But that's besides the point, because my point was that the Constitution was not intended to remove all religion from public life.
Atheism is just as much religion as Agnostism, as is Islam, as is Christianity.
The term "separation of Church and state" is NOTHING other than anti-[Christian in this case] rehtoric---and a construction by the Judicial system to marginalize Christian influence on America.
Nothing more, nothing less.
What the first amedment to the U.S. constitution says is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..........."
Saying that one philosophy is above all others and not a "religion", combined with some abject idocy---the claim that you can separate a person from his/her presuppostions---is nothing more than the natural tendancy for one philosophy to codify itself in the laws of a nation, to the exclusion of all others.
Useful rehtoric, dishonestly applied--as usual.
Also, Thomas Jefferson was a disingenous, philandering, greedy, fop. The conclusion that America was not based on the laws of Christianity, is technically correct, in a Clarkeian--emphasising sort of way.
The Constitution is not 'anti-christian' in fact it is possible to see the Constitution dissallows riligion from entering Public Governance in order to allow for Christianity to be practiced without coercion by the Government.
The FFathers were very weary of any possibility that a coercive ideologically driven governement would take hold and start to dictate what people should believe . . . the Constitution is our safe-gaurd against sush an event.
Because of it, we don't have some new-fangled trendy religion sweep the nation and take a hold of the minds of those in Goveernment and have them thereby legislate against free-worship and expression of religion . . .
in that simple way, it is pro-Christian . . . it just also happens to be pro-Muslim, pro-Buddhist, pro-Jewish, and even, yes, Pro-Athiest . . .
It is in your interest as a Christian that our government does not allow Christianity into Public Life.
Atheism is just as much religion as Agnostism, as is Islam, as is Christianity.
I disagree with this.
Atheism and agnosticism have no rituals, ceremonies, priests or places of worship; they have no prophets, factions, or rites of passage. They don't serve the very useful and practical functions of religion.
Agnosticism, furthermore, is totally free of doctrine since an agnostic doesn't count out the possibility of the existence of any god or gods. The possibility the agnostic entertains might be something to do with Allah, the Christian God, Siva, Obatala or any of the world's many deities- you can be free to be any 'kind' of agnostic you choose and you might as well decide on any possibility that fits your particular spiritual, cultural or personal criteria.
Atheism is arguably not a doctrine either since it's predicated on a world-view that expects explanations based on facts you can actually test.
Now what this has to do with Richard Clarke is totally beyond me.
The White House has declined to let her appear at the commission's televised hearings, citing the constitutional principle of separation of powers; the panel was created by Congress.
"Condi Rice would be a superb witness. She is anxious to testify. The president would dearly love to have her testify," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters. "But the lawyers have concluded that to do so would alter the balance if we got into the practice of doing that."
HAHAHAHA
...'alter the balance . . " what ever the hell that's supposed to mean . .
'let's not get into that habit . . . its 'unbalanced'!
I wish I had a link to that video of Rumsfeldt caught lying . .
It is in your interest as a Christian that our government does not allow Christianity into Public Life
I disagree. We're not talking about legislating Christianity. We're talking about people being stopped from displaying its symbols. We're also talking about the elimination of non-denominational prayer in the public sector.
This is simply wrong. A town should be able to display a nativity scene, as long as it doesn't ban a Kwanza display as well. If someone is an Atheist attending a High School Graduation where a prayer is said before the ceremony....what's the problem? Why can't we lead school children is non-denominational prayer....voluntarily?
The Constitution does not guarantee one's right not to be offended. No one should be forced to do anything as far as religion is concerned, but what we have now is the repression of the majority.
The Constitution does not guarantee one's right not to be offended. No one should be forced to do anything as far as religion is concerned, but what we have now is the repression of the majority.
In the threads about the recent FCC rulings you basically argued the exact opposite of this. That's hypocritical. If the FCC can ban free speech because it's offensive, why can't that be true in this case as well?
The FFathers were very weary of any possibility that a coercive ideologically driven governement would take hold and start to dictate what people should believe . . . the Constitution is our safe-gaurd against sush an event.
It is in your interest as a Christian that our government does not allow Christianity into Public Life.
