what they want?

You can't exactly say-

"One nation, under God, if you believe in Him that is, indivisible, though if you want do your own thing, thats ok, with liberty and justice that is up for grabs." :p

[venray]

Originally posted by The Sean Man
Separate church and state.

The Sean Man
But our athiest friends have no problem with earning and spending cash with "In God we trust on it"

Nothing but another news grabbing hypocrite in my opinion....:rolleyes:

[The Sean Man]

Originally posted by venray1
But our athiest friends have no problem with earning and spending cash with "In God we trust on it"

They don't exactly have a choice now, do they?

The Sean Man

[Celtic_Emperor]

@ Ray- Good point. One I would have brought up eventually if no one else had.

I also find it hypocritcal for those so called anarchists to be anti-government, anti-this, anti-that, but they have no problem using money (a product of the government) to eat, and earn a living. If they really were anarchists they would go ommish or something. Not that theres anything wrong with the ommish, but they are a good example of a reclusive people who live off the land and their toil rather than off the government. And in a way, aren't anarchists and fringe groups reclusive in their own way? They only strike out when their interests are thwarted. And whether or not they get their way, they continue with their hypocricies.

@ Sean- That is also a good point. But like the pledge, should the money really be changed when its more a sign of historic value than it is religious idealism? I think the pledge of alliegence is ultimately being used as a stepping stone to achieve other things as well, things that are strictly religious idealism. And so, it would be natural to need to necessitate or even exagerate the issue of God being mentioned in the pledge, and getting rid of it.

I think the pledge, if anything, is a grey area. Its not definitely forcing an official belief on people, though its not denying the values by which it was governed. And as a free person you have the option of not caring at all and believing what you want to believe.

[The Sean Man]

Originally posted by Celtic_Emperor
@ Sean- That is also a good point. But like the pledge, should the money really be changed when its more a sign of historic value than it is religious idealism?

I wasn't saying whether or not it should be changed. I'm just pointing out that there's not much choice there. Unless you only use checks and credit cards.

The Sean Man

[the_Baron]

just as an aside, it is interesting to note that the separation of church and state is a relatively new concept. begun in a relatively new country.

granted this is our law, and its application is varying and often unclear.

but hey, i can live without any such separation so long as everyone's right to believe as they wish on their own is maintained.

the scandanavian countries claim Lutheran as the official state religion, but they are very liberal when it comes to people's rights.

[Celtic_Emperor]

I don't see what the big deal is really. If money said " In Buddha We Trust", its still money to me. At end of the day I will have earned my wage. I don't believe in Buddha, I believe in God, in Jesus. But that doesn't change the money for me. It still buys for me the things I need and want. Other than a reference to something I don't believe in, its just paper and coins. Its just currency.

And like you mention, theres always credit cards and personal checks. Unless someday, when you are at the teller, it says "thank you, this transaction has been made possible by the gracious providence of the great Buddha! Good fortune to you!" :p

(Not to slam Buddhists or anything, I like Buddism and if I wasn't a Christian, I'd consider Buddism as my religion).

[venray]

Originally posted by The Sean Man
They don't exactly have a choice now, do they?

The Sean Man

Boycott the spending of money and sue the government until the phrase is removed.

IF they really cared about the phrase. Dont hear anyone complaining..thus the word HYPOCRITE......


LOL

Ray

[The Sean Man]

Originally posted by venray1
Boycott the spending of money and sue the government until the phrase is removed.

IF they really cared about the phrase. Dont hear anyone complaining..thus the word HYPOCRITE......

Well, either way, it's Atheists vs. Christians, Round 3,794 with no winner in sight.

The Sean Man

[venray]

Exactly...we all lose with crap like this taking up the time of the Supreme court...sigh..

Ray

[lite]

The words "Under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954; they were not part of the pledge originally.

Just food for thought. :)

[venray]

If you look at Renquists statement it appears they would have ruled against him if they had to make a decision. The fact that his daughter has been brought up by his ex in a Christian home and wants no part of his lawsuit and the fact that he has no legal custody made it so the court didnt have to rule.

Ray

[TicklishSinner]

this topic is a no win situation ...no matter what i beleive or anyone else i doubt it will ever get changed so why spend the money on court costs

[Bulldogge]

Here's why I'm disappointed. The Supreme Court had a chance to debate upon and decide this issue. Instead, they choose to sidestep it altogether, indicating that the case wasn't worth arguing because of a question of custody? Give me a break! Custody isn't the issue, it's separation of chuch and state, but they found an out and took it without hesitation.

[MrMacphisto]

Hey guys... did you know that "In God We Trust" was never on our currency until the Red Scare? We had to differentiate ourselves from the Atheist Commies. Whenever religion and state mix, it's never about faith, it's about political face. Quite frankly, it's a lot easier to sell your political platform if you're a "God-fearing Christian." Do you think an openly Atheistic or Agnostic candidate would ever win the presidency in this country? Hell no... Church and state will remain connected in this country, and politicians will continue to use religion to control people. As to whether or not these same politicians will behave as true Christians is a very different matter....

By the way, expecting the Supreme Court to ever truly uphold "justice" is futile. You have to remember that the Supreme Court is the same institution that once declared, "Separate, but equal" and saw it fit to let Microsoft off easy when it came to antitrust laws. They also were ok with letting King George take the throne in 2000. The Supreme Court is nothing more than a political pork barrel magnet. They can be bought just like everyone else.

[JoBelle]

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how it would turn out if it were put to a vote...another very American thing, much like seperation of church and state. Of course, there are people that will always yell that voting is unfair because then the majority rules over the minority, which honestly would happen whether we vote or not...voting at least lets a voice be heard. Sorry, I digress...anyway....

I don't foresee the courts EVER taking a stand on this issue simply because if they ever did decide that it was somehow in violation of non-believers' rights, they would then have to deal with every aspect of religion in the general public arena. By this I mean...Soon we'd see the final ban on images of Santa used in areas where federal money was used. We'd see boycots against major retailer to remove Easter bunnies and Halloween pumpkins, THAT brings to mind another thing...Halloween is thought to many to be a Satanic religious celebration. No more trick or treaters or costume contests. THENnnnnn, let's move on to Thanksgiving. I worked on a Choctaw reservation years ago where every member of the community wore black bands on their sleeves, or black clothes as a symbol of mourning because the white men that destroyed their native lands were celebrating. Ok, then there's Kwanzaa...one of the only African American celebrations that most people of other races have ever heard of....it's giong to fall because it's implied that it's not for whites.

Get the picture? Sometimes people need to loosen up and figure out how to deal with issues without demanding that everyone with whom they disagree stop dead in their tracks. Frankly, it would have been a lto easier for this man to work out a compromise with the child's teacher. You never know...she may have been more than willing to accomodate the little girl. Teachers aren't heartless and they are in the position to see that a child is feeling excluded. THAT fact should over ride tradition any day. Young kids are learning more than math facts in school....they are learning social and coping skills. Something I think the father missed as he must have been absent when they were teaching those subjects.





