NationStates Jolt Archive

"Believing... 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."

- Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

Whittier is throwing around Jefferson quotes, I thought I might post one of my own.

Explain to me again how the Founding Fathers didn't intend for the first amendment to make a separation between Church and State.

"Believing... 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."

- Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

Whittier is throwing around Jefferson quotes, I thought I might post one of my own.

Explain to me again how the Founding Fathers didn't intend for the first amendment to make a separation between Church and State.

Well, if we're going to throw around the "outside documents" as some here put it, I'll accept that one if you accept all the others dealing with the 2nd Amendment as being personal, individual ownership of firearms as a personal right and freedom.

Cause

*STOP OPPRESSING ME!

[bad joke for those of you who don’t get it]

Well, if we're going to throw around the "outside documents" as some here put it, I'll accept that one if you accept all the others dealing with the 2nd Amendment as being personal, individual ownership of firearms as a personal right and freedom.
Yup; in the context of taking up arms against an oppressive government.

Well, if we're going to throw around the "outside documents" as some here put it, I'll accept that one if you accept all the others dealing with the 2nd Amendment as being personal, individual ownership of firearms as a personal right and freedom.

That has nothing to do with my post, but I do agree that you should be free to own guns and use them as long as you do so responsibly and with the proper registration.

Although, I do believe that is no the right granted by the 2nd Amendment, whereas it is a greivous stretching of it.

That has nothing to do with my post, but I do agree that you should be free to own guns and use them as long as you do so responsibly and with the proper registration.

Although, I do believe that is no the right granted by the 2nd Amendment, whereas it is a greivous stretching of it.
Nay, it is an inherent right protected by the 2nd Amendment. THough because it is a natural God given right, it cannot be granted or denied by the 2nd amendment.

That has nothing to do with my post, but I do agree that you should be free to own guns and use them as long as you do so responsibly and with the proper registration.

Although, I do believe that is no the right granted by the 2nd Amendment, whereas it is a greivous stretching of it.

Well, Jefferson believed that you should take your gun with you every day on your walk. No mention of oppressive government in there. And George Mason believed it was more than for use against an oppressive government - it was a God-given right to own, carry, and use.

I personally don't have a problem with "separation". It's just that I've seen far too many implementations that arrive at the following:

"Christianity and Judaism are bad, therefore their expression, even individual and outside the scope of the government, is forbidden"

"Non-JudeoChristian religions are good, or we want to ingratiate ourselves with people whose religion has been used as a recent subtext for terrorism, so we'll promote their expression in a government-supplied forum"

I've even wondered if certain belief systems can be considered "religious", as they have little basis in fact, and are held to (by their adherents) by postulates. Postulates, as I may remind the dear reader, are adhered to by faith, not by any other mechanism.

However, the freedom of seperation of church and state did not come to us from the founders of America, but rather from God himself.
When Jesus was incarnated on earth, he commanded that the things of God be kept seperate from the things of government. This is in the Gospels.

I'm going to mentally slap the first person who says "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!"

Just how is the 2nd ammendment a "God given right" when God's last delivered message was 1400 years ago ... well before guns were even dreamed about.

I'm going to mentally slap the first person who says "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!"

Just how is the 2nd ammendment a "God given right" when God's last delivered message was 1400 years ago ... well before guns were even dreamed about.
It is derived from the God given right of self defense. Should be obvious. Unless you don't beleive people have right to the means to defend themselves.

Well, Jefferson believed that you should take your gun with you every day on your walk. No mention of oppressive government in there. And George Mason believed it was more than for use against an oppressive government - it was a God-given right to own, carry, and use.

I personally don't have a problem with "separation". It's just that I've seen far too many implementations that arrive at the following:

"Christianity and Judaism are bad, therefore their expression, even individual and outside the scope of the government, is forbidden"

"Non-JudeoChristian religions are good, or we want to ingratiate ourselves with people whose religion has been used as a recent subtext for terrorism, so we'll promote their expression in a government-supplied forum"

I've even wondered if certain belief systems can be considered "religious", as they have little basis in fact, and are held to (by their adherents) by postulates. Postulates, as I may remind the dear reader, are adhered to by faith, not by any other mechanism.

