 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
 Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 11:10 am Post subject: Re: seperation of church and state |
 |
|
| Flashman wrote: |
See, you seem to be able to draw a definite line between an entity like the government and those who populate it...or a group of Believers (church) and those who form that group. Somehow, those who nurture a relationship with the Lord, have to forget all about Him when they make decisions that clearly effect those whom they represent. So a Godless government body is able to run a country better than one which hold Christian values? |
Maybe you should read this again:
| I wrote: | | So you're right, at least in the sense that members of the church and so forth can certainly be a part of congress, as long as congress doesn't actually pass any laws based on religion (because necessarily the law would prefer one religion over another). |
| Flashman wrote: |
It's because the Christians have had "their" way for this long and now the God-haters have found strength in a non-existant phrase in the Constitution that is perverted to mean something it doesn't. This is used to shield our school children, our accused and averyone else in this great country from God (who according to many doesn't exist anyway). |
Wanna know what I think about "God-haters"? I think the only "God-haters" out there are satanists, and satanism is just an off-shoot of Christianity. Jews aren't God-haters, Muslims aren't God-haters, and nobody else on the planet believes God exists to be hated.
Regarding this "non-existant" phrase, here's one that does exist: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Tell me, what do you think this means?
| Flashman wrote: |
I do not get my rights from the Constitution. It even says that in the Constitution. My rights are given to me by my Creator. The Constitution is the document that created and placed limits on the government. C'mon read the thing will ya? If you think the government is where you got your rights, you are doomed to enslavement. |
I don't believe I get my rights from God or government, and certainly not from your government. I believe my rights are inherent, and that every person has exactly the same ones.
| Flashman wrote: |
I defend my God for the same reason you try to disprove him. I hope I never "get over it." As long as their are people who try to pervert His word, I'm going to speak up. Ok, with you? I'm not going to argue with you in a secular fashion, because I'm not a secular being. You may object to my way of defending my King, but I'll worry about that when I kneel before Him. |
I'm not trying to disprove your God. This discussion isn't about that. It's about protecting government and religion from each other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject: Re: seperation of church and state |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
See, you seem to be able to draw a definite line between an entity like the government and those who populate it...or a group of Believers (church) and those who form that group. Somehow, those who nurture a relationship with the Lord, have to forget all about Him when they make decisions that clearly effect those whom they represent. So a Godless government body is able to run a country better than one which hold Christian values? |
| Quote: | | Maybe you should read this again: |
| I wrote: | | So you're right, at least in the sense that members of the church and so forth can certainly be a part of congress, as long as congress doesn't actually pass any laws based on religion (because necessarily the law would prefer one religion over another). |
|
So which part was I "not" right about. I know you have allowed me the idea that members of the church can certainly be a part of congress. But your qualifier "as long as congress doesn't pass any laws based on religion...  " Do you mean, that you don't like the idea of them passing laws based on their Christian/Muslim/Taoist values or views? Or did you mean as long as they don't pass a law making, say, Baptist the "official" religion of the state? Or did you mean as long as they don't pass a resolution stating that this country was founded on Christian moral principals? Or what? You are leaving that idea hanging. Please try to give me a clearer picture of what you are saying instead of making me re-read the same non-committed "based on religion" vagueness.
| Ana wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
It's because the Christians have had "their" way for this long and now the God-haters have found strength in a non-existant phrase in the Constitution that is perverted to mean something it doesn't. This is used to shield our school children, our accused and averyone else in this great country from God (who according to many doesn't exist anyway). |
[Wanna know what I think about "God-haters"? I think the only "God-haters" out there are satanists, and satanism is just an off-shoot of Christianity. Jews aren't God-haters, Muslims aren't God-haters, and nobody else on the planet believes God exists to be hated. |
[/quote]
Of course I want to know what you think. I'm dying to know what you think. I loosely defined the word hate to P as, "ambivilant with a purpose" a few posts back. It was late, so P probably didn't get a chance to read it before taking exception to my using "God-haters". The NIV Study Bible and I agree with the definition as "refuse to be associated with" = hate. I'm sorry if my choice of words isn't to your liking, but hey, you now have the chance to learn a little something about the perversion of words. I challenged P, and now I challenge you to find me a shorter way of saying, "refuse to be associated with" and I'm adding it to my vocab. Until then, please don't waste time telling me who God-haters are, ok? Try to forget the "word" and go for the "context". Can you go back, re-read what I was attempting to get across - using my definition for the time-being if you will, and then argue the point.
