Do we really need freedom of religion?

[Tdcci]

As it is explicitly defined in the constitution? Is it not covered by freedom of speech and freedom of association? Anything past that is giving religion special privileges. Should religion get special privileges, and why?

[jmdrake]

Yes we need freedom of religion. No its not covered under speech or association. You can "believe" something without speaking your belief or associating with someone. And no it's not a "special privilege". After all atheists appeal to the first amendment as much as anybody. (Some might argue more so).

Congress shall make no law with respect to establishment of religion or restricting the free exercise thereof. Some of the most beautiful words in the constitution.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[pcosmar]

As it is explicitly defined in the constitution? Is it not covered by freedom of speech and freedom of association? Anything past that is giving religion special privileges. Should religion get special privileges, and why?

Religion gets No special privileges.Why do you ask.
I find no law establishing any religion, as per the Constitution.
I find no law prohibiting any religion.
That is all he Constitution says about it. Congress shall write NO LAW.

[Tdcci]

That is all he Constitution says about it. Congress shall write NO LAW.

Then it has the privilege of immunity from regulation.


You can "believe" something without speaking your belief or associating with someone. After all atheists appeal to the first amendment as much as anybody. (Some might argue more so).

Are you saying atheism is a religion? Nothing against the first amendment, except that or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; clause. I don't think they meant thoughts when they wrote "exercise", exercise means to put to action, or use.

[jmdrake]

Then it has the privilege of immunity from regulation.



Are you saying atheism is a religion? Nothing against the first amendment, except that or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; clause. I don't think they meant thoughts when they wrote "exercise", exercise means to put to action, or use.

It doesn't matter what I believe about atheism. Atheism is protected by the first amendment and that's a fact. Imagine for instance if you were applying for a government job and on the application was the question "Do you believe in God"? Well freedom of speech doesn't protect you in this case. After all an employer has a right to qualifying questions. Freedom of association doesn't protect you. After all you don't have to associate with anyone to believe in God. It's freedom of religion which includes freedom FROM religion that is your protection.

Let's take another example. Would you want the government setting up an official "church" and funding it with taxpayer dollars? That was one of the founding fathers CHIEF concerns. Again this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You can speak against the church of England all you want. It has nothing to do with freedom of association. You don't have to join. But most Americans would be appalled at such an arrangement. So yes it's a vital right.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[acptulsa]

Athiesm is a religion so far as its proponents cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than theists can definitively prove He does--therefore, faith is required. As far as I can see, only agnosticism fails to be a religion.

One doesn't have to study the abuses by The Church during the Dark Ages very hard to see why this clause found its way into the Constitution. One doesn't have to study the G.O.P.'s history during the Nineties very hard to see why we still need it.

[ToryNotion]

Yes. It prevents the establishment of a state religion at the federal level. It did not prevent states from having an established religion as they had already done and continued to do after ratification. Its also a type of protection of the minority vs the tyranny of the majority.

[ToryNotion]

from wikipedia....

The First Amendment to the US Constitution explicitly forbids the U.S. federal government from enacting any law respecting a religious establishment, and thus forbids either designating an official church for the United States, or interfering with State and local official churches — which were common when the First Amendment was enacted. It did not prevent state governments from establishing official churches. Connecticut continued to do so until it replaced its colonial Charter with the Connecticut Constitution of 1818; Massachusetts did not disestablish its official church until 1833, more than forty years after the ratification of the First Amendment; and local official establishments of religion persisted even later.

[jason43]

If religion is defined by the following, can't anything be considered a 'religion'? If we wanted to start calling libertarianism a religion, is there anyone who could say that it isnt? It is a set of beliefs that can be used as a guide/lifestyle... why not get the tax exemption? Why wouldn't any group of people call themselves a 'religion' in order to not be regulated?

re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom

[nullvalu]

Athiesm is a religion so far as its proponents cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than theists can definitively prove He does--therefore, faith is required. As far as I can see, only agnosticism fails to be a religion.

Exactly, as an agnostic, I can proudly say atheists are just as blinded by their beliefs as christian fundamentalists.

[jason43]

Exactly, as an agnostic, I can proudly say atheists are just as blinded by their beliefs as christian fundamentalists.

Does agnostic just mean you don't claim to know. Because thats pretty much where I'm at. To me, there is only one way to find out, and I am trying to avoid that for as long as possible;)

[nullvalu]

Does agnostic just mean you don't claim to know. Because thats pretty much where I'm at. To me, there is only one way to find out, and I am trying to avoid that for as long as possible;)

Yep, that's pretty much it.

[hillbilly123069]

Without 1, the others are lessened in strength

[familydog]

As it is explicitly defined in the constitution? Is it not covered by freedom of speech and freedom of association? Anything past that is giving religion special privileges. Should religion get special privileges, and why?

Because I have a right to pass out religious material on the street corner gives me a special priviledge? I think you're giving the government too much credit in assuming they will repsect religions under freedom of speech. Remember, the only thing you assume in life is the position.

[Fox McCloud]

Yes, we do--otherwise, the government would just oppress certain people. I agree from a personal and Constitutional standpoint.

I'd tend to think it's Ron Paul's position too:


As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html




Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation restoring First amendment protections of religion and religious speech. For fifty years, the personal religious freedom of this nation's citizens has been infringed upon by courts that misread and distort the First amendment. The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...." would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God.

In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous "separation of church and state" metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty. This "separation" doctrine is based upon a phrase taken out of context from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In the letter, Jefferson simply reassures the Baptists that the First amendment would preclude an intrusion by the federal government into religious matters between denominations. It is ironic and sad that a letter defending the principle that the federal government must stay out of religious affairs should be used two hundred years later to justify the Supreme Court telling a child that he cannot pray in school!

The Court completely disregards the original meaning and intent of the First amendment. It has interpreted the establishment clause to preclude prayer and other religious speech in a public place, thereby violating the free exercise clause of the very same First amendment. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Congress to correct this error, and to perform its duty to support and defend the Constitution. My legislation would restore First amendment protections of religion and speech by removing all religious freedom-related cases from federal district court jurisdiction, as well as from federal claims court jurisdiction. The federal government has no constitutional authority to reach its hands in the religious affairs of its citizens or of the several states.

As James Madison said, "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." I sincerely hope that my colleagues will fight against the "gradual and silent encroachment" of the courts upon our nation's religious liberties by supporting this bill.

source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul85.html

[Kade]

Exactly, as an agnostic, I can proudly say atheists are just as blinded by their beliefs as christian fundamentalists.

I'm blinded because I don't believe in a god?

What is wrong with this picture?

[Kade]

Yes. It prevents the establishment of a state religion at the federal level. It did not prevent states from having an established religion as they had already done and continued to do after ratification. Its also a type of protection of the minority vs the tyranny of the majority.

Sorry bro, wrong again:

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.""

