Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

Just a quick reply, I'll try to respond to more of your post later...

First, if there is a nativity scene on the courthouse square it doesn't mean they endorse Christianity, no more than our Halloween decorations on the square imply that the courthouse endorses witches and evil pumpkins. It's a religious holiday and they put up the appropriate decoration for whatever holiday it is. The point I was making is that some people pervert the separation of church and state amendment to have it taken down.

As long as other 'faiths' are also welcome, I don't see a problem..

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-9906870-52.html

"Members of the Crossville, Tennessee chapter of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster sought and received approval to install a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster outside the city's courthouse."




Regards,

[DaHanG]

It can go both ways, if their was a Hale Satan day and 75% of the towns population celebrated that day and put up some pentagrams on the square, far be it for me to rune it for everyone else. THATS WHAT PISSES ME OFF. A very few people RUNE something for everyone else simply because they don't agree with it. And they will pervert the separation of church and state amendment to get it done.
My question is why ????

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with the citizens' majority opinion...It's not about RUNING it for everybody else.

It is the principle that matters. The founding fathers would be opposed to religious imagery/promotion/celebration taking place on government institutions. If someone wants to celebrate their religious tradition, it's not hard to do it in a way that does not involve a government building.

[haunted]

A preacher's kid for the largest sect of christianity around here was one of the 'several' that told me that btw...

Oh and christianity does not get discriminated, however christianity discriminates all other denominations just by the principles behind it. Obviously I'm talking about how it's a requisite in christianity to impose your beliefs on others--or "SPREAD THE WORD".......this is just stupid and disrespectful to all around them, and coming from a group of people who act as if they exemplify all that is righteous in the world. As I have previously said, the term "good christian" disgusts me. There's never any bad christians though, of course not!! Because then they wouldn't be christian anymore once they've done something bad...unless of course they were later born again!!

I will admit that I'm used to seeing some pretty stupid shit in regards to religion though. I will give a few examples: Self-proclaimed ministers with no schooling whatsoever requiring people in their congregations to give him 10% of their income, or tithing. Coincidentally, these already crooked bastards (self-proclaimed) attempt to recruit all of the rich people around here to join their groups. HA. Then, these same self-proclaimed crooks will walk down the main highway dragging a cross claiming that they're doing it for jesus. What a joke.. obviously it's just a walking advertisement. "Look at me, I'm holy, now give me 10%". Then there's the bullshit missionary trips. If you want to go to a different country and help people, sure, that's great....but do not go to some exotic beach destination with awesome surf (it's a surfing/fishing community here) just to spread the word and play in the water--ESPECIALLY when there's people in need anywhere from 10 minutes, to a few hours drive away that they've never even THOUGHT of helping. Oh and lets not forget straight up CHANGING the words of the bible.. There's a church around here who wholeheartedly believe that jesus did not turn water into wine, and he really turned water into grape juice...because ALCOHOL IS EVIL. I could go on, but I'll stop there.

I'd say that the shit around here isn't even quite as retarded as the shit I see on the evangelical channels though. A month or 2 ago I was watching one of those psychos preach to hundreds of children with big pictures of biblical figures riding dinosaurs. Obviously the world is only 6,000 years old, which means that the dinosaurs had to have been around semi-recently(and of course biblical figures tamed and rode them)... after all, we all know that the fixed exponential decomposition rate of C-14 is bullshit.. lol.

Look at the bright side though, Karl rove was able to harness the evangelical vote to win some elections for bush.

[|iR|Focalor]

It can go both ways, if their was a Hale Satan day and 75% of the towns population celebrated that day and put up some pentagrams on the square, far be it for me to rune it for everyone else. THATS WHAT PISSES ME OFF. A very few people RUNE something for everyone else simply because they don't agree with it. And they will pervert the separation of church and state amendment to get it done.
My question is why ????

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with the citizens' majority opinion...It's not about RUNING it for everybody else.

It is the principle that matters. The founding fathers would be opposed to religious imagery/promotion/celebration taking place on government institutions. If someone wants to celebrate their religious tradition, it's not hard to do it in a way that does not involve a government building.

Not to hop on the famously popular "Satanists for Christ" bandwagon, (hehe, yeah, I just said that) but as I mentioned in my post:
"...all men were created equal..."
It's been debated at length whether or not the founding fathers were Christians or not. From including words like "created", I'd say it was a very good possibility...

...HOWEVER!!!!

I don't see what it matters what THEY believed. Times have changed. They are dead. Dead men don't suffer the consequences of having outdated laws rooted in Christianity-infused moral dogma. But is anyone really suffering? A lot of people in this world are masochists, they love to be persecuted and inconvenienced so that they can bitch and complain about their unfair treatment. If you gave them exactly what they wanted, they'd still find something to complain about. They talk about the mandatory moment of silence in public schools as if someone was putting a gun their children's heads and screaming, "YOU MUST PRAY TO JESUS!" No, I don't want to have to look at a nativity scene, but I've seen piss-poor landscaping jobs and tons of JUNK sitting in some peoples front yards that I find far more visually appalling.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Just a quick reply, I'll try to respond to more of your post later...