:rolleyes: :sowrong: J.

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by JoBelle
Sometimes people need to loosen up and figure out how to deal with issues without demanding that everyone with whom they disagree stop dead in their tracks. Frankly, it would have been a lto easier for this man to work out a compromise with the child's teacher. You never know...she may have been more than willing to accomodate the little girl. Teachers aren't heartless and they are in the position to see that a child is feeling excluded. THAT fact should over ride tradition any day. Young kids are learning more than math facts in school....they are learning social and coping skills. Something I think the father missed as he must have been absent when they were teaching those subjects.





:rolleyes: :sowrong: J.

You make some great points here. And it does bother me more than a little that the father was using his daughter to make a point, when it's unlikely that the daughter care either way.
I have a problem with the pledge of allegiance dating back to high school. I can remember sitting in class, when the pledge was read, and having to make a choice not to recite the pledge because it had those words in it (I was an atheist at the time) and feeling incredibly conflicted!

I follow the words of Mark Twain:

"Loyalty to the country always; Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."

I love my country. And I really wanted to afirm that fact by reciting the pledge. But I couldn't in good conscience say say that my version of America included a deity in any way.

So I got called everything from "Devil Worshiper" to "Communist" by my peers. And while I might not have cared what they said, imagine how a more sensitive child might react.

[MrMacphisto]

Well, my friends... you've stumbled upon the reality of the American Way. It's not about freedom; it's about decadence and greed. It's human nature to vex and oppress each other. I mean, c'mon: do you really think a national anthem is gonna change that? Do you honestly believe that by finishing every speech with "God Bless America" that a politician really means it? Hell no...

JoBelle mentioned the thing about putting this issue to a vote. I know what she's getting at, because the Christians would undoubtedly win. I'd say Christians in this country outnumber agnostics and atheists by a factor of at least 10 to 1. Christians probably vote more regularly too, because that mindset makes it easier to put faith in not only a God but in a corrupt system as well. Our society pretty much is officially Christian. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but it is awfully humorous to suggest that, because we have the freedom of religion, that somehow, we have a true separation of church and state. We don't.... Why else would prostitution be illegal? I don't think atheists or agnostics really gave a shit about the issue, but those bible-thumpers really did.

Here's another example: my humble state of NC (otherwise known as the valley of humility between two mountains of conceit) is right in the middle of Bible Belt territory. Despite the significant amount of revenue that leaves the state due to people buying Virginian and SC lottery tickets, NC won't budge on having its own lottery. Oh, the Christian Right talks about the immorality of lotteries and how it hurts the poor, but they don't seem to have a problem with a similar practice: gambling. We have Harrah's in Western NC, and then of course, there's the whole problem of how the poor will simply buy lottery tickets from VA and SC, rather than here. Regardless of whether or not NC has a lottery, the poor will still spend their money on the tickets, so it hurting the poor is a transparent argument. Unfortunately, explaining this to the Christian Right is like beating your head against the wall. In effect, NC may not have an official Christian government, but it still operates much like one. I'd go so far as to say that this is true of almost every state to a degree.

If you're looking for a truly secular government, move to Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, or a Scandinavian country, because you're not gonna find it here. You basically just have to deal with the Christian overtones here; I do this mostly by laughing at how hypocritical the more extreme ones are....

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

Say Venray,
You stated earlier in this thread that the athiests were hypocrites for spending money with "In God We Trust" on it, but, as everyone knows(and it is pointed out repeatedly in the Bible, in so many words), money is the root of all evil. So, if Xians are spending it, who's really being hypocritical?;)

[the_Baron]

as regards the point that the Court just sort of punted by ruling on a technicality: i see this all the time in tax litigation cases, at the circuit and supreme court level. thats the way it works. until and if someone litigates again, the issue is just not touched on specifically.

as regards separate but equal(brown v.s board of ed. and plessy vs. fergussen): i'm not convinced that this is an abomination. in a cultural millue as had existed back then, this was a sound way of still ensuring all rights and priveleges to all classes and types.

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by the_Baron
as regards the point that the Court just sort of punted by ruling on a technicality: i see this all the time in tax litigation cases, at the circuit and supreme court level. thats the way it works.

I'm sure that this happens all the time. But that doesn't make it RIGHT. That's the whole point. Arguments like that are what keeps people feeling powerless. Just because "that's the way it works" doesn't mean that it's the way it should be.

[venray]

Originally posted by Dr. Bill Kobb
Say Venray,
You stated earlier in this thread that the athiests were hypocrites for spending money with "In God We Trust" on it, but, as everyone knows(and it is pointed out repeatedly in the Bible, in so many words), money is the root of all evil. So, if Xians are spending it, who's really being hypocritical?;)

Not quite Dr. Bill,

1 Timothy 6:10. "For the love of money is the root of all evil."


The LOVE of money. Not money itself. and I dont know that it is pointed out "repeatedly"

My point being that those that fight for removal of the words "under God" based on a religious (or atheistic argument) are not consistent in their beliefs or actions or they would oppose ALL references to God in ANY part of our public life. Some do, but this idiot with the law suit and many others are VERY hypocritical in my opinion.

Personally I dont care one way or another if the phrase stays in or is removed. It has no bearing on my support of this country or my beliefs (or lack of beliefs) in a deity above.

If someone believes that the words shouldn't be spoken...don't speak them, but dont play the "I dont want my child to be forced to do that" game when you aren't even responsible for her to begin with, and she has been brought up to believe otherwise by the parent with custody.

That is both hypocritical, and foolish.

;)

Ray

[JoBelle]

I know this is hard to understand,:rolleyes: but historically, people have never lived in a "fair" or "right" world. Name once even in the recent course of human history where the minorities were issued the right over the majority. I can think only of APARTHEID and I don't think was such a hot idea at the time either.

I find it hard to believe that atheist or agnostics would demand that removal of all possible aspects of religion where government was present when in turn, the that would limit the freedom of religion in so many other ways. Part of certain doctrines insist that they SHARE their views. To say to a group, "You may only perform your religious ceremonies on MY terms" is wrong as well. How is it that people have lost all sense of community when it comes to tolerance of religion of the majority? I'm so sick of people ASSUMING that it's the minority that is always right. That's just not the case. I feel that the minority here wants to remove all reference to religion, whether of historical signifigance or not, from the course of the world. Seems more close minded than one might expect.

