God's 911 warning to the US

reply to post by TheRedneck


well i really thought that you were even more civil than i and could have a rational discussion about this. apparently not. you missed all of my points completely and you back up what you call a counter with annecdotal evidence of some kid getting a zero because HE did not follow the instructions. Jesus is not a real historical figure out here in the rest of the world. but it seems that to christians, that does not matter. i believe you just proved that.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by re22666
Wow, you do have a tendency to place a lot of arguments into a post.

Yes, I should have used that word from the start. But at least we have it inserted now. You gave 5 examples of laws being broken. The first two, running a stop sign and a yellow light, are very minor infractions. Smoking pot shouldn't even be illegal, but of course it is, and is impossible to thoroughly enforce. A war cannot be illegal by definition; there is no law in war, which is why war is such a bad thing. And I do not agree that Bush is illegally President. Moronically, despicably, evilly even, but not illegally.

The difference is that none of the legal violations you pointed out are enforced, rendering their illegal status null and void. On the other hand, the examples I pointed out all have occurred. The IRS investigates any complaints of a preacher who uses his pulpit to state political values, with the aim of removing the tax-exempt status of his church. This can easily mean he is censored from sensitive subjects. For example, if a preacher states that abortion is 'wrong' (which is his right to do), an argument can be made that he is therefore supporting one particular candidate or party that agrees with his position and his speech is political.

Examples like this have and do occur.

There are numerous examples of children in schools being openly discriminated against. I remember one report about a boy who had an assignment to write an essay about "Who I admire most". The subject could be alive or dead, but had to be a real person, as in not Yogi Bear. The child wrote his essay about Jesus. He was given a '0' on his assignment, for stated reason that "Jesus was not real".

These are legally-enforced discriminations. Now I turn to your complaints, again from a legal aspect.

The person on the street corner is annoying. However, he does have the right to speak his mind freely. Just as you have the right to speak yours. This is the only fair way things can be, because if you prevent him from speaking his mind, then by all fairness, he could prevent you from speaking yours. The issue of religion has nothing to do with this argument; it is a freedom of speech issue. You have just as much right to stand on that same street corner and state there is no God as he does to state there is.

As for Fox News, I am truly sorry to hear your problem on it. I agree with you that they are completely biased, and yes, Hannity seems to be their main star right now. But you do have that freedom to not watch them. If your family is forcing you to do so, then it is your family who is violating you, not Fox News. As an example, I despise watching 'That 70s Show'. But if someone in my family is taking control of the remote and watching it despite my feelings, it is not the producers of the show that I should be angry with.

As for the Merry Christmas thingy, simply exercise your rights to say your greetings in the way you want to. Sean Hannity does not carry the power of legal enforcement with him, only the power of the media. You cannot be forced to say any combination of words, and should you be so forced, I would be the first in line to fight for you. I wonder, though, would you fight for me, should my rights be violated, or would you stand and smile and say "Christians deserve it"? I wonder...

It has been said that freedom has a cost. This is true. Freedom requires attention to what is prohibited and what is public opinion. The former canbe a violation of freedom; the latter cannot, unless of course, it carries the weight of law. Then it becomes the former.

TheRedneck

you asked for examples of people cramming christianity down my throat. i gave them to you. you did not like them so you added the term legally. i then conceded that would change the entire argument. then you readdress everything i already said, yet rebut it under the new terms. ok fine. i am sure you are a nice christian fellow but getting a 0 in school is not a legal matter any more than me having to hear sean hannity tell me i must love god to be a good american.

i told you that you had a good point and then presented new ones. you countered those dismissively and went back to what i said before 'legal' mattered.

anyway. the point was, yes traffic infractions are minor, pot smoking does go on plenty, but go see how many people are in prison for posession of it compared to preachers who said the wrong thing. be serious now. go to any prision, what is it full of? people that spoke of religion? kids that wrote essays on jesus? or people that had drugs on them?
so your point there i do not get. running a red light is minor. but people get ticketed. people also die because of it all the time and that seems pretty major to anyone that may have say, cared about the dead guy. these laws get enforced WAY more than your anti-religion laws. and yet, we still live with them all the time. we still see it happen all the time. my point was, 'legally' doesnt really mean a damn thng. for every preacher you say was arrested for what he said at his pulpit, there are way more getting their words and their thoughts out there.
we just watched two presidential candidates have to answer to evangelical questions as if that were normal. when do satanists get to quiz the candidates like that? when is it the jews turn, muslims, etc. so you say preachers are forced to watch what they say. i say i dont believe that is really happening all that much but ok. i say then we have the entire presidential election being taken over by jesus.

