NationStates Jolt Archive

The current republican party, under it's neoconservative leadership, has begun a campaign to bring Christianity back to our society, in particular back to our government. This seems, to those of you whose morals are regularly revolted by the levels of commercialism, materialism, and sexualtiy that are so common in our culture, to be a breath of fresh air.
I beg you, do not be taken in. I do not suggest that this is some fundamentalist conspiracy, I suspect it is exactly what it appears to be. But it is no less appropriate for all of that. Government protected religion is not the same as government supported religion, which is again different from government enforced religion. Our goverment is supposed to protect all of our religions equally, and support none of them, and enforce none of them, because if the government supports one religion over another, it will never be safe to be a memeber of an unpopular religion. Would you want Christian weddings to mean as little as Gay weddings do now if the scientologists took power? Or would you prefer to see a Catholic administration make baptisms required to obtain a birth certificate? I understand your desire to have society suppress things which are immoral or sinful, but I ask you to remeber that it was Catholics and Baptists and Evangelicals who fought so hard to ensure that this country had no state religion, so that they might be free to pursue their own beliefs.
When the question of whether to ban gay marriage, or abortion, comes up, remember that however evil it may seem, entrusting the government to be your judge on matters of faith is a dangerous road indeed. If schools are forced to downplay evolution, or teach abstinence and creationism, they can also be forced to downplay the protestant reformation, or teach that scientology is the best way to avoid drug use, or that baptism is the best sheild against disease. If, however, you take your religion back into your homes and churches, if you communicate not by banning abortion but by donating from the churches collection plate to help that young couple that chose life afford a wedding and a child, if you seek to live well rather than attacking those that do not, you not only protect yourself from those who might turn the power of government against you, you will also do your faith and your church a great service.

What a pleasant thread opener. I hope so, too.

Valid points, well-spoken, but I couldn't help but get the indication that this addresses the right more than the left. I'm a Catholic and all, but most of the things you bring up -- they don't apply to me. In the US spectrum, I'm extremely liberal....on a broad spectrum, I'm Socialist with a dash of Democrat (you know...for flavour)....either way I'm definitely feeling that this was perhaps more aimed at the Conservative Christian audience.....

However, I'd like to state that I do VERY MUCH appreciate your points. Kudos.

I consider myself one of these conservative Christians you are addressing this to, and I assure you that all most of us seek is to retain the right to publicly espouse our faith. I do not think it is government support of religion to simply allow one to express their beliefs. We are, perhaps unfoundedly, worried that we will be restricted from publicly declaring the word of God. As for abortion and gay marriage, many Christians (my own opinion on the matters aside) do not support these things, true. However, it is everyone’s right to support or oppose any law or government policy for whatever reason they wish, be it religious, economic, personal or just because they feel like it.

I'm not a Christian, but I strongly appreciate your expression of tolerance, intelligence and attempt to restore a little sanity. Bravo.

I'm not a Christian, but I strongly appreciate your expression of tolerance, intelligence and attempt to restore a little sanity. Bravo.

I concur. If that's how you spell it.

I'm not a Christian, but I strongly appreciate your expression of tolerance, intelligence and attempt to restore a little sanity. Bravo.I second this message in its entirety.

I second this message in its entirety. Thirded. Although I'm not American, so I have the benefit of a detached British view. :)

The current republican party, under it's neoconservative leadership, has begun a campaign to bring Christianity back to our society, in particular back to our government. This seems, to those of you whose morals are regularly revolted by the levels of commercialism, materialism, and sexualtiy that are so common in our culture, to be a breath of fresh air.
I beg you, do not be taken in. I do not suggest that this is some fundamentalist conspiracy, I suspect it is exactly what it appears to be. But it is no less appropriate for all of that. Government protected religion is not the same as government supported religion, which is again different from government enforced religion. Our goverment is supposed to protect all of our religions equally, and support none of them, and enforce none of them, because if the government supports one religion over another, it will never be safe to be a memeber of an unpopular religion. Would you want Christian weddings to mean as little as Gay weddings do now if the scientologists took power? Or would you prefer to see a Catholic administration make baptisms required to obtain a birth certificate? I understand your desire to have society suppress things which are immoral or sinful, but I ask you to remeber that it was Catholics and Baptists and Evangelicals who fought so hard to ensure that this country had no state religion, so that they might be free to pursue their own beliefs.
When the question of whether to ban gay marriage, or abortion, comes up, remember that however evil it may seem, entrusting the government to be your judge on matters of faith is a dangerous road indeed. If schools are forced to downplay evolution, or teach abstinence and creationism, they can also be forced to downplay the protestant reformation, or teach that scientology is the best way to avoid drug use, or that baptism is the best sheild against disease. If, however, you take your religion back into your homes and churches, if you communicate not by banning abortion but by donating from the churches collection plate to help that young couple that chose life afford a wedding and a child, if you seek to live well rather than attacking those that do not, you not only protect yourself from those who might turn the power of government against you, you will also do your faith and your church a great service.


*agrees whole-heartedly*

Interesting post. I, myself (a Catholic conservative--not neo-conservative mind you), am a registered Republican. However, the increasingly extreme neo-conservative sect of the Republican party has abandoned many traditionally Republican stances, so I'm more tempted to call myself an independent.

I believe in the separation of Church and State as it was established by our founding fathers: as a means to protect the CHURCH from the state. I'm sure most of you realize that the early U.S. immigrants were fleeing Europe due to religious persecution. However, I also believe in democracy, and I realize that while issues such as abortion and gay marriage may conflict with the separation of Church and State, they also are a product of democracy. If enough people in our country support a constitutional amendment pertaining to gay marriage, or to make most abortions illegal, are we to say they can't? Isn't that what a democracy is about--expressing one's views and ideas?

I believe the government should NOT be directly involved with Church affairs. However, I also believe that it is the job of the state to ensure the rights of people--especially the right to a democratic way of life.

Thirded. Although I'm not American, so I have the benefit of a detached British view. :)

Fourthed, as it were. I wish more people had this attitude. I'm not religous, but Lupisnet's is a kind of faith i can respect.

Fourthed, as it were. I wish more people had this attitude. I'm not religous, but Lupisnet's is a kind of faith i can respect.
Fifthed. I may not agree with 'christian conservatives' in the general sense, as I am atheist as they come, but this is a very well worded and written appeal to common sense. Well said :)

The current republican party, under it's neoconservative leadership, has begun a campaign to bring Christianity back to our society, in particular back to our government. This seems, to those of you whose morals are regularly revolted by the levels of commercialism, materialism, and sexualtiy that are so common in our culture, to be a breath of fresh air.
I beg you, do not be taken in. I do not suggest that this is some fundamentalist conspiracy, I suspect it is exactly what it appears to be. But it is no less appropriate for all of that. Government protected religion is not the same as government supported religion, which is again different from government enforced religion. Our goverment is supposed to protect all of our religions equally, and support none of them, and enforce none of them, because if the government supports one religion over another, it will never be safe to be a memeber of an unpopular religion. Like say... Chrisitanity? Denver is allowing the Muslims Chant "Come and worship Allah" to be broadcast over loudspeakers while at the same time, other areas are regulating when and how loud church bells are rung.
Would you want Christian weddings to mean as little as Gay weddings do now if the scientologists took power? I thought Gay Marriage was voted upon by the PEOPLE of the US. Are you saying that the majority of the people should have the minority's viewpoints "forced" upon them?
Or would you prefer to see a Catholic administration make baptisms required to obtain a birth certificate?and the equivilate nowdays? You still need a physician or qualified person to file the birth certificate.
I understand your desire to have society suppress things which are immoral or sinful, but I ask you to remeber that it was Catholics and Baptists and Evangelicals who fought so hard to ensure that this country had no state religion, so that they might be free to pursue their own beliefs. you're free to join or create any religion you want. However, you must admit the growning trend in violence, panderings, glorifying of illegal activities. Could you imagine an event like Colombine happening 30 years ago? 60 yrs ago? or even the clothing teens are wearing nowdays. compare your parents fashions to those nowdays, and do so objectivly, and you'll see the increase in provocative clothing.When the question of whether to ban gay marriage, or abortion, comes up, remember that however evil it may seem, entrusting the government to be your judge on matters of faith is a dangerous road indeed. and the alternative is radical religous people firebombing abortion clinics and beating doctors. or hate crimes against Gays or even minorities. by defining it in law, it can 1) protect those who would then be victims. 2) have those who would still take the law into their own hands now be suject to those laws. and remember, most of these were put before the people. and how they voted is how it is now.
If schools are forced to downplay evolution, or teach abstinence and creationism, they can also be forced to downplay the protestant reformation, or teach that scientology is the best way to avoid drug use, or that baptism is the best sheild against disease. That, unfortunatly is in the hands of the States. not the Federal Government. At the same point, however, it can be said that the schools are teaching Athiesm, but that is another argument and one I don't wanna get into here.
If, however, you take your religion back into your homes and churches, if you communicate not by banning abortion but by donating from the churches collection plate to help that young couple that chose life afford a wedding and a child, if you seek to live well rather than attacking those that do not, you not only protect yourself from those who might turn the power of government against you, you will also do your faith and your church a great service.Taking it back to the church is well and good, however, even under Non-secular law, to allow and ignore lawbreaking can make you guilty of aiding and abbetting that crime, and by keeping it locked up in the church and community can lead to more radical groups to the public viewpoint.

Laws provide bounderies and define terms that otherwise would have many different meanings. for example, Abortion. It can be argued as to when Life begins. When is that combination of Sperm and Egg considered a living being. some say it's at the moment of Conception thus Murder. others say it's after the first trimester thus not murder if done before then. Without the Government stepping in and drawing the line, you'll have the Hatfeilds and the McCoys arguing over ambigous bounderies that can lead to a real division in the country. Laws are used to define the Rights and Freedoms as well as protect those same Rights and Freedoms.

Like say... Chrisitanity? Denver is allowing the Muslims Chant "Come and worship Allah" to be broadcast over loudspeakers while at the same time, other areas are regulating when and how loud church bells are rung.
How loud are they chanting it?
I thought Gay Marriage was voted upon by the PEOPLE of the US. Are you saying that the majority of the people should have the minority's viewpoints "forced" upon them?Yes. You do not live in a democracy. You live in a constitutional republic. 51% cannot exercise absolute power over 49%
and the equivilate nowdays? You still need a physician or qualified person to file the birth certificate.
This is a bit odd in a thread about religion. Are you comparing the job of a doctor to be the equivalent of a catholic priest?
you're free to join or create any religion you want. However, you must admit the growning trend in violence, panderings, glorifying of illegal activities.Could you imagine an event like Colombine happening 30 years ago? 60 yrs ago
The murder rate goes up and down. In the 1930’s it was almost what it was today despite a smaller population.
or even the clothing teens are wearing nowdays. compare your parents fashions to those nowdays, and do so objectivly, and you'll see the increase in provocative clothing.
Yes they are. So what?

and the alternative is radical religous people firebombing abortion clinics and beating doctors. or hate crimes against Gays or even minorities. by defining it in law, it can 1) protect those who would then be victims. 2) have those who would still take the law into their own hands now be suject to those laws. and remember, most of these were put before the people. and how they voted is how it is now.

