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 continued conspiracy of religious extremism: Religious Equality Amendment

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 09:56 PM
link   
When the 1963 Supreme Court case Murray v. Curlett helped to end prayer and Bible recitation in public schools, religious groups began efforts to restore this invasive and unconstitutional practice. But recent proposals like the "Religious Equality Amendment" suggest that the goals of present religious activists are far more wide-sweeping than a simple minute prayer. Religious doctrine threatens to re-write the school curriculum, from science to history.

www.atheists.org...




posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Brrrrr! Spooky read, and one direction I was afraid we'd take.



posted on Nov, 27 2002 @ 11:03 PM
link   
It good that we keep church and state separate. This does sound like an effort to undermine the basic tenants we accept as valid. Religion is an ancient effort to understand reality and should not be confused with the Scientific method.

I noted that Pat Robertson is featured in this article a word that comes to mind in relation to him is "trash."



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Even if I'm agree with all of you, something is going wrong. We can't pray at school, but we can do abortion.

Anyway, faith is a personal matter, and if someone want to pray where he is, even in school, I don't see why he can't do it.

A law do not have to tell us where we are allowed and we are not, to pray !



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Before I even read this article posted for our review and criticism, William, I want to comment on the general premise on which the first paragraph appears to be founded so that I may keep that seperate from what may turn out to be a David Koresh nutbag article.
Prayer in school is not unconstitutional. The seperation of church and state is not constitutionally mandated, nor was it meant to be by the founding fathers. This is quite an old topic, and I have already debunked those types of notions quite thoroughly in the past here at this site.

Now that I have re-asserted those historically supported facts, I'll read the story and get back to you, William.



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Ok, nothing new, here.

The Satanically-fueled drive to erase God from our nation is the revisionism, not the idea that this nation is founded upon God. The idea that this was expected to be a Christian nation is not revisionism, not unless the revisionists were the founders themselves. There is no reason prayer in school would be unconstitutional, as long as the prayer is one that shows no partiality toward any particalar sect (denomination). The judicial activism in 1962 in the case of Engel v. Vitale and in 1963 with Murray v. Curlett and Abington v. Schempp is the history revisionism, not today's futile attempts to right the wrong.
You have no need in getting concerned that the nation will be set back on the track intended by our forefathers. Things are done for reasons and so the dillution and weakening of our culture is by no accident.



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 07:00 AM
link   
"The idea that this was expected to be a Christian nation is not revisionism"

thats wacky, see I allways thought your nation was originally based in Totemic Shamanism.



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 07:04 AM
link   
And you base these thoughts on what?



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
We can't pray at school


That's a farce. Of course you can pray at school. The set-aside sanctioned 1 minute of rote prayer has been ended, not personal prayer.



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 08:26 AM
link   
"And you base these thoughts on what? "

on the fact that the society your talking about are imigrants. The notion that America was initially a nation of Christians is patently as idiotic as the notion that a nation can ~have~ an initial theology

I mean if you want to be revisionist about it "Catholic" would be a good starting point, but if you want to be accurate, your national theology was initialy shamanistic



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I see. I thought your thoughts were based on some quotable fact or occurance. You call idiotic what you don't understand. That makes you beyond idiotic.
My mistake for attempting to have an actual exchnage of thoughts, facts or ideas with a moron.



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 09:09 AM
link   
A reminder of one of history's greatest persons:


Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Levi Lincoln, 1802. ME 10:305

I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offence against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to N. G. Dufief, Philadelphia bookseller, 1814, after being prosecuted for selling de Becourt's book, Sur la Cration du Monde, un Systme d'Organisation Primitive, which Jefferson himself had purchased.

No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), quoted from Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 347

I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 09:59 AM
link   
All of which doesn not go against what have said, but maintains it. Again, go back to the lengthy discussions of a few months ago, and thed hours of posting. I have no desire to do all that typing again with the 3-4 finger crappy method I have.

In short, in reference to Tom, he was in favor of spreading the Word to the heathen (indians), and expected the students of the University of Va. to attend the worship of their sect (denomination)

One of the first things I learned when I began to study constitution and law several years ago was how much the meaning of words had changed through the years and what the contemporary meaning to the sentences of then is. Sect, for one.

I refer you to the Founding Father, George Washington:
xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

This, I had not typed last time this discussion came up.

