Liberals, media, and gays need to know how this country was founded!!

I know that.

I'm not trying to put it up in public though, am I? Not in the courthouse, and not at the taxpayer's expense at any rate.

The state should be completely neutral in all matters having to do with religion, and be silent on the subject, which includes tacit approval by allowing one religion's beliefs to be displayed in a place that belongs to ALL the people.

Like I've said before, I won't go into someone's church and try to sell them on the concept that there is no god, and I expect the same courtesy. Beliefs have their place -- and the place should be private, not state-sanctioned and state-funded.

[edit to add:]

which is what I am trying to illustrate. That their outrage at the idea of posting some other religion's precepts in their own church at their own expense is how it feels to those of us not Christian to have it done in public buildings at the taxpayer's expense.

This is what I mean when I say that certain Christians believe that their rights are more important than anyone else's and that they should get special treatment. The unwillingness to see how putting religion in public, state life is offensive in just the same way to other people who are equal under the law, and which is why it should not be there at all.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by MajorMalfunction]

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
The state should be completely neutral in all matters having to do with religion, and be silent on the subject

Agreed, TOTAL seperation is the only way imo, when it comes to legislation.

which includes tacit approval by allowing one religion's beliefs to be displayed in a place that belongs to ALL the people.

Does that include someone wearing a cross(or any symbol) around their neck?

Originally posted by grover

I have never had an atheist force his beliefs on me ...

Then you haven't been reading much here. Yes they do. And they are severely militant about it.

Let's not get carried away.

reply to post by intrepid


That is personal, Intrepid. Not state. I don't care what someone wears on their body at work, like I said. I just don't want tracts on the walls of the courthouse if you follow me.

Installations on public property, verboten. Personal jewelry is not the same thing at all.

reply to post by Valhall


I don't see how an ad hominem attack adds to the conversation.

No one has answered my original question:

Here's an idea: If you can post the ten commandments in my local city hall, then I can post the Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts in your church, at your own personal expense. Deal?

Please try to understand -- the outrage you feel at the idea of such a thing happening is how I and others (all Americans also) feel about state property being used as an advertisement for one particular religion.

This is not being militant. This is standing up for what I believe in. It is amusing to no end that every other belief system can stand up for what they believe in as strenuously as they like, but it's only the atheists who are referred to as "militant." I beg to differ; I would not take up arms to defend my atheism. I just speak out about it. Since when has speaking up for what one thinks is right become a bad thing?

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Since when has speaking up for what one thinks is right become a bad thing?

Nothing MM imo BUT you have to admit that "atheism" is as much a belief system as any religion. Unless you have some info that is not available to the masses.

Not dissing you, just saying.

reply to post by Valhall


This is a private forum and not a state sponsored one. I have had just as many so-called Christians try and force their beliefs on me here as well.

There is a quote I came across in Utne Reader once that I really liked... I don't remember who said it because I had never heard of them but it goes:

"I am an agnostic... I am not arrogant enough to be an atheist."

There is a whole school of mystical thought that runs across faiths and is found in most of them that says that since that which we call God is both infinite and unknowable, beyond the knowledge of man then an agnostic attitude of I don't know is the only honest stance when discussing matters of faith.

reply to post by intrepid


I have asserted that for years... I know several atheists who have just changed faiths from militant whatever to militant atheists because lets face it, it takes just as much faith to say that there is no God as there is to say there is.

And they always get ticked off when i point that out as well.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by grover]

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
reply to post by Valhall

 

I don't see how an ad hominem attack adds to the conversation.

WHERE did I make an attack? Don't pull that crap on me. I made a statement of fact and said nothing ill against anyone. If you think for one minute you're going to come on this thread, spew your blanket statements against all the believers you hate, and me not be allowed to make a statement of fact that there are militant atheists on this board, you've got another thing coming. I ASSURE YOU.

I'm assuming your false insinuation against me is because some statement hit close to home. If that's the case - you connected those dots in your own mind...and that probably says a lot.