[Tdcci]

It doesn't matter what I believe about atheism. Atheism is protected by the first amendment and that's a fact. Imagine for instance if you were applying for a government job and on the application was the question "Do you believe in God"? Well freedom of speech doesn't protect you in this case. After all an employer has a right to qualifying questions. Freedom of association doesn't protect you. After all you don't have to associate with anyone to believe in God. It's freedom of religion which includes freedom FROM religion that is your protection.

Wrong. Article VI of the Constitution

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."


Let's take another example. Would you want the government setting up an official "church" and funding it with taxpayer dollars? That was one of the founding fathers CHIEF concerns. Again this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You can speak against the church of England all you want. It has nothing to do with freedom of association. You don't have to join. But most Americans would be appalled at such an arrangement. So yes it's a vital right.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

This part prevents that. I was suggesting striking the

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Part.

[Tdcci]

Yes. It prevents the establishment of a state religion at the federal level. It did not prevent states from having an established religion as they had already done and continued to do after ratification. Its also a type of protection of the minority vs the tyranny of the majority.

There are two seperate components, one

prohibits the federal government from respecting an official religion
prohibits the federal government from prohibiting the excercise of a religion

The first part is good. The second part is what I'm referring to.


If religion is defined by the following, can't anything be considered a 'religion'? If we wanted to start calling libertarianism a religion, is there anyone who could say that it isnt? It is a set of beliefs that can be used as a guide/lifestyle... why not get the tax exemption? Why wouldn't any group of people call themselves a 'religion' in order to not be regulated?

Good question! Prisoners have been known to make up religions so they can have a more comfortable stay. Their religion requires them to eat red meat only, etc.

[Tdcci]

Athiesm is a religion so far as its proponents cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than theists can definitively prove He does--therefore, faith is required. As far as I can see, only agnosticism fails to be a religion.

Religion, by definition, is a set of beliefs in a supernatural deity, with rituals and law. Do atheists worship? Do atheists believe in a god? Do atheists have atheist law? The answer is no. You cannot generalize atheists because the only thing they have in common is a lack of belief.

And you are confused with your terms. Theism is the belief in a god. Atheist is the lack of belief in a god. Gnostic comes from the greek word for "knowledge", so when you claim you are Agnostic you say you do not know if a god exists or not. So you can be an Atheist Agnostic. Just because you don't believe in a god does not mean you think you can "prove God doesn't exist"

[Fox McCloud]

Just ignore Ron's articles Tdcci...

[Tdcci]

Just ignore Ron's articles Tdcci...

I've read those articles, even before you posted them, but I disagree. I have no problem with nonreligious cultural icons like Santa Claus, but I don't think religion has a place in public schools, and the justification that someone might be offended is very real to me. Because I am not a Christian, putting up a cross in a public street makes me feel less safe, just as if I were black, putting up a noose in a public street would make me feel less safe.

[mediahasyou]

Then it has the privilege of immunity from regulation.
Thank God! (No pun intended) Everyone needs the freedom FROM regulation.


Athiesm is a religion so far as its proponents cannot prove God doesn't exist any more than theists can definitively prove He does--therefore, faith is required. As far as I can see, only agnosticism fails to be a religion.

Atheism is not religion. However, atheism requires faith. A faith to believe that there is/are no god(s). One can never be sure that there is no God because God(s) existance may not even be possible to be discovered by humans. Atheists must then put their entire faith in believing that there is no god. Do not blur atheism with agnostism. Agnostics hold a apathetic view to all faiths and religion while remaining atheist or possibly another religion. Therefore, atheism is a faith not a religion. Do not confuse the subjects, faith is a characteristic of many religions; however, this does not make atheism itself a religion.

[Tdcci]

Atheism is not religion. However, atheism requires faith. A faith to believe that there is/are no god(s).

I already explained atheism and agnosticism in a past post, I will not do it again. Atheism requires no faith. When you are born, you are born an atheist, because you are not born with a belief in a god. Atheism is the LACK of belief in a god. You just DONT believe. You don't believe that THERE IS NO GOD, you just DONT believe that there is a god. Is this hard to understand?

[mediahasyou]

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

You must have faith. Because you must believe in something. Unless you are agnostic(apathetic). You either believe there is a god or there is no god. Belief is faith as stated in the definition.

Being born with the lack of belief is only ignorance. And a failure to be educated. Once you are told about god you simply believe or do not believe.

[aravoth]

I already explained atheism and agnosticism in a past post, I will not do it again. Atheism requires no faith. When you are born, you are born an atheist, because you are not born with a belief in a god. Atheism is the LACK of belief in a god. You just DONT believe. You don't believe that THERE IS NO GOD, you just DONT believe that there is a god. Is this hard to understand?

Not believing in something only means that you believe it doesn't exist. What a paradox you are.

[ToryNotion]

Sorry bro, wrong again:

"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.""

Nobody told that to at least two states CT and MA which had established Churches well into the 19th century.

[Tdcci]

Not believing in something only means that you believe it doesn't exist. What a paradox you are.

No, because people who have never heard of god do not believe that a god does not exist, yet they are still atheists.

[nate895]

If you think religion gets special privileges from the government it doesn't deserve, you are a statist hack.

[Dr.3D]

No, because people who have never heard of god do not believe that a god does not exist, yet they are still atheists.

No, they are just ignorant. They become atheist when they make the choice to believe there is no God.

[Fox McCloud]

one could just as easily argue that putting up anti-religious articles or religiously-neutral symbols is "just as offensive/disturbing"...thus why all Free Speech and freedom of religion should be protected.

[Tdcci]

No, they are just ignorant. They become atheist when they make the choice to believe there is no God.

No, because to be an atheist is not to believe in a god. It's not making the conscious choice to reject God. It's just not believing in one. That's what the word means.


If you think religion gets special privileges from the government it doesn't deserve, you are a statist hack.

I think it's the opposite, getting government out of the business of religion is anti-statist :)


one could just as easily argue that putting up anti-religious articles or religiously-neutral symbols is "just as offensive/disturbing"...thus why all Free Speech and freedom of religion should be protected.

You're right, they could argue that. In fact, Muslims argue that no one on the internet should be able to publish pictures of Mohammed, because it was offensive to them. No one recognizes that though, because they're being irrational. By the way, I was talking about religion in government, not in the private sector. That's what Ron Paul's "War on Religion" article was about.

[Dr.3D]

No, because to be an atheist is not to believe in a god. It's not making the conscious choice to reject God. It's just not believing in one. That's what the word means.


Well, you have to know the concept of something before you can not believe it in.

Just to be ignorant on a subject does not mean you don't believe in it.

You first have to know what it is you don't believe in.

It takes a conscious effort to not believe in something you have been educated about.

To 'not believe' in something you never knew about is not disbelief but rather ignorance of the subject.

So no matter what you wish to call this conscious effort to not believe in something, it is still disbelief in something you understood and therefore a belief that thing does not exist.