| Ana wrote: | | Regarding this "non-existant" phrase, here's one that does exist: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Tell me, what do you think this means? |
Please Ana, you're wearing me out here. It means EXACTLY what it says and nothing more. What it doesn't mean, and is somehow embraced by those who "refuse to be associated with" God, is that nowhere in any government office can there be evidence of God; nowhere in our schools can a child be taught creation but can be taught evolution; nowhere in our courtrooms can the 10 basic laws of humanity be displayed, nowhere on the lawns of our courthouses can there be a nativity. Up to this point Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of religion, yet somehow God-"refusers to be ....." seem to think Congress has made a law. If they haven't, and they haven 't, then why don't you just "move on and get over it" instead of conjuring up some idea that the public needs to be protected from God, by using a "separation of church and state" idea that has no bearing on those issues. If 51% (according to democratists) of the people want that "stuff" in there, it's up to them and not the government. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...that's all the further the constitution speaks to that issue. No additional power has been given to any branch of the government to even address it further. (whew, whew, whew). Anything more than CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, is beyond the scope of the government. No laws have been made. No additional powers have been conveyed from the people to the government. (whew whew whew). Ok, I'm out of breath. Now, I give you equal or better time to counter with your deepest and most strenuous argument on how nativity scenes don't belong on courthouse lawns, ok? (........did congress make a law?)
| Ana wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
I do not get my rights from the Constitution. It even says that in the Constitution. My rights are given to me by my Creator. The Constitution is the document that created and placed limits on the government. C'mon read the thing will ya? If you think the government is where you got your rights, you are doomed to enslavement. |
I don't believe I get my rights from God or government, and certainly not from your government. I believe my rights are inherent, and that every person has exactly the same ones. |
Fair enough. And understood clearly. Thank you. But then what did you mean when you wrote this?: "You can have your religion, no matter which one it is, and your neighbor can have his too. You can have this because of the constitution, not despite it."
| Ana wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
I defend my God for the same reason you try to disprove him. I hope I never "get over it." As long as their are people who try to pervert His word, I'm going to speak up. Ok, with you? I'm not going to argue with you in a secular fashion, because I'm not a secular being. You may object to my way of defending my King, but I'll worry about that when I kneel before Him. |
I'm not trying to disprove your God. This discussion isn't about that. It's about protecting government and religion from each other. |
You have, many times, tried to disprove Him and this discussion is in a Bible-Disussion forum, ok? And it's not about protecting government and religion from each other. The discussion is about Separation of church and state. No protection was ever noted in the subject line. Very plainly, you just don't get it; you are arguing from your own perceived knowledge but it is not based in truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: | P, this one is for you. I spent an hour or so doing some rudimentary research and found literally hundreds of examples where our governments (at various levels) prosecuted, persecuted fired or whatever somone expressing their beliefs.
|
We're not talking about firing. It is perfectly reasonable to fire someone who for whatever reason (religious reasons included) causes serious problems at work such as creating a hostile work environment. The government SHOULD DEFINITELY make sure that its employees and agents do not wear any clothing, or items which represent some religion, because then it looks like the government is endorsing religion. For example, government agents should not be allowed to wear head scarves. They also shouldn't be allowed to wear MASSIVE crosses around their necks. I think that tiny innocuous crosses are fine.
Prosecution is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT issue than firing. I cannot imagine that anyone in the U.S. is ever seriously prosectuted for their religious beliefs. Even the worst lawyer in the country could get a case like that thrown out because of the inherent constitutional violation.
There are probably cases of Rastafarians being busted with lots of drugs where they try to argue that their marijuana is part of their religion and therefore constitutionally protected, but that's just stupid.
But no way can the government use the legal system to prosecute a Christian for his / her beliefs. It would be thrown out of court immediately, and probably give the defendant a good case for suing the government.
There are VERY strong laws in place protecting the freedom of worship.
| Flashman wrote: |
There is no question that Christians are being singled out, systematically, by those who do not believe in Him, and favor given to non-believers.
|
I often hear this argument for Christians. They claim that they are somehow persecuted in America. I don't think anything can be further from the truth. America is an almost exclusively Christian country. Something like 8 out of 10 Americans identify themselves as Christians. Something like 60% of Americans don't believe in evolution. Nowhere else in an Industrialized country can you find a serious movement to have ID taught in public school science classes.
The "Christians are a persecuted minority" argument just doesn't fly; it doesn't even come close. Christianity is strong and thriving in America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: | P, this one is for you. I spent an hour or so doing some rudimentary research and found literally hundreds of examples where our governments (at various levels) prosecuted, persecuted fired or whatever somone expressing their beliefs.
|
We're not talking about firing. It is perfectly reasonable to fire someone who for whatever reason (religious reasons included) causes serious problems at work such as creating a hostile work environment. The government SHOULD DEFINITELY make sure that its employees and agents do not wear any clothing, or items which represent some religion, because then it looks like the government is endorsing religion. For example, government agents should not be allowed to wear head scarves. They also shouldn't be allowed to wear MASSIVE crosses around their necks. I think that tiny innocuous crosses are fine.
Prosecution is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT issue than firing. I cannot imagine that anyone in the U.S. is ever seriously prosectuted for their religious beliefs. Even the worst lawyer in the country could get a case like that thrown out because of the inherent constitutional violation.
There are probably cases of Rastafarians being busted with lots of drugs where they try to argue that their marijuana is part of their religion and therefore constitutionally protected, but that's just stupid.
