Types of People Post on this Forum

[bdickens]

"Separation of church and state" is a myth perpetrated by anti-Christians and has no basis in the Constitution or any other of our founding doccuments.

[marksiwel]

"Separation of church and state" is a myth perpetrated by anti-Christians and has no basis in the Constitution or any other of our founding documents.

No its a very real thing (even if you dont want it to be)
Look up the "establishment clause" its in the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (among other things)
Then compare that to cases like "McCollum v. Board of Education" a Supreme Court ruling that said (paraphrasing) that teaching a Religion in a public school is against the Establishment clause. The group they ruled against was trying to get some of the Classes they were trying to get taught were JEWISH CLASSES. Do you want your Tax dollars going towards the teaching of Jewish and/or Islamic religions? Do you think THEY want their Tax Dollars going towards Christian classes? No of course not. The government shouldn't have a say on Religion unless its impeding on people's rights (like the Marrying 16 year olds or denying medical care to babies)

Supreme Court says we have a Right to Guns, Free Speech ect. the Supreme court also says you cant MAKE people in prey in School or swear that you believe in god to gain a Government position.

I could go on and on about this subject by I suggest you do your own reading on it. You will find that I am correct

This should help (That or reading the many books on the subject)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... sions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishm ... _Amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

America was founded by Christians and with a heavy influence on the bible. But there is a reason Government officials do not report or are not required to hold religious positions. our Founding Fathers (Think the Pilgrims) saw what can and will happen when you have a government that is run by Theology, it prohibits FREEDOMS. America was never set up to be run a Christian Nation run by Christians or a particular branch of Christianity, its was a Nation of "The People" who at the time just happened to be for the majority Christians.

[marksiwel]

Or to quote Thomas Jefferson

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Or just this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation ... ted_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

"Separation of church and state" is a myth perpetrated by anti-Christians and has no basis in the Constitution or any other of our founding documents.

No its a very real thing (even if you dont want it to be)
Look up the "establishment clause" its in the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (among other things)

or prevent the free exercise thereof.

The establishment clause does not exist in a vacuum. It's like the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment. The "right to keep and bear arms [which] shall not be infringed doesn't exist to preserve a right to go duck hunting. It exists to ensure that The People will always be armed. For people of faith, we see the right to the free exercise of our religion prevented by the state all the time. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it isn't going on.

[The Annoyed Man]

America was founded by Christians and with a heavy influence on the bible. But there is a reason Government officials do not report or are not required to hold religious positions. our Founding Fathers (Think the Pilgrims) saw what can and will happen when you have a government that is run by Theology, it prohibits FREEDOMS. America was never set up to be run a Christian Nation run by Christians or a particular branch of Christianity, its was a Nation of "The People" who at the time just happened to be for the majority Christians.

Exactly! Which is why the religious are angered with the government backs lawsuits brought by atheists. Atheism is a religion, as much as any other religion. Atheists believe in something which they can no more empirically prove than any religious person can empirically prove their faith. Intellectually honest atheists — and there are many out there like this — will admit this about their belief system. Government backing of atheism violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, but it happens all the time (like forbidding a high school valedictorian speaker to talk about the role that faith played in his or her life). When an atheist brings a suit about that, it 1) violates the freedom of speech clause of the valedictorian's 1st Amendment rights, and it violates the establishment clause of the valedictorian's 1st Amendment clause.

This stuff cuts both ways.

[marksiwel]

"Separation of church and state" is a myth perpetrated by anti-Christians and has no basis in the Constitution or any other of our founding documents.

No its a very real thing (even if you dont want it to be)
Look up the "establishment clause" its in the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (among other things)

or prevent the free exercise thereof.

The establishment clause does not exist in a vacuum. It's like the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment. The "right to keep and bear arms [which] shall not be infringed doesn't exist to preserve a right to go duck hunting. It exists to ensure that The People will always be armed. For people of faith, we see the right to the free exercise of our religion prevented by the state all the time. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that it isn't going on.

You are Free to practice your faith, just don't do it on Government Time or with Government Money or expect the government to "back you up". If you look at it, Christians in America hold more power than any other group in America, hands down at every level of State and Federal Goverment. To say that the Government is stopping you from practicing your religion is alittle ...much. Are they building camps? are they taxing churches? are they burning bibles? No. Really what you've been seeing is "the People" realizing that Religion has overstepped its bounds into the Public School system, charity, and politics in general and trying to cull that trend.
So sorry, you cant put the ten commandments up in NEW Court Houses, but I feel that if the 10 Commandments existed in that church over 60 years than that is part of a Historical Landmark, or whatever you want to call it.
Basically you cant let one religion have too much influence in government otherwise its too easy for other relgions to be destroyed or labeled as "wrong" or "un-American"
So its safer to have litte/no religion in politics than alot of it
I can name a "Democracy" with a very large religious presence in its Schools, Work, and Politics, its alittle place called Iran.