[Tdcci]

No. Let me give you an example: I follow a religion that believes that believes in an invisible pink unicorn. You did not know about the I.P.U before I told you of this, so you did not believe in the I.P.U. There are only two states, belief, and disbelief. It takes a conscious effort to believe, not not to believe. To believe you have to lie to yourself and turn off the part of your brain that handles critical thinking, every time you question it.

[Fox McCloud]

You're right, they could argue that. In fact, Muslims argue that no one on the internet should be able to publish pictures of Mohammed, because it was offensive to them. No one recognizes that though, because they're being irrational. By the way, I was talking about religion in government, not in the private sector. That's what Ron Paul's "War on Religion" article was about.

Not entirely--he disagrees with the Supreme Court's rulings, and thinks their unConstitutional (thus his comment on the 10 Commandments, etc).

[aravoth]

No, because people who have never heard of god do not believe that a god does not exist, yet they are still atheists.

You're assuming everyone is either a jew, muslim, or a chrstian. over 95% of the world believes in a diety.

[Tdcci]

You're assuming everyone is either a jew, muslim, or a chrstian. over 95% of the world believes in a diety.

I'm interested in seeing your polling statistics.

[Dr.3D]

No. Let me give you an example: I follow a religion that believes that believes in an invisible pink unicorn. You did not know about the I.P.U before I told you of this, so you did not believe in the I.P.U. There are only two states, belief, and disbelief. It takes a conscious effort to believe, not not to believe. To believe you have to lie to yourself and turn off the part of your brain that handles critical thinking, every time you question it.

Before you told me about the invisible pink unicorn, I did not know about it.

I neither believed in nor disbelieved in it.

Now after you have told me about the invisible pink unicorn, I can make the decision whether to believe in it or not.

[Tdcci]

I neither believed in nor disbelieved in it.

Belief is active. Not believing is passive. You didn't make the choice to NOT believe, you did not make the choice TO believe so you are in the NOT believing camp by default.

[aravoth]

I'm interested in seeing your polling statistics.

You really think you're in the majority? Tdcci..... you are a mess.

[Tdcci]

You really think you're in the majority? Tdcci..... you are a mess.

I don't know if I'm in the majority, what with all the religious conquests of third world countries, but I seriously doubt 95% of the world believes in a deity as you say.

[nullvalu]

Belief is active. Not believing is passive. You didn't make the choice to NOT believe, you did not make the choice TO believe so you are in the NOT believing camp by default.

a·the·ist
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This definition would lead me to believe atheism is defined as an active rejection of supreme being. Being ignorant of the concept of a supreme being is something completely different.

If I asked you if you believe in Global Warming, you would likely either say yes or no. Are you saying that if I asked someone who had never heard of Global Warming before, that they would automatically be on the side saying it's a false made-up myth?

No... they are ignorant of the concept of Global Warming. Being ignorant of a concept is completely different from taking a side one way or another.

[Tdcci]

If I asked you if you believe in Global Warming, you would likely either say yes or no. Are you saying that if I asked someone who had never heard of Global Warming before, that they would automatically be on the side saying it's a false made-up myth?

No... they are ignorant of the concept of Global Warming. Being ignorant of a concept is completely different from taking a side one way or another.

No. They wouldn't say it's a "false made-up myth" but they would not believe in it either. Belief is active acceptance. Not believing is just... not believing. If I am not skiing right now, I could be a person who rejects skiing, but I could also be a person who is not passionate about skiing. The skii rejecters are just more outspoken about it, and are less likely to use the more politically correct term 'agnostic'.

[aravoth]

I don't know if I'm in the majority, what with all the religious conquests of third world countries, but I seriously doubt 95% of the world believes in a deity as you say.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion.png

Sorry to burst your bubble there, comrade. Hell even I was giving you over 2%.

And another thing, don't go spreading your BS about 3rd worlders taking it up the tail pipe from "religion". Most 3rd world nations already had established religions, and there has never, not ever, not once in the entire scope and breadth of the whole history of mankind has a nation of atheists arose and done anything worthwhile to contribute to the human race. Other than write stupid books and piss off over 95% of planet earth, what exactly is it that you do?

[Tdcci]

Who took the survey? I would consider "non-religious" and "atheist" to be part of the same group.

[aravoth]

Who took the survey? I would consider "non-religious" and "atheist" to be part of the same group.

You'd like that wouldn't you.

I'm not religious, never even been to a church, mosque, synagouge or temple. You wanna lump me into that group? :D

Don't lower me to your level, we are not equals.

edit: Ok I confess, my grandmother dragged me to church on christmas eve 3 times, and I fell asleep during mass all three times. Guess I'm a fundamental after all.

[Tdcci]

You'd like that wouldn't you.

I'm not religious, never even been to a church, mosque, synagouge or temple. You wanna lump me into that group? :D

If you don't believe in a God, then yes, I would like to lump you into that group.


Don't lower me to your level, we are not equals.

That's the sort of hatred you could only find in religious texts.

[aravoth]

If you don't believe in a God, then yes, I would like to lump you into that group.

Awww. well then you're gonna leave the poor lost Agnostic couls out in the cold. Shame.




That's the sort of hatred you could only find in religious texts.

Bwhahaha!, oh yes, Buddah and Christ hated everyone didn't they?

Hatred is a human emotion, not bound or monopolized by any religion. Religion isn't the source of the kind of bullshit you're talking about.

Besides, what I said is true. You are not my equal, not even close.

[nate895]

I think it's the opposite, getting government out of the business of religion is anti-statist :)

They aren't in the business of religion, they are in the business of not doing jack when our courts say that the ten commandments can't be displayed in public buildings, even it is the foundation of common law, and if you don't think so you really need to catch with your history. Here's a primer: England in 1200s=Christian, Magna Carta in 1200s=foundation of English Common Law, Magna Carta=influenced by Christianity.

[Tdcci]

Awww. well then you're gonna leave the poor lost Agnostic couls out in the cold. Shame.

Atheism is what you believe.
Agnosticism is what you know.

You can be an Atheist Agnostic, or a Theist Agnostic.
You can be an Atheist Gnostic, or a Theist Gnostic.


Bwhahaha!, oh yes, Buddah and Christ hated everyone didn't they?

No, but the teachings of Christ are not the whole bible.


Hatred is a human emotion, not bound or monopolized by any religion. Religion isn't the source of the kind of bullshit you're talking about.

That's true, but usually when we find hatred in a society we can correct it with exposure (like how you cure a phobia) and the teaching of tolerance. Fundamentalist Christians resist this.

[Tdcci]

even it is the foundation of common law, Here's a primer: England in 1200s=Christian, Magna Carta in 1200s=foundation of English Common Law, Magna Carta=influenced by Christianity.

So was waterboarding.

[nullvalu]

Who took the survey? I would consider "non-religious" and "atheist" to be part of the same group.