I don't know about that pfflam, pretty much each one of the American colonies had an "offical" church brand of Christianity, early on. I might have to take that back, but I think that was true even until the time of the Amercian Rebellion.
On Atheism having no rituals, I distinclty remember a friend at work who had a pagan marriage ceremony, performed by a witch, hands tied together with ribbon holding a lit candle, drum circle, the whole bit---pretty surreal.
I also remember seeing the Grateful Dead in the late eightes, I think that might constitute a ritual of some sort.
Atheism as it relates to the inidivdual is necessarily more ridgid that the worst forms of puritaism. I think that is a historical fact.
And what this has to do with Clarke? Looks like I picked a bad week to derail threads.
In the threads about the recent FCC rulings you basically argued the exact opposite of this. That's hypocritical. If the FCC can ban free speech because it's offensive, why can't that be true in this case as well?
I don't know about that pfflam, pretty much each one of the American colonies had an "offical" church brand of Christianity, early on. I might have to take that back, but I think that was true even until the time of the Amercian Rebellion.
On Atheism having no rituals, I distinclty remember a friend at work who had a pagan marriage ceremony, performed by a witch, hands tied together with ribbon holding a lit candle, drum circle, the whole bit---pretty surreal.
I also remember seeing the Grateful Dead in the late eightes, I think that might constitute a ritual of some sort.
Atheism as it relates to the inidivdual is necessarily more ridgid that the worst forms of puritaism. I think that is a historical fact.
And what this has to do with Clarke? Looks like I picked a bad week to derail threads.
Pagan != Atheist.
Also, explain what you mean by atheism being more rigid than the worst forms of puritanism. Are you talking about government enforced atheism of the USSR? That's not what anyone is after here so it's ridiculous to even bring that up.
I disagree. We're not talking about legislating Christianity. We're talking about people being stopped from displaying its symbols. We're also talking about the elimination of non-denominational prayer in the public sector.
This is simply wrong. A town should be able to display a nativity scene, as long as it doesn't ban a Kwanza display as well. If someone is an Atheist attending a High School Graduation where a prayer is said before the ceremony....what's the problem? Why can't we lead school children is non-denominational prayer....voluntarily?
The Constitution does not guarantee one's right not to be offended. No one should be forced to do anything as far as religion is concerned, but what we have now is the repression of the majority.
No, a 'town' should not be allowed to discriminate through symbolism
If my brand of Christianity finds that nativity scenes are heretical and a total insult to God andI live in that town . . . and especially if I work for the Government of that town, then my freedom from Governmental religious coercion is not being met.
No we're not talking about 'people' being stopped: but we are talking about that secular organ of 'the people' called Government from displaying any religious symbol on its property or displaying any institutional bias towards any form of theological belief
That includes 'non-denominational prayer' . . .
Quote:
[i]Originally posted by SDW2001 [/i]
Why can't we lead school children is non-denominational prayer.
That sounds so innocent and harmless . . . why indeed?
And it misses the suspicion of the founding fathers for any institutionalizing of religion. What harm could it be? Why were they completely AGAINST the mention of G-d on money?
You misunderstand the reason for the Constitution, and then, what's worse, you dress it up in fake 'oppression':
Oh how the majority is being oppressed!!
Give me a break . . . the 'minority' is fighting a constant uphill battle to keep (a specific form of) religion from being forced down their throats on every street corner . . . and to keep their form of worship from being forced to adapt to the symbols and rites of others . . .
Why can't we lead school children is non-denominational prayer....voluntarily?
Why in the world do people need to pray at school? From what I remember, we had a hard enough time fitting all of the lessons into the day, you know, actually learning. And now we have jobs going overseas and something like 1/2 of engineering students now from outside the US because of poor math and science education here. Prayer time would be much better spent actually doing what schools are supposed to do and leaving religion to the churches.
Also, not all religions are suckers to the whole prayer thing (which is really just a knock-off of serious meditation). The last thing I will want for my kids if for them to be put in the situation where they have strong social pressure at school to talk to imaginary people.
In other words, non-denomination prayer is far from universal and bringing it into schools puts unnecessary social pressure on non-christian students, regardless of whether or not it's voluntary.