First, if there is a nativity scene on the courthouse square it doesn't mean they endorse Christianity, no more than our Halloween decorations on the square imply that the courthouse endorses witches and evil pumpkins. It's a religious holiday and they put up the appropriate decoration for whatever holiday it is. The point I was making is that some people pervert the separation of church and state amendment to have it taken down.

As long as other 'faiths' are also welcome, I don't see a problem..


Regards,

As long as the other faiths are celebrating whatever the current national holiday is at the time, I have no problem either.

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with the citizens' majority opinion...It's not about RUNING it for everybody else.

Agreed, it's about keeping the government from making decisions based on what the "church wants" and vise-a-versa.
So why are people perverting it's meaning just to get them takin down?
Oh wait, you said:

It is the principle that matters.

that principle is seriously flowed.

The founding fathers would be opposed to religious imagery/promotion/celebration taking place on government institutions.

Then why was this Religious Tradition made a National Holiday?
By your reasoning we should just abolish Christmas all together and make a new National Holiday called "National Gift Giving Day".

A preacher's kid for the largest sect of christianity around here was one of the 'several' that told me that btw...

Oh and christianity does not get discriminated, however christianity discriminates all other denominations just by the principles behind it. Obviously I'm talking about how it's a requisite in christianity to impose your beliefs on others--or "SPREAD THE WORD".......this is just stupid and disrespectful to all around them, and coming from a group of people who act as if they exemplify all that is righteous in the world. As I have previously said, the term "good christian" disgusts me. There's never any bad christians though, of course not!! Because then they wouldn't be christian anymore once they've done something bad...unless of course they were later born again!!

I will admit that I'm used to seeing some pretty stupid shit in regards to religion though. I will give a few examples: Self-proclaimed ministers with no schooling whatsoever requiring people in their congregations to give him 10% of their income, or tithing. Coincidentally, these already crooked bastards (self-proclaimed) attempt to recruit all of the rich people around here to join their groups. HA. Then, these same self-proclaimed crooks will walk down the main highway dragging a cross claiming that they're doing it for jesus. What a joke.. obviously it's just a walking advertisement. "Look at me, I'm holy, now give me 10%". Then there's the bullshit missionary trips. If you want to go to a different country and help people, sure, that's great....but do not go to some exotic beach destination with awesome surf (it's a surfing/fishing community here) just to spread the word and play in the water--ESPECIALLY when there's people in need anywhere from 10 minutes, to a few hours drive away that they've never even THOUGHT of helping. Oh and lets not forget straight up CHANGING the words of the bible.. There's a church around here who wholeheartedly believe that jesus did not turn water into wine, and he really turned water into grape juice...because ALCOHOL IS EVIL. I could go on, but I'll stop there.

I'd say that the shit around here isn't even quite as retarded as the shit I see on the evangelical channels though. A month or 2 ago I was watching one of those psychos preach to hundreds of children with big pictures of biblical figures riding dinosaurs. Obviously the world is only 6,000 years old, which means that the dinosaurs had to have been around semi-recently(and of course biblical figures tamed and rode them)... after all, we all know that the fixed exponential decomposition rate of C-14 is bullshit.. lol.

Look at the bright side though, Karl rove was able to harness the evangelical vote to win some elections for bush.

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.

I don't see what it matters what THEY believed. Times have changed. They are dead. Dead men don't suffer the consequences of having outdated laws rooted in Christianity-infused moral dogma. But is anyone really suffering? A lot of people in this world are masochists, they love to be persecuted and inconvenienced so that they can bitch and complain about their unfair treatment. If you gave them exactly what they wanted, they'd still find something to complain about. They talk about the mandatory moment of silence in public schools as if someone was putting a gun their children's heads and screaming, "YOU MUST PRAY TO JESUS!" No, I don't want to have to look at a nativity scene, but I've seen piss-poor landscaping jobs and tons of JUNK sitting in some peoples front yards that I find far more visually appalling.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head.
 

[DaHanG]

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with the citizens' majority opinion...It's not about RUNING it for everybody else.

Agreed, it's about keeping the government from making decisions based on what the "church wants" and vise-a-versa.
So why are people perverting it's meaning just to get them takin down?
Oh wait, you said:

It is the principle that matters.

that principle is seriously flowed.

 

The founding fathers would be opposed to religious imagery/promotion/celebration taking place on government institutions.

Then why was this Religious Tradition made a National Holiday?
By your reasoning we should just abolish Christmas all together and make a new National Holiday called "National Gift Giving Day".

The founding fathers being opposed to a physical government building having a giant cross on it, and Christmas being a national holiday are not incompatible.

Thomas Jefferson, build up that wall.

[quadz]

"...all men were created equal..."
It's been debated at length whether or not the founding fathers were Christians or not.

It seems apparent that several were not enamored of Christian dogma, at the very least.  Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin... (numerous quotes here).