But no way can the government use the legal system to prosecute a Christian for his / her beliefs. It would be thrown out of court immediately, and probably give the defendant a good case for suing the government.
There are VERY strong laws in place protecting the freedom of worship.
| Flashman wrote: |
There is no question that Christians are being singled out, systematically, by those who do not believe in Him, and favor given to non-believers.
|
I often hear this argument for Christians. They claim that they are somehow persecuted in America. I don't think anything can be further from the truth. America is an almost exclusively Christian country. Something like 8 out of 10 Americans identify themselves as Christians. Something like 60% of Americans don't believe in evolution. Nowhere else in an Industrialized country can you find a serious movement to have ID taught in public school science classes.
The "Christians are a persecuted minority" argument just doesn't fly; it doesn't even come close. Christianity is strong and thriving in America. |
No, we ARE talking about the government firing -unlawfully- employees; arresting/prosecuting for sharing their views. I've showed it to you, provided cites, which you must not have researched, and you still go on.
We're talking about separation of church and state. You made a mundane argument about (paraphrasing): the civilians can legallyl persecute one for religious beliefs, but the government couldn't. Now you say that they had it coming, just like I predicted.
Negroes thrived in our country too, even after it was illegal to own them (or any other person), yet they still were persecuted after it was illegal. You have your head in the sand or are being intentionally obtuse.
Christianity is alive and "thriving" in America because of Christians not because of anything else (other than God, of course). But certainly not because of anything the government has done on their own. "Hi, I'm from the government. I'm here to protect you." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5881
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: | | I do not get my rights from the Constitution. It even says that in the Constitution. My rights are given to me by my Creator. The Constitution is the document that created and placed limits on the government. C'mon read the thing will ya? |
You should take your own advice some time. You didn't even bother to check, and you're hilariously wrong. The only mention of God or creator in the Constitution of the United States of America is at the end, when describing the date. Even then, it is simply a translation of "anno domini." Of course, if you think I'm wrong, feel free to search it:
Constitution
You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which our government is not founded on.
Declaration of Independence |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: |
No, we ARE talking about the government firing -unlawfully- employees; arresting/prosecuting for sharing their views. I've showed it to you, provided cites, which you must not have researched, and you still go on.
|
You haven't really given any examples. Yes, you've given some cases such as X vs. Y, but that hardly tells us anything about the details of the case. I doubt very much that any of your cases involve the government prosecuting someone for their religious beliefs. That's pretty much impossible in America, since the constitution protects freedom of worship. The cases which you cite must be something else being falsely dressed up as the government prosecuting someone for religious reasons.
| Flashman wrote: |
We're talking about separation of church and state. You made a mundane argument about (paraphrasing): the civilians can legallyl persecute one for religious beliefs, but the government couldn't. Now you say that they had it coming, just like I predicted.
|
I don't really know what your point is. Freedom of worship is guaranteed by the constitution. This means that nobody can go to jail for their beliefs. That's a totally different issue than people getting fired for wearing crosses that are too big or headscarves, or whatever. Being fired is not the same thing as being put in jail.
| Flashman wrote: |
Negroes thrived in our country too, even after it was illegal to own them (or any other person), yet they still were persecuted after it was illegal. You have your head in the sand or are being intentionally obtuse.
|
I can't believe that you are comparing Christians in America to blacks! Blacks certainly were (and arguably still are) oppressed. CHRISTIANS ARE NOT OPPRESSED, AND NEVER WERE! In fact, Christians aren't even REMOTELY oppressed in America. Christians control the country! They're in all major positions of power! The President, Vice President, his cabinet, and pretty much the entire House, Senate, and Judiciary are ALL Christians!
You really need to stop with the persecution fantasies! Christians aren't even remotely close to being oppressed in America. Your argument is absurd! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: seperation of church and state |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: | | So which part was I "not" right about. I know you have allowed me the idea that members of the church can certainly be a part of congress. But your qualifier "as long as congress doesn't pass any laws based on religion... " Do you mean, that you don't like the idea of them passing laws based on their Christian/Muslim/Taoist values or views? Or did you mean as long as they don't pass a law making, say, Baptist the "official" religion of the state? Or did you mean as long as they don't pass a resolution stating that this country was founded on Christian moral principals? Or what? You are leaving that idea hanging. Please try to give me a clearer picture of what you are saying instead of making me re-read the same non-committed "based on religion" vagueness. |
I hope this clarifies: "based on religion" means "having to do with religion." Here are some examples of what I think is not ok:
1. Someone passes a law saying it's ok for public hospitals to perform mandatory circumcisions on all newborn boys (because it is part of this politician's religion to do so).