[edit on 9-17-2007 by Valhall]

The nation was founded by opportunists, profiteering rogues, rascals and........most dastardly of all.....TRAITORS!

And as for a national symbol, the Bald Eagle, I think the traitorous ragamuffin Benjamin Franklin said it best:

"A bird of bad moral character" "too lazy to fish for himself" and "a rank coward"

Republic indeed!

reply to post by redseal


DID YOU KNOW?

Publicly, there is no document called the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but that it is one of the lost books, like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, and what some speculate to be the most guarded secret of Mason's and before them the Knights Templar was the Gospel according to Jesus Christ, that would take all of its power away from the Church and the establishment.

DID YOU KNOW?

Over 3500 priests, deacons, ministers, etc.. have raped alter boys and nuns just over the last 40 years? The church is gay! Just like all of your HOMO Republican senators, haha, what have we found, like 5 in the past year alone? Who knows how many closet fags are still waiting to be discovered in the Republican party!


And you make your case against GAYS on a Bible verse, while the same book tells you its OK to sell your daughter into prostitution, have slaves, and stone people to death. I bet you wish you could do that to?

DID YOU KNOW?

Freedom requires FREE THINKING INDIVIDUALS!

[edit on 17-9-2007 by thatblissguy]

I'm not Christian, I'm not Atheist, I'm not even Agnostic...I'm...get this...Private. That being said, yes, there is propaganda on both sides of the board, like EVERY SINGLE issue in our world. We often tend to see things in black & white, forgetting the myriad of colors that fall in between. This, like all other issues, is not a "Point A to Point B" 2-dimensional problem. It has depth as well as width & height.

Case in point: The church & state SHOULD be separated, clearly stated in our Constitution...there is NOT an argument to change this. Public Domain is just that...open to the public. In my town, there is a giant cross next to the interstate, able to be seen by all in the town & surrounding area. This is a very Catholic area, yet we also have a large amount of Hindus, Muslims, and Atheists in the area (mostly doctors...the ones that save the lives of the Catholics & Christians). Technically, the Cross sits on privately donated land, thus not violating any laws. Morally, its a big giant reminder to those that do not follow those said beliefs that "Thanks for saving my child's life, but ya know...you just aren't as worthy as I am". Trust me, i've heard this stated from one said Hindu doctor as his opinion on the subject. Should that cross be allowed to stay? Since the "ruling parties" in the area ARE christians & catholics, they say YES. Fair? Fairness is all in the eye of the beholders. Me, personally, I know for a fact that it was "condoned and allowed" due to the city council stating that it would "attract commerce and tourism", which i have to laugh at. I think to myself, "hmmm...I bet when Jesus was dying, hangin on the cross for all of mankind's sins...he was thinking WoW, i really hope a small town can make some cash on this!"

The point im trying to make is, it might not be fair...it might not be right...but when a Majority Rule is set in place, you're never gonna win if you disagree. I realize the Constitution says to separate it, and i hate that MY tax dollars go to the funding of things that go directly against the Constitution. And i'm not saying anyone should just give up their rights...just maybe look at it from a different angle, and approach it from the side, instead of head-on. Be smarter than them.

I will give this a shot ... just for the OP ... if you don't believe in G-d, please don't respond, this is not a response for you to debate over your beliefs ...


Did you know?

J-sus was a liberal and preached to love everyone equally. That we should give our time and our money to help our fellow humans and citizens.

J-sus was not gay. He was also not a criminal. He did befriend people who sinned, and led a life by example. He did not name call, or discriminate against them.

That our G-d states, that we, His children have NO RIGHT to judge others, only He does.

That to G-d, ALL sins are EQUAL. So if you think impure thoughts about a woman who isn't your wife, you have sinned just as much as someone who lays with their own gender ... this goes for any sin. They are no worse sinners than any of us. If you claim you don't sin, than you have sinned by that lie ... since the only one by G-d's own word that is a sinless human is J-sus. That you hating and discriminating is a sin. That you not being liberal with you love and worth, you are sinning. Coveting wealth and other worldly things is sin. You should get the point without me going on.