Correct, but there is a vacuum that gets filled in one way or another.
Quote:
Also, explain what you mean by atheism being more rigid than the worst forms of puritanism. Are you talking about government enforced atheism of the USSR? That's not what anyone is after here so it's ridiculous to even bring that up.
It's not that "it's what anyone is after" but in the one-many equation for the Atheist, the individual is subsumed into the collective (at the expense of the individual.)
Correct, but there is a vacuum that gets filled in one way or another.
It's not that "it's what anyone is after" but in the one-many equation for the Atheist, the individual is subsumed into the collective (at the expense of the individual.)
(Resistance is futile)
utter goobledly gook!!
You have no idea what you are talking about . .
subsumption into a collective?!?! . . what is 'the Body Of Christ' or 'the Church'?
Watching a clip and reading it now. So far she basically read off of the "map of Afghanistan rolled out on the table" script that she and McClellan were reading off of earlier in the week.
Why in the world do people need to pray at school? From what I remember, we had a hard enough time fitting all of the lessons into the day.............jobs going overseas and something like 1/2 of engineering students now from outside the US because of poor math and science education here.
Actually the Christian/home schools have plenty of time for prayer. They seem to be producing a good product as well. Also, a large percentage of American children are beyond the reach of the insidous American public education system, in charter, private, Christian, and home schools. The old-timey latency media, though has determined that these insitituions "do not exist." Even though there are 2 million kids homeschooled in America alone.
As pluralism destroys the functional social core of America it will be those who operate outside these rotting institutions that will save America from itself in the future.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
But that's besides the point, because my point was that the Constitution was not intended to remove all religion from public life.
Atheism is just as much religion as Agnostism, as is Islam, as is Christianity.
The term "separation of Church and state" is NOTHING other than anti-[Christian in this case] rehtoric---and a construction by the Judicial system to marginalize Christian influence on America.
Nothing more, nothing less.
What the first amedment to the U.S. constitution says is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..........."
Saying that one philosophy is above all others and not a "religion", combined with some abject idocy---the claim that you can separate a person from his/her presuppostions---is nothing more than the natural tendancy for one philosophy to codify itself in the laws of a nation, to the exclusion of all others.
Useful rehtoric, dishonestly applied--as usual.
Also, Thomas Jefferson was a disingenous, philandering, greedy, fop. The conclusion that America was not based on the laws of Christianity, is technically correct, in a Clarkeian--emphasising sort of way.
The Constitution is not 'anti-christian' in fact it is possible to see the Constitution dissallows riligion from entering Public Governance in order to allow for Christianity to be practiced without coercion by the Government.
The FFathers were very weary of any possibility that a coercive ideologically driven governement would take hold and start to dictate what people should believe . . . the Constitution is our safe-gaurd against sush an event.
Because of it, we don't have some new-fangled trendy religion sweep the nation and take a hold of the minds of those in Goveernment and have them thereby legislate against free-worship and expression of religion . . .
in that simple way, it is pro-Christian . . . it just also happens to be pro-Muslim, pro-Buddhist, pro-Jewish, and even, yes, Pro-Athiest . . .
It is in your interest as a Christian that our government does not allow Christianity into Public Life.
Originally posted by dmz
Atheism is just as much religion as Agnostism, as is Islam, as is Christianity.
I disagree with this.
Atheism and agnosticism have no rituals, ceremonies, priests or places of worship; they have no prophets, factions, or rites of passage. They don't serve the very useful and practical functions of religion.
Agnosticism, furthermore, is totally free of doctrine since an agnostic doesn't count out the possibility of the existence of any god or gods. The possibility the agnostic entertains might be something to do with Allah, the Christian God, Siva, Obatala or any of the world's many deities- you can be free to be any 'kind' of agnostic you choose and you might as well decide on any possibility that fits your particular spiritual, cultural or personal criteria.
Atheism is arguably not a doctrine either since it's predicated on a world-view that expects explanations based on facts you can actually test.
Now what this has to do with Richard Clarke is totally beyond me.
The White House has declined to let her appear at the commission's televised hearings, citing the constitutional principle of separation of powers; the panel was created by Congress.