I agree with you that it is your right to own a gun, I just don't believe that that is the issue that the 2nd Amendment is addressing.

It is derived from the God given right of self defense. Should be obvious. Unless you don't beleive people have right to the means to defend themselves.
You're talking about natural rights (http://jim.com/rights.html), there, not God-given ones.

I'm going to mentally slap the first person who says "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!"

Just how is the 2nd ammendment a "God given right" when God's last delivered message was 1400 years ago ... well before guns were even dreamed about.

That's a shame that God doesn't talk to you anymore. All that prayer and no answer.

Of course, I talke to God every night, and he never said anything about you.

Stop the gun talk!!

This is a first amendment thread, not a second amendment thread.

That's a shame that God doesn't talk to you anymore. All that prayer and no answer.

Of course, I talke to God every night, and he never said anything about you.
I talk to him too. But he doesn't say a thing about guns being his given right. I never asked about you though.

Stop the gun talk!!

This is a first amendment thread, not a second amendment thread.

OK, I just want to know why I've run into people interpreting this as

"No Christmas displays, songs, etc" (ok, I'll buy that)
and
"Let's learn about Ramadan at school, including prayers, how to pray, etc" (if the discussion of Christmas is OUT, and the praying is OUT, then it should go for all religions.

There should be NO exceptions.

Additionally, if a person of a certain religion views the incoming message (at school, for instance) as being of religious content or context, they should have the immediate option to opt out - not attend or listen, and not suffer any repercussions.

Thus, a devout Islamic person would not have to suffer a math lecture on probability, and a fundamentalist Christian would not have to suffer "Gay Appreciation Day", and so on and so forth. And the rest of us could leave when anyone breaks out in Kum Bah Yah.

People who end up leaving for these reasons, who were not warned in advance of the content (and were thereby surprised, much as a Jew suddenly confronted with a piece of bacon on his sandwich), should be able to ask for the immediate firing of the school personnel involved in the production - immediate and public.

OK, I just want to know why I've run into people interpreting this as

"No Christmas displays, songs, etc" (ok, I'll buy that)
and
"Let's learn about Ramadan at school, including prayers, how to pray, etc" (if the discussion of Christmas is OUT, and the praying is OUT, then it should go for all religions.

There should be NO exceptions.



Agreed, there should not be a double standard.


Additionally, if a person of a certain religion views the incoming message (at school, for instance) as being of religious content or context, they should have the immediate option to opt out - not attend or listen, and not suffer any repercussions.

Thus, a devout Islamic person would not have to suffer a math lecture on probability, and a fundamentalist Christian would not have to suffer "Gay Appreciation Day", and so on and so forth. And the rest of us could leave when anyone breaks out in Kum Bah Yah.

People who end up leaving for these reasons, who were not warned in advance of the content (and were thereby surprised, much as a Jew suddenly confronted with a piece of bacon on his sandwich), should be able to ask for the immediate firing of the school personnel involved in the production - immediate and public.

Well Islamic people were good in math in the past so math wouldn't count as a reasonale.

But Gay Appreciation Day (Never heard of that being celebrated at schools lol) could be a out for Chriostians who deem it offensive.

Kum Bah Yah isn't that bad really though. Kinda Hippy-ish but nice.

But bacon on your sandwich would just be a refund or replacement of food item.

Well Islamic people were good in math in the past so math wouldn't count as a reasonale.


You aren't up on the reason they slid in math. They burned their books (anything except the Koran can be burned). The burning of libraries was noted by other cultures.

Under more fundamentalist variants of Islam, dice can be considered a Satanic artifact - the idea of implying that something can be non-deterministic is anathema to the idea that God wills everything.

People were executed in Iran for this. Including a physics professor who produced a pair for a demonstration of probability. He was dragged from the classroom and shot.

Probably why it's taking them so long to get nuclear weapons. They scare off or kill the best they have.

