It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Anti-Christian conspiracy

page: 70
16
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Because my tax dollars are supporting the land on which such monuments reside, and such monuments imply a religious affiliation of the state. Read my current signature to understand why this is a problem.


This is not about the money. I've heard no whining and moaning about us buying screwdrivers that cost hundreds of dollars (because of contracts) and the government receiving lobbying funds to dump waste in our backyards. Can we cut the "tax dollars" excuse and get to the point? It sounds to me people are personally offended, not financially suffering because of a momument that costs ~$.000000000001 cent to each member of the american public.

I don't agree with the current quote on your signature line and don't think it's befitting of a U.S. President. Not to say he hasn't done good things, but this quote isn't one of them in my opinion.



[edit on 23-12-2005 by saint4God]




posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Apparently so. People are trying to erect that idol in public squares across the nation.


Why would God make an idol that has printed on it not to make idols?


Originally posted by spamandham
Those who call the Bible the inerrant word of god have replaced Jesus with the Bible.


The Bible still quotes, "Believe(trust) in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". That hasn't changed. I guess it's possible to replace the Bible for Jesus if a person has never read the Book.
What's that favorite word you like to use to describe people like that?


Originally posted by spamandham
It's one thing to discuss value in the teachings of the Bible, it's something quite different to claim the Bible is inerrant.


The Bible cannot be proven inerrant by looking at it. It must be applied, tested, and proven to work. Only by then does it become inerrant.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Let me see- a group of atheists are here attempting to convince Christians the ACLU does not hate them, and that their Bible should be shredded in the public arena.

What's wrong with this picture ? I know- you people are underestimating us. Nobody here's a chump.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Al, forgive me for saying you were a lawyer. I apoligize. However what is it that I have said that is false? I need to know.

1. Does the ACLU represent cases made by individuals or groups against the display of Christian themes and activities ?

2. Does the ACLU fight on behalf of those who dislike the display or activity of Christians in the public square?

3. Is the term "intolerance" the unreasinable rejection and resistance to, another's belief or free expression?


Please state to me to the point where I have stated a "falsehood". This is your chance to correct me and perhaps embarrass me as well.

Fromabove


These same questions could be asked about a plethora of "religions" and activities-"fromabove".

Does GOD need the government to prop him up?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Statement By Spamandham:

When your rights to free expression infringe on mine, it is no longer a right. To use public funds, land, codes, etc. to express your religion is to suppress my right not to have to participate in your religious activity.

I suspect Satanists will be thrilled to discover we all have the right to use public land for our religious expressions. Are you really prepared to have an upside down cross planted next to that 10 commandments display, or is it your position that the 1st Amendment applies only to the predominant religion?
___________________________________________________

I think the Constitution actually gives the people the right to free expression. And yes, if you would like to worship Satan on the court house lawn have at it, it doesn't infringe on my rights of religious expression. I don't think that you'll find me in attendance. That's my right as well, and your's. But if I tell you you cannot express religious freedom I violate your rights.


Fromabove



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Posted by Al Davidson:

You have already seen which of your posts that I accuse of being blatant falsehoods and gross exaggerations. I'm not going to start dissecting every new list you wish to make - especially now that you've been busted.

Stick to factual statements and I'll vigorously defend your right to express your opinions. If you return to throwing out "right-wing talk radio" stuff as though it were fact, I expect you won't be around here much longer anyway. The mods here are pretty good at rounding up the folks like that.

Now, I am interested in your opinions if you'd like to start fresh and try again.
________________________________________________

Al, I simply asked as to what "falsehood" I may have stated and then asked for you to clarify it so that I can be more "sensitive" to your position. If fact, I would never admit to being "busted" because everything I say here is based upon "my own opinion" and what I understand from the "news" reports. Your beef is with them. And I might add that your reference to me as "Rush Limbaugh" and so on is also a falsehood. You don't know me. Anyway, I'm not sure that a discussion of opinion is possible because you would have to actually "allow" me one without getting all upset and calling the "net police" every time you can't stand what I think. I'm sorry, I can play the touchy feely political correctness game. I just want to be honest. And I tend to agree more with Nakash.