see my point, 'legally' shmegally. jesus is shoved down people's throats just as i have said. and if one kid gets a 0 for writing about a fictional character when specifically told not to, well i cannot feel real bad about that.

reply to post by re22666
I'm really having some serious trouble understanding why you get so defensive and see anger where none is intended. So I'm going to try something different here and intentionally dismiss everything not relevant to the facts at hand. That is not to dismiss your feelings out of hand, but rather because I simply do not understand them. I am hoping as we go on I will get a better understanding of the problem so I can somehow 'fix' it...

anyway. the point was, yes traffic infractions are minor, pot smoking does go on plenty, but go see how many people are in prison for posession of it compared to preachers who said the wrong thing. be serious now. go to any prision, what is it full of? people that spoke of religion? kids that wrote essays on jesus? or people that had drugs on them?

OK, I have to accept that point. The prison population does contain pot smokers rather than religious folk. Where I have a hard time arguing this point with you is that I actually agree! marijuana was rampant when I was younger (70s ) and I freely admit I smoked my share of pot during that time. This is not something I am unfamiliar with. In my opinion, after experimenting with both pot and alcohol, I see no difference in intensity between the two. ergo, if one is legal (alcohol), both should be equally legal.

so your point there i do not get. running a red light is minor. but people get ticketed. people also die because of it all the time and that seems pretty major to anyone that may have say, cared about the dead guy. these laws get enforced WAY more than your anti-religion laws. and yet, we still live with them all the time. we still see it happen all the time.

Again, I concede that argument. I see accidents all the time in my job (truck driver) where a minor infraction has caused the death or injury to the law-breaker or to others.

my point was, 'legally' doesnt really mean a damn thng. for every preacher you say was arrested for what he said at his pulpit, there are way more getting their words and their thoughts out there.

Here I have some trouble following your logic.

Legal does indeed mean something, even if not regularly enforced. If a law is unenforced, you would be correct. But if a law is loosely enforced, it is still the law, and one runs a risk of 'punishment' whenever one breaks it. try telling the judge, after receiving a traffic ticket, that you were speeding because everyone else was speeding. I promise you it will do absolutely no good.

As for the preachers, they do not get arrested for their activities in the first place. this law uses financial punishment rather than incarceration. yet it is still punishment, because a church exists through charitable giving. They do not make or sell anything. So to take away their status as a charitable organization and place a heavy tax burden on a non-profit charity effectively nullifies it financially from even existing.

You also seem to have this conception that all preachers and churches are acting in collusion. I assure you this is not the case. Each church exists as its members wish it to exist, with minimal or no input from any other churches. As a metaphor, I am assuming you smoke pot (from your attitude towards it) or at least once did. If someone else gets arrested for smoking pot, does that have the same effect on you that being arrested yourself would have? Obviously not, because you do not even know the other dude, in all probability. It does affect you since it heightens the concern that you may be arrested (and alerts you to unjust laws), but it will not prevent you from smoking pot.

This is similar to what happens when a preacher is financially punished by the IRS for speaking his mind. Other preachers will no doubt still say what they want, but they will be much more cautious about it. That will censor free speech and violate the right all of us have to speak freely without governmental consequence.

we just watched two presidential candidates have to answer to evangelical questions as if that were normal. when do satanists get to quiz the candidates like that? when is it the jews turn, muslims, etc. so you say preachers are forced to watch what they say. i say i dont believe that is really happening all that much but ok. i say then we have the entire presidential election being taken over by jesus.

I am still trying to understand why all of this religious pandering is being allowed. Myself, while I would prefer a President who believes as I do (as I think everyone else would; that is human nature), that is far from my largest concern. I want to know where they stand on illegal immigration, the terrorism threat, energy policy, involvement in other countries, and spending policies here at home. Not religious dogma.