You aren't up on the reason they slid in math. They burned their books (anything except the Koran can be burned). The burning of libraries was noted by other cultures.

Under more fundamentalist variants of Islam, dice can be considered a Satanic artifact - the idea of implying that something can be non-deterministic is anathema to the idea that God wills everything.

People were executed in Iran for this. Including a physics professor who produced a pair for a demonstration of probability. He was dragged from the classroom and shot.

Probably why it's taking them so long to get nuclear weapons. They scare off or kill the best they have.

So is Dungeon and Dragons satantic in Islamic Culture? You use much dice in that game.

There aren't that many Islamic fundamentals in America I think. Haven't heard many at least.

You aren't up on the reason they slid in math. They burned their books (anything except the Koran can be burned). The burning of libraries was noted by other cultures.


This is incredibly weird version of history. Islam is the great preserver of classical literature that was entirely destroyed by western churches as profane. The Renaisance was brought on by the Christian west gaining acess to the classical knowldege preserved by Islam.

Christians have been responsible for the destruction of many manitudes more books than Islam ever has.

"
Explain to me again how the Founding Fathers didn't intend for the first amendment to make a separation between Church and State.

I absolutely believe they did, so you'll get no argument from me :D ;)

This is incredibly weird version of history. Islam is the great preserver of classical literature that was entirely destroyed by western churches as profane. The Renaisance was brought on by the Christian west gaining acess to the classical knowldege preserved by Islam.

Christians have been responsible for the destruction of many manitudes more books than Islam ever has.

It's not a weird version of history. Read any book by Naipaul.

And, guess who burned the Library of Alexandria?

That's a shame that God doesn't talk to you anymore. All that prayer and no answer.

Of course, I talke to God every night, and he never said anything about you.

There's an old Jewish saying ... you know ... the Jews ... the ones who invented God ... that I particularly like: If a man walks among you and says he talks to God, admire him. If a man walks among you and says God talks to him, kill him.

I think he wants to kill you, MGNY. I bet he does it with his gun, not yours.

I think he wants to kill you, MGNY. I bet he does it with his gun, not yours.

Too noisy and messy. I prefer slow poison leaked via the internet into the keyboards of unsuspecting users.

And, guess who burned the Library of Alexandria?

The Romans

There's an old Jewish saying ... you know ... the Jews ... the ones who invented God ... that I particularly like: If a man walks among you and says he talks to God, admire him. If a man walks among you and says God talks to him, kill him.

Is that why Jesus and the prophets in the Old Testamnent were murdered by the Jews(whether directly or indirectly)?

Dude that saying is why the Jews were scoolded by God in the Old Testanent throughout.

"Explain to me again how the Founding Fathers didn't intend for the first amendment to make a separation between Church and State.

Well you have to define your terms. It meant something very specific in the context of colonies subject to British law that seems to be lost over the years. The founding fathers would have clearly understood "the establishment of religion" as referring to the British requirement that one must subscribe to the Church of England Articles of Religion in order to enjoy the benefits of citizenship. Specifically one could not hold public office, a commission in the military, attend publci university or many other things unless one subscribed to the Articles. They were purposely written to be offensive to both Roman Catholics and Continental Reform Protestants as both were seen as having tried to over throw the monarchy. A hundred years prior, to not subscribe to the Articles was proof positive of treason against the crown.

It did not mean in there mind no governmental involvement in religion. At the time the Bill of Rights were past 9 states provided some sort of subsidy to select denominations and Massachusetts continued to do so up until the 1830s and this was not seen as in any way violating the First Amendment. It did not a wall between government and religion, it meant there could be no religious test for the exercise of rights of citizenship. Beyond that the government was not to restrict the practice of religion either public or private in any way shape or form.

OK, I just want to know why I've run into people interpreting this as

"No Christmas displays, songs, etc" (ok, I'll buy that)
and
"Let's learn about Ramadan at school, including prayers, how to pray, etc" (if the discussion of Christmas is OUT, and the praying is OUT, then it should go for all religions.

There should be NO exceptions.