2. Someone passes a law saying it's not ok for families to sing religious hymns outside in their backyards.
3. Someone passes a law making it mandatory to teach children in schools that "at the beginning of time, the heavens and the earths were mixed together in a great cloud. Slowly, the clearer, lighter parts of the cloud rose up and became heaven. The heavier parts of the cloud descended and became an ocean of muddy water. Between the heavens and the earth, a pale green sprout began to grow. It grew swiftly and was extremely strong. When the plant’s flower burst open, the First God emerged. This First God then created Izanagi, is the god of all that is light and heavenly. Izanagi, whose name means "the male who invites", and his wife and sister Izanami, whose name means "the female who invites". The First God gave Izanagi the task of finishing the creation of the world.
Standing on rainbow called Ama-no-ukihashi (the floating bridge of the heavens), they plunged a jewel crested spear into the ocean. When they pulled it free, the water that dripped from the spear coagulated and formed the first island of the Japanese archipelago. Izanagi and Izanami went down to this island and settled down on it. Together, on this island, they made the islands of Japan.
When Izanami died giving birth, Izanagi went to the underworld to retrieve her, but she refused to come back with him and they parted forever. When Izanagi returned from the underworld, he started the first cleaning rites. He washed his left eye and thus created the sun goddess Amaterasu. When he washed his right eye, the moon goddess Tsuki-Yumi came forth. From his nose he created Susanowo, the god of the seas and the storms.
Later, he created the first people and animals of the island. " (taken from here)
| Flashman wrote: |
Of course I want to know what you think. I'm dying to know what you think. I loosely defined the word hate to P as, "ambivilant with a purpose" a few posts back. It was late, so P probably didn't get a chance to read it before taking exception to my using "God-haters". The NIV Study Bible and I agree with the definition as "refuse to be associated with" = hate. I'm sorry if my choice of words isn't to your liking, but hey, you now have the chance to learn a little something about the perversion of words. I challenged P, and now I challenge you to find me a shorter way of saying, "refuse to be associated with" and I'm adding it to my vocab. Until then, please don't waste time telling me who God-haters are, ok? Try to forget the "word" and go for the "context". Can you go back, re-read what I was attempting to get across - using my definition for the time-being if you will, and then argue the point. |
This is only a suggestion, but perhaps 'God-apathists' would be more appropriate. If you're going to use the word 'hate', then you have to be aware of the connotations the word has with your audience.
| Flashman wrote: |
Please Ana, you're wearing me out here. |
Good; I don't know you, but you could probably use the exercise! 
| Flashman wrote: |
It means EXACTLY what it says and nothing more. What it doesn't mean, and is somehow embraced by those who "refuse to be associated with" God, is that nowhere in any government office can there be evidence of God; nowhere in our schools can a child be taught creation but can be taught evolution; nowhere in our courtrooms can the 10 basic laws of humanity be displayed, nowhere on the lawns of our courthouses can there be a nativity. Up to this point Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of religion, yet somehow God-"refusers to be ....." seem to think Congress has made a law. If they haven't, and they haven 't, then why don't you just "move on and get over it" instead of conjuring up some idea that the public needs to be protected from God, by using a "separation of church and state" idea that has no bearing on those issues. |
First, adding size to your words doesn't add weight to them. Second, try replacing all of the Christian symbols in your examples to Satanic pentagrams or Buddha statues. Still think the constitution doesn't prohibit this, or do you only think that when considering symbols of your own beliefs?
| Flashman wrote: |
If 51% (according to democratists) of the people want that "stuff" in there, it's up to them and not the government. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...that's all the further the constitution speaks to that issue. No additional power has been given to any branch of the government to even address it further. (whew, whew, whew). Anything more than CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, is beyond the scope of the government. No laws have been made. No additional powers have been conveyed from the people to the government. (whew whew whew). Ok, I'm out of breath. Now, I give you equal or better time to counter with your deepest and most strenuous argument on how nativity scenes don't belong on courthouse lawns, ok? (........did congress make a law?) |
Do you seriously believe that the 51% statistic is accurate?
| Flashman wrote: | | Ana wrote: |
I don't believe I get my rights from God or government, and certainly not from your government. I believe my rights are inherent, and that every person has exactly the same ones. |
Fair enough. And understood clearly. Thank you. But then what did you mean when you wrote this?: "You can have your religion, no matter which one it is, and your neighbor can have his too. You can have this because of the constitution, not despite it." |
It means exactly what it says. You can adhere to your religion, as long as it doesn't violate your neighbour's right to do the same. That's because congress cannot pass a law preferring his religion over yours, nor yours over his.
| Flashman wrote: |
| Ana wrote: |
I'm not trying to disprove your God. This discussion isn't about that. It's about protecting government and religion from each other. |
You have, many times, tried to disprove Him and this discussion is in a Bible-Disussion forum, ok? And it's not about protecting government and religion from each other. The discussion is about Separation of church and state. No protection was ever noted in the subject line. Very plainly, you just don't get it; you are arguing from your own perceived knowledge but it is not based in truth. |
sure, sure 
You're exactly right; this discussion is about the separation of church and state. This is the very thing that creates the protection from each other that I and others are talking about! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Flashman wrote: | | I do not get my rights from the Constitution. It even says that in the Constitution. My rights are given to me by my Creator. The Constitution is the document that created and placed limits on the government. C'mon read the thing will ya? |
You should take your own advice some time. You didn't even bother to check, and you're hilariously wrong. The only mention of God or creator in the Constitution of the United States of America is at the end, when describing the date. Even then, it is simply a translation of "anno domini." Of course, if you think I'm wrong, feel free to search it:
Constitution
You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which our government is not founded on.
