Jason Posted June 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='BengalBacker' date='Jun 28 2005, 02:56 AM']I don't hate religious people. I don't hate religion. It simply has no place in our government. Anywhere in any form. [right][post="108086"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Why? Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 "White Christians always depict Jesus as White." granted, whodey has already said he isn't the most religious person on the board, i think he is a white guy, and the closest religion he seems to follow is christianity... and he said he believes he was black (or at least had darker skin)... i AM a white christian and i say he was probably a black man, or arab... considering he was in africa/israel/that general area... guess your broad generalization isn't right on the money AGAIN!!! maybe you shouldn't stack a whole bunch of people based on race and/or religion into one big pile... its called BEING OPEN MINDED and you seem to have a big problem w/ that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='Jason' date='Jun 28 2005, 08:06 AM']Why? Seriously. [right][post="108152"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Because the government shouldn't restrict nor [b]endorse[/b] any religion over another. They are not saying you can't practice whatever you want to, just that there is no need for the 10 commandments or any other biblical reference in a U.S. courthouse. Why not have some scripture out of the Koran or any other "holy books"? By doing that it is allowing one religion to be more important than another, no matter what the population demographics look like. Wasn't this country founded to have religious freedom. Where does that freedom include having biblical text in a courthouse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='jza10304' date='Jun 28 2005, 11:37 AM']Because the government shouldn't restrict nor [b]endorse[/b] any religion over another. They are not saying you can't practice whatever you want to, just that there is no need for the 10 commandments or any other biblical reference in a U.S. courthouse. [b][color="blue"]Why not have some scripture out of the Koran or any other "holy books"? [/color][/b] By doing that it is allowing one religion to be more important than another, no matter what the population demographics look like. Wasn't this country founded to have religious freedom. Where does that freedom include having biblical text in a courthouse? [right][post="108190"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Thats exactly what I'd like to see, a socity that has differing views on religon but can co-exist in a peacefull manner, if we are to be this "beacon of light" wouldnt that be a big step to set the example to countries around the world on how to? How are we any better than post war VietNam that restricted Buddist expression, or Iran who is now restricting anything other than Muslim? Rather Id like to see us be that becon of light that we [i]say[/i] we want and then dont practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='jza10304' date='Jun 28 2005, 11:37 AM'][b]1[/b]Because the government shouldn't restrict nor [b]endorse[/b] any religion over another. They are not saying you can't practice whatever you want to, just that there is no need for the 10 commandments or any other biblical reference in a U.S. courthouse. [b]2 Why not have some scripture out of the Koran or any other "holy books"?[/b] By doing that it is allowing one religion to be more important than another, no matter what the population demographics look like. Wasn't this country founded to have religious freedom. [b]3 Where does that freedom include having biblical text in a courthouse?[/b] [right][post="108190"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] 1 - What religion is being "endorsed" by having the 10 Commandments in a courthouse? Where is it prohibited to "endorse" a religion? The 1st Ammendment says "Congress shall make no [u]law[/u] regarding [b]establishment[/b] of a religion. 2 - Because the country's laws wer not based on the Koran, but the 10 Comandments. But if there is something in the Koran for which any of our laws could be based, I don't have a problem with it. 3 - You just contradicted yourself. If it is religious freedom, why [b]WOULDN'T[/b] that freedom include a scripture on a courthouse wall? It is freedom [b]OF[/b] religion, not freedom [b]FROM[/b] religion. In fact many state constitutions, including Massachusetts [b]REQUIRE[/b] the acknowledgement of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='Jason' date='Jun 28 2005, 11:41 AM']1 - What religion is being "endorsed" by having the 10 Commandments in a courthouse? Where is it prohibited to "endorse" a religion? The 1st Ammendment says "Congress shall make no [u]law[/u] regarding [b]establishment[/b] of a religion. 