Absolutely not, I wouldn't.

[nate895]

So was waterboarding.

WTF?

[Tdcci]

WTF?

Not everything Christianity produces is good for mankind.

[nullvalu]

Not everything Christianity produces is good for mankind.

I...don't think anyone claimed that.

See.. This is what's wrong with Atheism. It seems like you're full of more hate than anyone else here.

or excuse me.. "Atheist Gnostics" as you might put it.

[aravoth]

Atheism is what you believe.
Agnosticism is what you know.

You can be an Atheist Agnostic, or a Theist Agnostic.
You can be an Atheist Gnostic, or a Theist Gnostic.



No, but the teachings of Christ are not the whole bible.



That's true, but usually when we find hatred in a society we can correct it with exposure (like how you cure a phobia) and the teaching of tolerance. Fundamentalist Christians resist this.

So in my reference to two of the worlds great religions, and in my reference to religion as a whole, you singled out Christianity, yet again.

You hate Christians, period. You are a predujucial hyppocrite that singles out an entire group of people to focus your hate on. You make wild assumption's and generalize all christians as fundamental people that must be taught tolerance.

So Tell me, When do the lynchings start? When does the "no christ talk allowed in this park" signs go up? I love talking to communist hate mongers like you. Spinning words and redefining words to fit your descriptions of how the world should be. Be honest Tdcci, tell me where your hammer and sickle tatoo is.

[nate895]

Not everything Christianity produces is good for mankind.

And WTF does that have to do with waterboarding? WTF are you even talking about? We have, possibly, 1 million dead on the hands of Christians (who have perverted the word, BTW). Some estimates are as low as 50,000.

[Tdcci]

See.. This is what's wrong with Atheism. It seems like you're full of more hate than anyone else here.

You can't stereotype atheists because atheists only have one thing in common and it is a lack of a quality. They do not organize, there is no official church, they do not pay an atheism tax.


So in my reference to two of the worlds great religions, and in my reference to religion as a whole, you singled out Christianity, yet again.

Buddhism is a minority religion compared to Christianity. It doesn't have a personal god, and it doesn't teach you that you live forever, or that you should abide by some law, so it really isn't as offensive.


You hate Christians, period. You are a predujucial hyppocrite that singles out an entire group of people to focus your hate on. You make wild assumption's and generalize all christians as fundamental people that must be taught tolerance.

No, I don't. The posters who disagree with me speak from a Christian fundamentalist point of view, especially in threads about gays and how this country is going to hell because the schools aren't teaching the Bible.


So Tell me, When do the lynchings start? When does the "no christ talk allowed in this park" signs go up? I love talking to communist hate mongers like you.

I'm rather peaceful; I don't have a god that tells me to kill the infidels.

[Tdcci]

And WTF does that have to do with waterboarding?

I quoted someone saying that magna carta was influenced by Christianity. I replied with a less pleasant tool for spreading Christianity.

[nate895]

It doesn't have a personal god, and it doesn't teach you that you live forever, or that you should abide by some law, so it really isn't as offensive.

Actually, Buddhism does teach there is an afterlife.

[nate895]

I quoted someone saying that magna carta was influenced by Christianity. I replied with a less pleasant tool for spreading Christianity.

Tell me who was converted by the sword.

[Tdcci]

Tell me who was converted by the sword.

I don't know :confused:

[Tdcci]

Actually, Buddhism does teach there is an afterlife.

Rebirth on earth, which is different than teaching you that you get 42 virgins. The idea that you get to live forever in heaven appeals to the selfishness in us.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

As it is explicitly defined in the constitution? Is it not covered by freedom of speech and freedom of association? Anything past that is giving religion special privileges. Should religion get special privileges, and why?

It is vain to argue issues while we live within a legal tyranny.
And any civil bill of right in the Constitution is proof along with the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Papers (Publius) that our forefathers designed for us a civil purpose -- in order that we the people might establish a more perfect Union (of collective contentment).
In a legal tyranny there will always be trillions of legal issues when such a government is 95% ruled by lawyers. Even the question of illegal immigration will have thousands of legal issues because the lawyers simply ignore the civil purpose regarding our civil collective contentment. I mean, controlling illegal immigration certainly would make my family, friends, city, state and nation happier. But what do I know? I am an incompetent in regards to the legal way in which we interpret our Constitution while lawyers generally urinate on the civil purpose in which our forefathers originally intended we interpreted it.
So, don't touch the sanctity of the Constitution, please. It is the only value the vast majority of us really have. Ammending it means only clarifying or carefully tweaking it and consider even then we can adjust the way it is interpreted in other ways.
To hell with the issues.

[nate895]

I don't know :confused:

That is because nearly every people that has adopted Christianity has adopted it willfully. That includes the Native Americans, who were not forced to be Christians.

[aravoth]

You can't stereotype atheists because atheists only have one thing in common and it is a lack of a quality. They do not organize, there is no official church, they do not pay an atheism tax.



Buddhism is a minority religion compared to Christianity. It doesn't have a personal god, and it doesn't teach you that you live forever, or that you should abide by some law, so it really isn't as offensive.



No, I don't. The posters who disagree with me speak from a Christian fundamentalist point of view, especially in threads about gays and how this country is going to hell because the schools aren't teaching the Bible.



I'm rather peaceful; I don't have a god that tells me to kill the infidels.

ehh, better que up some grey matter on the buddhism part, comrade. I'd say the worlds 5th or 6th largest religion qualifies as a majority. Maybe you should get out more, you know, see more of the world, infested with people that believe in dieties, people worshipping......people worshipping all kinds of shit......all over...... all the time....people raising their hands in the air.......people sacrificing animals.....people refusing to hurt sacred animals......people praying.....people signing.....everywhere Tdcci......everywhere.......probably right next door......

Don't be scared, they don't care about you.

[nate895]

Rebirth on earth, which is different than teaching you that you get 42 virgins. The idea that you get to live forever in heaven appeals to the selfishness in us.

It is 72 virgins, and Christianity doesn't teach that and I believe finds that belief offensive.

BTW, you might want to either backup your claims, or shut up before I go back to being a neocon just to avoid people who attack religion.

[Tdcci]

Don't be scared, they don't care about you.

I'm not scared, I'd be scared if I were deluded into believing that some old man in the sky is watching me, punishing me for natural thoughts and impulses.

[revolutionary8]

I try not to read the entire threads of OP's like these. I try to speak off of the cuff, with little as possible "influence" by the group (per say) and try to speak from the heart. That said...

Do we "need" freedom of Religion?

Folks,
If we, the people are not free, if we the people are not granted our Constitutional Rights as given to all of us, by our Creator, then Religion does not matter.
It is much like Maslow's Heirarchy of needs in many ways.
If we fight for our rights as individuals, not as a collective group of persons practicing a certain religion, then we not need worry about what particular religion/belief system/spirituality an individual freely chooses to "research" at a particular time in their life.