In regard to the topic at hand, I personally would not have an issue with removal of the "under God" because the pledge itself is a personal devotion to your home. The pledge is a secular appreciation of what the flag symbolizes. God is not involved. You can thank your God anytime for the good things you attribute to him. BUT....to use a child to further a political agenda and raise questions that have answers in favor of both sides of the religious issue is just wrong. I too remember the pledge being said, but only in the lower grades of school. By the time we were teenagers and able to appreciate the fullness of religion and what it meant, our school system did not endorse the pledge. It was used in lower grades to help teach appreciation of America before the cynics of the world took hold and told us how horrible Americans really were. Grrrr I find it was needed in the younger years. I can already hear people screaming that they should not be expected to say an oath to a country. Yep, no repsect in any way shape or form should ever be expected of people. GAHHHHH shutting down now....I feel a migraine coming on.

Presonally, I think this guy was pissed about something his Christian wife said to him, and he's using this to get under her skin. Seems a lot more accurate given that I'm sure this guy knew the Pledge has been said for decades and we've not heard a peep out of him. I agree with Ray in that if this is such a thorn in this guy's side, then I'd expect him to attack the money as well. I mean, if his daughter is oppressed because of the pledge...my GOD, what must she feel like when he pays her allowance!:wow:

J.

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by JoBelle
I know this is hard to understand,:rolleyes: but historically, people have never lived in a "fair" or "right" world. Name once even in the recent course of human history where the minorities were issued the right over the majority. I can think only of APARTHEID and I don't think was such a hot idea at the time either.

It's not "hard to understand." I know that we live in that kind of world. But so did Martin Luther King, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and many other men and women who peacefully protested to change what were, in their lifetimes, the established inequities of this world.

The constitution provides for the separation of Church and State. Let churches, pastors, priests, gurus, rabbis and other religious figures and institutions believe and worship however they wish. If an individual is able to find faith in this world, I consider it to be no small thing. It's a triumph of the spirit. But in order to remain fair to all people, no matter what faith they are, the government cannot be seen to endorse any faith whatsoever. It has to be impartial to govern all people equally.

[JoBelle]

Originally posted by Bulldogge

The constitution provides for the separation of Church and State. Let churches, pastors, priests, gurus, rabbis and other religious figures and institutions believe and worship however they wish. If an individual is able to find faith in this world, I consider it to be no small thing. It's a triumph of the spirit. But in order to remain fair to all people, no matter what faith they are, the government cannot be seen to endorse any faith whatsoever. It has to be impartial to govern all people equally.

Impartial yes, but where do you draw the line between the historical references and domination of religion over the people? Or is the mere MENTION of a deity that overwhelming to those who choose not to believe?

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by JoBelle
Impartial yes, but where do you draw the line between the historical references and domination of religion over the people?

Historical references of what type? The words, "under God" were added to the pledge to differentiate American Democracy from "Godless" Communisim. In other words, we added a line to a patriotic pledge in order to further de-humanize the enemy of the moment. That's a historical reference we can relegate to an entry in the encyclopedia, not one which needs to remain in the words of our oath, a more than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

[The Sean Man]

This country is filled with people of many different beliefs. If you give time to one deity and religion in public, you must give equal time to all others.

That's why I believe religion must go back to where it properly belongs...in church.

The Sean Man

[venray]

Gallup poll results...91 % say leave the words in 8 % take them out.
1 % dont care.

I think that speaks volumes. I also belive that the 91 % shouldnt have to yield to the minority.

Ray

[The Sean Man]

Motion is approved. Now kneel and swear allegience to Zod...er, God:)

The Sean Man

[venray]

ROFLMAO!

;)

[kis123]

Originally posted by The Sean Man
Well, either way, it's Atheists vs. Christians, Round 3,794 with no winner in sight.

The Sean Man

Hang around a little while longer, because my bible tells me who the winner is. Oh yeah, I forgot Athiests don't believe that part either.

This man is a nutcase who tried to use his daughter to get his way in a court of law. Personally, I'm glad he lost. He was wrong and the verdict is the way it should be. He should be ashamed of himself, but since he's willing to challenge God, he knows no shame.

As far as God is concerned, he's been removed from many public places, yet certain people won't be satisfied until He's removed from every public place. Good luck removing Him from the hearts of Christians all around the globe. You can't leglislate God. He's almost like a bad penny--He just keeps turning up!

[kis123]

Originally posted by The Sean Man
This country is filled with people of many different beliefs. If you give time to one deity and religion in public, you must give equal time to all others.

That's why I believe religion must go back to where it properly belongs...in church.

The Sean Man

In America, there are many who believe that religion only has its place in church. In other countries, their spiritual beliefs are practiced and celebrated in every aspect of life. I believe the same. If gays and everyone else is coming out of the closet, I and my Christian beliefs are staying right in public view, thank you very much.

As far as observation other religions publically, we have anti-discrimination laws that protect them. Employers have to respect religious needs of others or be dealt with in court. Even you have the right to deny God's existence publically. How are we not accomodating other faiths?

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

Islam is the fastest growing faith in the world today. If/when it overtakes Xianity here in the USA, do we then change the coinage to read In Allah We Trust?

[venray]

Originally posted by Dr. Bill Kobb
Islam is the fastest growing faith in the world today. If/when it overtakes Xianity here in the USA, do we then change the coinage to read In Allah We Trust?


We do if it gets voted in....oh wait..we wont BE voting if that happens.....never mind...:rolleyes:

[kis123]

Originally posted by Dr. Bill Kobb
Islam is the fastest growing faith in the world today. If/when it overtakes Xianity here in the USA, do we then change the coinage to read In Allah We Trust?

Everyone's getting bent out of shape over nothing. Allah translates to "God" in English. God is a generic name for my Heavenly Father. He has several names, but God is the most recognized and used one.

In answer to your question, I'd safely say no. I certainly won't bow to it. In this country, you have a choice of what god you serve, even choosing not to serve God at all. Can you do that in other countries, NO! Christianity will always be the front-running religious choice here in the US. I don't ever see that changing.

Simply put, if you don't want to be a Christian (not an Xtian or whatever disrespectful term you choose to use), don't be one. My God says you can choose who you will serve. You may find out in the end that you didn't make the right choice, but you can choose. How democratic is that? Other countries make the predominant religion the only religion you can freely choose. If you choose something else, you will suffer from it, especially if living in the Middle East or China.

Be happy you live where you live or you couldn't even argue this point without suffering some sort of loss for your speaking out and defying the state religion.

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by Dr. Bill Kobb
Islam is the fastest growing faith in the world today. If/when it overtakes Xianity here in the USA, do we then change the coinage to read In Allah We Trust?

LOL... that's a good one... but man.. Given the choice between living in a Christian society and an Islamic one, I'd go for the Christian one, because Islamic conservatives make Christian conservatives look like hippies.