So here again, I have to agree with you.

see my point, 'legally' shmegally. jesus is shoved down people's throats just as i have said. and if one kid gets a 0 for writing about a fictional character when specifically told not to, well i cannot feel real bad about that.

Even though I agree with you on the above points, and even though I understand it is irritating to have your day interrupted by someone with a religious message (as I have stated many times before), I do not understand where the concept of everyone having freedom of speech compares with governmental and institutional discrimination.

I cannot fathom any 'free' society where any one group (Christians or non-Christians included) is denied freedoms. If you and I are to have the freedom to post on this site our true feelings about different subjects, then it is an absolute requirement that others are also free to do so. That means that our own personal freedoms come at the cost of allowing others to have that freedom. That includes the Christian zealot on the street corner, the preacher in his pulpit, the atheist, the satanist, the Jew, the Muslim, the Wiccan, the Buddhist... everyone. If one voice is silenced, then all are at risk of being silenced.

Also, do not think for one moment that only 'non-Christians' are being targeted. There are many churches who believe their beliefs are somehow the only ones which work, and they will get up in my face just as fast as they will yours. Also, if someone is searching for the 'lost', they have no idea whether or not the next guy in line is religious or not. It's not like there is a secret handshake or something. The difference, as I see it, without trying to be offensive, is that when confronted, I tell them to back off. If they continue, I try to convert them. You can do the same, because a conversion is simply a matter of convincing someone you are right in your beliefs, and everyone, even atheists, have some form of belief.

TheRedneck

(I should state here that re22666 is having some problems and may be a while responding. Didn't want anyone to think he stopped the debate)

reply to post by heliosprime


You are the ignorant/arrogant one solarprime. Have you read what the Founders wrote? Have you? Or do you base your assumptions that they were "christian" upon the words of others. I have the collected writings of Washington, Franklink, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, & Paine. I have not read all of them (there's just too much)... but I have read MUCH of what they wrote. And what they say concerning their belief systems would surprise if you read their letters in context. It's obvious you haven't and so as I stated early on, "arguing with christians is futile".

They were diests but you'll never know unless you read their thoughts and not what someone else writes about their thoughts.

-Euclid

reply to post by euclid


Actually I have studied much of the founders works. Including my own ancestors who came on the Mayflower and fought for the freedom now being crushed by ignorant re-history writers.

My family shed too much blood to let such ignorance go unchallenged. Far too many american families have shed blood to allow such ignorance.

Believe as you wish, but, the truth is still there and your "version" is not anywhere near true.........

Your history re-write is exactly why america has lost it's blessings. Deny God's existance in the founding and history of our country is to deny God. that is your purpose, to deny God...........

Pray and repent of your ways...........and all those who would follow your rants...........

Originally posted by heliosprime
reply to post by euclid

 

Actually I have studied much of the founders works. Including my own ancestors who came on the Mayflower and fought for the freedom now being crushed by ignorant re-history writers.

My family shed too much blood to let such ignorance go unchallenged. Far too many american families have shed blood to allow such ignorance.

Believe as you wish, but, the truth is still there and your "version" is not anywhere near true.........

Your history re-write is exactly why america has lost it's blessings. Deny God's existance in the founding and history of our country is to deny God. that is your purpose, to deny God...........

Pray and repent of your ways...........and all those who would follow your rants...........

Whatever solar..... I have the written words of the men who founded this nation as evidence of their deistic beliefs; as well as some of their affiliations with Freemasonry. I'm not rewriting history, I've read it from the hands that made it. You're ignoring the facts.

-Euclid

Originally posted by euclid

Whatever solar..... I have the written words of the men who founded this nation as evidence of their deistic beliefs; as well as some of their affiliations with Freemasonry. I'm not rewriting history, I've read it from the hands that made it. You're ignoring the facts.

-Euclid

Yes I agree "YOU HAVE WRITTEN" the words of the founders. Not provided evidence whatsoever. The twisting of the writings of the founders is done through YOUR mind, not thier intent.

God blessed the founders with many miracles including the wisdom needed to write the constitution and the declaration of independence.

God and Prayer was and is throughout the documents and "deeds" of the founders. Time and again thier actions and prayers in Congress, the supreme court, and many, many speeches show the truth.