[Tdcci]

It is 72 virgins, and Christianity doesn't teach that and I believe finds that belief offensive.

Just a minute ago aravoth commented on how I was being too Christianity-centric :D


BTW, you might want to either backup your claims, or shut up before I go back to being a neocon just to avoid people who attack religion.

What claims? I'm arguing philosophy.

[Dr.3D]

Some of us think we are special.

http://dogtoe.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/arguing_on_the_internet.jpg

[aravoth]

I'm not scared, I'd be scared if I were deluded into believing that some old man in the sky is watching me, punishing me for natural thoughts and impulses.

Damn skippy, NO CONSEQUENCES! Lets go slaughter all the Atheists!!!!! ARRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

[Tdcci]

Some of us think we are special.

http://dogtoe.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/arguing_on_the_internet.jpg

Are we doing image macros now? Awesome.

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/3868/atheismmotivationqg8.jpg

[Tdcci]

Damn skippy, NO CONSEQUENCES! Lets go slaughter all the Atheists!!!!! ARRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!

Thankfully I live in a country with a secular government that does not allow this.

[nate895]

Just a minute ago aravoth commented on how I was being too Christianity-centric :D



What claims? I'm arguing philosophy.

I speak for nate895, not aravoth, since I can only defend Christianity.

The claims I speak of is that religion spreads hate, as I have not found any physical proof of that. I dare you to go into the nearest church and find any hate being spoken. The only dislike I have ever heard at church is that for sin and the Federal Government.

[aravoth]

Just a minute ago aravoth commented on how I was being too Christianity-centric :D

No way.. me? And you obviously ain't Muslim-centric, other wise you would have said 72 instead of 42, leading me to belive that you probably can point out every single moment in the bible you hate, but can't point anything out in the quran.

Christianity centric, I didn't say it, you did. But I agree with you.

[aravoth]

Thankfully I live in a country with a secular government that does not allow this.

Wonder where that "secular" government got those pesky "do not kill" laws from.

[Tdcci]

The claims I speak of is that religion spreads hate, as I have not found any physical proof of that. I dare you to go into the nearest church and find any hate being spoken. The only dislike I have ever heard at church is that for sin and the Federal Government.

Ah, "hate the sin, not the sinner". Sounds good in theory, but is never really applied in practice. I see the effects of religious hate in public policy; that not all 50 states of the union have sane gay marriage or adoption policies.

[Tdcci]

Wonder where that "secular" government got those pesky "do not kill" laws from.

Empathy, and self interest.

[nate895]

Ah, "hate the sin, not the sinner". Sounds good in theory, but is never really applied in practice. I see the effects of religious hate in public policy; that not all 50 states of the union have sane gay marriage or adoption policies.

Uh, I still can't find hate, it isn't there.

[aravoth]

Empathy, and self interest.

Must have been. It's such a new idea. :rolleyes:

[Tdcci]

Must have been. It's such a new idea. :rolleyes:

It isn't a new idea, they probably copied that from British law, but that's probably how the original law was conceptualized, and if I were to start a nation with laws, that would one of the first ones on the list for that reason.

[aravoth]

It isn't a new idea, they probably copied that from British law, but that's probably how the original law was conceptualized, and if I were to start a nation with laws, that would one of the first ones on the list for that reason.

Oh the british invented it? Amazing.

[revolutionary8]

Can you guys stop and think for a second?

ALL RELIGIONS HAVE BEEN INFILTRATED AND SABOTAGED BY ELITISTS.

That said, :)
Can't we just all get along?
Think about it.
Look at the Evangelicals- they have been infiltrated by people like Pat Robertson, Gerry Fallwell, etc etc,
YET they still have people like pastor Chuck Baldwin.
Islamo-Fascists are created by our Gov't.
This is what gives the MILLIONS of Muslims a bad name?
And Athiests?
who can blame them really?
Agnostics, why NOT question God, they LIE about everything else.

Let's try to understand one another, rather than alienate (no pun intented) each other for the freedom of Religion we all seek. :)

[Tdcci]

Oh the british invented it? Amazing.

No, I told you how it was originally developed.

[nate895]

Oh the british invented it? Amazing.

Yes, apx. 2000 years after the Bible was claimed to have been written, they made it all up, and have edited in overtime the really good science parts, like 120 year maximum lifespan, and the every 7 years giving a break to the soil and rotating crops.

[aravoth]

No, I told you how it was originally developed.

cave men had laws? no religion?

[nate895]

Can you guys stop and think for a second?

ALL RELIGIONS HAVE BEEN INFILTRATED AND SABOTAGED BY ELITISTS.

That said, :)
Can't we just all get along?
Think about it.
Look at the Evangelicals- they have been infiltrated by people like Pat Robertson, Gerry Fallwell, etc etc,
YET they still have people like pastor Chuck Baldwin.
Islamo-Fascists are created by our Gov't.
This is what gives the MILLIONS of Muslims a bad name?
And Athiests?
who can blame them really?
Agnostics, why NOT question God, they LIE about everything else.

Let's try to understand one another, rather than alienate (no pun intented) each other for the freedom of Religion we all seek. :)

I disagree about the infiltration by elitists, I think that most are either misguided, or they are fine. Take the Catholics for example, they currently maintain theur policies by the book, they are entirely opposed to the New World Order, and the EU, and don't even want to be a member of the UN.

[Tdcci]

cave men had laws? no religion?

Not formally, since there wasn't a government in place, but I think "don't murder me and I won't murder you" was a pretty widespread unspoken rule.

[Highstreet]

As it is explicitly defined in the constitution? Is it not covered by freedom of speech and freedom of association? Anything past that is giving religion special privileges. Should religion get special privileges, and why?

It is not giving Religion special privileges.

It was placed in the bill of rights to specifically Keep Govt From being in Collusion with the Church, establishing a church, such as was done in England and Europe from whence most of the immigrants had come.

They had seen the destructive power and influence that had been wrought with the Govt and Church in collusion, and how manipulative they could be on the populace.

If we made a New Constitution today we might include "No Law Shall be made restricting the free excercise of the Media" and "No Law Shall be made respecting an Establishment of Banks".

Then they wouldn't be able to set up the FCC or the Federal Reserve or other such devices of control and horendous manipulation of the populace.

[nate895]

Not formally, since there wasn't a government in place, but I think "don't murder me and I won't murder you" was a pretty widespread unspoken rule.

You don't know how these rules came about, admit, you have been pretty much wrong in nearly all your specific facts you have brought up on here.

[Tdcci]

It was placed in the bill of rights to specifically Keep Govt From being in Collusion with the Church, establishing a church, such as was done in England and Europe from whence most of the immigrants had come.

I don't like the idea of the government establishing an official church, but why shouldn't they collide with the church?