Declaration of Independence |
As much as I hate to admit it, you are right. It was the Declaration of Independance. I make no excuses.  See, it took FFT to do the research. My point is partially made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
No, we ARE talking about the government firing -unlawfully- employees; arresting/prosecuting for sharing their views. I've showed it to you, provided cites, which you must not have researched, and you still go on.
|
You haven't really given any examples. Yes, you've given some cases such as X vs. Y, but that hardly tells us anything about the details of the case. I doubt very much that any of your cases involve the government prosecuting someone for their religious beliefs. That's pretty much impossible in America, since the constitution protects freedom of worship. The cases which you cite must be something else being falsely dressed up as the government prosecuting someone for religious reasons. |
OK. Whatever, dude.
| Flashman wrote: |
We're talking about separation of church and state. You made a mundane argument about (paraphrasing): the civilians can legallyl persecute one for religious beliefs, but the government couldn't. Now you say that they had it coming, just like I predicted.
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | I don't really know what your point is. Freedom of worship is guaranteed by the constitution. This means that nobody can go to jail for their beliefs. That's a totally different issue than people getting fired for wearing crosses that are too big or headscarves, or whatever. Being fired is not the same thing as being put in jail. |
People to go to jail for their beliefs and are even murdered for them. It is not a totally different issue, it's a totally different outcome. Something being guaranteed by the Constitution is not always a guarantee is it? you think that, judging from the way you are surprised, to be persecuted it has to be in the open and everyone should be persecuted equally. That's not how persecution in a "free" state works. You don't think it exists, I would have expected it. You are referred to, in the honesty in government movement, as a sheeple.
| Flashman wrote: |
Negroes thrived in our country too, even after it was illegal to own them (or any other person), yet they still were persecuted after it was illegal. You have your head in the sand or are being intentionally obtuse.
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | I can't believe that you are comparing Christians in America to blacks! Blacks certainly were (and arguably still are) oppressed. CHRISTIANS ARE NOT OPPRESSED, AND NEVER WERE! In fact, Christians aren't even REMOTELY oppressed in America. Christians control the country! They're in all major positions of power! The President, Vice President, his cabinet, and pretty much the entire House, Senate, and Judiciary are ALL Christians! |
I haven't used the word oppressed, but I believe that all Americans are oppressed. No, not to the degree that the blacks were oppressed, but oppressed nonetheless. Again, it's not a topic you care to research, so please be silent on the topic.
| P1234567890 wrote: | | You really need to stop with the persecution fantasies! Christians aren't even remotely close to being oppressed in America. Your argument is absurd! |
I'm not your law clerk. The cites are valid. Do your own research. I don't care if you believe them or not, what's important is that you'd rather sit there and say, "you didn't give me chapter and verse so you probably made them up or there's some other reason they're not valid." There are hundreds of them...check it out.
Let's see...Christians were never prosecuted. Never were (in this country)... and in fact control this country. I've given you the cites and provided you examples. You refuse to refute and I'm the one who is arguing absurdly.?
I'll agree that professing Christians are in those positions you spoke of and that bears out my statement that it doesn't automatically make them better persons. I never once stated we didn't have Christians in government. We do, and they sell out their faith, if they truly had any to begin with - with only one exception I can think of in recent history. Ron Paul of Texas.
Last edited by Flashman on Wed May 31, 2006 4:39 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: |
I'm not your law clerk. The cites are valid. Do your own research. I don't care if you believe them or not, what's important is that you'd rather sit there are say, "you didn't give me chapter and verse so you probably made them up or there's some other reason they're not valid. There are hundreds of them...check it out.
|
If you know anything about the legal system, you'll understand that there is an order in the way things are done. First you have to file papers in order to get a grand jury indictment. Then you have to convince a grand jury. Then you have to go to trial.
It JUST ISN'T POSSIBLE to even get to the grand jury stage with a prosecutorial case aimed at prosecuting someone for their religious beliefs. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. Any lawyer worth spit would have the case thrown out on constitutional grounds. The cases which you cite clearly cannot be simple cases of the government trying to prosecute Christians. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT OF COURT!
| Flashman wrote: |
Let's see...Christians were never prosecuted. Never were (in this country)... and in fact control this country. I've given you the cites and provided you examples. You refuse to refute and I'm the one who is arguing absurdly.? |
Forget about your cites. You're trying to make an argument that Christians are a persecuted minority. They are not. The days of being fed to lions are long gone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok Flash, I went and looked up some of your cases, and they don't even come close to proving what you think they prove. They ARE NOT cases of the government prosecuting people for their religious beliefs.
| Flashman wrote: |
Frye v Tarwater, 8 circuit court of appeals: Christian protesters arrested during a lawful demonstration because someone complained about the content on the signs they were holding. Christians refused to quit holding the signs and were arrested and prosecuted. Christians won.
|
This case has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Anti-abortion protesters were walking around with signs displaying graphic images of aborted fetuses. This is a free-speech issue, NOT a religious persecution issue.