I think the point of making the state as secular as possible is that the more the state sanctions any religion, the more other religions feel left out. I have no problem with individuals expressing religious fervor, but government officials should be responsible enough to remember that they represent not just the Christians but everybody else in their society as well. Bush is a perfect example of a politician that doesn't understand this. He'll constantly pander to the Christian Coalition, but he forgets that he's supposed to be a relatively impartial leader. He's supposed to represent freedom, not a specific religion.

As for the comment about minorities being in the right, it's not about who's the minority or the majority. It's about the principle of American governmental doctrine: the Land of the Free. As I mentioned in a previous post, this is a convenient lie that is sold to us in things like the Pledge of Allegiance. If we truly believed in religious equality, we wouldn't even have to have this conversation. We are a very Christian-centric society, but I guess that's inevitable. All I have to say is, JoBelle, enjoy being part of the majority, because those of us not within your group will have to continually deal with being outnumbered by those of your belief.

I agree that we've never lived in a fair or right world, and I don't expect that to ever happen. I just usually push for policies that aim in that direction. It's just a personal preference for fairness, but I understand if you don't agree with that mindset.

[JoBelle]

Just for the record....JUST because someone is not an atheist, does not mean they are a Christian. Very narrowminded to make that assumption. I get the impression that people who do that never educated themselves beyond the corner cross bearing church. I get rather sick of that one. Blah!

As far as having to "continually deal with being outnumbered" well, I'm a woman. I'm outnumbered in the workforce on a daily basis and I deal with it just fine. As a non-Christian male, you already have a leg up in the public arena compared to me. So let's not pretend that religion is the only deciding factor in this country's list of rights and responsibilites. There is much more at play.

Like I've said in the past, I don't care if you take the word God out of everything in print. I know what I believe, and that is not dependant on those three letters being written anywhere. My confusion is why a non-believers are more thinskinned. I don't walk around looking for an absense of God in the world and feeling oppressed because I feel the atheists are somehow outnumbering me.

I understand the constitutional aspects, but given all of the other things that are not covered or that lie in a grey area...well... I'm just thinking it's being made into a much bigger deal than it could be. Atheists don't think about God anyway...what's the problem with it? If you don't believe and you don't care about the deity, then why on EARTH would it bother you that other people do believe and that fact is simply made known. I don't understand the reasoning behind it.

Ah well, another topic that I don't comprehend.
J.:rolleyes:

[MrMacphisto]

JoBelle, note that the beginning of my previous post acknowledged that there are plenty of religions other than Christianity. That's kind of the point of this conversation. Don't mention God in government literature, or you might give the wrong impression to say... Hindus. Normally, I'm against anything politically correct, but religion is something that people often even kill each other over. Look at the Middle East. I don't think you'll have to worry about any bus bombs from American Hindus or Atheists, but you can expect a lot of religious angst in this country from the growing populations of non-Christians who are becoming citizens here when they start to see how Christian some politicians' speeches get when they try to justify their views. Most of this use of religion as political fodder comes from the right-wing. I'd figure that a Christian like yourself would prefer that religion remains sacred and therefore, not used by politicians for their personal gain and manipulation.

Note also that I never said that religion is the only deciding factor in our rights and privileges, but thanks for putting words in my mouth anyway.

As to being thin-skinned... Well, I would guess you must be thin-skinned about gender issues, if you're willing to bring them up in a conversation that has nothing to do with gender, but don't mind me. By the way, I'm not looking for an absence of God. I don't really care if God exists or not, but certain things have to be done to make sure his various followers don't start messing with the rest of us.

What I'm trying to say is: this isn't about God. This is about preserving religious equality. I'm Agnostic, by the way, which is distinctly different from Atheist. I don't claim to know anything about a supreme being, because frankly, being a human, I have limited perceptions that aren't really capable of understanding a divine entity. No offense, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this book you like so much might be a bit flawed given that it was written by equally flawed humans and has been translated through several languages. Now, if the book had been originally written in modern English, I think you'd be on to something.

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

"I contend that we are both athiests. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts


"It will yet be the proud boast of women that they never contributed a line to the Bible." - George W. Foote

[The Sean Man]

Originally posted by kis123
Christianity will always be the front-running religious choice here in the US.

Well, alrighty then! Didn't know it was a popularity contest. Okay...all of you not in the Most Popular Religion Club, take your phoney baloney wannabe religions and shut your pie holes :devil:

The Sean Man

[kis123]

Originally posted by The Sean Man
Well, alrighty then! Didn't know it was a popularity contest. Okay...all of you not in the Most Popular Religion Club, take your phoney baloney wannabe religions and shut your pie holes :devil:

The Sean Man


I'm sorry you don't like what I had to say, but you don't have to resort to being nasty about it. It won't make your case any more pertinant. You have the right in this country to worship as you please, so go and do it.

Christianity is still the predominant faith in the US. You don't have to like it nor respect it. It's simply a fact that is indesputible and your nasty rantings and temper tantrums won't change it.:D ;) :p :p

[The Sean Man]

Originally posted by kis123
I'm sorry you don't like what I had to say, but you don't have to resort to being nasty about it.
It's simply a fact that is indesputible and your nasty rantings and temper tantrums won't change it.

Lighten up, grumpy-puss...as my previous comments have indicated, I'm joking around and trying to ease the tension in this thread. :grouphug:


The Sean Man

[kis123]

Originally posted by The Sean Man
Lighten up, grumpy-puss...as my previous comments have indicated, I'm joking around and trying to ease the tension in this thread. :grouphug:


The Sean Man

Glad you clarified that. And I'm not a grumpy puss either! Just can't always tell around here who's joking and who isn't. Consider this a truce and a friendly and peaceful agree to disagree.:cool:

[The Sean Man]

Agreed. Next topic...gang tickling kis123: Fair or Unfair? :D

The Sean Man

[venray]

Next topic....The Constituion...Where it says nothing about separation of church and state other than the following>

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So, basically establishing a national religion is a no no and prohibiting free exercise of any religion is also a no no.

So if I want to pray before class in school or before a test it should NOT be prohibited by law.

The Bill of Rights says NOTHING about separating church from state..

Carry on folks.........



Ray

[JoBelle]

First, Mc. My WHOLE post was not directed at you. If you feel I've put words into your mouth, then you've misinterpreted what I said. I felt that you did imply certain things and I was simply making myself clear.

Secondly, your little ASSUMPTION about my religious beliefs is wrong. I am not a Christian. SURPRISE! I just happen to understand the importance of religion in the minds of believers of many faiths. If you based your comments on any other posts I've made on the topic of religion, you'd know that. My mistake was that I thougth people could think about what I wrote before instantly reacting to it. I suppus eI've learned my lesson about refusing to fill a post with EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO.