"Condi Rice would be a superb witness. She is anxious to testify. The president would dearly love to have her testify," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters. "But the lawyers have concluded that to do so would alter the balance if we got into the practice of doing that."
HAHAHAHA
...'alter the balance . . " what ever the hell that's supposed to mean . .
'let's not get into that habit . . . its 'unbalanced'!
I wish I had a link to that video of Rumsfeldt caught lying . .
he is a joke . . . a very dangerous and sick joke
It is in your interest as a Christian that our government does not allow Christianity into Public Life
I disagree. We're not talking about legislating Christianity. We're talking about people being stopped from displaying its symbols. We're also talking about the elimination of non-denominational prayer in the public sector.
This is simply wrong. A town should be able to display a nativity scene, as long as it doesn't ban a Kwanza display as well. If someone is an Atheist attending a High School Graduation where a prayer is said before the ceremony....what's the problem? Why can't we lead school children is non-denominational prayer....voluntarily?
The Constitution does not guarantee one's right not to be offended. No one should be forced to do anything as far as religion is concerned, but what we have now is the repression of the majority.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The Constitution does not guarantee one's right not to be offended. No one should be forced to do anything as far as religion is concerned, but what we have now is the repression of the majority.
In the threads about the recent FCC rulings you basically argued the exact opposite of this. That's hypocritical. If the FCC can ban free speech because it's offensive, why can't that be true in this case as well?
Originally posted by pfflam
That's just plain silly . . . . .
The FFathers were very weary of any possibility that a coercive ideologically driven governement would take hold and start to dictate what people should believe . . . the Constitution is our safe-gaurd against sush an event.
It is in your interest as a Christian that our government does not allow Christianity into Public Life.
I don't know about that pfflam, pretty much each one of the American colonies had an "offical" church brand of Christianity, early on. I might have to take that back, but I think that was true even until the time of the Amercian Rebellion.
On Atheism having no rituals, I distinclty remember a friend at work who had a pagan marriage ceremony, performed by a witch, hands tied together with ribbon holding a lit candle, drum circle, the whole bit---pretty surreal.
I also remember seeing the Grateful Dead in the late eightes, I think that might constitute a ritual of some sort.
Atheism as it relates to the inidivdual is necessarily more ridgid that the worst forms of puritaism. I think that is a historical fact.
And what this has to do with Clarke? Looks like I picked a bad week to derail threads.
Originally posted by bunge
In the threads about the recent FCC rulings you basically argued the exact opposite of this. That's hypocritical. If the FCC can ban free speech because it's offensive, why can't that be true in this case as well?
Oooh burn. SDW, he has you there.
Originally posted by dmz
I don't know about that pfflam, pretty much each one of the American colonies had an "offical" church brand of Christianity, early on. I might have to take that back, but I think that was true even until the time of the Amercian Rebellion.
On Atheism having no rituals, I distinclty remember a friend at work who had a pagan marriage ceremony, performed by a witch, hands tied together with ribbon holding a lit candle, drum circle, the whole bit---pretty surreal.
I also remember seeing the Grateful Dead in the late eightes, I think that might constitute a ritual of some sort.
Atheism as it relates to the inidivdual is necessarily more ridgid that the worst forms of puritaism. I think that is a historical fact.
And what this has to do with Clarke? Looks like I picked a bad week to derail threads.
Pagan != Atheist.
Also, explain what you mean by atheism being more rigid than the worst forms of puritanism. Are you talking about government enforced atheism of the USSR? That's not what anyone is after here so it's ridiculous to even bring that up.
Originally posted by SDW2001
pfflam:
I disagree. We're not talking about legislating Christianity. We're talking about people being stopped from displaying its symbols. We're also talking about the elimination of non-denominational prayer in the public sector.
This is simply wrong. A town should be able to display a nativity scene, as long as it doesn't ban a Kwanza display as well. If someone is an Atheist attending a High School Graduation where a prayer is said before the ceremony....what's the problem? Why can't we lead school children is non-denominational prayer....voluntarily?
The Constitution does not guarantee one's right not to be offended. No one should be forced to do anything as far as religion is concerned, but what we have now is the repression of the majority.