They do that anyway. This is nothing more than terrorism, and should be treated as such, not pandered to.

That, unfortunatly is in the hands of the States. not the Federal Government. At the same point, however, it can be said that the schools are teaching Athiesm, but that is another argument and one I don't wanna get It’s in the hands of politicians. Anyway why do you want schools teaching religion?
Taking it back to the church is well and good, however, even under Non-secular law, to allow and ignore lawbreaking can make you guilty of aiding and abbetting that crime, and by keeping it locked up in the church and community can lead to more radical groups to the public viewpoint.
More radical groups? Like groups that say “here is the logic to my argument, treat it as such rather that this is true because my faith says so.

If marriage is a sacred institution, implying that it has immense religious signifigance, then what business does our government attempting to define it?

Allowing homosexuals to marry gives them the same rights as hetero couples, and it does not prohibit anyone from practicing a fundamental tenet of thier religion, so why worry about it?

How loud are they chanting it?its a recording played on loudspeakers... so it's heard several city blocks away.
Yes. You do not live in a democracy. You live in a constitutional republic. 51% cannot exercise absolute power over 49%so you think that the 49% can dictate policy to the 51%? then what is the problem when the Government run by a handful of people (compared to the total populace) is dictating policy to the rest of the nation?
This is a bit odd in a thread about religion. Are you comparing the job of a doctor to be the equivalent of a catholic priest?nope, just wondering what his reference to Baptism for Birth Certificates was for. Baptism is a cleansing ritual for God.
The murder rate goes up and down. In the 1930’s it was almost what it was today despite a smaller population.Not talking about Murder Rate but the specifics. Can you imagine any child 30 yrs ago carring out Colombine? heck, when West Side Story came out on Television, the knife fight was seen as "too Violent"

Yes they are. So what?can you imagine a time when what high schoolers are wearing now would be considered conservative? can you imagine a High school where all the kids are wearing Bikinis or Speedo's.

(of course combine that with America's growing obesity... :p )

They do that anyway. This is nothing more than terrorism, and should be treated as such, not pandered to.?? sorry not understanding this... I'm referring to the defining of terms. Marrage had to be defined because it was tearing the unity of the states apart. A couple would get married in Californa, go back home (to a State that doesn't reconized Same Sex Marrage) and demand that they be treated as equals because they got married in a State that allowed it and thus under the old FEDERAL DEFINITION are now entitled to the same rights and statuses as traditional Married couples. basically, using loopholes to force other States to comply. thus the Federal Gov. put it to the people and thus the people spoke. so you can't blame the Government, but the Majority of the People.

It’s in the hands of politicians. Anyway why do you want schools teaching religion?I say leave it in the hands of the government, however, the poster is not asking for that. As for teaching Religion in Schools... why not. Make it an Elective course so that it's only students who want to learn. Make it open for all Religions (Muslims, Buddests, all sects of Christianity) Then you won't have Government favoring any one Religion but also not trying to Shut Religion up. and by doing this, you can have the real test for each Religion. By keeping it Elective, the Atheist won't be forced into anything, Agnostics can ask questions in a "Neutral" setting, (School as oppose to Church, Synogouge or Temple) and the students can start learning Religious Tolerance in an open setting. Of course, I'm against the NOT TEACHING of EVOLUTION.

More radical groups? Like groups that say “here is the logic to my argument, treat it as such rather that this is true because my faith says so.well, I was thinking more of the "Kill the Heretic and you will be serviced by virgins..." or "cleanse the evil Abortion clinic with the Holy Firebomb." by having the churches (all religions btw) participating in the community the church keeps up with trends and also can watch over their congregation and at the same time, the Community can watch the religious groups and churches, but by participating in the community, they will also influence the Government (Local, State and Federal.)

If marriage is a sacred institution, implying that it has immense religious signifigance, then what business does our government attempting to define it?

Allowing homosexuals to marry gives them the same rights as hetero couples, and it does not prohibit anyone from practicing a fundamental tenet of thier religion, so why worry about it?I think it's more of an Image thing.

now, the General Image of Marriage is one of Religious significant. thus all the conservatives and Religious people would be against it.

But if you call it something else. not make it sound like the religion supports it but more like the State/Government does, then I think you won't have that much resistance.

Which is why I usually say I am Against Same Sex Marriage but I am not against Same Sex Civil Unions. (and I still think it should have a more romantic sounding name. might make it sound better in everyone's ears and not so much like a contract signing or business dealing.)

I live in New Zealand and now religion is starting to play a major part in our politics.

Recently a bill allowing civil unions to be performed was passed. This meant that homosexual people were able to have their own form of marriage with the same recognition under law, however not called a marriage.

The church kicked up a right stink about it saying it undermines family values and all this other crap. Now they have decided to form a political party to try and rule the country under their Stalinist type views.

While they may represent a more funamentalist group of christians, they shouldn't be using religion as a start point for a government.

In any government, religion should be recognised and protected, but should not play any part in politics. The government should represent the people, all the people which includes those who may not conform with the christian way.

I live in New Zealand and now religion is starting to play a major part in our politics.

Recently a bill allowing civil unions to be performed was passed. This meant that homosexual people were able to have their own form of marriage with the same recognition under law, however not called a marriage.

The church kicked up a right stink about it saying it undermines family values and all this other crap. Now they have decided to form a political party to try and rule the country under their Stalinist type views.

While they may represent a more funamentalist group of christians, they shouldn't be using religion as a start point for a government.

In any government, religion should be recognised and protected, but should not play any part in politics. The government should represent the people, all the people which includes those who may not conform with the christian way.Unfortunately... when you have humans running the Government, beilefs (religious or not) will be used.

but in your opinion, if they didn't have that Civil Union ruling but were trying to pass it off as Marriage, would the opposition be stronger?

What I'm asking is, would that ruling have passed if it was called Same Sex Marriage?

as for the opposition, any new idea will have opposition. I hope they stick it out and overcome the threat to their Civil Union ruling.

Like say... Chrisitanity? Denver is allowing the Muslims Chant "Come and worship Allah" to be broadcast over loudspeakers while at the same time, other areas are regulating when and how loud church bells are rung.
Well, they're different areas. In Detroit they regulate how loud Muslim prayer calls can be.

I thought Gay Marriage was voted upon by the PEOPLE of the US. Are you saying that the majority of the people should have the minority's viewpoints "forced" upon them?
It depends on the issue. In the case of gay marriage, even if the law decides against the will of the majority, most people aren't having anything forced upon them (note: gay marriage shall not be mandatory!)

Majority rules in issues that directly affect them.

Which is why I usually say I am Against Same Sex Marriage
Why? Because you're afraid to offend over-sensitive religious conservatives? Where did their right not to be offended come from?

My point is that if people make same sex marriage a religious issue, then the government cannot prohibit on religious grounds, as that would be favoring those groups who oppose it. That is an establishment clause violation.
Now, if another group comes along and says that thier religion recognizes (such as what is happening in the Quaker and Unitarian community) the sanctity of thier relationship as a marriage, then the government cannot deny them a marriage, because that violates thier free excersize rights.
The big problem that I have here is the government trying to legislate what qualifies as a sacred institution. I do not believe that they have the right to define what is sacred and what is not.

My point is that if people make same marriage a religious issue, then the government cannot prohibit on religious grounds, as that would be favoring those groups who oppose it. That is an establishment clause violation.

But, the question remains, does the public have the right to vote on the legality of "religious" or moral topic such as abortion or gay marriage?

Democracy says yes. The truth is, on many of these issues, the majority has spoken. The government is responsible for maintaining democratic values, which includes the preservation of the voting process.

Well, they're different areas. In Detroit they regulate how loud Muslim prayer calls can be.I can't say anything to that. for I do not know the local Noise laws there. but I do know that church bells aren't louder.

It depends on the issue. In the case of gay marriage, even if the law decides against the will of the majority, most people aren't having anything forced upon them (note: gay marriage shall not be mandatory!)and the original poster is complaining that Christian values are being "Forced" upon them and used Gay Marriage as one of the samples. My point being that for Gay Marriage, it was put to the people to decide. So if the majority say "Yea", who is the Government to say "Nay."

Majority rules in issues that directly affect them.like say... laws and constitutinal amendments. The orignal post is warning people that the administration is imposing "Christian" Values into the Government. yet some (like Gay Marriage) have been put to the people to decide.

Why? Because you're afraid to offend over-sensitive religious conservatives? Where did their right not to be offended come from?no, it's more of a Personal Preference for me. I'm against Same Sex Marriage but not against Same Sex Civil Unions.

The current republican party, under it's neoconservative leadership

When you use hate speech like "neocon", it stops being a "polite" request.

As IF the entire premise of the first post here made any sense whatsoever...

There are some people today that seem to think that the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for separation of church and state. Ask any ten people if that's not so. And I'll bet you most of them them will say "well, sure." And some will point out, "It's in the First Amendment".


Wrong! Read it! It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Where is the word "separate"? Where are the words "church" or "state"?

They are not there. Never have been and never intended to be. Read the Congressional Records during that four-month period in 1789 when the amendment was being framed in Congress. Clearly their intent was to prohibit a single denomination in exclusion of all others, whether it was Anglican or Catholic or some other.

But that's what happens when you stop teaching morals and ethics in school, and instead teach secular, humaninst innuendo, and they all think "It's only fair" blah blah blah...

If you have any doubts about this, I recommend a great book entitled "Original Intent" by David Barton. It's loaded with lots of information into how the actual members of Congress, who drafted the First Amendment, expected basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society, not separate from it. Most of our LAWS are based on these principles and values.

See, that is where it gets tricky. Democracy says yes, but the Supreme Court can rule that the law is unconstitutional, and declare it null and void. Which is why it is so important that Bush gets his justices in (not that I specifically blame him for that, all presidents try to fill any vacancies with people who share thier ideologies), making it more likely that such an amendment would pass.

to the original poster: thank you. Well said, very polite.

and the equivilate nowdays? You still need a physician or qualified person to file the birth certificate.
What he is saying is would you like it if they decided you HAD to get a baptism in order to be recognized as being born...Having a doctor or midwife present isn't the same, and also isn't needed (A child can be born anywhere...they don't always wait for the most opportune moment. It must soon after be brought to a hospital)

Could you imagine an event like Colombine happening 30 years ago? 60 yrs ago? or even the clothing teens are wearing nowdays. compare your parents fashions to those nowdays, and do so objectivly, and you'll see the increase in provocative clothing.