Check it out:
| Flashman wrote: |
CcConnell v. Fec (violation of constitutional rights by government actors)
|
Again, a free speech issue; NOT a religious persecution issue:
Check Link
| Flashman wrote: |
Locke v. Davey (violation of constitutional rights by government actors)
|
Again, most certainly NOT a religious persecution case:
[size=9]http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12755
| Flashman wrote: |
Gentala v. City of Tucson (violation of civil rights by government actors)
|
Yet again, most certainly NOT a religious persecution case:
http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/2000-April/000677.html
| Flashman wrote: |
Prince v. Jacoby, (2003) (violation of civil rights by government actors)
|
Again, where is the government prosecuting a religious person?
http://www.contenderministries.org/law/lawpages/09062003prince.php
I don't have time to go through the rest of them. I'm guessing that they're similar.
Exactly zero of these cases are instances of the government prosecuting people for their religious beliefs.
You really need to stop thinking that the government is somehow out to prosecute Christians. IT ISN'T! You're having persecution fantasies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 4:32 pm Post subject: Re: seperation of church and state |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Flashman wrote: | | So which part was I "not" right about. I know you have allowed me the idea that members of the church can certainly be a part of congress. But your qualifier "as long as congress doesn't pass any laws based on religion... " Do you mean, that you don't like the idea of them passing laws based on their Christian/Muslim/Taoist values or views? Or did you mean as long as they don't pass a law making, say, Baptist the "official" religion of the state? Or did you mean as long as they don't pass a resolution stating that this country was founded on Christian moral principals? Or what? You are leaving that idea hanging. Please try to give me a clearer picture of what you are saying instead of making me re-read the same non-committed "based on religion" vagueness. |
I hope this clarifies: "based on religion" means "having to do with religion." Here are some examples of what I think is not ok:
1. Someone passes a law saying it's ok for public hospitals to perform mandatory circumcisions on all newborn boys (because it is part of this politician's religion to do so).
2. Someone passes a law saying it's not ok for families to sing religious hymns outside in their backyards. |
Much better. Now I see what you are getting at. pp.1. remember that "someone" can't pass a law, but he could feasibly draft one and strong-arm others to go along with the vote. Or, say a large faction of "religious zealouts" gain the majority in both the house and senate they might be able to pass one. But Believers themselves wouldn't let that happen. pp.2. I'm sure there is a law about noise abatement or nuisence laws already exist for that one. Still, I get your meaning, but that's a secular agenda not a "religious" agenda.
| Ana wrote: | 3. Someone passes a law making it mandatory to teach children in schools that "at the beginning of time, the heavens and the earths were mixed together in a great cloud. Slowly, the clearer, lighter parts of the cloud rose up and became heaven. The heavier parts of the cloud descended and became an ocean of muddy water. Between the heavens and the earth, a pale green sprout began to grow. It grew swiftly and was extremely strong. When the plant’s flower burst open, the First God emerged. This First God then created Izanagi, is the god of all that is light and heavenly. Izanagi, whose name means "the male who invites", and his wife and sister Izanami, whose name means "the female who invites". The First God gave Izanagi the task of finishing the creation of the world.
Standing on rainbow called Ama-no-ukihashi (the floating bridge of the heavens), they plunged a jewel crested spear into the ocean. When they pulled it free, the water that dripped from the spear coagulated and formed the first island of the Japanese archipelago. Izanagi and Izanami went down to this island and settled down on it. Together, on this island, they made the islands of Japan.
When Izanami died giving birth, Izanagi went to the underworld to retrieve her, but she refused to come back with him and they parted forever. When Izanagi returned from the underworld, he started the first cleaning rites. He washed his left eye and thus created the sun goddess Amaterasu. When he washed his right eye, the moon goddess Tsuki-Yumi came forth. From his nose he created Susanowo, the god of the seas and the storms.