If we made a New Constitution today we might include "No Law Shall be made restricting the free excercise of the Media"

PBS is great. Because it recieves government funding, it cannot be as partisan or biased as other television stations like FOX News.

[Tdcci]

You don't know how these rules came about, admit, you have been pretty much wrong in nearly all your specific facts you have brought up on here.

Because I didn't care to find the correct number of virgins :rolleyes:

I don't know how these rules came about, I never claimed to have. I can, however, and did make intelligent guesses.

[nate895]

I don't like the idea of the government establishing an official church, but why shouldn't they collide with the church?



PBS is great. Because it recieves government funding, it cannot be as partisan or biased as other television stations like FOX News.

They shouldn't collide with the church because they can then say "Hey, we hate you damn (insert Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Presbyterians, or any other religion here) so we are saying that your churches must get a permit to operate, which we won't give to you because we will find out some dirt on someone in the church."

[revolutionary8]

I disagree about the infiltration by elitists, I think that most are either misguided, or they are fine. Take the Catholics for example, they currently maintain theur policies by the book, they are entirely opposed to the New World Order, and the EU, and don't even want to be a member of the UN.
Is this a joke?

[Tdcci]

They shouldn't collide with the church because they can then say "Hey, we hate you damn (insert Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Presbyterians, or any other religion here) so we are saying that your churches must get a permit to operate, which we won't give to you because we will find out some dirt on someone in the church."

Not disturbing in the least if you think of churches as what they really are, businesses.

[Highstreet]

I don't like the idea of the government establishing an official church, but why shouldn't they collide with the church?



PBS is great. Because it recieves government funding, it cannot be as partisan or biased as other television stations like FOX News.

Collude with the Church as they did during the Inquisitions, manipulation of the populace with the King and the Cardinal deciding what was acceptable and then the Church would make an official decree to back up the King.

Things such as that.

PBS should be completely funded by donations and then it would be completely free. You wouldn't see people like Bill Moyers getting ousted because he was taking the Media to task.

[revolutionary8]

I don't like the idea of the government establishing an official church, but why shouldn't they collide with the church?



PBS is great. Because it recieves government funding, it cannot be as partisan or biased as other television stations like FOX News.

what?
PBS is great?

[nate895]

Because I didn't care to find the correct number of virgins :rolleyes:

I don't know how these rules came about, I never claimed to have. I can, however, and did make intelligent guesses.

Intelligent guess would be that they have found a drawing that seems to say murder is bad, but we aren't entirely sure. Your hypothesis wouldn't get through my 7th grade teacher's "intelligent guess" criteria for a hypothesis.

[revolutionary8]

in this thread.
LOL

[Tdcci]

manipulation of the populace with the King and the Cardinal deciding what was acceptable and then the Church would make an official decree to back up the King.

It's not any better or worse than what we have now, where the church sets the agenda through manipulating voters.

[nate895]

Not disturbing in the least if you think of churches as what they really are, businesses.

I am starting to think you are dangerous. The last time that happened we destroyed an empire.

[Tdcci]

what?
PBS is great?

As is the post office. There's nothing wrong with Government setting up shop against competitive businesses, unless they abuse that monopoly status.

[nate895]

Tdcci I am nearly 100% sure hasn't been to church in the past 10 years, as he seems to make dumbass comments about Christians and church, last time I went to church they didn't tell me who to vote for, only to go out and vote.

[Tdcci]

Though you are not pressured toward a specific candidate consciously, you will support a candidate with church-sanctioned views on certain issues, like abortion.

[Highstreet]

It's not any better or worse than what we have now, where the church sets the agenda through manipulating voters.

It was much worse. And the founders saw it for what it was. It was the same thing we see now with the FCC making the rules for media and we end up with 5 Corporations owning it all. Or the Fed making the rules and they just keep debasing the currency to allow the FedGov to overspend with no rules.

This is the same idea that Paul is talking about in almost every policy out there. The more Central planning you have, the more FedGov control, the LESS power and control the people have.

[nate895]

As is the post office. There's nothing wrong with Government setting up shop against competitive businesses, unless they abuse that monopoly status.

Now I don't even believe that you are in line with libertarian/paleoconservative philosophy, and BTW, I am reporting a previous post of yours.

[Tdcci]

Now I don't even believe that you are in line with libertarian/paleoconservative philosophy, and BTW, I am reporting a previous post of yours.

What's not libertarian about competition? If it can make private companies more efficient, it could make the government more efficient. Thanks for letting me know.

[nate895]

Though you are not pressured toward a specific candidate consciously, you will support a candidate with church-sanctioned views on certain issues, like abortion.

I made that decision reading the bible, my church doesn't say a damn thing about abortion when I go there.

[nate895]

What's not libertarian about competition? If it can make private companies more efficient, it could make the government more efficient. Thanks for letting me know.

The government is involved.

[Highstreet]

Now I don't even believe that you are in line with libertarian/paleoconservative philosophy, and BTW, I am reporting a previous post of yours.

Don't waste time reporting tdcci.

Either he/she is here to learn and understand the ideas of freedom and free markets, or is just here to argue. Neither one will hurt the discussion.

[Tdcci]

I made that decision reading the bible, my church doesn't say a damn thing about abortion when I go there.

You think you are not influenced by the church, just as you think you are not influenced by advertisements, because of your pride. There is deep psychological manipulation at work, here. Neurologists are hired to find the best way to get a message to you. Without training, you can do little to detect it.

[Tdcci]

Either he/she is here to learn and understand the ideas of freedom and free markets, or is just here to argue. Neither one will hurt the discussion.

I like the ideas of freedom and the free markets. There is one specific freedom that I have questioned is all.

[nate895]

You think you are not influenced by the church, just as you think you are not influenced by advertisements, because of your pride. There is deep psychological manipulation at work, here. Neurologists are hired to find the best way to get a message to you. Without training, you can do little to detect it.

Oh yes, it is all one big mind warp, I can see it now. Next thing I know, they are trying to infiltrate my mind when drinking Starbuck's Coffee.

P.S. Your assertion has as much backing as the second statement.

[Highstreet]

I like the ideas of freedom and the free markets. There is one specific freedom that I have questioned is all.


Then let's stay on topic.

It's not any better or worse than what we have now, where the church sets the agenda through manipulating voters.

It was much worse. And the founders saw it for what it was. It was the same thing we see now with the FCC making the rules for media and we end up with 5 Corporations owning it all. Or the Fed making the rules and they just keep debasing the currency to allow the FedGov to overspend with no rules.

This is the same idea that Paul is talking about in almost every policy out there. The more Central planning you have, the more FedGov control, the LESS power and control the people have.

[nate895]

I like the ideas of freedom and the free markets. There is one specific freedom that I have questioned is all.

So people should be allowed to smoke pot all day, but God forbid they should go to church. (pun intended)

[Tdcci]

It was much worse. And the founders saw it for what it was. It was the same thing we see now with the FCC making the rules for media and we end up with 5 Corporations owning it all. Or the Fed making the rules and they just keep debasing the currency to allow the FedGov to overspend with no rules.