Read this account of the First Prayer in Congress Sept 7th 1774

Washington was kneeling there, and Henry, Randolph, Rutledge, Lee, and Jay, and by their side there stood bowed in reverence, the Puritan Patriots of New England, who at that moment had reason to believe that an armed soldiery was wasting their humble households. It was believed that Boston had been bombarded and destroyed.

They prayed fervently "for America, for Congress, for the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and especially for the town of Boston", and who can realize the emotions with which they turned imploringly to Heaven for Divine interposition and aid.

www.buchanan.org...

Sir, your mis-history is not only myth, but a vicious attempt to deny God in our founding and thereby deny our original blessings.............

You Sir are indeed ignorant of the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU ARE TWISTED!!!!!!

Being a Deist doesn't in any way imply that one does not believe in a supreme being.... what it does mean is that the deist does not believe ANY religious dogmatic texts extant in the corpus of human history... they view them as human interpretations that are filled with the dogmatic principals and ideations of Man.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, you consistently mangle what I have written to twist it into your perverted understanding of what the Founding Fathers of this nation thought without even referencing what THEY wrote. Your charge against me that I have not provided evidence of what the THEY thought of the bible is unfounded and insubstantial; as I have provided links to the documents that I quoted from... it is YOU that have not provided any evidence to counter THEIR WORDS!!!!

As to the Congressional prayer; yes they prayed often. In groups and individually. The Founding Fathers were diests and some of them were Masons. There were many religious fanatics (like you) in Congress who were not Deists or Masons. It was the norm of the era, and still is today, for Congress to have a chaplain lead them in prayer. They were compelled by the social protocol of the day to pray and to attend church..... in the same way that many people today attend church. Many who call themselves christian today are not. They just attend church because if they don't they will be looked down upon by their circle of religious friends/family/fanatics. I doubt, just because in our current time Congress is opened with a prayer, that you consider ALL of our congressional members as christian today.

If anyone is an ignorant fool here it is you. You are completely misinformed concerning the definitions of deism, christendom, philosophy, politics and probably the true nature of what/who you are.

Stay in your puerile Gurdjieffian sleep.

-Euclid

Originally posted by heliosprime

Originally posted by euclid

Whatever solar..... I have the written words of the men who founded this nation as evidence of their deistic beliefs; as well as some of their affiliations with Freemasonry. I'm not rewriting history, I've read it from the hands that made it. You're ignoring the facts.


-Euclid

Yes I agree "YOU HAVE WRITTEN" the words of the founders. Not provided evidence whatsoever. The twisting of the writings of the founders is done through YOUR mind, not thier intent.

God blessed the founders with many miracles including the wisdom needed to write the constitution and the declaration of independence.

God and Prayer was and is throughout the documents and "deeds" of the founders. Time and again thier actions and prayers in Congress, the supreme court, and many, many speeches show the truth.

Read this account of the First Prayer in Congress Sept 7th 1774

Washington was kneeling there, and Henry, Randolph, Rutledge, Lee, and Jay, and by their side there stood bowed in reverence, the Puritan Patriots of New England, who at that moment had reason to believe that an armed soldiery was wasting their humble households. It was believed that Boston had been bombarded and destroyed.

They prayed fervently "for America, for Congress, for the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and especially for the town of Boston", and who can realize the emotions with which they turned imploringly to Heaven for Divine interposition and aid.

www.buchanan.org...

Sir, your mis-history is not only myth, but a vicious attempt to deny God in our founding and thereby deny our original blessings.............

You Sir are indeed ignorant of the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by re22666
I'm really having some serious trouble understanding why you get so defensive and see anger where none is intended. So I'm going to try something different here and intentionally dismiss everything not relevant to the facts at hand. That is not to dismiss your feelings out of hand, but rather because I simply do not understand them. I am hoping as we go on I will get a better understanding of the problem so I can somehow 'fix' it...

anyway. the point was, yes traffic infractions are minor, pot smoking does go on plenty, but go see how many people are in prison for posession of it compared to preachers who said the wrong thing. be serious now. go to any prision, what is it full of? people that spoke of religion? kids that wrote essays on jesus? or people that had drugs on them?