Third, Thin-skinned about gender issues? No dear, it was just what some might call an EXAMPLE. It went along with the subject line that as soon as you attack religion in every possible manner, you then take on other issues that can be backed with a variety of laws that sit in the books. They are all as valid as the other. A law is a law. Pick up on the idea that some things are tangental.

To get back to my reasoning....as little worth as some may appear to give it...
The big problem I have with people who are so adamant about seperation of church and state is that they have not actually experienced the intimidation, fear, the worrying sense of "being out numbered," the fear for their children, or ...well you name it. I can say that my opinion are formed from the experieces that out of all the people whom I've heard discuss the topic, only two have ever said openly that they can validate the reasons behind seperating church and state on levels such as the pledge. Most people say, "Do it because the consitution says so." Uhmmm...ok. That's good enough.

The thing that I'm trying to get at is this--an EXAMPLE...so work with me here.

Let's say you have a child who is extremely overweight, or some other issue that may not be considerd a "handicap" by legal standards...something that is prevalent in today's society. THAT child will be more of an outcast than the kid who did not say the words "Under God" un the pledge of allegiance. There is no LAW that says the overweight child cannot be put out, socially speaking, from his or her peers. That is something that child will have to deal with all alone. That is something a child cannot usually change on their own. It affects a whole life outlook, sense of worth, and confidence. No one pays attention to that child because there is no LAW demanding the actions to exclude be put to a stop. However, if someone feels their identity and confidence are undermined due to two words being spoken in a pledge, then call the courts! We can't have that.

I'm saying that there are issues of a strictly secular nature that are avoided like the palgue because the same people who would fight for the "law" to be followed don't tend to CARE about the people or the subject as much as that fact that it's the next "big cause to stand behind."

When I see people expressing an interest in the emotional well-being of people without only doing so when they have a law to back them up, THEN...I will appreciate the importance of removing God completely.

Again, I say as I have in the past....it doesn't personally matter to me. Life goes on whether there is a seperation or not. I'd just like to see someone pay attention to something that isn't so easy to "prove" by quoting a law book. There are some things that affect children MUCH more than the words "under God," but apparently they aren't "rally worthy" to some.


:rolleyes:
J.

[the_Baron]

i just knew it!

joby is a buddhist.

nam-myoho-renge-kyo

[venray]

Again, no where in the constitution of the United States does it say that government officials cant mention God or whatever religion they choose. In fact quite the opposite...the governmement (congress) cannot make a LAW ESTABLISHING religion nor can it make a law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

Making it law that officials and public representatives cannot talk about God or anything to do with their religion of choice would be a direct violation of the first amendment.


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


Ray

[kis123]

Originally posted by venray1
Again, no where in the constitution of the United States does it say that government officials cant mention God or whatever religion they choose. In fact quite the opposite...the governmement (congress) cannot make a LAW ESTABLISHING religion nor can it make a law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

Making it law that officials and public representatives cannot talk about God or anything to do with their religion of choice would be a direct violation of the first amendment.


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


Ray

Way to go!! I've been talking about the so-called separation of church and state that the ACLU and other organizations have been using to take God out of public life.

I have to reiterate my point from the beginning: if you don't want to worship God, don't. You don't have to clog up our courtrooms with anti-Christian agendas. If you don't believe, then don't!

[venray]

Kis..The link above should clarify that to any of those who actually take the time to read it. There are 13 pages followed by 14 pages of amendments which should be very enlightening to those who wish to continue with the age old arguments that our constitution is anti religion....That is exactly why Judge Renquist made the statement that "under God" within the pledge was NOT unconstitutional...

:D

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by kis123
I've been talking about the so-called separation of church and state that the ACLU and other organizations have been using to take God out of public life.

Why does God belong in public life? :confused:

[the_Baron]

God has every right to dwell among His creation - publically and in private.

Should He stop for an instant to renew the world, it would cease to be.

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by the_Baron
God has every right to dwell among His creation - publically and in private.

Should He stop for an instant to renew the world, it would cease to be.

Hmmmmm. Nope, not good enough. Give me an argument not based on scripture.

[the_Baron]

not good enough, eh?

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by JoBelle
The big problem I have with people who are so adamant about seperation of church and state is that they have not actually experienced the intimidation, fear, the worrying sense of "being out numbered," the fear for their children, or ...well you name it. I can say that my opinion are formed from the experieces that out of all the people whom I've heard discuss the topic, only two have ever said openly that they can validate the reasons behind seperating church and state on levels such as the pledge. Most people say, "Do it because the consitution says so." Uhmmm...ok. That's good enough.

I'm saying that there are issues of a strictly secular nature that are avoided like the palgue because the same people who would fight for the "law" to be followed don't tend to CARE about the people or the subject as much as that fact that it's the next "big cause to stand behind."

When I see people expressing an interest in the emotional well-being of people without only doing so when they have a law to back them up, THEN...I will appreciate the importance of removing God completely.

Again, I say as I have in the past....it doesn't personally matter to me. Life goes on whether there is a seperation or not. I'd just like to see someone pay attention to something that isn't so easy to "prove" by quoting a law book. There are some things that affect children MUCH more than the words "under God," but apparently they aren't "rally worthy" to some.

:rolleyes:
J.

Some valid points... I suppose you must hate the "legalist" viewpoint. I understand what you mean about compassion that's not linked to law. For me, it's just a matter of keeping things secular in the government due to the history of how religion tends to ruin any form of government. I'm not rallying against the religion thing just to be part of a cause or for any truly compassionate reasons, I just think history has shown that religion and state operate best when they are separate.

Venray, what you posted is true about the Constitution, but I guess what I'm getting at is that the separation of church and state is a good idea. Then again, I know that a lot of people would disagree with that sentiment, which is why places like Canada are very tempting to move to. History has also shown that, ever since the Red Scare, religion and politics have grown closer and closer. Thanks to groups like the Christian Coalition, we'll probably become somewhat theocratic in the near future, at least when it comes to legislative initiatives....

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by the_Baron
not good enough, eh?



If you can give me a reason to allow God into all aspects of public life that aren't based on Christian tenets or scripture, I'd be happy to discuss them. My interst is real. My wish for understanding is real. But telling me "Beacuse my God/Religion says so" fails to be a compelling or convincing argument.

[JoBelle]

Mc,
I think you and I have an agreement on SOMETHING AT LAST! ;)

I too think that the influence of a particular theological stance should not affect the political world. Some might say it's because politics would demoralize religion.:p

Seriously though, religion being the ONLY INFLUENCE upon which a decision is made is unacceptable. I do not want the same people who say that women should be submissive to their husbands making the decision about my welfare. I do not want stoning to become a means of punishment.