Let me know if you will allow me an opinion and I will give you one, but it will be based on what I know as I understand it. It's all I can offer you.

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Topics for discussion involving the ACLU. Happy reading!

www.brown.edu...
www.americandaily.com...
dianedew.com...


Fromabove



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
And yes, if you would like to worship Satan on the court house lawn have at it, it doesn't infringe on my rights of religious expression. I don't think that you'll find me in attendance.


We're not simply talking about a prayer service, we're talking about a permanent structure right next to the 10 commandments display. Are you ok with that?

BTW, I used 'Satanist' in the third person, and you twisted into 2nd person. I'm rather tired of your attempts at deception and am adding you to my ignore list with the other worthless apologists.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Civil discourse is an area in which I am well-versed. I have been taught, and I teach to others, that what some currently deride as "political correctness" is seen by many others as merely "civil discourse" which may have as one of it's guiding principles a foundation in both courtesy and clarity.

As one of the basic "rules of engagement", statements of opinion should be framed as such so that they are not incorrectly interpreted as an intention to make a statement of fact. The English language contains hundreds of such qualifiers so that the meaning and intention is fully conveyed. It is encumbent upon the sender of the message to encode their message in such a way that it is understood by the receiver.

This is the way I've been taught. I hope that others will see the value in these lessons of this seemingly "lost art" so that we may all be able to share freely and with full understanding.

People can disagree without being disagreeable. It may require extra effort but few things of value are achieved without effort.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Spamandham, if a perminent statue of Zues, Aphroditie, or even Karl Marx were to sit on the courthous lawn and people held services daily before them, no, I would not be offended. I would only be offended if you made it a law that I cannot freely express my freedom to worship God beside you or where ever I would like to in public. Freedom is freedom to all not some.

Al, I like the idea of discussion and welcome it. So, since the topic is after all about an "anit-Christian" conspiracy, do you think that politicians, news outlets, and legal groups such as the ACLU have a lean towards prohibiting public expression of Christian values ?

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
Al, I like the idea of discussion and welcome it. So, since the topic is after all about an "anit-Christian" conspiracy, do you think that politicians, news outlets, and legal groups such as the ACLU have a lean towards prohibiting public expression of Christian values ?

Fromabove


In my opinion, the groups you mentioned have really only one thing in common that is germaine to this discussion (and I'm not even sure I'd put the media into this category): they are charged with protecting the rights of all people - even those in the minority. Christians are in the overwhelming majority in the USA and it follows that they have the most money, power, and influence. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that Christian organizations are the most commonly found groups who would make attempts to express their religious views to the exclusion of others. Whenever publicly held resources are involved, the expression of Christianity can rightfully be seen as violating the Constitution by favoring that particular religious view over others.

Many would see an attempt to block a publicly-funded expression of a certain religion, in this case we are discussing Christianity, as being "anti-Christian" whereas I have the opinion that it is not Christianity under attack. It is merely that it is a defense against an unlawful favoritism of a particular religious point of view. Some would argue that it would be best to allow any and all religious groups and even "unreligious" groups to share public space in the name of equality. I don't think that's necessarily unConstitutional but I know that it would be completely impractical. In my town, there are more religious groups than there is public space to allow for them to all have their own "displays". No one would be able to even get into our courthouse or city hall if we allowed every group to have space for their religious expressions.

The only way to be fair and not violate the Constitutional requirements against favoring one group over another is to simply prohibit them all. Of course, Christians may see this as unfair because of their majority status. However, I hold the opinion that the only way to be fair to all and to maintain a level of praticality is to simply prohibit them all. That keeps the playing field as level as possible.

Since Christians enjoy the majority and the resources to fund their own expressions on their own private property, I see no reason for any complaints.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
So, now my question is:

In what manner does the public display of overtly religious symbology further the mission of these religions?

I confess that I cannot really see any value in them at all and I cannot imagine that G-d would be pleased (or displeased, either).



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   
From Al Davidson:

So, now my question is:

In what manner does the public display of overtly religious symbology further the mission of these religions?
___________________________________________

The public display of religious symbology is not intended to further the mission of Christianity, street witnessing person to person accomplishes that. The display of religious symbolism in the public square is the "express" religious thought in the open. It is a right given under the Constitution of the US.