[marksiwel]

America was founded by Christians and with a heavy influence on the bible. But there is a reason Government officials do not report or are not required to hold religious positions. our Founding Fathers (Think the Pilgrims) saw what can and will happen when you have a government that is run by Theology, it prohibits FREEDOMS. America was never set up to be run a Christian Nation run by Christians or a particular branch of Christianity, its was a Nation of "The People" who at the time just happened to be for the majority Christians.

Exactly! Which is why the religious are angered with the government backs lawsuits brought by atheists. Atheism is a religion, as much as any other religion. Atheists believe in something which they can no more empirically prove than any religious person can empirically prove their faith. Intellectually honest atheists — and there are many out there like this — will admit this about their belief system. Government backing of atheism violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, but it happens all the time (like forbidding a high school valedictorian speaker to talk about the role that faith played in his or her life). When an atheist brings a suit about that, it 1) violates the freedom of speech clause of the valedictorian's 1st Amendment rights, and it violates the establishment clause of the valedictorian's 1st Amendment clause.

This stuff cuts both ways.

Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.
Really when the governments backs Non-Religious (Atheists) law suits its because you don't see Catholics suing about using public funds for setting up The Nativity on the Statehouse lawn, the people to bring these lawsuits to court generally arent religious. DO YOU see a Problem with using My tax dollars to pay for a Christmas Tree? or a Kwanzaa Quilt (or whatever it is they use)
As for the schools stopping one of their Valedictorians from talking about religion, well schools are stupid, what can I tell you, but the school also CANT (legally) make him talk about religion if he didnt want to. he also couldn't talk about how smoking pot and looking at porn helped him get straight A's and keep the pressure off. Public school is sadly not a place where your "Rights" exist, you cant arm yourself, you cant say what you want, you can be detained and searched at will.

[android]

1) violates the freedom of speech clause of the valedictorian's 1st Amendment rights, and it violates the establishment clause of the valedictorian's 1st Amendment clause.

No it doesn't. It only restricts said valedictorians ability to preach at a government sponsored event. She or he still has the complete and total first amendment right to preach on the street corner, in church or on TV or anywhere else they can afford and to whoever wants to listen. They just can't preach at a government sponsored event with a captive audience.

Prayer is a private communication between you and God. I don't see how government could ever restrict this even if it tried. Public prayer is either so that other believers in you faith can "pray along" and admire your artistic use of the language or to preach to those who you want to convert.

I have never seen one single instance of a Christians right to practice religion being denied. I have seen many instances where a Christians desire to preach to those that are not interested have been denied. There is a huge difference. Bowing your head in quiet prayer is allowed in any public school in the country. Trying to lead the class in public prayer is not. It is easy to see the difference unless you are blinding by the desire to proselytize every non-believer that passes by.

This stuff cuts both ways.

Amen.

[dicion]

I may not be a mod, but I see this topic straying into forbidden territory. We all might want to re-divert before it strays too far

[Crossfire]

This is a very controversial and emotional topic, and is being watched by the mods.

As long as you all remain civil and don't make personal attacks, then carry on.

[The Annoyed Man]

Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

But it is still a belief system. You believe there is no God, which is certainly your right under the 1st Amendment, because you can't empirically prove it to be true. Thus, atheism still has the central characteristic which atheists object to in religion — faith.

Really when the governments backs Non-Religious (Atheists) law suits its because you don't see Catholics suing about using public funds for setting up The Nativity on the Statehouse lawn, the people to bring these lawsuits to court generally arent religious. DO YOU see a Problem with using My tax dollars to pay for a Christmas Tree? or a Kwanzaa Quilt (or whatever it is they use)

I'm not asking for you to pay for anything. I would like the right to use public land on which to express my faith (with a creche at Christmas, paid for out of my own funds, for example), but I certainly would equally support your right to also use public land on which to express your faith in the absence of a Deity. But when atheists sue the government to stop it from selling a 200 square foot piece of desert in California, 25 miles from the nearest highway, to a private party, so that a cross memorializing WW1 dead which was erected way back in 1934 for that purpose could remain in place, a line in the sand has been crossed. That cross cost neither you, nor any other taxpayer a single thin dime. It was paid for, erected, and maintained by volunteers on a ridiculously small patch of government owned desert that literally nobody knew about for decades, except the people who erected it and their families, until one busybody atheist with an axe to grind against people of theistic faith heard about it. Then the lawsuits began. The government, seeking resolution, offered to sell that tiny plot of land to a private consortium so that the monument could remain. The atheists sued again under the principle that the government's willingness to sell this insignificant patch of desert amounted to a violation of the establishment clause. Now that cross is standing encased in a ridiculous wooden box, 25 miles away from the nearest highway, out in the middle of the Mojave desert, thanks to atheists who have nothing better to do than crap on other people. I am not even remotely sympathetic to those particular atheists or to their cause — except to the extent that it so completely illustrates just how badly they need to be right with God.