More from Jefferson:

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free will and moral agent."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

"The whole history of these books [the Bible] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to John Adams, January 24, 1814

"Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to José Correia da Serra, April 11, 1820

From including words like "created", I'd say it was a very good possibility...

Would we expect them to have used the term, "evolved"?  On the Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859...



quadz

[quadz]

As long as the other faiths are celebrating whatever the current national holiday is at the time, I have no problem either.

We shouldn't have national religious holidays, should we?


Edit: I'm trying to figure out what bothers me about this.  Maybe it's mostly semantics. 

OK, here's part of it.  There are a limited number of possible holidays.  But national holidays apply to everyone... it's not like only people who identify as Christians get the day off on December 25.

So from a secular point of view, there is a problem with saying that particular holiday, which applies to everyone, carries with it a restriction allowing only nativity scenes to be displayed during that time period.


Regards,

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

As long as the other faiths are celebrating whatever the current national holiday is at the time, I have no problem either.

We shouldn't have national religious holidays, should we?


Edit: I'm trying to figure out what bothers me about this.  Maybe it's mostly semantics. 

OK, here's part of it.  There are a limited number of possible holidays.  But national holidays apply to everyone... it's not like only people who identify as Christians get the day off on December 25.

So from a secular point of view, there is a problem with saying that particular holiday, which applies to everyone, carries with it a restriction allowing only nativity scenes to be displayed during that time period.


Regards,

O'My goodness no, Santa Clause can go right along next to it. LOL 

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

But in all honesty, it's not that there "might" be a nativity scene on some random courthouse square, the original complaint was how some folks go out of their way to have it removed rather than being thankful they live in a country that allowes them to preach and practice any religion they want, or not be of "ANY" religion.

[DaHanG]

But in all honesty, it's not that there "might" be a nativity scene on some random courthouse square, the original complaint was how some folks go out of their way to have it removed rather than being thankful they live in a country that allowes them to preach and practice any religion they want, or not be of "ANY" religion.

Again, wanting a nativity scene removed from a courthouse is not incompatible with also having the ability to believe in any religion available. If f a group of people have a lot of time on their hands, and decide they want to uphold the constitution, then let them do it. There is no need to turn it into an issue of not being thankful for the rights they have as individuals.

[quadz]

the original complaint was how some folks go out of their way to have it removed rather than being thankful they live in a country that allowes them to preach and practice any religion they want, or not be of "ANY" religion.

Maybe they were too busy being thankful they live in a country which so uniquely constitutionally separates church and state.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

You both miss the point entirally, A Nativity scene is not a violation of seperation of church and state. Regaurdless what anyone says, or how they twist the ammendment to suite their needs.
Now if the courthouse actually owns the scene itself AND specifiacally uses it to endorce christianity, then I can see where it may violate it, but to allow a local church to set one up certainly doesn't.

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

[quadz]

You both miss the point entirally, A Nativity scene is not a violation of seperation of church and state. Regaurdless what anyone says, or how they twist the ammendment to suite their needs.
Now if the courthouse actually owns the scene itself AND specifiacally uses it to endorce christianity, then I can see where it may violate it, but to allow a local church to set one up certainly doesn't.

Uh... I thought we were talking about religious displays on government property.  We have been talking about the courthouse square since your original post, and suddenly we're jumping to the property of a local church, which is presumably privately owned?

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

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?

[DaHanG]

You both miss the point entirally, A Nativity scene is not a violation of seperation of church and state. Regaurdless what anyone says, or how they twist the ammendment to suite their needs.
Now if the courthouse actually owns the scene itself AND specifiacally uses it to endorce christianity, then I can see where it may violate it, but to allow a local church to set one up certainly doesn't.

Wording it as "A nativity scene is not a violation of seperation of church and state", I couldn't agree more. The quote is without context though, the location of the nativity scene, like say in front of a government building during Christmas time (which self-evidently references Christianity) would be. I could say "two wooden blocks is not a violation of the separation church and state". But if I add that they form a cross and are on top of the Capital Building, they certainly would.

Is it that hard for a local church to find a place other than a government run courthouse to set up a nativity scene? Like a church?

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'm offended not by the nativity scene itself, but by the ignorance and/or stupidity of the people setting it up. We have a constitution.

In saying this, I think the flying spaghetti monster being in front of the courthouse in Tennessee, while obviously humorous, should not be there. It serves no purpose that is of use to the courthouse and violates the constitution in the same way. On that note, I don't even want to settle for allowing a government building be inclusive and put up all the religious imagery from every religion requested - leave it to private institutions like businesses, homes, etc. Seeing a cross, moon, flying spaghetti monster, and a star of david next to each other seems more pathetic than embracing. I can't imagine individuals who endorse specific symbols not somehow feeling less excited about their own religion when they're lumped together with the others.

"In God we trust" on our currency is also a violation of the constitution. It prohibits the establishment of one religion over another, as well as religion over non-religion.

By the way, I'm not losing sleep over these issues, just stating a point of view. Build up that wall, Mr. Jefferson.