Additionally, if a person of a certain religion views the incoming message (at school, for instance) as being of religious content or context, they should have the immediate option to opt out - not attend or listen, and not suffer any repercussions.

Thus, a devout Islamic person would not have to suffer a math lecture on probability, and a fundamentalist Christian would not have to suffer "Gay Appreciation Day", and so on and so forth. And the rest of us could leave when anyone breaks out in Kum Bah Yah.

People who end up leaving for these reasons, who were not warned in advance of the content (and were thereby surprised, much as a Jew suddenly confronted with a piece of bacon on his sandwich), should be able to ask for the immediate firing of the school personnel involved in the production - immediate and public.

While I wholeheartedly support seperation of church and state, I disagree about this. The USA is a melting pot- opting out of 'religious' or morally debated events in school does not help anything. If anything, it promotes intolerance and ignorance of differing views.
I support a religious studies class, covering all major religions (and creationism belongs in there). There should be a gaypride day just as much as a christian, jewish or muslim day of recognition- with NO opting out. Students would learn about others views, encouraged to ask questions, and learn that people with widely differing view points CAN get along. Someday they graduate, and all these "anthemas" (no spell checker, sorry) to thier beliefs will be out there.
If not in school, than when will they learn?

Is that why Jesus and the prophets in the Old Testamnent were murdered by the Jews(whether directly or indirectly)?

Dude that saying is why the Jews were scoolded by God in the Old Testanent throughout.

Dude ... that saying is from the 11th century AD ... not sure just how you think it has anything to do with OT. You'll also find that the prophets of Tanakh (what you call OT) generally died peacefully in their old age, except Elijah, who was carried off to Heaven in a firey chariot.

While I wholeheartedly support seperation of church and state, I disagree about this. The USA is a melting pot- opting out of 'religious' or morally debated events in school does not help anything. If anything, it promotes intolerance and ignorance of differing views.
I support a religious studies class, covering all major religions (and creationism belongs in there). There should be a gaypride day just as much as a christian, jewish or muslim day of recognition- with NO opting out. Students would learn about others views, encouraged to ask questions, and learn that people with widely differing view points CAN get along. Someday they graduate, and all these "anthemas" (no spell checker, sorry) to thier beliefs will be out there.
If not in school, than when will they learn?
Yet you are taking away their freedom of Religion?

If the students wish to take a Religious Studies class so be it. But to force it upon them is wrong.
Gay pride is not a religion and there for does not deserve that recognition day holiday. They can march and do parades but no forcing others to observe it.

Asking questions if the students wish is different than forcing a religion or belief system upon them like gay pride or Atheism.

Well you have to define your terms. It meant something very specific in the context of colonies subject to British law that seems to be lost over the years. The founding fathers would have clearly understood "the establishment of religion" as referring to the British requirement that one must subscribe to the Church of England Articles of Religion in order to enjoy the benefits of citizenship. Specifically one could not hold public office, a commission in the military, attend publci university or many other things unless one subscribed to the Articles. They were purposely written to be offensive to both Roman Catholics and Continental Reform Protestants as both were seen as having tried to over throw the monarchy. A hundred years prior, to not subscribe to the Articles was proof positive of treason against the crown.

It did not mean in there mind no governmental involvement in religion. At the time the Bill of Rights were past 9 states provided some sort of subsidy to select denominations and Massachusetts continued to do so up until the 1830s and this was not seen as in any way violating the First Amendment. It did not a wall between government and religion, it meant there could be no religious test for the exercise of rights of citizenship. Beyond that the government was not to restrict the practice of religion either public or private in any way shape or form.

Care to back that up?

Dude ... that saying is from the 11th century AD ... not sure just how you think it has anything to do with OT. You'll also find that the prophets of Tanakh (what you call OT) generally died peacefully in their old age, except Elijah, who was carried off to Heaven in a firey chariot.
Jeremiah wrote about the other prophets being killed by the jews. How can you blatanly lie about the prophets deaths?

walls are a specialty of hte east, der berliner mauer should not have falle. communsim failed due to the poor desicions of its dictators. glasnost is to blame! free speech adn the soviet state do not mix.. the soviet state will show that with the proper dictatorship it will not fail.