As others have pointed out, this thread is approaching dangerous territory from a board rules perspective. I apologize for my part in that. Good luck with your post-modern thing. I hope it leads you to a brave new world. I'm skeptical that it will.

[marksiwel]

Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If you cannot say "I believe in a Deity/God/Supreme Being" then you are an atheist. If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist.

But it is still a belief system. You believe there is no God, which is certainly your right under the 1st Amendment, because you can't empirically prove it to be true. Thus, atheism still has the central characteristic which atheists object to in religion — faith.

Do you believe in Santa? Nope, me either, does that mean we have a Belief structure going on together? Does that mean your Anti-Santa? Do you "Hate" what Santa stands for? No of course not thats silly.

Not believing in something,and someone else not believing in something does not make them an Organized religion. I never said "I" believe there is no god, my thoughts on the subject are private and none of your business, and your thoughts on your beliefs are private and none of my business, as it should be. If you want to shout it from the roof tops feel free, just dont use Government Land, property, and monies to do so.

I assume you are talking about the Mt. Soledad National War (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Supreme court is fighting about. Its on Government property, but like I posted earlier, to ME if its a historical site it should get a pass because it reflects the history of the people at the time (Right or wrong).
But its also a giant Cross for the dead of Jewish, Native American, other religions and Non Religious people. A Cross is the symbol of a certain religious organizations that I don't need to name because we all know who they are.
(I would have quoted you but I was having problem fitting it all in the box without the message get "weird" and not posting (Is this a server error?))

[A-R]

The MPAA is not censorship. It is a private organization joined voluntarily by movie studios in order to provide a level playing field and unified market expectations with respect to film content. Censorship is a result of government, this is a result of private companies looking after their own interests. Suffice to say, the MPAA is a result of private marketing expertise. There is nothing to prevent you or anyone from making a film with whatever content you desire, but you may have a heck of a time getting any private movie theater to show it or any private movie studio to fund it. This is capitalism at its finest.

Where is it written that censorship can only be undertaken by government? Private entities censor voices all the time. Difference is that if the government is the group doing the censoring, then the people being censored have the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." If a private entity does the censoring, they can tell you to take a hike and that's that.

This is a prime example of the fallacy that private enterprise is ALWAYS better than government. At least we - the people - have the right (and sometimes the ability) to change how our government behaves.

So "Capitalism at its finest" = censorship? I realize the easy response to this is "but the movie studios voluntarily join the MPAA" .... but "voluntarily" is often a deceptive term in such discussions. How voluntary is your participation in something if not participating will surely lead to the ruin of your business? Not exactly the textbook definition of "voluntary" .... more like coercion.

My big point here is that "government" - that scapegoat for all that ails us - is not the only large group of people conspiring to tell the rest of us what to do. Any large coalition of people with the mission to tell many more people how they will behave in one or more aspects of their life is just as potentially harmful to individual freedom. And I do understand that Capitalism is supposed to provide us all the "choice" to decide not to abide by a larger, non-governmental group's decisions. But when the non-governmental groups have no equal competition - when they in effect have a monopoly - they are every bit as dangerous to liberty as the government.

At least we have a right to "vote the bums out" of government. No such right exists when dealing with private monopolies.

Any group becomes exponentially more dangerous to liberty as it grows larger and more powerful. Doesn't matter whether its governmental or non-governmental.

[mr.72]

Where is it written that censorship can only be undertaken by government? Private entities censor voices all the time. Difference is that if the government is the group doing the censoring, then the people being censored have the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." If a private entity does the censoring, they can tell you to take a hike and that's that.

Actually that is exactly the difference and there is 100% no problem with that. If you don't like the MPAA, stop watching movies with MPAA ratings. If enough people stop watching MPAA-rated movies then the organization will cease to exist.

The problem with the government is that if I don't like government actions (censorship or whatever), then I cannot choose not to be a consumer of the government. If I don't like how the government is doing something, I can't decide not to pay taxes anymore without winding up in prison. So that's why the public has the right to petition the government because they do not have the right to not be consumers of the government.

This is a prime example of the fallacy that private enterprise is ALWAYS better than government. At least we - the people - have the right (and sometimes the ability) to change how our government behaves.

No, it is exactly opposite of what you say. I do NOT have the same ability to change the way government behaves. The government does what it does and I am forced to comply at the point of a gun and under threat of arrest. When a private enterprise does something I don't like, I just choose not to consume their product. Monopoly or not, I can decide if the product or service they produce is worth my compliance with their means of producing it enough for me to elect to pay for it. But not so with government.