Yes, I could. Maybe not exactly the same, but look at history. We've had lynchings. Hell, we had witch hunts, instigated by children. As for clothing, is clothing from the Victorian age provocative today if it shows ankle? no. Was it then? yes. It is very objective. That is a major issue with the "good ol' days". They wern't that good, people just tend to ignore the bad stuff and eventually forget it. The clothing of the 60's was considered appauling. Today, it is "cool".
however, it can be said that the schools are teaching Athiesm,
not teaching religion is not teaching atheism


If marriage is a sacred institution, implying that it has immense religious signifigance, then what business does our government attempting to define it?
The real question is, if it is so sacred, why do we have one of the highest divorce rates? Why are shows like "married by america" aired? I think heterosexuals have done more to "desanctify the institution" than two loving men or women could ever do.

heck, when West Side Story came out on Television, the knife fight was seen as "too Violent"
Too violent for movies and real life are very different. Just because movies didn't have violence doesn't mean it didn't happen in the real world

As for teaching Religion in Schools... why not. Make it an Elective course so that it's only students who want to learn. Make it open for all Religions (Muslims, Buddests, all sects of Christianity) Then you won't have Government favoring any one Religion but also not trying to Shut Religion up.

you can teach it. You cannot, however, say which one is right or wrong. For example, I had a humanities class where we covered Western religions. We were taught founders, read passages from holy texts, looked at holidays, prayer rituals and the like. None were favored. The issue isn't about teaching it, the issue is forcing it. In an English class, you can be forced to read the bible as it is a book. A teacher couldn't yell at you for not believeing it tho. The problem is many people think things like "no prayer in school" mean that literally. The school can not stop one person from praying. However, they can't force a school wide prayer, or provide a seperate room without atleast offering that same room to all religions.

Which is why I usually say I am Against Same Sex Marriage but I am not against Same Sex Civil Unions

Civil unions don't provide all of the rights provided through marriage.



Democracy says yes. The truth is, on many of these issues, the majority has spoken. The government is responsible for maintaining democratic values, which includes the preservation of the voting process.
The issues have always been brought away from religious issues when voted upon. Abortion was brought to choice. Gay marriage is about every person having equal rights. In (i think) all cases, these have won out in the end because people who are against them dont have to get them, but people who want them have the option

the lack of religion is not a religion, unless it is. Move on

The current republican party, under it's neoconservative leadership, has begun a campaign to bring Christianity back to our society, in particular back to our government. This seems, to those of you whose morals are regularly revolted by the levels of commercialism, materialism, and sexualtiy that are so common in our culture, to be a breath of fresh air.
I beg you, do not be taken in. I do not suggest that this is some fundamentalist conspiracy, I suspect it is exactly what it appears to be. But it is no less appropriate for all of that. Government protected religion is not the same as government supported religion, which is again different from government enforced religion. Our goverment is supposed to protect all of our religions equally, and support none of them, and enforce none of them, because if the government supports one religion over another, it will never be safe to be a memeber of an unpopular religion. Would you want Christian weddings to mean as little as Gay weddings do now if the scientologists took power? Or would you prefer to see a Catholic administration make baptisms required to obtain a birth certificate? I understand your desire to have society suppress things which are immoral or sinful, but I ask you to remeber that it was Catholics and Baptists and Evangelicals who fought so hard to ensure that this country had no state religion, so that they might be free to pursue their own beliefs.
When the question of whether to ban gay marriage, or abortion, comes up, remember that however evil it may seem, entrusting the government to be your judge on matters of faith is a dangerous road indeed. If schools are forced to downplay evolution, or teach abstinence and creationism, they can also be forced to downplay the protestant reformation, or teach that scientology is the best way to avoid drug use, or that baptism is the best sheild against disease. If, however, you take your religion back into your homes and churches, if you communicate not by banning abortion but by donating from the churches collection plate to help that young couple that chose life afford a wedding and a child, if you seek to live well rather than attacking those that do not, you not only protect yourself from those who might turn the power of government against you, you will also do your faith and your church a great service.

I must say, that with all the intolerance on the forums these days, this is quite a breath of fresh air in and of its self. I must applaud you. Good job, I quite enjoyed reading something that sees the truth of the matter. I hope we can see more posts like this in the coming weeks. People should take a lesson off of this. I have to agree fully with what it says.

See, that is where it gets tricky. Democracy says yes, but the Supreme Court can rule that the law is unconstitutional, and declare it null and void. Which is why it is so important that Bush gets his justices in (not that I specifically blame him for that, all presidents try to fill any vacancies with people who share thier ideologies), making it more likely that such an amendment would pass.

I believe you meant to say law, not amendment. No court can strike down a constitutional amendment, since it effectively changes the constitution and the judges must use it as a guide for all future rulings. If two thirds of both houses of congress or two thirds of the state legislatures call for a new amendment, then the state legislatures get to vote on the amendment. If three fourths of the stats pass the amendment it becomes part of the constitution. The amendment can be anything and judges get no say in it. The only thing an amendment can’t do is deny equal representation of the states in the Senate.

In response to the Muslim call to prayer...

The call to prayer(or Adhan) is MUCH more important than the church bells(not as in Islam is more important, but the Adhan plays a much bigger role in Islam than the church bells do in Christianity). The Adhan is required by the Qu'ran to be played 5 times a day for the 5 daily prayers. You literally cant do one of those 5 daily prayers untl after the Adhan. It's also very important during the month of Ramadan, for it signals when you can and can't eat.

The bells are only for things like "Oh yay, you got married..." or "Oh yay, something of mediocre importance happend".

The call to prayer(or Adhan) is MUCH more important than the church bells(not as in Islam is more important, but the Adhan plays a much bigger role in Islam than the church bells do in Christianity). The Adhan is required by the Qu'ran to be played 5 times a day for the 5 daily prayers. You literally cant do one of those 5 daily prayers untl after the Adhan. It's also very important during the month of Ramadan, for it signals when you can and can't eat.

The bells are only for things like "Oh yay, you got married..." or "Oh yay, something of mediocre importance happend".

Hmm, well in Christianity it is very important to preach to unbelievers, “go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”. So, I trust that you approve of street preachers and other evangelicals. Right?

When you use hate speech like "neocon", it stops being a "polite" request.
Many of them identified themselves as neoconservatives in the days of the Reagan administration. It's not hate speech. It's moderately stereotypical, but so is liberal, calssical conservative, libertarian, evironmental conservative, and neo-fascist. And not to accidentally invoke Gideons law, but if I were a card varrying member of the American Nazi Party, it wouldn't be hate speech to call me a Nazi, or to suggest that my ideaology was somewhat fascist. I don't take offense to being called a communist or an anarchist, I merely attempt to educate the person describing me on the differences between my position and those ideaologies. If you can explain to me how the administration is not neoconservative, or what I should call it instead, I will accomodate you.

Many of them identified themselves as neoconservatives in the days of the Reagan administration. It's not hate speech. It's moderately stereotypical, but so is liberal, calssical conservative, libertarian, evironmental conservative, and neo-fascist. And not to accidentally invoke Gideons law, but if I were a card varrying member of the American Nazi Party, it wouldn't be hate speech to call me a Nazi, or to suggest that my ideaology was somewhat fascist. I don't take offense to being called a communist or an anarchist, I merely attempt to educate the person describing me on the differences between my position and those ideaologies. If you can explain to me how the administration is not neoconservative, or what I should call it instead, I will accomodate you.
Wow I hope you stick around ... :fluffle:

As IF the entire premise of the first post here made any sense whatsoever...

There are some people today that seem to think that the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for separation of church and state. Ask any ten people if that's not so. And I'll bet you most of them them will say "well, sure." And some will point out, "It's in the First Amendment".


Wrong! Read it! It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Where is the word "separate"? Where are the words "church" or "state"?

They arent there. It's the words "no law respecting an establishment of religion" that are important. They make it just as illegal for Congress to promote any religion, or any religious beliefs, as it would be for them to suppress religion.
I have no objection to Christians, or Christian beliefs. I object to the government furthering an agenda that is decidedly Christian. I would object just as strongly to the government furthering an agenda that was decidedly atheist. Agnosticism (defined for this purpose as the absence of opinion, or certainty, on questions of religion) is the only position I'm comfortable with the government endorsing, because it is the only position that is equally supportive of and permissive to people of all belief structures. The writers of the bill of rights would likely agree with me, since this position was inspired by the wording of that part of the amendment.

If...you take your religion back into your homes and churches, if you communicate not by banning abortion but by donating from the churches collection plate to help that young couple that chose life afford a wedding and a child, if you seek to live well rather than attacking those that do not, you not only protect yourself from those who might turn the power of government against you, you will also do your faith and your church a great service.
Wow. Finally somoene gets it. Will only more people who post on this forum see what you do: that it isn't black and white, that religion is only soured by the people who don't understand what it is preaching, and that by doing what is helpful to others and not what forces them to do things or pushes certain opinions on them, Christianity and this country as well would both be much better off. Hooray for post-starter!

Hmm, well in Christianity it is very important to preach to unbelievers, “go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”. So, I trust that you approve of street preachers and other evangelicals. Right?
Yes, as long as they aren't overly agressive. I have encountered Jehova's Witnesses that wedged a foot in the door and refused to leave, and I have seen many people on the street handing out pamphlets and offering to talk to people. The difference is fairly obvious. all other things being equal, however, evangelicals are just people trying to spread a message that they believe in, and that seems to me to be the way that democracy works.

its a recording played on loudspeakers... so it's heard several city blocks away.
so you think that the 49% can dictate policy to the 51%? then what is the problem when the Government run by a handful of people (compared to the total populace) is dictating policy to the rest of the nation?
nope, just wondering what his reference to Baptism for Birth Certificates was for. Baptism is a cleansing ritual for God.
Not talking about Murder Rate but the specifics. Can you imagine any child 30 yrs ago carring out Colombine? heck, when West Side Story came out on Television, the knife fight was seen as "too Violent"
Not only can I imagine it, I've heard alot about what used to go on at, for example, boarding schools. The alcohol related deaths and sexual activity may be increased now, but the brutality is actually considerably less.
Besides, the knife fight in West Side Story IS incredibly violent. It's just in the faces of the actors, rather than the gore or the effects.

can you imagine a time when what high schoolers are wearing now would be considered conservative? can you imagine a High school where all the kids are wearing Bikinis or Speedo's.

(of course combine that with America's growing obesity... :p )

Of course I can. I also imagine that the rebellious kids will dress more conservatively, to get a reaction from people. What high schoolers wear now might not be conservative by any historical american standard, but they aren't breaking and wrapping their feet, cracking their ribs, or casually duelling with swords over minor insults.
As for the obesity issue, in the end it always comes down to an individual decision, by each and every person, as to what is more important. It's just that to alot of people, conveniance and taste are more important than health. A century ago, most people were skinny because most people couldn't afford much food, and had to work fairly hard.

?? sorry not understanding this... I'm referring to the defining of terms. Marrage had to be defined because it was tearing the unity of the states apart. A couple would get married in Californa, go back home (to a State that doesn't reconized Same Sex Marrage) and demand that they be treated as equals because they got married in a State that allowed it and thus under the old FEDERAL DEFINITION are now entitled to the same rights and statuses as traditional Married couples. basically, using loopholes to force other States to comply. thus the Federal Gov. put it to the people and thus the people spoke. so you can't blame the Government, but the Majority of the People.
Marriage didn't have to be defined at all, because it didn't have to be a governmental issue. The only reason that gay marraige became a court case is that the government recognizes heterosexual marraige, and provides incentives to those who are so inclined. If it didn't offer anything more or less complicated than a civil union with some minor tax breaks and the legal next of kin status, the only people who would care are the people who are offended by the idea that gay people don't have to be ashamed to be known in public. I have no more sympathy for that notion than I do for the notion that those who are heterosexual should be shunned. As for putting the issue to the people, it shouldn't have been. The reason that we have all those layers of government between voters and judges is to prevent the will of the majority, that is to say, popular opinion, from affecting how laws are applied. We do not live in a democracy because our founders were very concerned about the danger of 51% of the people wielding significant amounts of power over the rest. You might be able to get a popular vote in favor of a constitutional amendment revoking the citizenship of everyone named Hector, but that wouldn't make it a good thing, nor would it be in keeping with the intent of the nations founders.

