Ye Religion Thread

[haunted]

Yes DS, but you still didn't get my main point... I kind of went off ranting on why Christianity sucks there for a sec

My point was is that Christians have no room to complain about discrimination when they persistently try to force their beliefs on others. To be honest, preaching fairy tales to me as if it were the truth completely insults my intelligence. Especially when you throw in that if I don't believe it I will go to hell. That is so stupid and disrespectful. It is not being a ""good christian"". BTW, I never explained this, but being a good person has jack shit to do with god. And if god exists, I am pretty damn sure that he would agree with me. You are the one who chooses to be a good person or not. It's weak-minded people that need to use the bible or god as some kind of crutch when trying to do this..and yeah, it was their choice to be weak and not be able to handle life single-handedly. Are you sure that's what god wants you to do? If I were him, I'd be disappointed.

[DaHanG]

Besides, anyone that actually fights to have one removed does that only for the purpose of "just doing it".
They aren't doing to be constitutonal correct, they're not doing it because it offends them oh so much.
They're doing it be assholes. <<<<< Period

Personally, I find breaches of the wall of separation between church and state offensive to varying degrees, so I'm not sure you're entirely correct in your assessment.

If you're correct, then you should also agree with the following:

Besides, anyone that actually fights to have gay marriage banned does that only for the purpose of "just doing it".
They aren't doing it to be morally correct, they're not doing it because it offends them oh so much.
They're doing it be assholes. <<<<< Period

Right?

One of the most "Owned" replies I've ever seen.

[QuakeDuke]

Haunted there are bad sides to everything, Christianity is no different, what so ever. But the sad thing is, is when people have been exposed to ONLY the bad side and have never experienced the good side of it, which btw, outways the bad 100 to 1.
In fact i am of good mind to start a entirally new thread that would address these very issues.

Interested I am.

QD

[QuakeDuke]

Whether churches which receive government subsidy in the form of tax exemption are truly private, I'll leave for another discussion...

Our church always has (since it's founding in 1904), and always will pay taxes - Jesus did. It's totally incompatible with "render unto Caesar" and fail to pay taxes.

QD

[QuakeDuke]

Could someone point to a reference (or provide me) with a complete statement of the constitution where it states there is to be separation of church and state?

Thanks,

QD

[[BTF]Defiant!]

Could someone point to a reference (or provide me) with a complete statement of the constitution where it states there is to be separation of church and state?

Thanks,

QD

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[quadz]

Could someone point to a reference (or provide me) with a complete statement of the constitution where it states there is to be separation of church and state?

I'm guessing that might be a leading question?

But... we have the 1st amendment, and we have Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of same:

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Presumably Jefferson ought to know, as he is credited with writing "the precursor to the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment", Jefferson's 1777 Draft of a Bill for Religious Freedom for the state of Virginia.^[1]

A year later when the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia, PA, Jefferson "pushed for legislation that would guarantee individual rights, including what he felt was the prime guarantee: freedom of and from religion." ^[2]

Early drafts of the text of the first amendment can be seen here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/amend_1.htm


Jefferson's 1777 Religious Freedom bill also had some interesting phrases, such as, "our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry."

I wish the above had been printed in large type on the California ballot last week when people were voting for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage.


Regards,

[reaper]

I would vote for allowing gays to be married, why, because they care about being married, and I could care less if they get married.

That said we seem to have some people who really sincerly care that the definition of marriage is restricted to a man and a woman, why..so gays can't get married!

 

[QuakeDuke]

I'm guessing that might be a leading question?

   ME? Ask a leading question? 

But... we have the 1st amendment, and we have Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of same:

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Jefferson: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

So, we aren't really concerned with what it actually says, but in how it's interpreted - what WE think they meant to say ?

QD

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Besides, anyone that actually fights to have one removed does that only for the purpose of "just doing it".
They aren't doing to be constitutonal correct, they're not doing it because it offends them oh so much.
They're doing it be assholes. <<<<< Period

Personally, I find breaches of the wall of separation between church and state offensive to varying degrees, so I'm not sure you're entirely correct in your assessment.