" Congress shal make no law reguarding an Establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free excercise thereof".

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I cannot but agree.

The Constitution explicitly states what actions are prohibited and allowable by the federal government through acts of Congress.

Of course, there are few, if any examples, in dispute in which Congress has taken any action.

There is a body of law regarding what the federal government can and cannot do to coerce state and local governments. I'm not fully conversant in such law to the point of being able to effectively argue those points. I think I am correct that state and local governments cannot abridge rights granted to the federal government nor can it grant rights prohibited by the federal government (except perhaps in the statutes regarding interstate commerce and travel). Perhaps there is more but I'm not qualified to argue those points.

As a citizen, a believer in G-d, and not of the Christian faith, I remain puzzled as to why Christians would attempt to occupy public space that is, by definition, the "property" of each and every citizen.

I made this argument somewhere in ATS - I can't remember just where - that says that you have the right to wear a cross but you do not have the right to force me to wear one. I believe we can agree on that. So, if you place a cross on publicly owned property, particularly a government building, are you not declaring that we are all "wearing" this cross? I believe that is a valid argument and therefore, in violation of my right to refuse to wear a cross.

That's my view of the matter. And so, it follows that I would hold the view that Christian activist groups are very angry that I would refuse to join with them in wearing the cross and, even more so, dare to avail myself of the civil justice system to prohibit any one from attempting to force me.

Now, of course, I am counting on the reader to see that my example of the "wearing of the cross" is a literary device used to symbolize Christian belief. It may be slightly off the topic but, were I a Christian, I would disdain any literal and/or actual wearing of a symbol of the execution of my G-d. I would, as some early Christians believed, see it as a blasphemy of the highest and most egregious order.



[edit on 24-12-2005 by Al Davison]



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Posted by Al Davidson:

As a citizen, a believer in G-d, and not of the Christian faith, I remain puzzled as to why Christians would attempt to occupy public space that is, by definition, the "property" of each and every citizen.

I made this argument somewhere in ATS - I can't remember just where - that says that you have the right to wear a cross but you do not have the right to force me to wear one. I believe we can agree on that. So, if you place a cross on publicly owned property, particularly a government building, are you not declaring that we are all "wearing" this cross? I believe that is a valid argument and therefore, in violation of my right to refuse to wear a cross.
_____________________________________

It is the fact that you own the public property and so do I that we can "occupy" it to use your term. I would use the term "use of".

No, this would not imply that I am forcing you to "wear one" or comply with any religion. It is one thing to have the right of use of "public" property in order to exercise the right of religious exspression, and let us not forget freedom of speech. It would be another thing if the government passed a law saying that only Christians may use the public square for the purposes of religion activity.

By using your logical argument, I could make the same argument against certain political party activity, or punk rockers wearing t-shirts I dislike while walking in public. Isn't the wearing of an offensive t-shirt the same as saying we are all wearing the t-shirt, or that we all are in support of that certain political party?

" Congress shall make no law reguarding an establishment of religion nor "prohibit" the "free" exercise thereof ".

It's not really a separation clause, it's a prevention clause.


Fromabove



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
That's a fair and valid point.

What I failed to make clear was that my reference was intended towards the "unmanned" public displays that are allowed to be placed on public property to the exclusion or with some implicit prejudicial sponsorship - the whole "Ten Commandments" debate and/or the introduction of religion into science curriculum in public schools are two such examples that are in front of the public and the courts at this time.

The courts have adjucticated on specific instances of these examples and have made what may seem to some as either unreasonable or inconsistent. I agree that most of these cases have upheld the law - both the letter and the intent. For instance, having the Ten Commandments included in a display of all the different sources that men have used to craft laws is reasonable to me. Having the Ten Commandments standing alone is an implicit statement that "this is where our laws come from" to the implied exclusion of other sources. Context may seem trivial to some but, in my mind, context is vastly important.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   

For instance, having the Ten Commandments included in a display of all the different sources that men have used to craft laws is reasonable to me. Having the Ten Commandments standing alone is an implicit statement that "this is where our laws come from" to the implied exclusion of other sources. Context may seem trivial to some but, in my mind, context is vastly important.