I say leave it in the hands of the government, however, the poster is not asking for that. As for teaching Religion in Schools... why not. Make it an Elective course so that it's only students who want to learn. Make it open for all Religions (Muslims, Buddests, all sects of Christianity) Then you won't have Government favoring any one Religion but also not trying to Shut Religion up. and by doing this, you can have the real test for each Religion. By keeping it Elective, the Atheist won't be forced into anything, Agnostics can ask questions in a "Neutral" setting, (School as oppose to Church, Synogouge or Temple) and the students can start learning Religious Tolerance in an open setting. Of course, I'm against the NOT TEACHING of EVOLUTION.
No, I don't want it left to the government. Or the people. I like the idea of offering various comparative religions classes in schools. I would suggest, however, that they should be kept very broad, because offering, say, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Western Paganism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Atheism, Deism, Secular Humanism, Unitarian Universalism...
Well let's just say that trying to teach details of every religion would doubtless result in alot of cut corners, and if you get the same effect as, say, my middle school history classes, you might find yourself in a discussion of Catholocism that doesn't mention the concept of saints, or a discussion of Islam that doesnt mention Mecca. Basically, I feel that schools should steer clear of teaching religion becase I feel that that schools should endeavour to be as complete, coherent, and accurate as possible, and it is impossible to do justice to the subject with the limited resources of most public schools.


well, I was thinking more of the "Kill the Heretic and you will be serviced by virgins..." or "cleanse the evil Abortion clinic with the Holy Firebomb." by having the churches (all religions btw) participating in the community the church keeps up with trends and also can watch over their congregation and at the same time, the Community can watch the religious groups and churches, but by participating in the community, they will also influence the Government (Local, State and Federal.)
I agree. I agree completely. I simply feel that the religious community would be wise to deliberately avoid influencing the government, because it would be bad for that influence to flow backwards.

When the question of whether to ban gay marriage, or abortion, comes up, remember that however evil it may seem, entrusting the government to be your judge on matters of faith is a dangerous road indeed.


I think that actually they're going for the opposite; entrusting their faith to guild them on matters of government

While I don't like the idea of religion involving itself with religion at the federal level, I do think that communities should have some right to express their religion publically.

Many of the things Christians are asking for are no so ridiculous, were they to be confined to the community level.

I think that actually they're going for the opposite; entrusting their faith to guild them on matters of government
But if they trust too much to their faith, they set a precedent for government. The government cannot be influenced by faith without affirming some faiths, or some parts of a faith, and rejecting others. The affirming and rejecting of faith is then made a part of government, and so it becomes a judge of the worth of those faiths.

But if they trust too much to their faith, they set a precedent for government.

but a precident for the government to do what? the government is following the will of the voters; take gay marriage for example - the government didn't move against it because it was trying to push Christian values but rather Christian voters pulled big enough majorities to force the government to work against it

The government cannot be influenced by faith without affirming some faiths, or some parts of a faith, and rejecting others.

but again we see the division, the governemnt is not affirming Christianity only affirming what the majority wants in terms of policy, and of course since the majority is Christian.....

Thirded. Although I'm not American, so I have the benefit of a detached British view. :)

Ditto :)

but a precident for the government to do what? the government is following the will of the voters; take gay marriage for example - the government didn't move against it because it was trying to push Christian values but rather Christian voters pulled big enough majorities to force the government to work against it
It doesn't matter. See below.


but again we see the division, the governemnt is not affirming Christianity only affirming what the majority wants in terms of policy, and of course since the majority is Christian.....
The government IS affirming Christianity because the majority of voters are Christian. There was a similar debate in Virginia under the articles of Confederation, when the voters approved a tax that was used to buy land for Baptist churches. Jefferson fought admantly against it because even though it was approved by the majority, it was still discriminatory. It was part of the inspiration for Monroe when he drafted the bill of rights.

While I don't like the idea of religion involving itself with religion at the federal level, I do think that communities should have some right to express their religion publically.

Many of the things Christians are asking for are no so ridiculous, were they to be confined to the community level.
No, they seem perfectly reasonable. Ultimately, however, if the same conflict arises on a smaller scale, the community would simply be a religiously oppressive state in microcosm. I do, however, agree that communities should have more independence in such matters than they currently do.

No, they seem perfectly reasonable. Ultimately, however, if the same conflict arises on a smaller scale, the community would simply be a religiously oppressive state in microcosm. I do, however, agree that communities should have more independence in such matters than they currently do.

How so? For example, allowing communities to determine whether prayer should be allowed in school does not seem prima facia oppressive to me: actually, it may increase the communities ability to freely express itself. There must be limits of course: rules which restrict the freedom of minority (or majority) members such not be allowed.

The current republican party, under it's neoconservative leadership, has begun a campaign to bring Christianity back to our society, in particular back to our government. This seems, to those of you whose morals are regularly revolted by the levels of commercialism, materialism, and sexualtiy that are so common in our culture, to be a breath of fresh air.
I beg you, do not be taken in. I do not suggest that this is some fundamentalist conspiracy, I suspect it is exactly what it appears to be. But it is no less appropriate for all of that. Government protected religion is not the same as government supported religion, which is again different from government enforced religion. Our goverment is supposed to protect all of our religions equally, and support none of them, and enforce none of them, because if the government supports one religion over another, it will never be safe to be a memeber of an unpopular religion. Would you want Christian weddings to mean as little as Gay weddings do now if the scientologists took power? Or would you prefer to see a Catholic administration make baptisms required to obtain a birth certificate? I understand your desire to have society suppress things which are immoral or sinful, but I ask you to remeber that it was Catholics and Baptists and Evangelicals who fought so hard to ensure that this country had no state religion, so that they might be free to pursue their own beliefs.
When the question of whether to ban gay marriage, or abortion, comes up, remember that however evil it may seem, entrusting the government to be your judge on matters of faith is a dangerous road indeed. If schools are forced to downplay evolution, or teach abstinence and creationism, they can also be forced to downplay the protestant reformation, or teach that scientology is the best way to avoid drug use, or that baptism is the best sheild against disease. If, however, you take your religion back into your homes and churches, if you communicate not by banning abortion but by donating from the churches collection plate to help that young couple that chose life afford a wedding and a child, if you seek to live well rather than attacking those that do not, you not only protect yourself from those who might turn the power of government against you, you will also do your faith and your church a great service.


Then I would suggest a proposal in trade. Could you please get the people at Air America off the anti-Christian flaming? As well as a few spokespeople for the Democratic Party?

I'd like to listen to Air America more often, but at least once a day, Al Franken has something horrible to say about Christians. So I change the channel.

How so? For example, allowing communities to determine whether prayer should be allowed in school does not seem prima facia oppressive to me: actually, it may increase the communities ability to freely express itself. There must be limits of course: rules which restrict the freedom of minority (or majority) members such not be allowed.
And where exactly is prayer NOT allowed in school now?

How so? For example, allowing communities to determine whether prayer should be allowed in school does not seem prima facia oppressive to me: actually, it may increase the communities ability to freely express itself. There must be limits of course: rules which restrict the freedom of minority (or majority) members such not be allowed.

There is nowhere where prayer is banned in school. What is banned is school-led prayer, meaning the teacher leads it.

There is nowhere where prayer is banned in school. What is banned is school-led prayer, meaning the teacher leads it.

Prayer is also banned if it is two or more students together, during school hours, even if student-led. Student-led group prayer may only take place before and after school.

There are some places, however, that are making exceptions for Muslims by supplying them with separate rooms and allowing them to have group prayer several times a day.

I believe this is a violation. If my daughter, as a Christian, is not allowed group prayer, then neither should anyone else.

Hmm, well in Christianity it is very important to preach to unbelievers, “go forth and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”. So, I trust that you approve of street preachers and other evangelicals. Right?

I don't get what that has to do with my post. My post was about how Muslims need the Adhan to pray, and the christians don't. Where do street preachers and other evangelicals come in?

Prayer is also banned if it is two or more students together, during school hours, even if student-led. Student-led group prayer may only take place before and after school.

There are some places, however, that are making exceptions for Muslims by supplying them with separate rooms and allowing them to have group prayer several times a day.

I believe this is a violation. If my daughter, as a Christian, is not allowed group prayer, then neither should anyone else.

Islam isn't christianity with Allah paint on it, WL! They all have to pray at roughly the same time! Of course they're going to pray together! You have to understand, their religion is different. Do Christians need to all pray at the same time? No. So schools won't let them. Do Muslims? Yes. It even says so in the Qu'ran.

Also, the Muslim Holy Day is Friday, yet do they get it off? No. How about if Muslim children do not get their holy day off, then nobody else does, hmmm?

Islam isn't christianity with Allah paint on it, WL! They all have to pray at roughly the same time! Of course they're going to pray together! You have to understand, their religion is different. Do Christians need to all pray at the same time? No. So schools won't let them. Do Muslims? Yes. It even says so in the Qu'ran.

Also, the Muslim Holy Day is Friday, yet do they get it off? No. How about if Muslim children do not get their holy day off, then nobody else does, hmmm?

Pentacostals believe in the power of prayer, especially group prayer. They also believe that you should pray right when you think you need to - not wait until later.

Christianity is not all the same color of paint, Lightning Star. So we should let the Pentacostals pray in groups as well...

No, no one else in our school district gets Friday off, unless it's a teacher work day, or the day after Thanksgiving (which technically is a shopping day, not a religious holiday).

As far as I'm concerned, if everyone else is not allowed to exercise their freedom of religious expression in a public school, then NO ONE should be allowed to. At all.

Pentacostals believe in the power of prayer, especially group prayer. They also believe that you should pray right when you think you need to - not wait until later.

Christianity is not all the same color of paint, Lightning Star. So we should let the Pentacostals pray in groups as well...

No, no one else in our school district gets Friday off, unless it's a teacher work day, or the day after Thanksgiving (which technically is a shopping day, not a religious holiday).

As far as I'm concerned, if everyone else is not allowed to exercise their freedom of religious expression in a public school, then NO ONE should be allowed to. At all.
He was meaning somehow sunday is a traditional day off and if we tried to move the weekend to like a friday saturday with the work week starting sunday that would be absolutly un acceptable but we dont seem to care that they need friday not sunday off to celebrate

(I personaly dont agree but thats different ... I think thats what he was geting at)

Islam isn't christianity with Allah paint on it, WL! They all have to pray at roughly the same time! Of course they're going to pray together! You have to understand, their religion is different. Do Christians need to all pray at the same time? No. So schools won't let them. Do Muslims? Yes. It even says so in the Qu'ran.

Also, the Muslim Holy Day is Friday, yet do they get it off? No. How about if Muslim children do not get their holy day off, then nobody else does, hmmm?