They couldn't do this with religion, even if they were allowed to prohibit free excercise thereof, because that would be respecting the establishment of a religion, which they still would not be allowed to do.

[revolutionary8]

As is the post office. There's nothing wrong with Government setting up shop against competitive businesses, unless they abuse that monopoly status.

How do you feel about the IRS going after DHL? :cool:

[Tdcci]

So people should be allowed to smoke pot all day, but God forbid they should go to church. (pun intended)

Pot does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

[Tdcci]

How do you feel about the IRS going after DHL? :cool:

I feel a deep sorrow.

[nate895]

Pot does not infringe on anyone else's rights.

Since when does Church?

[Highstreet]

They couldn't do this with religion, even if they were allowed to prohibit free excercise thereof, because that would be respecting the establishment of a religion, which they still would not be allowed to do.

So you really only have a problem with the Free Exercise clause?

[Tdcci]

Since when does Church?

I didn't say it did, I just said that Pot didn't. I wasn't sure how you were using pot, is it good or evil in this case?

[Tdcci]

So you really only have a problem with the Free Exercise clause?

Yes.

[nate895]

I didn't say it did, I just said that Pot didn't. I wasn't sure how you were using pot, is it good or evil in this case?

I was using it to say that you would allow the use of pot, but putting in the Constitution to allow the Freedom of Religion, how dare that happen.

[Fox McCloud]

It's not any better or worse than what we have now, where the church sets the agenda through manipulating voters.

as if a public school, university, athiest think tank, neutral-think tank, etc. wouldn't have an influence and an agenda to influence voters one way or another. :rolleyes:

It's not like people have to vote one way or another anyway--people ultimately make that decision themselves. Sure, some things may influence their decisions, but they ultimately make the choice, at the end of the day.

[Tdcci]

as if a public school, university, athiest think tank, neutral-think tank, etc. wouldn't have an influence and an agenda to influence voters one way or another. :rolleyes:

Public schools' agenda is set by the government, and you can change the government. You cannot change a private church.


It's not like people have to vote one way or another anyway--people ultimately make that decision themselves. Sure, some things may influence their decisions, but they ultimately make the choice, at the end of the day.

Only in very specific cases when they have the best objective information and are not subject to any pressure.

[Dr.3D]

as if a public school, university, athiest think tank, neutral-think tank, etc. wouldn't have an influence and an agenda to influence voters one way or another. :rolleyes:

It's not like people have to vote one way or another anyway--people ultimately make that decision themselves. Sure, some things may influence their decisions, but they ultimately make the choice, at the end of the day.

Exactly, if those other entities are allowed influence voters, then why shouldn't even the so called religious institutions also be able to do so as well?
Should be equality in everything.

[aravoth]

everything you say

lol

[Highstreet]

Yes.

So in that case, do you think it would be OK for the FedGov to make a law saying that you cannot practice ANY religion, no matter what it's name is?

When studying the reasons for our founders placing these fundamentals there, we have to look at all possibilities, no matter how unlikely.

The Founders wrote most of this stuff to allow the maximum of freedom and therefore Power to be in the hands of the people and the states, which are by natural course under much more control of the people living in those states because of proximity.

[Tdcci]

So in that case, do you think it would be OK for the FedGov to make a law saying that you cannot practice ANY religion, no matter what it's name is?

That's a tricky thing to do, what with freedom of speech and assembly.


When studying the reasons for our founders placing these fundamentals there, we have to look at all possibilities, no matter how unlikely.

Religion was probably a big part of life in the 18th century. Freedom of Religion exists only as an anachronism now that we have science and medicine.

[nate895]

That's a tricky thing to do, what with freedom of speech and assembly.



Religion was probably a big part of life in the 18th century. Freedom of Religion exists only as an anachronism now that we have science and medicine.

They had science and medicine, and we still have 85% in some religion, if you don't like it, you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

I am shocked and dismayed by this person who claims to be in the Freedom movement, I haven't found in this thread one thing that can be said to advocate freedom posted by this person, only more government.

[Tdcci]

Striking the free exercise clause would not mean more government. I'd go to hell happily if it existed.

[aravoth]

They had science and medicine, and we still have 85% in some religion, if you don't like it, you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

I am shocked and dismayed by this person who claims to be in the Freedom movement, I haven't found in this thread one thing that can be said to advocate freedom posted by this person, only more government.

Tdcci is all about freedom, as long as everyone behaves likes he/she wants them too. Communists like Tdcci have do this shit all the time. They try to infiltrate a movement, bend it to thier will, and change the course of it. Except that everything they advocate is diametrically the opposite, there is no way to infiltrate. They just haven't figured it out yet.

[nosebruise]

wow... tdcci is spewing some real ridiculous, ignorant stuff in this thread in typical "self proclaimed atheist" fashion.
lotsa religious hatred goin on ovar thar.

[Kade]

No, because to be an atheist is not to believe in a god. It's not making the conscious choice to reject God. It's just not believing in one. That's what the word means.





Where were you when I was fighting this pitched battle a few months ago?

Welcome to the boards of fascist theocracy. I like your mind, you're my kind of people... careful what you say, the moderators are ban crazy.

[familydog]

Watch out for fear-mongering on the boards too. As you can see it happens from all sides of the spectrum.

[Kade]

Watch out for fear-mongering on the boards too. As you can see it happens from all sides of the spectrum.

The concept of fear-mongering is wrought first in the foundational understanding of it's falsity...

There is nothing to fear from terrorists in this country..


There is something to fear from censorship and too much government oversight.

[aravoth]

Welcome to the boards of fascist theocracy.

Most retarded statement I have ever seen in my life, ever.

[familydog]

The concept of fear-mongering is wrought first in the foundational understanding of it's falsity...

There is nothing to fear from terrorists in this country..


There is something to fear from censorship and too much government oversight.

I think there is room to fear both. Although government oversight and censorship is much more scary. I was specifically addressing your statement though because I felt that is what you were doing.

[Kade]

Most retarded statement I have ever seen in my life, ever.

Dissent from the status quo here, see how long you last.

[pcosmar]

Religion gets No special privileges.Why do you ask.
I find no law establishing any religion, as per the Constitution.
I find no law prohibiting any religion.
That is all he Constitution says about it. Congress shall write NO LAW.

As I posted at the beginning of this thread.
Show me the LAW

Congress shall write NO law Establishing a religion or Prohibiting a religion.

They haven't, to my knowledge.
So this is a baseless argument.
Show me the law, or STFU.

[Kade]

As I posted at the beginning of this thread.
Show me the LAW

Congress shall write NO law Establishing a religion or Prohibiting a religion.

They haven't, to my knowledge.
So this is a baseless argument.
Show me the law, or STFU.