2 - Because the country's laws wer not based on the Koran, but the 10 Comandments. But if there is something in the Koran for which any of our laws could be based, I don't have a problem with it. 3 - You just contradicted yourself. If it is religious freedom, why [b]WOULDN'T[/b] that freedom include a scripture on a courthouse wall? It is freedom [b]OF[/b] religion, not freedom [b]FROM[/b] religion. In fact many state constitutions, including Massachusetts [b]REQUIRE[/b] the acknowledgement of God. [right][post="108216"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Yes freedom of religion, but not by the state. Your friends at the SCOTUS have ruled many times that such acts would be an establishment of one religion over another. When the state endorses one religion, it can be seen as an establishment. What is the difference in credibility between Catholics, Baptists, or people who practices Santeria. Hell, lets have courtrooms where you swear on the bible, the koran, torah, some saints as well. Like in elementary where no one can have candy if there isn't enough to go around. True, while christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S., the U.S. does not recognize an official religion. There is no need for anything religious to be inside a courthouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted June 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='jza10304' date='Jun 28 2005, 01:24 PM']Yes freedom of religion, but not by the state. [b]Your friends at the SCOTUS have ruled many times that such acts would be an establishment of one religion over another.[/b] When the state endorses one religion, it can be seen as an establishment. What is the difference in credibility between Catholics, Baptists, or people who practices Santeria. Hell, lets have courtrooms where you swear on the bible, the koran, torah, some saints as well. Like in elementary where no one can have candy if there isn't enough to go around. True, while christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S., the U.S. does not recognize an official religion. There is no need for anything religious to be inside a courthouse. [right][post="108231"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Liberal activists have ruled that. The bible was read in schools for almost 200 years under the constitution before the court removed it in 1961ish. Prayer was in schools until the early 1960s. The 10 Commandments was in schools until 1981ish. Congress opens every session with a prayer. The 10 Commandments are engraved on the walls of the Supreme Court building. Our Founding Fathers, who wrote the constitution, had religion all over the government then, and they didn't think it was wrong. The wrote the 1st Ammendment to protect religion from the government, not the other way around. How is it the men who wrote the constitution could have religion all over the place in the government if doing that would be unconstitutional??????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BengalBacker Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='Jason' date='Jun 28 2005, 08:06 AM']Why? Seriously. [right][post="108152"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Here's one of my posts from a thread on another forum way back in December. The statements from the person I'm debating with are in bold. [b]I'll go along with the idea that what the founding fathers intended isn't as important as what's right. I'm just absolutely sick of those who are interested in the removal of God and religion from daily life using the "separation of church and state" as an excuse to target religion and require their (minority) point of view prevail.[/b] Well, that wouldn't apply to me. First of all, I'm not interested in the removal of God and religion from daily life if that's what you choose. Pray and worship every waking hour if you like. Live at church if that's what you want to do. Secondly, I'm not using the separation of church and state to "target religion and require (my) their (minority) point of view prevail". I don't want you to give up your religion. Believe whatever you like. I don't want The 10 Commandments replaced with "The Age of Reason". Neither has any place in government institutions. [b]But... "Even if the majority is Christian that doesn't mean the rest of the nation should be subjected to it by their government" not sure what you mean by subjected to it, but it certainly makes no sense to suggest that the minority viewpoint should prevail.[/b] Again, it's not about the minority viewpoint prevailing. I don't want currency to be emblazoned with "There is no God". There is simply no reason to have "In God We Trust" on our money. If you trust in God, write it on a piece of paper and stick it in your wallet if it makes you feel better. [b]"It serves no good purpose anyway." This is wrong. The further from religion this country moves, the worse off we are.[/b] That's your opinion. Even if I agreed with you, (and actually I do to an extent) it should not be a function of the government to move people toward religion. Particularly any one religion to the exclusion of others. My point wasn't that religion "serves no good purpose anyway", my point was that The 10 Commandments in courthouses, or "In God We Trust" on our currency serves no good purpose. Do you think anyone has been "saved" because of these things? [b]"No one's rights are being taken away by removing religion from government." Again, wrong. This is another call for the minority to inflict their views on the majority.[/b] No it isn't. It's a call for religious views NOT to be inflicted on individuals by their government. [b]"No one's being harmed." Everyone in the country is being harmed by this push as society is getting less and less moral, there is less willingness to assume responsibility for anything, moral relativism...all of which lead to a society further in chaos.