Are you suggesting a seven day school week? Or are you suggesting that the weekend be moved to monday and tuesday to spite the Christians and Jews?

That fact that the Muslim children need to pray at the same time is irrelevant. The school should not be providing them with a room, and if they are excused from any school related activity, than that same kind of excuse should be available to Christians, Jews, Pagans, and Atheists. I know it sounds rediculous to grant every student , say, fifteen minutes at the time of their choice to allow them to pray or not pray in the manner they choose, but otherwise the schools are effectively endorsing some forms of religion over others.

How so? For example, allowing communities to determine whether prayer should be allowed in school does not seem prima facia oppressive to me: actually, it may increase the communities ability to freely express itself. There must be limits of course: rules which restrict the freedom of minority (or majority) members such not be allowed.
It's the limits that I was concerned about. Those are the only thing the Federal government really needs to have set up anyway. You do run into some danger, however when a sixteen year old sneaks out of a community that, say, bans the sale of marijuana to go to a community that doesn't, or crosses state lines to get a legal abortion, or something, but the good faith clause in the constitution makes me think that as anoying as something like that may be to those in the less permissive communities, they would probably just have to deal with it. It's not particularly optimal, but it's better than anything else I can come up with.

And where exactly is prayer NOT allowed in school now?
Actually, since I've graduated, my high school has done away with the prayer gruops that meet before and/or after school (several Christian groups, one or two Jewish groups, and a significantly minor Islam group...what can you expect from a high school that's 96% upper class white kids?), as well as discouraged individual prayer as well...and this is in the middle of the Midwest. Kids are probably still offering up a plea to God before tests they didn't study for (or they're writing the answers on the chair in front of them), but it's still silent and private.

Originally, when the school started seeing a representation of Islam in the schools, they were willing to let them go pray AWAY from the other students, but then the Christians and the Jews started whining about it. Saying that if the Muslims could pray during school, they should be allowed to. Rather than playing into the hands of the brats, many of which probably just want to get out of class, they did away with it altogether. So now, because of school attendance, the Muslim students are being punished, so to speak, by not having the chance to pray when their religion says they need to pray, while the other religious groups are merely sitting back and muttering about the inconvenience of having to stay the full period in EuroLitH or PreCalc.

Does this sound fair?

Simonist']Originally, when the school started seeing a representation of Islam in the schools, they were willing to let them go pray AWAY from the other students, but then the Christians and the Jews started whining about it. Saying that if the Muslims could pray during school, they should be allowed to. Rather than playing into the hands of the brats, many of which probably just want to get out of class, they did away with it altogether. So now, because of school attendance, the Muslim students are being punished, so to speak, by not having the chance to pray when their religion says they need to pray, while the other religious groups are merely sitting back and muttering about the inconvenience of having to stay the full period in EuroLitH or PreCalc.

Does this sound fair?

Yes it does. Pentacostals should be allowed to pray in groups whenever the need strikes them. Since they are not allowed to pray in groups, no one else should be allowed to either.

I think a lot of school districts did that for Muslims out of some misguided political correctness - "oh, gee, if we just let them pray five times a day undisturbed, they won't wear an explosive vest to school, and their dad won't hijack an airliner and fly it into the mayor's house"

It was a stupid idea, especially after an even-handed policy that restricted everyone from praying during school hours in groups (whether student-led or not).

You're either fair, or your not. Letting one group pray in groups because you fear them is not fair.

Wow! interesting view all around. but back to the first post.

Religion is the basis for one's point in life (even if it's a lack of Religion) anyone put into a position to dictate policy (even in a large body like the Government) they will be dictated by that person's belief. Weither Christian, Muslim, or Atheist. That is ineveitable. the only way around that is to truly be Democratic. Meaning any and all Issues are Voted upon by the People. And everyone is then forced to live in a "Majority Rules" society.

Simonist']Actually, since I've graduated, my high school has done away with the prayer gruops that meet before and/or after school (several Christian groups, one or two Jewish groups, and a significantly minor Islam group...what can you expect from a high school that's 96% upper class white kids?), as well as discouraged individual prayer as well...and this is in the middle of the Midwest. Kids are probably still offering up a plea to God before tests they didn't study for (or they're writing the answers on the chair in front of them), but it's still silent and private.

Originally, when the school started seeing a representation of Islam in the schools, they were willing to let them go pray AWAY from the other students, but then the Christians and the Jews started whining about it. Saying that if the Muslims could pray during school, they should be allowed to. Rather than playing into the hands of the brats, many of which probably just want to get out of class, they did away with it altogether. So now, because of school attendance, the Muslim students are being punished, so to speak, by not having the chance to pray when their religion says they need to pray, while the other religious groups are merely sitting back and muttering about the inconvenience of having to stay the full period in EuroLitH or PreCalc.

Does this sound fair?Yes, it is fair. Can you honestly explain to Jews, Christians and Athiest why some students are allowed to leave class for prayer and not make it seem like the school is favoring Islam?

Can you explain why some students can stop a test (if it's during prayer time) get up and leave (since kneeling on the ground will be disruptive) and come back and finish their test (and to be fair, they get an extra 5-10 minutes because of prayer time)

How will you explain to members of other religions that you are allowing Islamic prayers, which is not a simple matter of bowing your head and quietly praying but actually kneeling and going though the ritual, but not other religious symbols to be displayed? after all, allowing Islamic students to have their prayer is a noticable thing, like singing hymns or saying the Pledge of Alliegence.

I do feel sorry for those students now forced to forgo prayer. but if you truly want a Non-Secular, Totally Religous/Non-Religious equallity type system, then it's everyone suffers but does so equally (Except the Athiest and Agnostics for those who do count them as Religions.)

The current republican party, under it's neoconservative leadership, has begun a campaign to bring Christianity back to our society, in particular back to our government. This seems, to those of you whose morals are regularly revolted by the levels of commercialism, materialism, and sexualtiy that are so common in our culture, to be a breath of fresh air.
I beg you, do not be taken in. I do not suggest that this is some fundamentalist conspiracy, I suspect it is exactly what it appears to be. But it is no less appropriate for all of that. Government protected religion is not the same as government supported religion, which is again different from government enforced religion. Our goverment is supposed to protect all of our religions equally, and support none of them, and enforce none of them, because if the government supports one religion over another, it will never be safe to be a memeber of an unpopular religion. Would you want Christian weddings to mean as little as Gay weddings do now if the scientologists took power? Or would you prefer to see a Catholic administration make baptisms required to obtain a birth certificate? I understand your desire to have society suppress things which are immoral or sinful, but I ask you to remeber that it was Catholics and Baptists and Evangelicals who fought so hard to ensure that this country had no state religion, so that they might be free to pursue their own beliefs.
When the question of whether to ban gay marriage, or abortion, comes up, remember that however evil it may seem, entrusting the government to be your judge on matters of faith is a dangerous road indeed. If schools are forced to downplay evolution, or teach abstinence and creationism, they can also be forced to downplay the protestant reformation, or teach that scientology is the best way to avoid drug use, or that baptism is the best sheild against disease. If, however, you take your religion back into your homes and churches, if you communicate not by banning abortion but by donating from the churches collection plate to help that young couple that chose life afford a wedding and a child, if you seek to live well rather than attacking those that do not, you not only protect yourself from those who might turn the power of government against you, you will also do your faith and your church a great service.

I agree with you in principle, however, I'd say that Gov. should have nothing to do with Marriage to begin with and that since abortion is murder, it falls outside the issue of practice or non-practice of religion.

Wow! interesting view all around. but back to the first post.

Religion is the basis for one's point in life (even if it's a lack of Religion) anyone put into a position to dictate policy (even in a large body like the Government) they will be dictated by that person's belief. Weither Christian, Muslim, or Atheist. That is ineveitable. the only way around that is to truly be Democratic. Meaning any and all Issues are Voted upon by the People. And everyone is then forced to live in a "Majority Rules" society.
It is entirely possible to have a constitutional republic where the structure of the republic forbids dictation of religious belief, be it by the majority, or the elect. Judicial oversight is the means by which laws passed by the majority are struck down as not in keeping with the constitution. All of this is already in place in the US, and while it has not always worked, and does not work perfectly, the intent of the system was to prevent just such an effect as you describe.

(Just for the record, I'm not saying Islam is better or anything. I'm just explaining why the things happen, seeing how no one has ANY understanding of Islam on this thread.)

(Just for the record, I'm not saying Islam is better or anything. I'm just explaining why the things happen, seeing how no one has ANY understanding of Islam on this thread.)

I do have quite an understanding of Islam.

However.

They do not "have" to pray five times a day any more than a Pentacostal Christian "must" pray when the Holy Spirit tells him to.

You can't make an assumption just because you want to cut a Muslim a break.

I agree with you in principle, however, I'd say that Gov. should have nothing to do with Marriage to begin with and that since abortion is murder, it falls outside the issue of practice or non-practice of religion.
the only government involvement in marriage that I see as being neccesary is the ability to transfer next of kin status, and the associated power of attorney. Property rights in common is also good, but something simple like incorporation is already possible, so it isn't absolutely neccesary.
As for abortion being murder, nobody has yet managed to get scientific evidence one way or the other, so any absolutist position on that issue is a matter of personal faith/morals/beliefs, and must be dealt with as such. As soon as there is a definitive reason to believe that a fetus is sentient, and not simply potentially sentient, it will be possible to decide whether abortion is murder or not. (An infant, left to its own devices, could conceivably survive and thus must be considered independantly alive, while a sperm or egg absolutely could not survive, much less grow to sentience, and so cannot be considered alive. A fetus is somewhere in between).

It is entirely possible to have a constitutional republic where the structure of the republic forbids dictation of religious belief, be it by the majority, or the elect. Judicial oversight is the means by which laws passed by the majority are struck down as not in keeping with the constitution. All of this is already in place in the US, and while it has not always worked, and does not work perfectly, the intent of the system was to prevent just such an effect as you describe.nope, as long as they can support their decisions with reason outside of Religion then they can. Can you name one value the President or any member of the Government put through that is solely "Christian baised?"

Also as long as you have people doing it, their beliefs will affect their decisions, and thanks to the Constitution, you cannot elect someone purely by Religous or lack of Religous beliefs.

Thus your only hope of not having any "Religous values" entering the government is to have a completly Atheist (not Agnostic) Government. and that has to be elected without touting the fact that they are Atheist.

the only government involvement in marriage that I see as being neccesary is the ability to transfer next of kin status, and the associated power of attorney. Property rights in common is also good, but something simple like incorporation is already possible, so it isn't absolutely neccesary.
As for abortion being murder, nobody has yet managed to get scientific evidence one way or the other, so any absolutist position on that issue is a matter of personal faith/morals/beliefs, and must be dealt with as such. As soon as there is a definitive reason to believe that a fetus is sentient, and not simply potentially sentient, it will be possible to decide whether abortion is murder or not. (An infant, left to its own devices, could conceivably survive and thus must be considered independantly alive, while a sperm or egg absolutely could not survive, much less grow to sentience, and so cannot be considered alive. A fetus is somewhere in between).

How could an infant left to its own devices survive? I think that is pushing it, maybe a 3 to 5 year old, but very, very unlikely an infant would survive. There's plenty of scientific evidence, the problem isn't with the evidence. The issue is deciding at what point it is a "human life" and or how we want to define the word "Life". From a scientific perspective, conceived child is as much "alive" as many other mono-cellular "life forms".