Yet you are taking away their freedom of Religion?

If the students wish to take a Religious Studies class so be it. But to force it upon them is wrong.
Gay pride is not a religion and there for does not deserve that recognition day holiday. They can march and do parades but no forcing others to observe it.

Asking questions if the students wish is different than forcing a religion or belief system upon them like gay pride or Atheism.
Trying to offer a content neutral religious studies class would be...difficult at best.

Trying to offer a content neutral religious studies class would be...difficult at best.
Granted, but barring that you should ask the children if they wish to partake of it. Get their signature and their parents.
After that they agreed to the class so its okay to show it.

But to make a mandatory one is wrong I thought.

However, the freedom of seperation of church and state did not come to us from the founders of America, but rather from God himself.
When Jesus was incarnated on earth, he commanded that the things of God be kept seperate from the things of government. This is in the Gospels.

No it came from the Founders. Europe shows many examples where the Chruch is involved with the Goverment.

They did not want their "messes" involved here.

Jeremiah wrote about the other prophets being killed by the jews. How can you blatanly lie about the prophets deaths?

Jeremiah spoke of people who falsely claimed to be prophets, not actual prophets.

The Romans
Nope.

It is derived from the God given right of self defense. Should be obvious. Unless you don't beleive people have right to the means to defend themselves.

Yes and the Crusades and the Inquisition show us what Goverment and Religion can do.

It's ok to slaughter those people because they are Godless anyway.

Jeremiah spoke of people who falsely claimed to be prophets, not actual prophets.
What lead you to that conclusion? Any phrases that Jeremiah said? Or just your think so?

Yes and the Crusades and the Inquisition show us what Goverment and Religion can do.

It's ok to slaughter those people because they are Godless anyway.

The Crusades was about defending terrority and reclaiming territory. Nothing to do with God.
The Inquisition was about power hungry individuals who didn't want other s to contest their power: not about God.

So it shows us that man always follows creed that power corrupts.

Yet you are taking away their freedom of Religion?

If the students wish to take a Religious Studies class so be it. But to force it upon them is wrong.
Gay pride is not a religion and there for does not deserve that recognition day holiday. They can march and do parades but no forcing others to observe it.

Asking questions if the students wish is different than forcing a religion or belief system upon them like gay pride or Atheism.

They are not asked to believe in it. No one should be force to DECLARE thier beliefs. That's private. Forced to LEARN (not believe) about other ideas and beliefs is not violating thier freedoms anymore than forcing them to learn sufficient math to comprehend a paycheck.
I meant gay pride as an example. you can throw in handicapped, nerdiness, culture as well as various religions for recognition. Whatever the KIDS think would be a worthy difference in each other to recognize and say "Cool!" or "You are so.. ah.. wierd." While they don't have to support the even, they should acknowledge the difference and feel free to say its not thier cup of tea. Without degrading the event for those for which it does mean something.
Its not what the event is about, but that they learn tolerance for things which they may personally oppose.

They are not asked to believe in it. No one should be force to DECLARE thier beliefs. That's private. Forced to LEARN (not believe) about other ideas and beliefs is not violating thier freedoms anymore than forcing them to learn sufficient math to comprehend a paycheck.
I meant gay pride as an example. you can throw in handicapped, nerdiness, culture as well as various religions for recognition. Whatever the KIDS think would be a worthy difference in each other to recognize and say "Cool!" or "You are so.. ah.. wierd." While they don't have to support the even, they should acknowledge the difference and feel free to say its not thier cup of tea. Without degrading the event for those for which it does mean something.
Its not what the event is about, but that they learn tolerance for things which they may personally oppose.

If you're tested on your comprehension of the presentation, and you're told to write an essay on Why Muslims Are Good, and graded poorly if you don't go along, that's coercion.

Imagine Keruvalia being forced to write an essay on Why Fundamentalist Baptists Make Great Friends, and you'll get the picture.