No, a 'town' should not be allowed to discriminate through symbolism
If my brand of Christianity finds that nativity scenes are heretical and a total insult to God andI live in that town . . . and especially if I work for the Government of that town, then my freedom from Governmental religious coercion is not being met.
No we're not talking about 'people' being stopped: but we are talking about that secular organ of 'the people' called Government from displaying any religious symbol on its property or displaying any institutional bias towards any form of theological belief
That includes 'non-denominational prayer' . . .
[i]Originally posted by SDW2001 [/i]
Why can't we lead school children is non-denominational prayer.
That sounds so innocent and harmless . . . why indeed?
And it misses the suspicion of the founding fathers for any institutionalizing of religion. What harm could it be? Why were they completely AGAINST the mention of G-d on money?
You misunderstand the reason for the Constitution, and then, what's worse, you dress it up in fake 'oppression':
Oh how the majority is being oppressed!!
Give me a break . . . the 'minority' is fighting a constant uphill battle to keep (a specific form of) religion from being forced down their throats on every street corner . . . and to keep their form of worship from being forced to adapt to the symbols and rites of others . . .
and the 'colonies' are not the States!
Originally posted by SDW2001
Why can't we lead school children is non-denominational prayer....voluntarily?
Why in the world do people need to pray at school? From what I remember, we had a hard enough time fitting all of the lessons into the day, you know, actually learning. And now we have jobs going overseas and something like 1/2 of engineering students now from outside the US because of poor math and science education here. Prayer time would be much better spent actually doing what schools are supposed to do and leaving religion to the churches.
Also, not all religions are suckers to the whole prayer thing (which is really just a knock-off of serious meditation). The last thing I will want for my kids if for them to be put in the situation where they have strong social pressure at school to talk to imaginary people.
In other words, non-denomination prayer is far from universal and bringing it into schools puts unnecessary social pressure on non-christian students, regardless of whether or not it's voluntary.
Originally posted by BR
Pagan != Atheist.
Correct, but there is a vacuum that gets filled in one way or another.
Also, explain what you mean by atheism being more rigid than the worst forms of puritanism. Are you talking about government enforced atheism of the USSR? That's not what anyone is after here so it's ridiculous to even bring that up.
It's not that "it's what anyone is after" but in the one-many equation for the Atheist, the individual is subsumed into the collective (at the expense of the individual.)
(Resistance is futile)
Originally posted by dmz
Correct, but there is a vacuum that gets filled in one way or another.
It's not that "it's what anyone is after" but in the one-many equation for the Atheist, the individual is subsumed into the collective (at the expense of the individual.)
(Resistance is futile)
utter goobledly gook!!
You have no idea what you are talking about . .
subsumption into a collective?!?! . . what is 'the Body Of Christ' or 'the Church'?
Originally posted by giant
So, did anyone see the Rice interview on 60 minutes?
Miised it . . .
was it 'pursuassive?
Originally posted by pfflam
Miised it . . .
was it 'pursuassive?
Watching a clip and reading it now. So far she basically read off of the "map of Afghanistan rolled out on the table" script that she and McClellan were reading off of earlier in the week.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in609074.shtml
Originally posted by giant
Why in the world do people need to pray at school? From what I remember, we had a hard enough time fitting all of the lessons into the day.............jobs going overseas and something like 1/2 of engineering students now from outside the US because of poor math and science education here.
Actually the Christian/home schools have plenty of time for prayer. They seem to be producing a good product as well. Also, a large percentage of American children are beyond the reach of the insidous American public education system, in charter, private, Christian, and home schools. The old-timey latency media, though has determined that these insitituions "do not exist." Even though there are 2 million kids homeschooled in America alone.
As pluralism destroys the functional social core of America it will be those who operate outside these rotting institutions that will save America from itself in the future.
Originally posted by pfflam
utter goobledly gook!!
You have no idea what you are talking about . .
subsumption into a collective?!?! . . what is 'the Body Of Christ' or 'the Church'?
Because of trinitarian doctrine you have subsumption with total participation.
Originally posted by dmz
Because of trinitarian doctrine you have subsumption with total participation.
'resistance is futile'