You're marriage perspective sounds pretty good to me.

(this is in reply to the original post)

Being a Judeochristian-conservative, and having been raised Christian-conservative, I think most Christians realize that 'forcing' the issue proves nothing, and do want people to have the ability to live according to his own creed. What they are afraid of is the corruptive influences of the media infringing upon their world and interfering with their control over their children's education. But you're in general absolutely right; the fear of the loss of values and the innocence of their children has led to them stepping on a LOT of people's toes.

I do have a point in which i strongly disagree with you on. If the fetus really were a human being (as I believe it is) than abortion for any reason other than when the woman's life was in danger would not only be a general religious evil, but a specific violation of human rights, and making laws with respect to it would be not only the right but the duty of not only religious but non-religious people as well. As to the exact answer to the question of whether the fetus is a human being, this is a question that every person with a conscience must decide, but that decision as a society having been made, than a reflection of that decision must be brought out in law. As such I have no problem with opposing Roe v. Wade, or with having abortion laws and enforcing them. However, I believe laws must always be made with an eye toward compassion, and must offer the woman in question encouragement, support, and options such as adoption and state care.

Two major rights are at stake in any social issue. There is the right to be free, and the right of people to secure personal peace and justice within their society. There is a great degree of subjectivity here, and there is also a resistance to compromise (everyone thinks that they're absolutely right, approach it from completely different angles, and there is little common ground to work on). The fact is, we all have to live together, and maybe there is some way to achieve common ground on a democratic level.

All in all, v. good post.

Edit: Someone said that there is no scientific evidence that abortion is murder. I can hardly help snickering at people who think that science has an absolute answer for everything, including completely non-scientific issues. Humanity itself exists as a social construct, not a scientific one.

I do have quite an understanding of Islam.

However.

They do not "have" to pray five times a day any more than a Pentacostal Christian "must" pray when the Holy Spirit tells him to.

You can't make an assumption just because you want to cut a Muslim a break.

Are there set times for a Pentacostal to start praying? I do not have much knowledge on the topic, so please, tell me.

Also, while you may have an understanding of Islam, it hardly seems like anyone else does.

and the original poster is complaining that Christian values are being "Forced" upon them and used Gay Marriage as one of the samples. My point being that for Gay Marriage, it was put to the people to decide. So if the majority say "Yea", who is the Government to say "Nay."
Who is the government? It's the defender of individual liberties, however unpopular, that's who!

The only people who gay marriage should be put to are the gay people. It does not affect anyone else.

Bans on gay marriage affect gay people much more strongly than permission of it affects straight people.

But that's what happens when you stop teaching morals and ethics in school, and instead teach secular, humaninst innuendo, and they all think "It's only fair" blah blah blah...
This is where you lost credibility. In my view, secular values and ethics are better than religious values and "morals".

the actual members of Congress, who drafted the First Amendment, expected basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society, not separate from it.
That's funny, then. It's funny that a basic Biblical principle such as helping the poor is supposed to be absent from the government, but an obscure Biblical detail such as banning gay marriage is supposed to be present. Why are you not also calling for a ban on divorce? It is much more explicitly condemned in the Bible than homosexual marriage is.

I'm sorry, but you appear to be full of shit.

Who is the government? It's the defender of individual liberties, however unpopular, that's who!

The only people who gay marriage should be put to are the gay people. It does not affect anyone else.

Bans on gay marriage affect gay people much more strongly than permission of it affects straight people.
Bang on.

This is where you lost credibility. In my view, secular values and ethics are better than religious values and "morals".
Honestly, they aren't. Schools shouldn't be instilling any value system, partly because schools are bad at teaching things like that, because the ratio of students to teachers is too high, and the discussion time is too low. Values should be taught by parents, and to a lesser extent communities and social organizations. Schools have enough difficulty teaching science, math, language and history. Secular values are no better or worse than religious values.

That's funny, then. It's funny that a basic Biblical principle such as helping the poor is supposed to be absent from the government, but an obscure Biblical detail such as banning gay marriage is supposed to be present. Why are you not also calling for a ban on divorce? It is much more explicitly condemned in the Bible than homosexual marriage is.

I'm sorry, but you appear to be full of shit.
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. " Thomas Jefferson. Any more questions on the founding fathers belief in biblical values?

Do Muslims? Yes. It even says so in the Qu'ran.

This is ridiculous! I don't see how what the Qu'ran says is any more worth following than what the Bible says.

nope, as long as they can support their decisions with reason outside of Religion then they can. Can you name one value the President or any member of the Government put through that is solely "Christian baised?"

Also as long as you have people doing it, their beliefs will affect their decisions, and thanks to the Constitution, you cannot elect someone purely by Religous or lack of Religous beliefs.

Thus your only hope of not having any "Religous values" entering the government is to have a completly Atheist (not Agnostic) Government. and that has to be elected without touting the fact that they are Atheist.
That leaders and voters alike will be influenced by religion I do not dispute. The purpose of the first amendment, and the associated judicial oversight, is to protect those of us who do not share those religious beliefs from their excesses of zeal, and in turn to protect them from our retaliatory zeal. I do not suggest that those in government could not be influenced by religion, but the organization itself is constitutionally bound to 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;' Until a constitutional amendment is passed, even a law that passed with the full support of every senator and every representative would be unconsitutional if it was clearly religiously biased, regardless of intent.

How could an infant left to its own devices survive? I think that is pushing it, maybe a 3 to 5 year old, but very, very unlikely an infant would survive. There's plenty of scientific evidence, the problem isn't with the evidence. The issue is deciding at what point it is a "human life" and or how we want to define the word "Life". From a scientific perspective, conceived child is as much "alive" as many other mono-cellular "life forms".

You're marriage perspective sounds pretty good to me.
Basically, my point is that infants are no longer physically part of their parent. Granted, they require some care, but they are a distinctly seperate form of life. A fetus, however alive it may be, cannot live seperately from it's mother for any significant length of time, as far as I know. As for scientific evidence, I meant evidence of consciousness, since that has always been a fair indicator of independant life. If it were possible to determine that a fetus is conscious, it would make abortion equivalent to witholding aid from a sick person. This could of course change again if it were possible to abort without killing the fetus, but I digress.
From a scientific standpoint, a fetus could be said to be as alive as a baby calf, but we kill and eat those, and we deliberately poison billions of monocellular lifeforms every time we have salmonella or e-coli. The distinction is not one of 'life' but of 'human life', and there is no evidence one way or another on that score.

The current republican party, under it's neoconservative leadership, has begun a campaign to bring Christianity back to our society, in particular back to our government. This seems, to those of you whose morals are regularly revolted by the levels of commercialism, materialism, and sexualtiy that are so common in our culture, to be a breath of fresh air.
I beg you, do not be taken in. I do not suggest that this is some fundamentalist conspiracy, I suspect it is exactly what it appears to be. But it is no less appropriate for all of that. Government protected religion is not the same as government supported religion, which is again different from government enforced religion. Our goverment is supposed to protect all of our religions equally, and support none of them, and enforce none of them, because if the government supports one religion over another, it will never be safe to be a memeber of an unpopular religion. Would you want Christian weddings to mean as little as Gay weddings do now if the scientologists took power? Or would you prefer to see a Catholic administration make baptisms required to obtain a birth certificate? I understand your desire to have society suppress things which are immoral or sinful, but I ask you to remeber that it was Catholics and Baptists and Evangelicals who fought so hard to ensure that this country had no state religion, so that they might be free to pursue their own beliefs.
When the question of whether to ban gay marriage, or abortion, comes up, remember that however evil it may seem, entrusting the government to be your judge on matters of faith is a dangerous road indeed. If schools are forced to downplay evolution, or teach abstinence and creationism, they can also be forced to downplay the protestant reformation, or teach that scientology is the best way to avoid drug use, or that baptism is the best sheild against disease. If, however, you take your religion back into your homes and churches, if you communicate not by banning abortion but by donating from the churches collection plate to help that young couple that chose life afford a wedding and a child, if you seek to live well rather than attacking those that do not, you not only protect yourself from those who might turn the power of government against you, you will also do your faith and your church a great service.


You waste your time. Few conservatives will ever read this...they are busy watching Fox News, which does not "challenge their values".

You would be better served in becoming a volunteer for the Dems and fighting to overturn the current Republican monopoly on power in the next election. You cannot reason with fanatics....you can only attempt to stop them.

I'm not a Christian, but I strongly appreciate your expression of tolerance, intelligence and attempt to restore a little sanity. Bravo.

i'm glad about this event (the thing about the government, i mean) and i'm glad you're not coming back with some jerky remark. thank you

(this is in reply to the original post)

Being a Judeochristian-conservative, and having been raised Christian-conservative, I think most Christians realize that 'forcing' the issue proves nothing, and do want people to have the ability to live according to his own creed. What they are afraid of is the corruptive influences of the media infringing upon their world and interfering with their control over their children's education. But you're in general absolutely right; the fear of the loss of values and the innocence of their children has led to them stepping on a LOT of people's toes.
I understand their frustration, I am frequently horrified with the way in which the media fails to allow people to protect their childrens (and their own)innocence. Ultimately, however, the freedom not watch, and not to buy is a much more direct and effective method of effecting sociecty, as well as being less problematic for those who have different values.

I do have a point in which i strongly disagree with you on. If the fetus really were a human being (as I believe it is) than abortion for any reason other than when the woman's life was in danger would not only be a general religious evil, but a specific violation of human rights, and making laws with respect to it would be not only the right but the duty of not only religious but non-religious people as well. As to the exact answer to the question of whether the fetus is a human being, this is a question that every person with a conscience must decide, but that decision as a society having been made, than a reflection of that decision must be brought out in law. As such I have no problem with opposing Roe v. Wade, or with having abortion laws and enforcing them. However, I believe laws must always be made with an eye toward compassion, and must offer the woman in question encouragement, support, and options such as adoption and state care.
I agree with most of that, I simply feel that when there is as much dissent and divsion on the issue as there is on this issue, it is usually wiser to err on the side of permissiveness until proven wrong.

Two major rights are at stake in any social issue. There is the right to be free, and the right of people to secure personal peace and justice within their society. There is a great degree of subjectivity here, and there is also a resistance to compromise (everyone thinks that they're absolutely right, approach it from completely different angles, and there is little common ground to work on). The fact is, we all have to live together, and maybe there is some way to achieve common ground on a democratic level.

All in all, v. good post.
Thank you. That is a wonderful summary.


Edit: Someone said that there is no scientific evidence that abortion is murder. I can hardly help snickering at people who think that science has an absolute answer for everything, including completely non-scientific issues. Humanity itself exists as a social construct, not a scientific one.
It was me who said that. I do not suggest that science has an answer for everything, but it has proven to have many helpful answers in the past. As for determining whether a fetus is human, I simply meant to suggest that since consiousness in some form is typically considered to be the main prerequisite for sentience, until there is some scientific evidence for or against the idea that a fetus is conscious, the debate is predicated entirely on what amounts to guesswork.