Again, this is all a moot point as those of you who are deathly afraid of Christ's message have nothing to worry about, not in regards to the nation being brought back to where it came. It doesn't fit with the agenda.



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 10:07 AM
link   
"My mistake for attempting to have an actual exchnage of thoughts, facts or ideas with a moron."

uhuh. your suggesting that the predominant initial theology in america was christianity and I'm the moron.

do yourself a favour thom.
eat glass.



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Thomas,

As you know, I respect Christians and the Christian-inspired ethic that indeed sparked the formation of this nation. However, Thomas Jefferson did fight hard to prevent the formation of any law or policy that would force anyone to observe any religious ritual of Christianty or other prescribed religion.

The underpinnings of the "Religious Equality Amendment" seeks to subvert the intent of our founding fathers. Indeed, they were devoted Christians with respectably deep beliefs, but they had the foresight to consider the wording of the constitution and the prevention of a state religion. Nations evolve, and our nation reached out several decades ago to encourage to immigration of all cultures and peoples. As a result, we are an eclectic mix of beliefs. To me, it seems much more "Christian" to respect these other beliefs and remain hands-off in regards to public policy.


Now Lupe is raising a valid point... there were deep mystical beliefs prior to Christianity touching shore on this continent. Our founding fathers are complicit in stamping out the indigenous people and attempting to eradicate their beliefs. This is the "other" side of Christianity that current Christians conveniently overlook.



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Again, as I've explained before and at great length with many examples from the Founding Fathers, God, and the Judeo-Christian faith was not expected to be kept out of the U.S. or its government. There was to be no particular sect, that is, denomination to be appointed, or established, as our nation's religion. From the onset, states came about because of religion. As Thomas could not have stood for the indoctrination of natives and students and at the same time stand against religion, it should be apparent that one is not understanding the meaning of the words for the time.

These points are not in reference to religion to me, but of historical correctness. Lupe's point that our nation was founded upon Shamanism (and that is what? The worship of religious leaders? The worship of a Shaman?) was clarified by pointing out that (in his opinion and contrary to history) the idea that the nation was based on Judeo-Christian belief is "idiotic." This does not support any point other than the fact that Lupe is quite the moron, but does not aide in debate or discussion. His point (if you'd like to call it that) gave no indication of being remotely related to your spin on it, and at either rate, is not relevant to the historical, written fact that Judeo-Christian ethics morals and principles were the ones expected for the nation, that it was the expected general faith of this nation and that the Founding Fathers did not expect the nation to become a multi-cultural morass with no definite and agreed upon set of morals, mores and taboos, but a melting pot, as was the nation for decades, until the recent (for the last sixty or so years) social engineering and history revisionism has attempted to change the national landscape and heritage.

Once again, William, there has never been a time when our nation was a theocracy. There are no theocratic Christian nations - there's no real way for that to be. Where the concern is is beyond me, but fear what you wish. My only desire is to ensure the true history is remembered.



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I see the problem here...

Lupe , although he said nation, actually means the continent, before it was even known as America. Not the nation U.S. of A....



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Again, as I've explained before and at great length with many examples from the Founding Fathers, God, and the Judeo-Christian faith was not expected to be kept out of the U.S. or its government. There was to be no particular sect, that is, denomination to be appointed, or established, as our nation's religion.


I agree. And I wasn't arguing that point at all.

However, don't you think that the former use of "prayer in school" promoted Christianity as the state's religion?



posted on Nov, 28 2002 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Thomas your knowledge of Shamanism is obviously limited nonetheless shamanism is akin to Gia systems of faith (Living Universe, living earth, living rocks et....)

Jefferson was a great man and what you refer to as social engineering is based on how he saw this country. As before TC, Thanksgiving is not a Christian Holiday but an Indian one, celebrated long before the pilgrims arrived. The turkey you just ate is indigenous to this hemisphere it was not imported from Europe, Asia, Africa or Australia. As far as morals Thomas take into consideration what history states about this day. The difference between 1776 and 1823 is actually very little TC. What are accepted today as the founding fathers includes individuals who generated such change, as to make this country responsible for maintaining peace and order over a Hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine). To be honest TC what made that possible had nothing to do with people you would tend to accept as Christian.

It is wrong to place a specific religion above any other similar system of belief. God is not property, he is a being which encompasses a Universe which to our knowledge is 15 billion light-years in size. To say that such a being presented himself to just one culture on one planet is just plain irresponsible and somewhat childish.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join