The Crusades was about defending terrority and reclaiming territory. Nothing to do with God.
The Inquisition was about power hungry individuals who didn't want other s to contest their power: not about God.

So it shows us that man always follows creed that power corrupts.

Yet the Church was heavily involved with both.

One interesting thing. I read that the Christians that remained in the ME said life under the turk was actually better. Better order and far less corruption.

Imagine Keruvalia being forced to write an essay on Why Fundamentalist Baptists Make Great Friends, and you'll get the picture.

Actually ... I could write that essay. Give me about 20 minutes.

Actually ... I could write that essay. Give me about 20 minutes.

Make sure you're addressing it to Neo. He's the teacher, and will grade you.

Well, if we're going to throw around the "outside documents" as some here put it, I'll accept that one if you accept all the others dealing with the 2nd Amendment as being personal, individual ownership of firearms as a personal right and freedom.
I'd agree that every citizen has the right to bear arms, and that the forefather's intentions were pretty clear about the seperation of church and state...
No matter how much some nutbags here have tried to argue otherwise.
These are the same guys who would argue about the color of the sky in favor of lime green, with lots of long words and references.
*sigh*

What lead you to that conclusion? Any phrases that Jeremiah said? Or just your think so?


From Jeremiah:

8:7-15
14:10-16
23:9-17
29:24-32

Jeremiah not only constantly struggled against false prophets, but was even accused of it himself. Incidentally, he's one of my favorite prophets.

From Jeremiah:

8:7-15
14:10-16
23:9-17
29:24-32

Jeremiah not only constantly struggled against false prophets, but was even accused of it himself. Incidentally, he's one of my favorite prophets.

Now imagine that you're in a class where Neo is the teacher. No matter what you write, you're going to be wrong.

That would be oppressive, no?

From Jeremiah:

8:7-15
14:10-16
23:9-17
29:24-32

Jeremiah not only constantly struggled against false prophets, but was even accused of it himself. Incidentally, he's one of my favorite prophets.
But Chapter 23 says that they shall be cursed. So to kill them is to put yourself above God. You wo8uld be stealing God's ability to curse.

So the Jews did indeed kill people who said they were prophets. Whether or not they really were (hard to tell) doesn't change that many people had been persecuted and killed for following God.

But Chapter 23 says that they shall be cursed. So to kill them is to put yourself above God. You wo8uld be stealing God's ability to curse.

So the Jews did indeed kill people who said they were prophets. Whether or not they really were (hard to tell) doesn't change that many people had been persecuted and killed for following God.

Nah ... there are ways of knowing whether or not someone is a prophet.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and Deuteronomy 18:15-22 warns that false prophecy should result in death, and that God would send these prophets to test the people. Jeremiah expresses his frustration that the false prophets are not receiving their due.

Now imagine that you're in a class where Neo is the teacher. No matter what you write, you're going to be wrong.

That would be oppressive, no?

Yes, but if it's Neo's class ... I'd have to respect his rules.

Yes, but if it's Neo's class ... I'd have to respect his rules.

I think that's the point. If the government is giving a class that you can't skip, and you have to follow their content they way they want (or get punished), it's coercion.

Plenty of coercion in public schools. Of course, one might want to know what I call compulsory high school education (mind control).

It's called the 'establishment clause' among lawyers for a reason - that’s because the purpose of it is to prevent the government from establishing / creating a 'state' religion - I.E. where you had, if you wished to be a citizen, to formally belong to the 'state' religion. As one poster mentioned earlier (Winooski iirc ) concerning the Anglican Church of England and the effect it had on British society. The Founding Fathers would have known about / lived with this - and being the 'children' / philosophical heirs of those who left England to escape religious persecution – they would have definitely made sure that the fledgling nation escaped as much religious tyranny as possible.

Make sure you're addressing it to Neo. He's the teacher, and will grade you.

Essay's done.

"Believing... 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."

- Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

Whittier is throwing around Jefferson quotes, I thought I might post one of my own.

Explain to me again how the Founding Fathers didn't intend for the first amendment to make a separation between Church and State.

1) Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was written to alleviate their fears that the government would intrude on churches. It has nothing to do with the concept of separation of church and state as it is known today.

2) Jefferson had nothing to do with the writing of the first amendment, or the Constitution for that matter.

If you're tested on your comprehension of the presentation, and you're told to write an essay on Why Muslims Are Good, and graded poorly if you don't go along, that's coercion.

Imagine Keruvalia being forced to write an essay on Why Fundamentalist Baptists Make Great Friends, and you'll get the picture.

You miss the point completely. Comprehension of others beliefs does NOT equal endorsement. You would NEVER see the topic "Why muslims are good". That's not what's being taught. What is being taught is an aspect of socialology. Religion is worldwide part of life. Looking at how Muslims believe this, Buddists believe this, and Catholics believe this- its alike in that way, but differs etc etc. Compare and contrast.
Its like teaching the basic colors. Red, Yellow green etc. They simply are what they are. None of them are right or wrong, good or bad. You might prefer one over another, but that does not make one color better than another.

No it came from the Founders. Europe shows many examples where the Chruch is involved with the Goverment.

They did not want their "messes" involved here.
America is not Europe. You cannot say they have the same histories. Their histories are completely different. Unlike Europeans and Arabs, Americans have never gone around killing others in the name of religion.
Fact is, that Europeans and Arabs are basically the only two people on earth to do so.

Unlike Europeans and Arabs, Americans have never gone around killing others in the name of religion.


We're very young yet ... give us time.

We're very young yet ... give us time.
We are not going to kill in the name of religion. Ever.

We are not going to kill in the name of religion. Ever.

I'm willing to bet that every fledging nation said that. Matter of fact, I know that's what Jesus' original followers said and, well, so much for that.

Well, Jefferson believed that you should take your gun with you every day on your walk. No mention of oppressive government in there. And George Mason believed it was more than for use against an oppressive government - it was a God-given right to own, carry, and use.

I personally don't have a problem with "separation". It's just that I've seen far too many implementations that arrive at the following:

"Christianity and Judaism are bad, therefore their expression, even individual and outside the scope of the government, is forbidden"

"Non-JudeoChristian religions are good, or we want to ingratiate ourselves with people whose religion has been used as a recent subtext for terrorism, so we'll promote their expression in a government-supplied forum"

I've even wondered if certain belief systems can be considered "religious", as they have little basis in fact, and are held to (by their adherents) by postulates. Postulates, as I may remind the dear reader, are adhered to by faith, not by any other mechanism.

I can only speak from my own experience, for its only mine that I know, no one elses. But, I haven't really noticed any problems people have with one religion or the other, they might not agree with it, but that's about it. And yes, most religions are adhered to by faith... that's why its religion and not science.

I'm willing to bet that every fledging nation said that. Matter of fact, I know that's what Jesus' original followers said and, well, so much for that.

Not to mention the abortion clinic bombings and doctors being shot.

Yes this isnt representative of every protestant/catholic/fill religion of choice here. Yet it shows that men...are more than willing to kill in the name of religion.

America is not Europe. You cannot say they have the same histories. Their histories are completely different. Unlike Europeans and Arabs, Americans have never gone around killing others in the name of religion.
Fact is, that Europeans and Arabs are basically the only two people on earth to do so.

But the point you tried to skirt is the fact they wanted Religion to be for the people and not run goverment.

Killing in the name of Religion went on and goes on all the time. Shiite vs Sunni, Jew vs Arab, Christian vs Muslim(in Malaysia)

I also seem to recall that it was ok to kill the redman since they were godless heathans.

1) Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was written to alleviate their fears that the government would intrude on churches. It has nothing to do with the concept of separation of church and state as it is known today.


Ahh but for the goverment not intruding means the goverment is supposed to be religious neutral.

We are not going to kill in the name of religion. Ever.

Violence in the name of Religion happens here.

Mathew Sheppard. Abortion Clinic bombings....

Now the americans declaring a crusade in the name of god against another country. You are right.