However, what one must remember the "disconcerting" thing about the "Commandments" display is that once one religion's article was displayed than no favoritism must take place. Therefore, ALL religions would have to be covered in display if petitioned. So now the display has grown to a possible size of over 250,000,000 different such articles.



posted on Dec, 25 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Posted by Al Davidson:

What I failed to make clear was that my reference was intended towards the "unmanned" public displays that are allowed to be placed on public property to the exclusion or with some implicit prejudicial sponsorship - the whole "Ten Commandments" debate and/or the introduction of religion into science curriculum in public schools are two such examples that are in front of the public and the courts at this time.
_____________________________________

If the display of religious expression on public groud is not illegal, the courts have no authority to prevent or "prohibit" it. Since there are no laws "compelling" any person to honor or respect any religious display, there is no violation of that person's rights. Additionally, as long as there is no "prohibition" of any other religious display, it too is not a violation. Also, only Sandra Oconner of the Supreme Court has the "sponsorship" thing going. Sponsorship cannot be found in the Constitution in the same way the "separation" clause can't. But even if the government itself wanted to sponsor a Jesus rally at Jones Hight School for a week of services, it would be lawful as long as "any" other religion is not prohibited bacause religious expression is a right. As the government can sponsor "any" religion it has not violated any right to any person. It can even sponsor an Atheists against God rally if it wants to. It isn't as much about laws as it is about rights under the Constitution.

Anyway the battle has now turned to a freedom of speech issue in the courts. Did you know this, since those that oppose religious public expression have just about beaten the separation clause thing to death.

Fromabove



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I'm thinking this discussion comes down to the application of principles of the Constitution since that document doesn't cover every conceivable instance. That's why we have a (supposed) independent Judicial branch. I suspect that you and I are miles apart on our opinions as to how the Judicial branch has interpreted the First Amendment in an effort to uphold what we would each see (again, totally differently) as to the intent of the framers.

I have very carefully avoided using the "separation" stuff because, it's not specifically written into the Constitution - nowhere are those words to be found. Jurists of great genius have interpreted the First Amendment clause to mean that we must have separation of church and state and I am, of course, very happy about that!

I could write for hours about what is very likely to happen in the USA if we cease to guard against state-sponsored religions and march towards a theocracy. My short version is this: "Be careful what you wish for...." or "When G-d wishes to punish us, He grants us our desires."

The main point that I've gleaned from the thousands of words written in this thread; I think it might summarize most of what is written in this thread is just this (and, I'm certain you will disagree with this, too):

Some Christian activists want to insert their religion into every aspect of the lives of every citizen and when they are not allowed to do that, they claim persecution. For most of us non-Christians, that's all there is to it.

Nobody is trying to destroy Christianity, we just want it out of our faces - sorta like my misquitoe analogy from a dozen pages back. None of us ever even think about Christianity until somebody hits us in the face with it like an old creampie gag and then we get called "Satanists" if we ask for a towel.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Posted by Al Davidson:

Some Christian activists want to insert their religion into every aspect of the lives of every citizen and when they are not allowed to do that, they claim persecution. For most of us non-Christians, that's all there is to it.

Nobody is trying to destroy Christianity, we just want it out of our faces - sorta like my misquitoe analogy from a dozen pages back. None of us ever even think about Christianity until somebody hits us in the face with it like an old creampie gag and then we get called "Satanists" if we ask for a towel.
__________________________________________________

Because of this fact that there are some that would rather that there not be anything religious in society that "may" offend them, the Constitution has this Amendmant safegaurding freedom of religious expression. This is why freedom of religion cannot be prohibited nor can laws be made to silence it. I understand logically that some find religion and indeed God so offensive that they would do anything to be rid of either. But unless you make another amendmant to the Constitution, the right stands as it is written. The thing I don't understand is this. If a person does not believe in God, why be offended? It should be meaningless to you and certainly not a threat. No one can force you to believe anything you choose not to. This is why I would not be offended in any way if satanists wanted to put up an idol on the courthouse lawn. It is nothing to me. No, it is better to allow freedom of speech and religious expression, and political rallies in the public square, for or against.

Fromabove



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join