You waste your time. Few conservatives will ever read this...they are busy watching Fox News, which does not "challenge their values".

You would be better served in becoming a volunteer for the Dems and fighting to overturn the current Republican monopoly on power in the next election. You cannot reason with fanatics....you can only attempt to stop them.
Your intolerance only fuels theirs. Fanatics are everywhere, on both sides, and they feed on absolute oppostion. A discusion like this is how the rest of the populace finds the middle ground, and settles on it, leaving the fanatics on the fringes on their soapboxes. Your approach will only fuel the agendas of the fanatics on both sides.

Who is the government? It's the defender of individual liberties, however unpopular, that's who!and they are made up of people elected by the populace. thus you are electing their views, their beliefs and their Ideals. And individual Liberties is fine but it's second place against the Liberites and Security of the PEOPLE. whom the Government has to consider first.

The only people who gay marriage should be put to are the gay people. It does not affect anyone else.errr.. yes it does. just like placing a Plaque with Bible Verses is "Cramming Religion" down people's throats, showing off your lifestyle is "cramming it down" the throats of those who don't want anything to do with it. Now unless you are saying that the Gay Couples are somehow living in their own little Geographically Isolated area, they are apart of the community and thus will affect it. Good or bad they will have an affect on the community.

Bans on gay marriage affect gay people much more strongly than permission of it affects straight people.My walking around butt naked, excercising my muzzled and declawed Komodo Dragon doesnt affect anyone but me, but it's still against the law.


This is where you lost credibility. In my view, secular values and ethics are better than religious values and "morals"."Secular Values and Ethics are better than Religious Values and "Morals"... Isn't the Definition of Secular "Religious"? and another word for Morals, Ethics? So you're saying you believe that "Religious Values and Ethecs are better than religious Values and Ethics." and it's GREENLANDER who lost Credibility?

I'm sorry, but you appear to be full of shit.and I do suggest to keep the personal attacks down. the Mods frown upon that. Just some friendly advice.

Now unless you are saying that the Gay Couples are somehow living in their own little Geographically Isolated area, they are apart of the community and thus will affect it. Good or bad they will have an affect on the community.

You know, of course, that it was once illegal for slaves to marry one another, and I bet a lot of people didn't want blacks "crammed down their throat" either, fine upstanding people who wouldn't want them in their neighbourhoods or want to have anything to do with their sort. Society has moved on, denying the basic rights of partnership that we give to a man and a woman to a man and a man is denying them equality before the law, and that should be paramount. We're not even talking about gay rights or black rights or women's rights or whatever, we're talking about the fair and even application of human rights. If someone feels that allowing someone else their right to live their life their way is "cramming" their lifestyle down respectable folks' throats, then that person has my pity.

You waste your time. Few conservatives will ever read this...they are busy watching Fox News, which does not "challenge their values".

You would be better served in becoming a volunteer for the Dems and fighting to overturn the current Republican monopoly on power in the next election. You cannot reason with fanatics....you can only attempt to stop them.

I'm sorry to do this because I AM on your side, but I figure it will be better if a fellow left-winger does it - Pot. Kettle. Black.

If we shield ourselves from open discussion, shelling ourselves in our own little leftist world ignoring the other side entirely, and hating on that other side, we have become the fanatics/fundamentalists/republicans. To be different from them we must be more like the original poster here, who has my utmost respect. His honest, open, nonthreatening persuasive writing not only reflects extremely well on our side, but will not go unheeded on the other side. Rational, reasonable disscussion from any point of view should be welcomed, as it has the potential to truly solve issues. It sure as hell beats the alternative.

I wish the original poster the best of luck. :)

That leaders and voters alike will be influenced by religion I do not dispute. The purpose of the first amendment, and the associated judicial oversight, is to protect those of us who do not share those religious beliefs from their excesses of zeal, and in turn to protect them from our retaliatory zeal. I do not suggest that those in government could not be influenced by religion, but the organization itself is constitutionally bound to 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;' Until a constitutional amendment is passed, even a law that passed with the full support of every senator and every representative would be unconsitutional if it was clearly religiously biased, regardless of intent.Ahh... but "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Can be seen both ways, How I define this sentence and most people will agree. is that the Government cannot create "The Church of America" (No Law Respecting an Establihment of Religion) or can they say "You cannot worship ______" (prohibiting the free exercise thereof) So actually removing all of these Christian symbols can be seen as unconstitutional. but that's another arugument.

unfortunatly (and I blame Lawyers for this) the problem comes down to Symantics. as long as the Goverrnment does not say the reason is Religion, (And Religion is different from Morals or Decency.) then they can do what ever they want. if they cannot think of a reason, then they can do what they did with Gay marriage... put it to the people and let them vote.

At that point its not "Government using Religion to set laws," but "Government following the Will of the People." Nitpicking the wording but very important loopholes to the lawyers.

You know, of course, that it was once illegal for slaves to marry one another, and I bet a lot of people didn't want blacks "crammed down their throat" either, fine upstanding people who wouldn't want them in their neighbourhoods or want to have anything to do with their sort. Society has moved on, denying the basic rights of partnership that we give to a man and a woman to a man and a man is denying them equality before the law, and that should be paramount. We're not even talking about gay rights or black rights or women's rights or whatever, we're talking about the fair and even application of human rights. If someone feels that allowing someone else their right to live their life their way is "cramming" their lifestyle down respectable folks' throats, then that person has my pity.So you're against all these rulings like "removing Religious symbols off of public places" then. You have no qualms about schools teaching secular classes as well as non-secular ones. you are against the Silencing of people who want to proudly display their Religion. Nice to meet you brother/sister.

So you're against all these rulings like "removing Religious symbols off of public places" then. You have no qualms about schools teaching secular classes as well as non-secular ones. you are against the Silencing of people who want to proudly display their Religion. Nice to meet you brother/sister.

I'm hoping that's a deliberate misinterpretation. To clarify, however, in case it's not: I am in favour of people being allowed to live their life their way, being gay and seeking a legal union with your partner does not harm anyone else, therefore I am in favour of that right. I'm even in favour of someone's right not to like it, but I'm not in favour of them enforcing their dislike of it on someone else.

As for the other ones, Government funds should not be used to promote one religion over another: that means no religion in public schools, no religious plaques at national monuments and so forth. I do not object to you having your faith, I do object to you trying to run my life according to its rules.

I consider myself one of these conservative Christians you are addressing this to, and I assure you that all most of us seek is to retain the right to publicly espouse our faith. I do not think it is government support of religion to simply allow one to express their beliefs. We are, perhaps unfoundedly, worried that we will be restricted from publicly declaring the word of God. As for abortion and gay marriage, many Christians (my own opinion on the matters aside) do not support these things, true. However, it is everyone’s right to support or oppose any law or government policy for whatever reason they wish, be it religious, economic, personal or just because they feel like it.

Do you believe every faith should be able to express that faith publicly? Does that include the Temple of Set, which I believe has blood sacrifices. VooDoo and HooDoo?

I am a Christian. I am pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. I don't have a church. It's more of a spiritual thing. I grew up Catholic, and saw nothing but hypocracy and bureaucracy and politics. As well as a history of oppression. (Anyone remember the Inquisition?) The policy of allowing priests who molest to remain and just ship them elsewhere is insanity.

Well, I'm going off on a tangent. I particularly cannot stand Fundamentalist Christians. They stand for a minority.

But if kids have to say the Pledge of Allegiance and say "under God", those who believe in something else should put that in there. For Wiccans, it may be "under Mother Earth", or something.

Church and state must be separated. For the sake of the church and the state.

and they are made up of people elected by the populace. thus you are electing their views, their beliefs and their Ideals. And individual Liberties is fine but it's second place against the Liberites and Security of the PEOPLE. whom the Government has to consider first.
I agree, but gay marriage does not harm the security or liberty of the majority.

errr.. yes it does. just like placing a Plaque with Bible Verses is "Cramming Religion" down people's throats,

showing off your lifestyle is "cramming it down" the throats of those who don't want anything to do with it.

ow unless you are saying that the Gay Couples are somehow living in their own little Geographically Isolated area, they are apart of the community and thus will affect it. Good or bad they will have an affect on the community.
Depends where the plaque is. Where are you thinking of? Most places where Biblical stuff is found are not objectionable.

I have no problem with religious people showing off their lifestyle.

Explain how married gay people affect their community.

My walking around butt naked, excercising my muzzled and declawed Komodo Dragon doesnt affect anyone but me, but it's still against the law.
There is no real logical reason for that to be against the law.

(lol @ Komodo Dragon :D )

"Secular Values and Ethics are better than Religious Values and "Morals"... Isn't the Definition of Secular "Religious"? and another word for Morals, Ethics? So you're saying you believe that "Religious Values and Ethecs are better than religious Values and Ethics." and it's GREENLANDER who lost Credibility?
I don't really believe that. I am just pissed off that religious conservatives imagine themselves to hold an exclusive licence to good morality.

I'm hoping that's a deliberate misinterpretation. To clarify, however, in case it's not: I am in favour of people being allowed to live their life their way, being gay and seeking a legal union with your partner does not harm anyone else, therefore I am in favour of that right. I'm even in favour of someone's right not to like it, but I'm not in favour of them enforcing their dislike of it on someone else.

As for the other ones, Government funds should not be used to promote one religion over another: that means no religion in public schools, no religious plaques at national monuments and so forth. I do not object to you having your faith, I do object to you trying to run my life according to its rules.yeah it was a deliberate misinterpretation... actually taking the meter and burying it on the EXTREME end.

it was suppse to be a sarcastic joke but after coming back to it, I can see where it could be Mis interpreted.

Apologies all around.

Apologies all around.

No need to apologise at all! I respect your right to misinterpret me. ;)

While I don't like the idea of religion involving itself with religion at the federal level, I do think that communities should have some right to express their religion publically.

Many of the things Christians are asking for are no so ridiculous, were they to be confined to the community level.
On a related note, lots of things are ok on the community level, namely communism. It works best in small communties, and worst in large (or small) countries as a whole. The point of the poster is that these issues are becoming national agendas/laws/issues, and that's the problem. They should be case-specific issues handled by whatever communities find themselves confronted by them.

Ahh... but "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Can be seen both ways, How I define this sentence and most people will agree. is that the Government cannot create "The Church of America" (No Law Respecting an Establihment of Religion) or can they say "You cannot worship ______" (prohibiting the free exercise thereof) So actually removing all of these Christian symbols can be seen as unconstitutional. but that's another arugument.

unfortunatly (and I blame Lawyers for this) the problem comes down to Symantics. as long as the Goverrnment does not say the reason is Religion, (And Religion is different from Morals or Decency.) then they can do what ever they want. if they cannot think of a reason, then they can do what they did with Gay marriage... put it to the people and let them vote.

At that point its not "Government using Religion to set laws," but "Government following the Will of the People." Nitpicking the wording but very important loopholes to the lawyers.

Ahh, but the thing about lawyers is that they can be used to solve every (legal) problem they create. (Talk about a well planned form of job security) When the government puts it to the people, and the 51% of People vote that the religions held by the other 49% are less valid, or chooses to disrespect them, in favor of their own religion, you get the lawyers to take the case to the courts, where the constitution gets interpreted, and the law ruled as unconstitutional.