[/b] Religion doesn't equal morality, and morality isn't dependant on religion. The scandals of many Catholic priests recently are evidence of that, and as I'm sure you know atrocities have been commited in the name of religion throughout history. [b]"Anyone who doesn't hold the same beliefs should have the right not to be subjected to it from their own government" Not only is this untrue (it's yet another call for the minority to require the government to follow their view while quashing the view of the majority) but this argument is EXACTLY the problem. You are not being "subjected" to anything by seeing the words on the dollar bill or a statue of the 10 commandments. It's bullsh!t to suggest that your rights are in any way impacted by viewing such things. If you were required to go to church, THAT would be violating your rights.[/b] You feel that way because you are a Christian and that's the religion that's being endorsed. Would you have a problem with "There Is No God" being printed on our money? Again, I'm not asking the government to require anyone to follow my view. I'm not asking the government to make it illegal for you to worship however you see fit. The government should simply stay neutral when it comes to religion. It shouldn't endorse any particular religion. That should not be a function of the government. It doesn't matter that the majority is Christian. If you agree that spirituality is a personal choice, how can you support a government in a free country endorsing any one religion? It goes against everything that makes this country great. I'm not militant about all of this. I don't write letters to my congressman or stage protests. In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's all that important. When the subject is brought up though, I try to debate it from an unbiased, common sense perspective. I think my view is common sense and I think your view is biased. [b]As to your last paragraph, nobody is suggesting that's the only thing that matters.[/b] Then why is it always the argument from both sides? What does it matter? Certainly no one is arguing that the framers of the constitution intended that all citizens be required to be Christian. Isn't it obvious that they wanted to ensure everyone's right to choose their own spirituality? If you can agree with that, how can you argue that endorsing religion should be a function of government? Some of this probably doesn't make much sense when it's taken out of the context of the whole thread. Here's the link if anyone wants to read the whole debate. [url="http://www.nflfans.com/bengalstalk/forum.php?az=show_mesg&forum=101&thread_id=6770&mesg_id=6843&page=19"]http://www.nflfans.com/bengalstalk/forum.p...id=6843&page=19[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 Great post backer. I would reply with a quote but it would take too much space. That argument you put together is bullet-proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 that is the main difference, imo, between backer and bj... they are both atheists but bj wants to kill religion in all aspects, and mocks religious people, to get his point acrossed... backer just doesn't want the stuff on our money and in our courtrooms... well if that is all that is on the table, i can't find a reason not to agree... i was giving this a little thought the other day, and putting "in god we trust" is actually smacking God acrossed the face... the main commandment is "put no God in front of me" which means don't put money, pride, sports, etc in front of your faith... putting God's name on money isn't exactly putting him in front of money... the 10 commandments is a touchier subject... christians want to make sure that atheists know that the majority of our founders were christians (which i believe) and that is why we should have the 10 commandments in the courtrooms... the truth is, that is why they were originally there, and the reason that we should want to keep them there has to do w/ tradition rather than belief... what the opposition needs to keep in mind though, is it isn't the act of taking the 10 commandments off the walls or whatever, but it comes down to fear... in the last 10 years, there has been some weird rulings, and christians want to blame this on the secularism that america is seeming to go towards... whether or not that is true is your own opinion... i think that things haven't gotten better... just turn on the tv... i don't necessarily believe in censorship, but at the same time, i wouldn't want my child (if i had one) to watch some of the shit that is one fox, cbs, nbc, etc... its more out of fear of "what is next" that christians fight this so hard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 Ah to hell with it, lets take out the Declaration of Independence from the Archives because we shouldn't allow the display of our heritage in a public forum, or get rid of that darn liberty bell, or the statue of liberty ect... Our heritage offends me so lets remove them, I don't care if I don't have to believe in it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 The problem with your argument Backer is that this stuff is already there. We are wasting time and money on a useless argument that helps noone in any way. Maybe we should just not add any religious displays to anything in the future, but to waste court time on removing what is already there is ridiculous. I don't see how a display of the ten commandments can harm anyone in any way. I really cannot see this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.