Violence in the name of Religion happens here.

Mathew Sheppard. Abortion Clinic bombings....

Now the americans declaring a crusade in the name of god against another country. You are right.
We didn't go to Iraq in the name of God. We went because Saddam was the most evil man on planet earth.

We didn't go to Iraq in the name of God. We went because Saddam was the most evil man on planet earth.

Define "evil".

Define "evil".

Keru, some people are under the impression that there's a "right" and a "wrong" and a "good" and an "evil", and that the bad labels don't apply to them.

I tend to ignore labels. They make interesting reading after the fact, but they are generally deceptive.

Keru, some people are under the impression that there's a "right" and a "wrong" and a "good" and an "evil", and that the bad labels don't apply to them.


Nod ... it's one of the problems of subjective reasoning. With such things being completely arbitrary, I try to get clarification.

We didn't go to Iraq in the name of God. We went because Saddam was the most evil man on planet earth.


No, American soldiers were send to Iraq to die because "Dubya" had to finish his daddy's business.

No, American soldiers were send to Iraq to die because "Dubya" had to finish his daddy's business.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm here because it's fun.

Define "evil".
If you need evil defined for you, then you are indeed a sad person.
Evil is something that is universally known among all people regardless of religions or political philosophies.
If you don't think gassing hundreds of thousands of your own people is evil, then you are mental.
If you don't think that gassing thousands of civilians in a neighboring country is evil, then you know not what morality is.
If you don't think that grabbing young girls off the street so the son's president can rape and torture them is evil, you clearly have no compassion for your fellow human being.
If you don't think there is anything wrong with violating the soverignty of another nation, you clearly have no standing to criticize.

No, American soldiers were send to Iraq to die because "Dubya" had to finish his daddy's business.
I am not going to debate your fallacious logic. I will only say that you continue to spout out false logic from all that brainwashing you've been through.

I am not going to debate your fallacious logic. I will only say that you continue to spout out false logic from all that brainwashing you've been through.

NOW talk about the pot calling the kettle black!! I make one smartass remark, and you're saying I'm brainwashed?

Contrary to YOUR belief (I'd try to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my ass), I haven't been brainwashed. I'm actually thinking for myself!! Try it sometime!!

If you need evil defined for you, then you are indeed a sad person.
Evil is something that is universally known among all people regardless of religions or political philosophies.
If you don't think gassing hundreds of thousands of your own people is evil, then you are mental.
If you don't think that gassing thousands of civilians in a neighboring country is evil, then you know not what morality is.
If you don't think that grabbing young girls off the street so the son's president can rape and torture them is evil, you clearly have no compassion for your fellow human being.
If you don't think there is anything wrong with violating the soverignty of another nation, you clearly have no standing to criticize.

I never said what I thought was evil, I aked you to define evil.

Evil is not a universally known principle. The KKK thinks black people are evil, do you? Fundie Christians think homosexuals are evil, do you?

Evil is *not* universal. Evil is subjective.

If you think gassing thousands of civilians is evil, fine, but if that is the case, then you must accept that the USA is just as evil because we do it too.

Dow Chemical has done more harm to the people of this planet than Saddam could ever do.

Incidently, Iraq was a sovereign nation and we violated that sovereignty.

So ... ummmm ... next we must nuke Alabama.

I never said what I thought was evil, I aked you to define evil.

Evil is not a universally known principle. The KKK thinks black people are evil, do you? Fundie Christians think homosexuals are evil, do you?

Evil is *not* universal. Evil is subjective.

If you think gassing thousands of civilians is evil, fine, but if that is the case, then you must accept that the USA is just as evil because we do it too.

Dow Chemical has done more harm to the people of this planet than Saddam could ever do.

Incidently, Iraq was a sovereign nation and we violated that sovereignty.

So ... ummmm ... next we must nuke Alabama.

Keru, I think that a lot of the people here who think they are "moral" and "upright" have no idea how tenuous a hold they actually have on reality.

Reality for me is what I can see on the street. Everything else is just the bulls**t that you hear on the news.