If we, as consumers, deplete a private business of revenue by choosing not to consume their product or service, then they will be forced to either change their behavior, product or service, or they will cease to exist (that is, until, as illustrated for the past year, the government will step in and give them money to continue operating even though the consumer en masse has voted with their wallets for them to cease). But to deprive the government of revenue by choosing not to pay is "criminal" and if done in an organized manner is tantamount to revolution.,

So "Capitalism at its finest" = censorship? I realize the easy response to this is "but the movie studios voluntarily join the MPAA" .... but "voluntarily" is often a deceptive term in such discussions. How voluntary is your participation in something if not participating will surely lead to the ruin of your business? Not exactly the textbook definition of "voluntary" .... more like coercion.

No, this is not coercion! There is a benefit to joining: increased market appeal. The benefit to not joining is freedom to do what you want, which is a risk. The MPAA members have established a standard that typically improves your odds of successfully marketing a film so it is a great benefit to join and comply if you would like to market films. But there is no coercion. The reality is that the public at large prefers movies produced by MPAA-member studios according to those standards, and if you are in the fringe minority then you can not join and you will wind up marketing your product to like-minded fringe minority of people.

Any large coalition of people with the mission to tell many more people how they will behave in one or more aspects of their life is just as potentially harmful to individual freedom. And I do understand that Capitalism is supposed to provide us all the "choice" to decide not to abide by a larger, non-governmental group's decisions. But when the non-governmental groups have no equal competition - when they in effect have a monopoly - they are every bit as dangerous to liberty as the government.

This is only true when the government funds these private enterprises such as Amtrak, the USPS, General Motors, etc. or when the government endorses or regulates the monopoly such as telephone providers, insurance, etc. Or when the government requires you to purchase the product such as insurance.

The reality is that the MPAA is a perfect example of an effective voluntary organization for a market to self-regulate in favor of the majority of its members and consumers. You may not like what they do, and you don't have to watch MPAA-rated films. There are plenty of them out there, but you may not like those films. I don't know what anti-MPAA people's beef is with the MPAA except that some have some pet thing they want to see in films... they want certain profanity to be allowed in lower-rated films or violence to affect ratings more than sexual content, etc., but in effect they are just about like me complaining about the NRA. Certainly there are some people, a very small group, who think that children of all ages should be shown graphic pornography and snuff films but I kind of doubt anyone arguing against the MPAA on this forum belongs to this lunatic fringe. Maybe there are some art film fans who think that the MPAA and big movie studios are killing "art" but you know, the vast majority of people do not have an appreciation for "art" (hey, I ran a record label for four years, I can vouch for this first-hand). Similarly, I would rather if the NRA changed it's name to drop the word "rifle" and quit coming to the aid of hunters all the time but it's splitting hairs considering the effectiveness of the organization overall. So there really is no difference. If you really don't support the MPAA then stop whining and vote with your wallet. If you go to the movie theater besides an "adult" movie theater, then you are offering your support to the MPAA whether you like it or not. This is truly capitalism at its best. This is the way it's supposed to work.

[pdubyoo]

1) violates the freedom of speech clause of the valedictorian's 1st Amendment rights, and it violates the establishment clause of the valedictorian's 1st Amendment clause.

No it doesn't. It only restricts said valedictorians ability to preach at a government sponsored event. She or he still has the complete and total first amendment right to preach on the street corner, in church or on TV or anywhere else they can afford and to whoever wants to listen. They just can't preach at a government sponsored event with a captive audience.
Prayer is a private communication between you and God. I don't see how government could ever restrict this even if it tried. Public prayer is either so that other believers in you faith can "pray along" and admire your artistic use of the language or to preach to those who you want to convert.

I have never seen one single instance of a Christians right to practice religion being denied. I have seen many instances where a Christians desire to preach to those that are not interested have been denied. There is a huge difference. Bowing your head in quiet prayer is allowed in any public school in the country. Trying to lead the class in public prayer is not. It is easy to see the difference unless you are blinding by the desire to proselytize every non-believer that passes by.

This stuff cuts both ways.

Amen.

Students are not prohibited regarding their speech in public school, as it relates to their own religion. The school faculty/staff is. My neice was valedictorian of her school this last year, and she asked the school administration about her speech at graduation, and they reluctantly admitted that they don't have the right to limit her speech, even at graduation ceremonies. She gave one of the best speeches I've heard yet from a school student, and the whole place erupted with applause. She was not overt in her speech, but was certainly giving credit of her success to her faith.

This is the same reason students have the right to assemble around the flag pole on the national day of prayer. The school administration cannot do anything about it.