If you're correct, then you should also agree with the following:

Besides, anyone that actually fights to have gay marriage banned does that only for the purpose of "just doing it".
They aren't doing it to be morally correct, they're not doing it because it offends them oh so much.
They're doing it be assholes. <<<<< Period

Right?

One of the most "Owned" replies I've ever seen.

Actually it's not. That was (I believe to be) a light hearted jab at another totally seperate conversation we had a few days back in IRC.
Thanks.

Could someone point to a reference (or provide me) with a complete statement of the constitution where it states there is to be separation of church and state?

Thanks,

QD

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the freedom of Religion part if i'm not mistaken, what about a link to the actual amendment that describes seperation of church and state?

Haunted there are bad sides to everything, Christianity is no different, what so ever. But the sad thing is, is when people have been exposed to ONLY the bad side and have never experienced the good side of it, which btw, outways the bad 100 to 1.
In fact i am of good mind to start a entirally new thread that would address these very issues.

Interested I am.

QD

What, the new thread part ?

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

Now that, is one of the reasons I'm proud of this country.


Regards,

quadz

Yea, but, we ARE prohibited from practicing it in public now days to an extent, because it might Oooooffeeend some one .
And taking up a nativity scene from the towns courthouse square because of separation of Church and State???? I'm pretty darn sure that’s not going to allow the local church to influence the judges next decision, and I’m pretty sure that wasn't the intent of that amendment. But the nativity scene gets taken away anyway because it offended someone somewhere.

But, getting back to the original topic, that in itself is what ticks me about the way people act in America.
Instead of using the constitution for its intended purpose, to make sure we HAVE freedom of religion, it gets perverted by some to insure we have to actually HIDE our freedom of religion. :/

Let these people live where they are FORCED to practice the religion of that country or be shot in the head and then maybe, just maybe they won't be so offended.

LOL, man how one little reply like this gets me drug back here.
Heh, oh well.

[reaper]

whoever puts a nativity scene in a government building should know better not to.

[DaHanG]

Besides, anyone that actually fights to have one removed does that only for the purpose of "just doing it".
They aren't doing to be constitutonal correct, they're not doing it because it offends them oh so much.
They're doing it be assholes. <<<<< Period

Personally, I find breaches of the wall of separation between church and state offensive to varying degrees, so I'm not sure you're entirely correct in your assessment.

If you're correct, then you should also agree with the following:

Besides, anyone that actually fights to have gay marriage banned does that only for the purpose of "just doing it".
They aren't doing it to be morally correct, they're not doing it because it offends them oh so much.
They're doing it be assholes. <<<<< Period

Right?

One of the most "Owned" replies I've ever seen.

Actually it's not. That was (I believe to be) a light hearted jab at another totally seperate conversation we had a few days back in IRC.
Thanks.

You're welcome. My reply is independent of private conversations I don't know about. I still view it as "Owned" because his point was cleverly made and it exposes a level of hypocrisy. Quadz's reply hasn't yielded an adequate response to the issue itself, so my opinion of it remains unchanged.

[QuakeDuke]

Interested I am.
QD

What, the new thread part ?

Yes

QD

[quadz]

So, we aren't really concerned with what it actually says, but in how it's interpreted - what WE think they meant to say ?

The Supreme Court determined it had the power to interpret the Constitution in 1803. ^[1]

But I'm not sure why you're emphasizing the WE think in this particular case, as though Jefferson's words have no weight at all?  He historically being the driving force behind ensuring not just freedom of religion but freedom from religion was enshrined in the first amendment?

This is the freedom of Religion part if i'm not mistaken, what about a link to the actual amendment that describes seperation of church and state?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" clause serves also as the freedom from religion.

For example: let's say Congress wants to pass a law saying it's OK to display the ten commandments in a courthouse.  That would be a law respecting an establishment of religion, would it not?  Denied.


(Disclaimer: I'm sure as hell no constitutional lawyer... I'm merely speaking from my best present understanding of these issues.)


Regards,

quadz