Do you believe every faith should be able to express that faith publicly? Does that include the Temple of Set, which I believe has blood sacrifices. VooDoo and HooDoo?
As long as the expression of that faith doesn't harm anyone, in particular anyone who might not wish to be harmed. On the blood sacrifices field, I doubt you could ever come up with a consent procedure sufficiently rigorous to make sacrifices of any kind acceptable, and even if you did, public sacrifices would be only as acceptable as public religious orgies, pyre-style cremations, or drug usage. That is to say, behind closed doors it doesn't matter much, but when it comes to the front steps of city hall, or any other venue where age restricted behaviour is reasonable and people of inappropriate ages could be reasonably expected to be present, probably not. If a preacher were listing the various sexual sins that have been itemized by some catholic theologians, on the street at the top of his lungs, it seems likely that he would be asked to switch to a different medium, such as pamphlets, where he can be more selective of his readers. If you mean do I think that VooDoo, HooDoo, Temple of Set, or similar faiths should be allowed to have people distribute pamphlets, preach, even go door to door if they so desire, yes I do.

I am a Christian. I am pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. I don't have a church. It's more of a spiritual thing. I grew up Catholic, and saw nothing but hypocracy and bureaucracy and politics. As well as a history of oppression. (Anyone remember the Inquisition?) The policy of allowing priests who molest to remain and just ship them elsewhere is insanity.

Well, I'm going off on a tangent. I particularly cannot stand Fundamentalist Christians. They stand for a minority.

But if kids have to say the Pledge of Allegiance and say "under God", those who believe in something else should put that in there. For Wiccans, it may be "under Mother Earth", or something.

Church and state must be separated. For the sake of the church and the state.
Well said.

Do you believe every faith should be able to express that faith publicly? Does that include the Temple of Set, which I believe has blood sacrifices. VooDoo and HooDoo?[QUOTE]
What is HooDoo exactly? Because I know for a fact that hoodoos are geological formations that look like cypress knees sticking out from cliff face or eroded bluffs. They are mostly vertical deposits of a material more resistant to erosion than the surrounding sediment and so remain while the cliff recedes, a pointy-looking tower-like projection that looks quite odd and has an even odder name. But that's my nerdy C in Geology for you.

[QUOTE=Hyperslackovicznia]I am a Christian. I am pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. I don't have a church. It's more of a spiritual thing. I grew up Catholic, and saw nothing but hypocracy and bureaucracy and politics. As well as a history of oppression. (Anyone remember the Inquisition?) The policy of allowing priests who molest to remain and just ship them elsewhere is insanity.]
I completely sympathize with you, oh Greatest of Slackers (a compliment from me, an accomplished slacker myelf :D), for I am convinced that Christ Himself didn't even want a religion out of his teachings, but a spirituality that brought you to a greater understanding of this life and just what it is and how to handle it. Christ's teachings themselves make life easier on everyone, and He Himself was mainly interested in helping the downtrodden and shunned of the world. The religion, manned and run by humans, conceived and developed by humans, maintained throught the Dark Ages, etc. by humans, is far too influenced yb humans, and so you get self-validating bodies like the Catholic Church, which not only ran the Inquisition out of selfish and near-sighted rivalry with Protestantism, and who doesn't adequatedly (almost not at all) punish thier child molesting priests, who unBiblically have to practice celibacy, thus making it even harder for them to organize their own warped minds and hearts, but also a Church that completely backed the Crusades, one of which actually never reached its goal but turned and sacked the Most Orthodox city of Constantinople, the center of Orthodox CHRISTANITY at the time. So I see exactly what disenchants you about Catholicism and Christianity in general. It makes me sad.

[QUOTE=Hyperslackovicznia]Well, I'm going off on a tangent. I particularly cannot stand Fundamentalist Christians. They stand for a minority.

But if kids have to say the Pledge of Allegiance and say "under God", those who believe in something else should put that in there. For Wiccans, it may be "under Mother Earth", or something.

Church and state must be separated. For the sake of the church and the state.
I couldn't have put it better myself. For the sake of both the church and of the state, individually, the separation of church and state must be kept strong. I myself am a "church-going Christian" (I hate that phrase itself, since I understand more about Christ than many who regularly attend church, and I often skip) and I agree that Fundamentalist Christians are enfuriating and dangerous, to the faith itself and to their own communities, namely this country. Lighten up, don't take life and esp. not your religion so seriously, and just let go of your fears, O Fundamentalists. Christ Himself said that worry is like unto a sin, and it will get you nowhere, so stop worrying about the "state of our nation's morality" and start worrying about your own.

If you mean do I think that VooDoo, HooDoo, Temple of Set, or similar faiths should be allowed to have people distribute pamphlets, preach, even go door to door if they so desire, yes I do.
:D
Sorry but I had an image of Mrs. Pepperpot opening her doors and two men in dark robes...
" Ello, Remeber us? You joined our church last week. well, you said you were willing to help us out for our next festival... so... err.... really embarrashing ... but... we've come for your liver... and your heart too..."

I agree, but gay marriage does not harm the security or liberty of the majority.True, but it was put to the people and the Majority won. Sad but true.

Depends where the plaque is. Where are you thinking of? Most places where Biblical stuff is found are not objectionable. I agree. Most are small and out of the way. but because it's in public, people protest. like on a privately owned memorial on Government land.

I have no problem with religious people showing off their lifestyle.you may not, but again, alot of people do.

Explain how married gay people affect their community. if they are apart of the community they will have an impact. they will have influence like everyone else. the same way you have an influence in your community.


There is no real logical reason for that to be against the law.there are laws against Public Nudity, and Decency, If you have a school nearby, you could be found guilty of Corruption of minors (and not to mention a slew of bad images concering your being nude infront of children, and the fact that a Komodo Dragon is an endangered and dangerous species (even muzzled and declawed) that one must have a licence and proof of training to handle the creature as well as proof of habitation (it must be safe for it as well as others.)

(lol @ Komodo Dragon :D )I Like them... and they are the only things I can think of that no one can take out for a public stroll.

I don't really believe that. I am just pissed off that religious conservatives imagine themselves to hold an exclusive licence to good morality.ok, point, but religious baised Morality tends to be more stable than Social Baised ones. Social Moraility tends to waiver according to Public Popularity. (not saying that's bad but it can lead to Anarchy faster than Religious baised morals.) the thing is, nowdays, people want change and want it fast. in the days of Segregation, Black had a long, hard fight to be accepted. They went through the processes and they succeeded, so did the Women. So for those in support of Gay Rights, prepare for a long hard fight.

Edit: Sorry for the confusion. Doing this at work and hopped on a co-worker's pc (Cuz mine froze) so reposting under proper name.

Basically, my point is that infants are no longer physically part of their parent. Granted, they require some care, but they are a distinctly seperate form of life. A fetus, however alive it may be, cannot live seperately from it's mother for any significant length of time, as far as I know. As for scientific evidence, I meant evidence of consciousness, since that has always been a fair indicator of independant life. If it were possible to determine that a fetus is conscious, it would make abortion equivalent to witholding aid from a sick person. This could of course change again if it were possible to abort without killing the fetus, but I digress.
From a scientific standpoint, a fetus could be said to be as alive as a baby calf, but we kill and eat those, and we deliberately poison billions of monocellular lifeforms every time we have salmonella or e-coli. The distinction is not one of 'life' but of 'human life', and there is no evidence one way or another on that score.

Is an ameoba "conscious"? Is it therefore not alive? As for the issue of fetal dependence on a host, this is only a matter of technology which is why I'm more inclined to grant far more validity to your consciousness argument than that one. I'm still of the opinion that a conceived child is a human life protected by the laws of the land and that isn't likely to change, as it is clearly "alive" the only major issue is whether or not it is "human life" and I'd say the genes don't lie. Since there is no actual law that states what legally constitutes a human life, I suspect this will be a bone of contention for the duration of human existance, probably would be even if there was one as when we chose to define life as coming into existance is an arbitrary function, at least from a legal perspective...

The current republican party, under it's neoconservative leadership, has begun a campaign to bring Christianity back to our society, in particular back to our government. This seems, to those of you whose morals are regularly revolted by the levels of commercialism, materialism, and sexualtiy that are so common in our culture, to be a breath of fresh air.
I beg you, do not be taken in. I do not suggest that this is some fundamentalist conspiracy, I suspect it is exactly what it appears to be. But it is no less appropriate for all of that. Government protected religion is not the same as government supported religion, which is again different from government enforced religion. Our goverment is supposed to protect all of our religions equally, and support none of them, and enforce none of them, because if the government supports one religion over another, it will never be safe to be a memeber of an unpopular religion. Would you want Christian weddings to mean as little as Gay weddings do now if the scientologists took power? Or would you prefer to see a Catholic administration make baptisms required to obtain a birth certificate? I understand your desire to have society suppress things which are immoral or sinful, but I ask you to remeber that it was Catholics and Baptists and Evangelicals who fought so hard to ensure that this country had no state religion, so that they might be free to pursue their own beliefs.
When the question of whether to ban gay marriage, or abortion, comes up, remember that however evil it may seem, entrusting the government to be your judge on matters of faith is a dangerous road indeed. If schools are forced to downplay evolution, or teach abstinence and creationism, they can also be forced to downplay the protestant reformation, or teach that scientology is the best way to avoid drug use, or that baptism is the best sheild against disease. If, however, you take your religion back into your homes and churches, if you communicate not by banning abortion but by donating from the churches collection plate to help that young couple that chose life afford a wedding and a child, if you seek to live well rather than attacking those that do not, you not only protect yourself from those who might turn the power of government against you, you will also do your faith and your church a great service.

Dido. I also wish to add that the neo-cons are using people of faith as tools to keep in power by bringing up the "god" issue during election time and completely ignoring any important legislation, morality/ethics, and founding principles of this Republic. All while the donations and votes they recieve go to businesses that tend to be the corruptors of our society such as the music recording industry which is heavily protected by the neo-cons and in turns continues to spout out that crap rap that promotes promiscuity and the like.

In short, people of faith who support neo-cons need to know that they are pawns.

True, but it was put to the people and the Majority won. Sad but true.

It should not be put to the majority because it does not affect them. Explain how it affects them negatively. I affect my community by buying things, working, giving to charity, etc. My sexuality does not affect the community. Besides, if you think it's sad, why are you with the social conservatives on this issue? Do you think that you have to agree with the Republican party on everything?

ok, point, but religious baised Morality tends to be more stable than Social Baised ones. Social Moraility tends to waiver according to Public Popularity. (not saying that's bad but it can lead to Anarchy faster than Religious baised morals.)

I didn't say I was a moral relativist.

the thing is, nowdays, people want change and want it fast. in the days of Segregation, Black had a long, hard fight to be accepted. They went through the processes and they succeeded, so did the Women. So for those in support of Gay Rights, prepare for a long hard fight.

What is wrong with wanting a very small change fast? Do you think it was right that the blacks had a long hard fight? If the society they lived in was not racist and evil, they would have got the fast change that they deserved to get.

Now the problem is that some societies embrace evil in the form of homophobia, which prevents gays getting the rights that they should, by any decent set of standards and ethics, have.