HOWEVER I do not see the MENTION of God, along with the mention of other things, to be something that influences policy in a negative way. The same people who would mention a diety of any type if allowed, are still the same people whether they say the words God outloud or not. You cannot take a man's faith away simply by taping his mouth shut. In the end, all you are doing by eliminating all mention of religion is causing the same conflict that the non-believers claim to feel now. Then who wins? It may be "legal" but it doesn't mean it's automatically "right" to all parties involved.

Does anyone really believe that the religious right will lose any element of control or influence just because they don't specifically SAY OUTLOUD that it is the belief system they hold that led them to a decision. Frankly, I've always found that as soon as you try to hold someone down, or to silence them, they put up more of a fight, and often "get sneaky" to have their own desires work out. I believe it will be a much healthier country if the MENTION of God were allowed. Of course, if you're going to insist that all mention be removed, then you also habve to walk the fine line of life and secular life. Decisions made by people who think, "There's no God so....you fill in the blank" are no longer allowed. The idea that removing the words or influence of God from the public eye will somehoe change the way things are DONE is ludicrous. The other thing...a politician making choices based on faith is no different than someone basing choices based on other life experiences.

Saying "OH GOD!" in surprise will become a hate crime. We all know there are nutcases who would take it THAT far. I'm curious...where is that line? I understand and appreciate the idea that there is legalese at play. I even understand and appreciate the fact that people should not be forced to accept another's faith. But I don't agree that the black and white seperation of church and state is giong to accomplish that. We are humans...no two alike...and no amount of legalese will ever make society "work" without offending at least some portion of the world at all times.

[kis123]

Originally posted by Bulldogge
Why does God belong in public life? :confused:

You obviously don't believe in God at all or you think He should be placed in a box and opened at your desire. It doesn't work that way. My God gives us the choice of free will. A person can say yes or no to walking with Him. Maybe you've said no. It breaks His heart that you don't believe in Him, but He allows you to make the choice. It just doesn't get any simpler than that.

Anything different than that is just another arguement to get into. God is not to be debated or argued about. He is to be trusted and worshipped with one's life and lifestyle. That means every aspect of our lives, not just church.

[august spies]

would god create a hotdog sooo long, that even he himself could not eat?

[venray]

Originally posted by Bulldogge
If you can give me a reason to allow God into all aspects of public life that aren't based on Christian tenets or scripture, I'd be happy to discuss them. My interst is real. My wish for understanding is real. But telling me "Beacuse my God/Religion says so" fails to be a compelling or convincing argument.

Already did that. It's in the first amendment of the constitution. If a person wants to praise God publicly whether or not he is a politician or servant of the people, he can. The Congress (government) cannot pass a law saying he cant. So as to why God should be a part of public life, I say to you..why not..and dont base it "because it offends me because I dont believe..." that is also basing it on your faith..the faith that God does not exist.

I have given you the constitution as an argument in favor of God and any religion as a part of public life...Give me something that can counter the constitution and we will have something to debate.....;)

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by venray1
"because it offends me because I dont believe..." that is also basing it on your faith..the faith that God does not exist.


Now who told you that I don't believe? Have I ever said, in anyway, that I'm not a man of faith? I happen to be a very spiritual individual. I don't keep my Gods "in a box" as kis theorized. I keep them in my heart in my my soul, and in my mind. I do not lack for faith.

In the interests of a constructive discussion, let's refrain from making character judgements about each other, shall we? None of you know me as anything but a psuedonym and some commentary on a message board. I'm not telling any of you that you're wrong. I'm trying to have a dialouge (not an argument) with obviously intelligent people. So let's all take a deep breath and relax. :)

Here's my problem with people linking religion and goverment. Whenever I read a news story regarding the two put together, it always seems to be restricting someone from doing something. Even in this instance: an atheist wants to keep people from saying the word "God" if they choose to do so. I have no problem with someone saying "God." Say it if you like. It's fine by me. I just don't think it needs to be part of the official, state sanctioned version. If a Christian/Catholic/Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Pagan/Satanist parent wishes to teach their child to say something that expresses their faith, then let them do that. The idea of a room full of children expressing their diversity by saying 20 different versions of the pledge of allegiance makes me grin hard enough to split my face. That would be part of my vision for a perfect America.

I don't want to keep a particular faith out of government - I want to keep all of them out of government. If a public official believes something, and votes his/her conscience, that's his/her choice, and I have no problem with it. That's the idea of representative govenrment, after all. But putting a monument with the ten commandments on it in a courthouse alienates a large portion of the populace, and has no place. By it's very nature, it's exclusionary. Government, in order to be trusted, needs to be as neutral as possible, and encourage everyone to participate.

I have an Iranian neighbor, a very wonderful and giving man. He fled his country to avoid the tyranny of that country. He loves America, and he is thankful for all the wonderful things that have happened to him in this country. But he rarely votes, or involves himself with the authorities. His house was broken into, and he refused to call the Police. When I asked him why, he told me "this is a country run according to the tenets of Christianity. Why would they care for the problems of a Muslim?"

That, to me, is why religion has no place in government.

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by Bulldogge
Government, in order to be trusted, needs to be as neutral as possible, and encourage everyone to participate.
If our government could effectively separate church and state, there would be one fewer thing that some people use to feel superior to others.

~Rose~

[venray]

Originally posted by Bulldogge
. When I asked him why, he told me "this is a country run according to the tenets of Christianity. Why would they care for the problems of a Muslim?"

\

If this country WERE run on the tenets of Christianity indeed they WOULD care... but it is not. It is run on being PC and getting the most votes so that you can get your particular party into power to "change America" yet alas..no one ever does....

Religious beliefs have a place everywhere.....True Christians do not put down others based on their beliefs..I am not talking Roman Catholic here or any other specific "organized religion" Just general Christian values ...ya know do unto others and that stuff that might make the world a better place...

Ray

[kis123]

Originally posted by Bulldogge
Now who told you that I don't believe? Have I ever said, in anyway, that I'm not a man of faith? I happen to be a very spiritual individual. I don't keep my Gods "in a box" as kis theorized. I keep them in my heart in my my soul, and in my mind. I do not lack for faith.

In the interests of a constructive discussion, let's refrain from making character judgements about each other, shall we? None of you know me as anything but a psuedonym and some commentary on a message board. I'm not telling any of you that you're wrong. I'm trying to have a dialouge (not an argument) with obviously intelligent people. So let's all take a deep breath and relax. :)

Here's my problem with people linking religion and goverment. Whenever I read a news story regarding the two put together, it always seems to be restricting someone from doing something. Even in this instance: an atheist wants to keep people from saying the word "God" if they choose to do so. I have no problem with someone saying "God." Say it if you like. It's fine by me. I just don't think it needs to be part of the official, state sanctioned version. If a Christian/Catholic/Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Pagan/Satanist parent wishes to teach their child to say something that expresses their faith, then let them do that. The idea of a room full of children expressing their diversity by saying 20 different versions of the pledge of allegiance makes me grin hard enough to split my face. That would be part of my vision for a perfect America.