That J-sus never said not to still follow the old rules of G-d ... but you don't hear about following these rules in churches very often, since they are not popular and a lot of churches covet money more than being true to the Word of G-d.

that if you can't understand the points being made in this post, and you believe in G-d ... that maybe you need to re-read the Bible a few times and get to know the G-d you are speaking of as your crutch to push your agenda. G-d doesn't like it when He is used for your agendas.







Get over yourself. That is my point. if someone spends life hating and having problems with everyone else because they are not the same ... then that person would be someone who feels miserable all the time and lives a horrible existence ... since each human is unique in their own way, and in turn, this person would also not like G-d, since He is definitely different and more loving than someone who lives in that way.

Though, I guess it isn't easy to open up the heart and love each person for who they are, if you are someone who doesn't even like yourself. We are so much the same physically, but, we are so different with our wants, desires, experiences, influences ... how can you hate someone when you didn't live through what they have.





rant over ... it is a shame religion is used to separate and divide, when, it never says to do so.

The U.S.A. is suppose to have separation of church and state. So not only by law are they to be separate, but by G-d's law they are too ... since it claims in the Bible to follow the law of your country. I guess if more zealots read what they claim their basis of argument on, they may not even speak. Though most just base their opinion on whatever suits their needs.

on cnn, or fox, or one of the news channels, they had a nice long discussion over the differences between the episcapalians and the baptists, or maybe it was the methodists....what difference does it make...
the were having this discussion because on of the candidates changed their relgion...okay...
just wanted to ask...how many of ya really care weather the candidate you vote for goes to a baptist church or a methodist, or a even if he goes to church at all???

even if they got religion back into the schools, the government, well, the next question would be....
which religion, which branch of that religion....
wars have been fought to decide such matters!!!
this is why the relgion has been taken out.

Originally posted by dawnstar
how many of ya really care weather the candidate you vote for goes to a baptist church or a methodist, or a even if he goes to church at all???

Back in the day, people were making a big fuss about JFK being catholic. It's too bad the politicians run on this. They feel they have to show that they are religious to win votes, whether or not they really are doesn't matter. If Americans would just pay attention to the voting record of the candidates, they could avoid all this nonsense about their private lives. I don't care what the politician believes spiritually, or if he even lives his life according to those beliefs, I care about what his political beliefs are. I care about how he votes on Capitol Hill.

In my opinion, if a god existed the way I've seen Christians describe the religion... everyone is going to Hell.

I hear Hell is quite the party, though.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Sytima]

Originally posted by WeaponsOfMassDistraction
Back in the day, people were making a big fuss about JFK being catholic.

It used to be illegal to be Roman Catholic AND a U.S. President, because of dual citizenship and one's answering to the pope instead of the people....

Originally posted by Clearskies
It used to be illegal to be Roman Catholic AND a U.S. President, because of dual citizenship and one's answering to the pope instead of the people....

Do people remember JFK as a servant of the pope, or of the people?

back in the day....
JFK had to convince the people that he wouldn't let his religious beliefs...particularly the one regarding papal authority, dominate how he governed....

he did convince the people of this and well.....I really don't believe that Rome had much influence on his governing...

but now, well, let's look at Kerry as an example, some wanted to excommunicate him from the church because he's not actually for outright banning of abortion.....what some people didn't want then...they are demanding now...and so, weather a candidate is episcapalian or baptist is of major importance since to be episcapalian is to be much more liberal in some important issues...it seems that there must be alot of people out there that what one's religious beliefs to be the dominate force when it comes to dicisions in washington, enough peoplel to warrent a major news channel giving a nice peice of time to showing the small differences between two major christian religions.....

Originally posted by Clearskies
It used to be illegal to be Roman Catholic AND a U.S. President, because of dual citizenship and one's answering to the pope instead of the people....

...no, it didn't
catholics don't have dual citizenship.
it was never a law on the books that said "catholics can't be president"

people with dual citizenship can be presidents as well... so long as the american one is a product of birth in the USA