Later, he created the first people and animals of the island. " (taken from here) |
pp.3. is (in P's words "absurd") because the entire monologue is absurd. Can't you come up with an example like, "Someone passes a law making it mandatory to teach children in schools that they came from ooze?" You may not believe something, but that doesn't make it wrong. Your point was that you don't think "religion" should be forced on people. I don't either. I learned that stuff in school (both sides of the argument) and made my own choice. It wasn't lawfully mandated, the school board was just wise. The government has no business "passing laws" regarding matters of "religion" (I use quotes for personal reasons).
| Ana wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
Of course I want to know what you think. I'm dying to know what you think. I loosely defined the word hate to P as, "ambivilant with a purpose" a few posts back. It was late, so P probably didn't get a chance to read it before taking exception to my using "God-haters". The NIV Study Bible and I agree with the definition as "refuse to be associated with" = hate. I'm sorry if my choice of words isn't to your liking, but hey, you now have the chance to learn a little something about the perversion of words. I challenged P, and now I challenge you to find me a shorter way of saying, "refuse to be associated with" and I'm adding it to my vocab. Until then, please don't waste time telling me who God-haters are, ok? Try to forget the "word" and go for the "context". Can you go back, re-read what I was attempting to get across - using my definition for the time-being if you will, and then argue the point. |
This is only a suggestion, but perhaps 'God-apathists' would be more appropriate. If you're going to use the word 'hate', then you have to be aware of the connotations the word has with your audience. |
Let me think on that one. I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm not sure apathy and hate are the same, and I don't care way much if my audience doesn't like it. I aim for accuracy, but still I'll mull that over. Thanks.
| Ana wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
Please Ana, you're wearing me out here. |
Good; I don't know you, but you could probably use the exercise! |
That I could 
| Ana wrote: | | Flashman wrote: | | It means EXACTLY what it says and nothing more. What it doesn't mean, and is somehow embraced by those who "refuse to be associated with" God, is that nowhere in any government office can there be evidence of God; nowhere in our schools can a child be taught creation but can be taught evolution; nowhere in our courtrooms can the 10 basic laws of humanity be displayed, nowhere on the lawns of our courthouses can there be a nativity. Up to this point Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of religion, yet somehow God-"refusers to be ....." seem to think Congress has made a law. If they haven't, and they haven 't, then why don't you just "move on and get over it" instead of conjuring up some idea that the public needs to be protected from God, by using a "separation of church and state" idea that has no bearing on those issues. |
First, adding size to your words doesn't add weight to them. |
Yes it does.
| Ana wrote: | | Second, try replacing all of the Christian symbols in your examples to Satanic pentagrams or Buddha statues. Still think the constitution doesn't prohibit this, or do you only think that when considering symbols of your own beliefs? |
I think that the constitution doesn't prohibit this, correct. I don't care about pentagrams or Buddha statues. But if people want them there, I think, in this country, they should be allowed to convince those who are in charge of those spaces of their desires to have them there. Look, if these "symbols" were never there and if I didn't have such an attachment to them, I probably wouldn't try to get them placed there. There is no movement to have any "symbols" placed into the new World Trade Center memorial (that I know of) or anywhere else that I know of. That fact is, someone a long time ago thought it was a great idea. Good. Now if they are "symbols" which, for whatever reason, harm the nation then let's take them down. I have no problem with that. But, as pointed out by P, we are a majority of Christians in this nation and some minority wants to rid us of our reminders of goodness. It's not right. I'm pretty sure you don't agree with that, but hey...
| Ana wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
If 51% (according to democratists) of the people want that "stuff" in there, it's up to them and not the government. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...that's all the further the constitution speaks to that issue. No additional power has been given to any branch of the government to even address it further. (whew, whew, whew). Anything more than CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW, is beyond the scope of the government. No laws have been made. No additional powers have been conveyed from the people to the government. (whew whew whew). Ok, I'm out of breath. Now, I give you equal or better time to counter with your deepest and most strenuous argument on how nativity scenes don't belong on courthouse lawns, ok? (........did congress make a law?) |
Do you seriously believe that the 51% statistic is accurate? |
I think that number is very conservative.
| Ana wrote: | | Flashman wrote: | | Ana wrote: |
I don't believe I get my rights from God or government, and certainly not from your government. I believe my rights are inherent, and that every person has exactly the same ones. |
Fair enough. And understood clearly. Thank you. But then what did you mean when you wrote this?: "You can have your religion, no matter which one it is, and your neighbor can have his too. You can have this because of the constitution, not despite it." |
It means exactly what it says. You can adhere to your religion, as long as it doesn't violate your neighbour's right to do the same. That's because congress cannot pass a law preferring his religion over yours, nor yours over his. |
OK, I get ya. I thought there was a leaning toward the constitution being the "giver" of our rights and only wished to clarify. Thanks, once again.
| Ana wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
| Ana wrote: |
I'm not trying to disprove your God. This discussion isn't about that. It's about protecting government and religion from each other. |
You have, many times, tried to disprove Him and this discussion is in a Bible-Disussion forum, ok? And it's not about protecting government and religion from each other. The discussion is about Separation of church and state. No protection was ever noted in the subject line. Very plainly, you just don't get it; you are arguing from your own perceived knowledge but it is not based in truth. |
sure, sure
You're exactly right; this discussion is about the separation of church and state. This is the very thing that creates the protection from each other that I and others are talking about! |
[/quote]
The government enjoys no "lawful" protection from religion. The church has a "lawful" protection from the government (state). That's not me equivocating, that's simply a matter of law. The Constitution raises a shield only to keep the state out of the [religious] affairs of the people/church. Many people believe that it should be reciprocal, but it's just not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
I'm not your law clerk. The cites are valid. Do your own research. I don't care if you believe them or not, what's important is that you'd rather sit there are say, "you didn't give me chapter and verse so you probably made them up or there's some other reason they're not valid." There are hundreds of them...check it out.
|
If you know anything about the legal system, you'll understand that there is an order in the way things are done. First you have to file papers in order to get a grand jury indictment. Then you have to convince a grand jury. Then you have to go to trial.