I don't want to keep a particular faith out of government - I want to keep all of them out of government. If a public official believes something, and votes his/her conscience, that's his/her choice, and I have no problem with it. That's the idea of representative govenrment, after all. But putting a monument with the ten commandments on it in a courthouse alienates a large portion of the populace, and has no place. By it's very nature, it's exclusionary. Government, in order to be trusted, needs to be as neutral as possible, and encourage everyone to participate.

I have an Iranian neighbor, a very wonderful and giving man. He fled his country to avoid the tyranny of that country. He loves America, and he is thankful for all the wonderful things that have happened to him in this country. But he rarely votes, or involves himself with the authorities. His house was broken into, and he refused to call the Police. When I asked him why, he told me "this is a country run according to the tenets of Christianity. Why would they care for the problems of a Muslim?"

That, to me, is why religion has no place in government.

If your faith is trully in your heart and mind, how do you actually keep it out of your public life? I work in an environment that would be best described as a locker room where it's commonplace to be racially and sexually insulting. I could join the dirty jokes, excessive swearing, drinking and drugging, and stripclubs that my coworkers indulge regularly. But I don't because God is supposed to be involved in every aspect of my life. He walks with me in spirit and goes everywhere I go. I don't want to take God to a bar or stripclub.

The way I was raised, God should be able to be everywhere I am and not be embarrassed by my choices. He should be able to come to my home and not be ashamed of what I'm watching on tv or listening to on the radio. He should be able to come to my job and not find me engaging in a conversation that is not wholesome. He should find me doing what he'd do in a situation. I'd be the first to admit I don't always do it right, but I try and that matters more than not attempting or trying to leglislate Him from the public. I believe that He sees, hears, and knows all things about all people. I'm human and have made more than my share of mistakes, but I desire to do and be better because of Him.

No one made judgements about you other than the ones you put out there yourself. I said it before and will say it again, we are free will moral agents. We can choose what we want to do, even if it violates God's will. You decide what you want to do and live with any fallout it may create. I can't put it any simpler than that.

As far as your Iranian friend is concerned, did he tell you how Christians are treated in his country? They're treated like dirt! My Middle East family is Christian, Greek Orthodox Catholic to be exact. Religion in the Middle East is about as bad as racism is in our country. I'm not surprised he's afraid of Christians, considering how they're treated in his homeland. He should be afraid especially if he mistreated any Christians in his home country. Then they bring their issues to this country and treat the Christians just as bad. Did he ever tell you that? But real and true Christians don't separate or discriminate. If they're doing that, I don't know who's god they're serving...certainly not mine.

[Jimblast]

...is sacreligious! There's no such thing. Hey Baron! Great thread! The Supreme Court finally did something right! The secularists keep trying to impose their will on the majority. I read one of the judge's statements and I was extremely impressed with why they decided to table the decision. I think the secularists need something to do. We're waging war in Iraq, maybe we can put a weapon in their hands and send them over there to do something productive. Or maybe they can go over there and protest their view of religion....I wonder what would happen to them? Hmmmmmm! LOL!

[kis123]

Originally posted by Jimblast
...is sacreligious! There's no such thing. Hey Baron! Great thread! The Supreme Court finally did something right! The secularists keep trying to impose their will on the majority. I read one of the judge's statements and I was extremely impressed with why they decided to table the decision. I think the secularists need something to do. We're waging war in Iraq, maybe we can put a weapon in their hands and send them over there to do something productive. Or maybe they can go over there and protest their view of religion....I wonder what would happen to them? Hmmmmmm! LOL!

In a word....Ouch!:wow:
I don't always understand all of your posts, but I understand this one perfectly.

[kis123]

Originally posted by venray1
If this country WERE run on the tenets of Christianity indeed they WOULD care... but it is not. It is run on being PC and getting the most votes so that you can get your particular party into power to "change America" yet alas..no one ever does....

Religious beliefs have a place everywhere.....True Christians do not put down others based on their beliefs..I am not talking Roman Catholic here or any other specific "organized religion" Just general Christian values ...ya know do unto others and that stuff that might make the world a better place...

Ray

I completely agree with this post. I feel I have to add that organized religion as we've had to see it, has nothing to do with true Christianity or pure religion as Christ sees it. It has nothing to do with Sunday Morning religion. This extends way beyond that. It's about a personal relationship with God that's going to get you through life, not some crappy Sunday morning drivel that makes you think you're better than the lousy "sinners" out there. Our job is to let our light/lifestyle (not our mouths) shine among men so they will see your good works and praise your God in heaven.

I've taken way too much space on this post.....venray did a great job without my assistance!:)

[venray]

I disagree...your assistance was ever present.....;)

My final word on the matter at hand is this.....Separate the "church" from government, but not the values that this country was founded on.

The founding fathers said nothing about keeping Christian values out of the running of the country.....quite the opposite....:cool:


Ray

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being of His Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson

[MrMacphisto]

"The Fourth of July, 1826, was the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of American Independence. The people of Washington had decided to celebrate the memorable occasion in a fitting manner, and Mr. Weightman was deputed to invite the illustrious author of the Declaration to attend. On the 24th of June Jefferson wrote a letter declining, on account of his infirmities, to be present. In this letter a new Declaration of Independence is proclaimed. Bravely he writes:

'All eyes are opened or opening to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.'

Those were the last words Jefferson penned. Ten days later -- on the day that he had contributed so much to make immortal -- the Sage of Monticello breathed his last. On the same day, too, died John Adams. Politically at variance these men differed but little in theology. Writing to Jefferson on the 5th of May, 1817, Adams, giving expression to the matured conviction of eighty-two eventful years, declares.

'This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it.'

To this radical declaration Jefferson replied:

'If by religion, we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of worlds if there were no religion in it" ' (Works, Vol. iv., p. 301)."

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html

[Dr. Bill Kobb]

"The Christian God is a being of terrific character...cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." - Thomas Jefferson

Were but that such men still led us... - Dr. Bill

[MrMacphisto]

Amen to that...

[kis123]

Originally posted by Dr. Bill Kobb
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being of His Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson

Considering this man's history, it doesn't surprise me that he doesn't believe the story. But he left a special legacy of his own, didn't he?

[kis123]

Originally posted by Dr. Bill Kobb
"The Christian God is a being of terrific character...cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." - Thomas Jefferson

Were but that such men still led us... - Dr. Bill

Once again, Thomas Jefferson left a legacy of shame and disrespect on his family, his country, his self. I could care less what he feels about God.

My God is loving, merciful, gracious, and kind. My God has showed me a better way to live my life. You obviously have done that for yourselves. Good for you!

I guess no one's being converted to the other side. I haven't cursed Atheists or any other religions, however, quotes and posts like this are used to insult the God I choose to believe in.