You morons are forgetting part of that...no law RESPECTING the establishment of religion.

and as per the 10th amendment, states cannot ESTABLISH religion either.


In case it wasn't clear, the three people most responsible for creating the first amendment, Jefferson, Madison, and Mason, wrote VERY clearly what they intended to mean by that...

Folks, I'm not asking for an advanced education here.. I'm asking to drop the insanity.

[LEK]

Ron Paul's opinion:

Interviewer: You say your campaign is built around the idea of being true to the U.S. Constitution. Last year, a national poll showed that most Americans think the Constitution established a Christian nation. Do you?

Ron Paul: No, it doesn’t establish a Christian nation. It’s a Christian nation in the sense that Christian traditions created the nation and that’s a lot different than a theocracy. We don’t have a theocracy. We created a country that protects Christian traditions and the people who were there were influenced by it, by the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, and there’s a big difference between a theocracy and Christian traditions influencing the character of the [Founding Fathers].

We shouldn’t be a theocracy because then who’s going to determine the rules of the theocracy? Should it be the Catholics? Should it be the Mormons? Should it be the evangelical Christians? And which group of evangelical Christians? What we have to protect is the First Amendment. And the influence is more subtle than saying that we are a Christian nation, although we may well be and originally were a nation made up of Christians. So in that sense we are a Christian nation but that’s in the very loose sense of the term, rather than being a Christian theocracy.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/229/story_22909_1.html

[Kade]

As I posted at the beginning of this thread.
Show me the LAW

Congress shall write NO law Establishing a religion or Prohibiting a religion.

They haven't, to my knowledge.
So this is a baseless argument.
Show me the law, or STFU.

The Texas Constitution

"Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,
or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding
office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the
existence of a Supreme Being."

HB 3678

H B 1287 "Bible Classes" in public schools -- Passed, now state law -- House Committee Report Version of the bill:

and of course, THIS: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/pbush121202faithinit.html

[aravoth]

Dissent from the status quo here, see how long you last.

How long I last? gimme a fucking break.

[ToryNotion]

The 1st ammendment to the Constitution of the United States
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.

"Begging the question"
In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.

This whole thing really reminds me of the real meaning of 'begging the question'. It seems like some folks are trying to use the establishment clause of the first amendment to repeal the free exercise clause.

I believe the premise is something like this

The Separation of Church and State implicit in the 1st amendment justifies repealing the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment.

[ToryNotion]

and as per the 10th amendment, states cannot ESTABLISH religion either.


10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'm not sure how you can say the 10th amendment ties the states hands in any way. It is historical fact that some states had established churches before and well after the ratification of the constitution as the 10th amendment allowed. There where later amendments that weakened Federalism and states rights but when the constitution was ratified there was no controversy over the states right to establish a church.

[jmdrake]

and as per the 10th amendment, states cannot ESTABLISH religion either.


10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'm not sure how you can say the 10th amendment ties the states hands in any way. It is historical fact that some states had established churches before and well after the ratification of the constitution as the 10th amendment allowed. There where later amendments that weakened Federalism and states rights but when the constitution was ratified there was no controversy over the states right to establish a church.

It's the fourteenth amendment that ties the hands of the states with regards to restricting individual liberty.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[jmdrake]

Wrong. Article VI of the Constitution

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

This part prevents that. I was suggesting striking the

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Part.

And you would like to strike it why exactly? Why do you hate religion so much? Is someone praying in their own private home so offensive to you?

Here's another example. Take the Spanish inquisition. Jews were rounded up for persecution and death not because of what they said or where they assembled but for what they believed and practiced. For instance the officers of the inquisitors knew who the Jews were in winter by walking around noticing which homes didn't have fires burning in them on Saturday. Really this is a retarded thread.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

Good question! Prisoners have been known to make up religions so they can have a more comfortable stay. Their religion requires them to eat red meat only, etc.

Note that despite such examples the vast majority of prisoners don't belong to the "red meat" religion. :rolleyes: In fact Islam has the fastest growth in prison despite the fact that adherence to it requires prisoners to give up pork, cigarettes and other prison comforts. Christian evangelists also have had some success in reforming prisoners. God forbid that someone in prison decide "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was a good idea. :rolleyes:

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

And you would like to strike it why exactly? Why do you hate religion so much? Is someone praying in their own private home so offensive to you?

Private religion is the best type. It's the public religion that causes so much trouble. I explained, in my first post that any legitimate religion would be protected by freedom of speech and assembly. If the federal government is going to usurp the states' power to contain religion, there should be a good and obvious justification for it.

[jmdrake]

Private religion is the best type. It's the public religion that causes so much trouble. I explained, in my first post that any legitimate religion would be protected by freedom of speech and assembly. If the federal government is going to usurp the states' power to contain religion, there should be a good and obvious justification for it.

I gave you the example of Jews during the inquisition being persecuted for observing the Sabbath in their own private homes. There is no greater example of private religion than that. And the states' power to "contain religion"? What religion do you want "contained"? Like I said. Why do you hate religion so much? It's funny that you quote Dr. King in your sig. J. Edgar Hoover wanted his brand of "public religion" contained. :eek:

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Tdcci]

I gave you the example of Jews during the inquisition being persecuted for observing the Sabbath in their own private homes.

Depends on what you mean by "observing the Sabbath". Were they chanting prayers? Protected. Did they gather around some symbol? Protected.


And the states' power to "contain religion"? What religion do you want "contained"? Like I said.

Any religion that abuses children, for a start. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE)


Why do you hate religion so much?

This is just like the neoconservatives saying "Why do you hate America?" if you question the neoconservatives in power. Detracts from the argument and puts the subject on the defensive.

[jmdrake]

Depends on what you mean by "observing the Sabbath". Were they chanting prayers? Protected. Did they gather around some symbol? Protected.


I already told you. They were not lighting a fire. Not protected.



Any religion that abuses children, for a start. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE)


Child abuse is already not protected by freedom of religion so what are you yapping about? On the other hand there are different definitions of abuse. I don't believe that a parent should be harassed for spanking his child regardless of whether or not that person is religious. On the other hand the state gets away with literally beating children to death (http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=73028) in the name of maintaining order. THAT is what we need to worry about restricting. Just look at what happened at Waco. Janet Reno simply claimed that children were being abused and so the federal goons went in with tanks and incendiary tear gas and ended up killing the very children they were claiming they wanted to save. Another case of "we had to destroy that village in order to save it."



This is just like the neoconservatives saying "Why do you hate America?" if you question the neoconservatives in power. Detracts from the argument and puts the subject on the defensive.

No. It's like ASKING A NEOCON "Why do you hate America". And I think that's a fair question. Anyone pushing to destroy the bill of rights either in the name of fighting terrorism (or fighting "religion" for that matter) is going against everything this country stands for. The flag is not sacred to me. The bill of rights is.

Regards,

John M. Drake