It JUST ISN'T POSSIBLE to even get to the grand jury stage with a prosecutorial case aimed at prosecuting someone for their religious beliefs. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. Any lawyer worth spit would have the case thrown out on constitutional grounds. The cases which you cite clearly cannot be simple cases of the government trying to prosecute Christians. THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT OF COURT! |
My naive little friend. First of all, I know more about rules and precedures than anyone I've seen on this post so far. I'm betting I've argued more cases, in a courtroom, than any of you. I've seen more court corruption than you have seen sheets of toilet paper, so please don't go assuming that you need to spell this out. And you are wrong.
Only felony cases go before the grand jury. The grand jury, which isn't as grand as it used to be, in larger cities is more corrupt than the judges. Still, in this country, with the proper amount of money, I could probably get anyone off for any crime. You seem to have a mindset that an innocent man will axiomatically and automatically be acquitted - with a lawyer who is worth "spit".
I've found the best way to get the truth is to take up the opponant's position and try to prove his/her point. If you can do it, you reverse your position. If you can't, you have gained knowledge and strength.
Get on Google and spend 1 day doing research on "government abuse" "government corruption", "judicial malfeasance", "innocent jailed", and anything else you can think of...and then come back and tell me how confident you are that some nit lawyer can easily get a man out of the grip of the feds. In the meantime, your generalizations, and laziness are wasting a ton of my time. It's nice that you have faith that since we have a constitution, no innocent person will be prosecuted because that's what keeps you safe in your mind. Come into my world sometime and I'll walk you through some cases that will make your hairs stand on end. But, knowing you, it's a waste of time.
Why don't we just get back on the topic of separation of church and state, ok? 
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Flashman wrote: |
Let's see...Christians were never prosecuted. Never were (in this country)... and in fact control this country. I've given you the cites and provided you examples. You refuse to refute and I'm the one who is arguing absurdly.? |
Forget about your cites. You're trying to make an argument that Christians are a persecuted minority. They are not. The days of being fed to lions are long gone. |
[/quote]
The days of being fed to the "lions" are just beginning my ignorant friend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Flashman wrote: |
Only felony cases go before the grand jury.
|
So when the state prosecutes people for their religious views, the charge isn't a felony?
What charge do they use? There is no such charge as "Praying in public." Or "Being a Christian."
| Flashman wrote: |
The grand jury, which isn't as grand as it used to be, in larger cities is more corrupt than the judges. Still, in this country, with the proper amount of money, I could probably get anyone off for any crime. You seem to have a mindset that an innocent man will axiomatically and automatically be acquitted - with a lawyer who is worth "spit".
|
I stand by everything that I said. Never has someone in America been prosecuted for their religious beliefs. It is impossible because it violates the constitutition. There isn't even an appropriate charge on the books. Like I said, any lawyer worth spit could someone off for practicing their religion. And forget about the lawyer; any judge would throw the case out without any prompting by the lawyer.
There isn't a single person sitting in a jail anywhere in the country simply for having certain religious beliefs.
Show me JUST ONE clear case where the government prosecuted someone for their religious beliefs. And no, Rastafarians with drug charges and anti-abortionists carrying signs or shooting abortion doctors don't count.
I agree that there are plenty of cases where religion plays a peripheral role. But there are NONE where it is the central issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flashman
Pit Bull
Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 371
Location: MO
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | Ok Flash, I went and looked up some of your cases, and they don't even come close to proving what you think they prove. They ARE NOT cases of the government prosecuting people for their religious beliefs.
| Flashman wrote: |
Frye v Tarwater, 8 circuit court of appeals: Christian protesters arrested during a lawful demonstration because someone complained about the content on the signs they were holding. Christians refused to quit holding the signs and were arrested and prosecuted. Christians won.
|
This case has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Anti-abortion protesters were walking around with signs displaying graphic images of aborted fetuses. This is a free-speech issue, NOT a religious persecution issue.
Check it out:
| Flashman wrote: |
CcConnell v. Fec (violation of constitutional rights by government actors)
|
Again, a free speech issue; NOT a religious persecution issue:
Check Link
| Flashman wrote: |
Locke v. Davey (violation of constitutional rights by government actors)
|
Again, most certainly NOT a religious persecution case:
[size=9]http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12755
| Flashman wrote: |
Gentala v. City |
|
| | |
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