Guess it just goes to show you...........

[The Sean Man]

Hey, just in case nobody caught this, "Monty Python's The Life of Brian" is in rerelease in select theaters this weekend.

The Sean Man

[Celtic_Emperor]

"Blessed are the cheese makers!" :D

[MrMacphisto]

Kis123.... what I find so humorous about your words on Jefferson is that you strike me as a somewhat patriotic person. Most of our founding fathers were either Deist, Agnostic, or Atheist. I guess that puts the concept of "Separation of Church and State" in a more relevant place than some of you in this thread seem to realize. Once again, I don't expect a true separation to ever occur, but at least I can comfortably say that the founding fathers seem to have intended such a thing....

[venray]

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Jefferson's letter....

[venray]

As for the constitution.....

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

I suggest you read it sometime...






As for what is really going on here...

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/ch_state.html

"Oblivious to the irrelevance of their arguments, and at the same time refusing to acknowledge that no document of state, let alone the Constitution, has ever proposed such a concept, those on the Left have tried to convince the American people that our founding documents warned of the dangers of mixing politics and religion.

In the absence of Constitutional evidence, the mere opinion of private individuals or groups that there should be absolute separation of church and state hardly creates a 'great American principle'. They have thus misled millions and worked against the public interest by damaging the commitment to ethics and moral values that come only through religious belief. "

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by venray1
As for what is really going on here...

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/ch_state.html

"Oblivious to the irrelevance of their arguments, and at the same time refusing to acknowledge that no document of state, let alone the Constitution, has ever proposed such a concept, those on the Left have tried to convince the American people that our founding documents warned of the dangers of mixing politics and religion.

In the absence of Constitutional evidence, the mere opinion of private individuals or groups that there should be absolute separation of church and state hardly creates a 'great American principle'. They have thus misled millions and worked against the public interest by damaging the commitment to ethics and moral values that come only through religious belief. "

They only come from religious belief, eh? Interesting... I could be wrong, but most organized religion seems to have a long history of oppression and genocide. I can't speak for those who are non-denominational, but the organized institutions of religion are often far from moral. For example, the Catholic Church chose to "look the other way" during the rise of the Nazies.

[venray]

Ah, but you confuse the catholic church with the true principles of Christanity.....That's where most athiests and agnostics get mixed up

They just don't know what true christian values are as most "organized religions" do not practice them.....


Ray

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by venray1
They just don't know what true christian values are as most "organized religions" do not practice them.....


Ray

Well, at least we agree on this sentiment concerning organized religion.... Seriously though, how can you not say that religion mixing with politics is a bad thing? Even if I was Christian, I wouldn't agree with many of the conservative Christian views, and yet, I'd still be capable of living like a true Christian (aka - a tolerant Christian). It seems like everytime the two mix, religion is used to control people....

[kis123]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Kis123.... what I find so humorous about your words on Jefferson is that you strike me as a somewhat patriotic person. Most of our founding fathers were either Deist, Agnostic, or Atheist. I guess that puts the concept of "Separation of Church and State" in a more relevant place than some of you in this thread seem to realize. Once again, I don't expect a true separation to ever occur, but at least I can comfortably say that the founding fathers seem to have intended such a thing....

My comments about Jefferson were mostly out of my total disrespect for him in general. He and the founding fathers were nothing to me but a bunch of slave-owning hypocrites. How can they talk about godly principles and they were the most messed up of the bunch? As a kid, I was fed miles of crap about them and became angry and disenfranchised when the truth really came out.

I can't do any more than what God does; He gives you a choice. Regardless of opinions and viewpoints, God gives everyone a choice to believe in Him or not, to serve Him with your life and lifestyle or not. Everyone that's name-calling or justifying their position to believe He doesn't exist has the right to do so. If a person chooses to be a Christian at church and live like they never saw a church in their lives from Monday to Saturday, God will let you do it. If a group in the name of tolerance and fairness, removes God from every public place in existence, He just may even let you do that too.

[venray]

Originally posted by MrMacphisto
Well, at least we agree on this sentiment concerning organized religion.... Seriously though, how can you not say that religion mixing with politics is a bad thing? Even if I was Christian, I wouldn't agree with many of the conservative Christian views, and yet, I'd still be capable of living like a true Christian (aka - a tolerant Christian). It seems like everytime the two mix, religion is used to control people....

The words "In God we trust" or "under God" is NOT mixing religion with politics..neither is putting up a tree at Christmas in a goverment office buiding....These acts influence nothing...

Giving students the time to take a moment for prayer or meditation before class effects no decisions made in the running of schools.

These are the things that are constantly attacked by those who "take offense" that others believe and want the right to say so publicly as guaranteed by the first amendment.

I am not saying that the Pope or Jesse Jackson or any "religious" leader should be consulted before congress passes a law or the administration makes policy, but if you think that a politician's personal religious beliefs wont come into play when he casts a vote , then you are sadly mistaken...and please dont say that they shouldnt come into play...those that voted for him/her should know what he is all about before putting him/her in office to represent them... at that point, the majority rules and if it doesnt happen to be someone you want representing you that has taken office, then you try to have him/her voted out the next time around.

Attacking others faith or beliefs will not accomplish anything, let alone perpetuate change.....

Ray

[kis123]

Originally posted by venray1
The words "In God we trust" or "under God" is NOT mixing religion with politics..neither is putting up a tree at Christmas in a goverment office buiding....These acts influence nothing...

Giving students the time to take a moment for prayer or meditation before class effects no decisions made in the running of schools.

These are the things that are constantly attacked by those who "take offense" that others believe and want the right to say so publicly as guaranteed by the first amendment.

I am not saying that the Pope or Jesse Jackson or any "religious" leader should be consulted before congress passes a law or the administration makes policy, but if you think that a politician's personal religious beliefs wont come into play when he casts a vote , then you are sadly mistaken...and please dont say that they shouldnt come into play...those that voted for him/her should know what he is all about before putting him/her in office to represent them... at that point, the majority rules and if it doesnt happen to be someone you want representing you that has taken office, then you try to have him/her voted out the next time around.

Attacking others faith or beliefs will not accomplish anything, let alone perpetuate change.....

Ray

We have now entered the "agree to disagree" zone where neither side of the issue has changed their minds. We should move onto more productive things. If Christ can be nailed to a cross for what He believed in, I'm no longer surprised by attacks on my faith. At least I'm in a country free to express my spiritual (not religious) beliefs.

It is not about organized religion that usually has nothing to do with God at all. It's like salt; sprinkled around just enough to change the flavor, but it's still soup. It's man-made and man-controlled. It's about developing a personal relationship with my Creator. It's what is most important to me. I'm not ashamed of it and I don't have to give lengthy explanations about it.