OK, I have to accept that point. The prison population does contain pot smokers rather than religious folk. Where I have a hard time arguing this point with you is that I actually agree! marijuana was rampant when I was younger (70s

) and I freely admit I smoked my share of pot during that time. This is not something I am unfamiliar with. In my opinion, after experimenting with both pot and alcohol, I see no difference in intensity between the two. ergo, if one is legal (alcohol), both should be equally legal.

ok im back and wow do i have some reading here to do. i printed it out so i can read it all later but i thought i would try and respond a little at a time here. but now that i have deleted all but this one chunk. it kinda seems that we are mostly on the same page about 90% of this. that makes it tough to counter you with anything.

my point was, 'legally' doesnt really mean a damn thng. for every preacher you say was arrested for what he said at his pulpit, there are way more getting their words and their thoughts out there.


Here I have some trouble following your logic.

Legal does indeed mean something, even if not regularly enforced. If a law is unenforced, you would be correct. But if a law is loosely enforced, it is still the law, and one runs a risk of 'punishment' whenever one breaks it. try telling the judge, after receiving a traffic ticket, that you were speeding because everyone else was speeding. I promise you it will do absolutely no good.

As for the preachers, they do not get arrested for their activities in the first place. this law uses financial punishment rather than incarceration. yet it is still punishment, because a church exists through charitable giving. They do not make or sell anything. So to take away their status as a charitable organization and place a heavy tax burden on a non-profit charity effectively nullifies it financially from even existing.

ok, here is what i meant about 'legally' meaning nothing in this. we are talking about pot possesion and traffic infractions. those are laws. they may or may not be enforced. do they really curb the way the public do things because they are laws? do people not speed because speeding is illegal? is pot no longer a problem because it is illegal? but our presidential candidates just had to sit and be questioned by christian evangelicals on national tv as if it were a legitimate debate. the next morning on the way to work, as i was passed by every person on the road, i dont speed with these gas prices, and then i smoked a bunch of pot, all i heard about on the news was this evangelical 'interview' as if it were important. now we have speeding and drugs, both against the law, and both happening everywhere around me, and yet the biggest thing in the news about US policy, is whether or not our candidates for president are christian enough? i havent made the point i wanted to but i am short on time. in short, the US is more worried about how christian our president is going to be than many many many many many laws the go broken all the time. so what is and is not legal, is not necessarily the real policy running mechanism here.
ok so my answer is a little messy but i was in a hurry to get ya something. i think i have more on this and i have to read the rest of your response to me. i hope no hard feelings.

Originally posted by re22666
and then i smoked a bunch of pot

Now that was funny! I like smoking a bunch of pot sometimes too.

Sorry for the off topic post but I couldn't resist.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

I am still trying to understand why all of this religious pandering is being allowed. Myself, while I would prefer a President who believes as I do (as I think everyone else would; that is human nature), that is far from my largest concern. I want to know where they stand on illegal immigration, the terrorism threat, energy policy, involvement in other countries, and spending policies here at home. Not religious dogma.

So here again, I have to agree with you.

see my point, 'legally' shmegally. jesus is shoved down people's throats just as i have said. and if one kid gets a 0 for writing about a fictional character when specifically told not to, well i cannot feel real bad about that.

Even though I agree with you on the above points, and even though I understand it is irritating to have your day interrupted by someone with a religious message (as I have stated many times before), I do not understand where the concept of everyone having freedom of speech compares with governmental and institutional discrimination.

I cannot fathom any 'free' society where any one group (Christians or non-Christians included) is denied freedoms. If you and I are to have the freedom to post on this site our true feelings about different subjects, then it is an absolute requirement that others are also free to do so. That means that our own personal freedoms come at the cost of allowing others to have that freedom. That includes the Christian zealot on the street corner, the preacher in his pulpit, the atheist, the satanist, the Jew, the Muslim, the Wiccan, the Buddhist... everyone. If one voice is silenced, then all are at risk of being silenced.

Also, do not think for one moment that only 'non-Christians' are being targeted. There are many churches who believe their beliefs are somehow the only ones which work, and they will get up in my face just as fast as they will yours. Also, if someone is searching for the 'lost', they have no idea whether or not the next guy in line is religious or not. It's not like there is a secret handshake or something. The difference, as I see it, without trying to be offensive, is that when confronted, I tell them to back off. If they continue, I try to convert them. You can do the same, because a conversion is simply a matter of convincing someone you are right in your beliefs, and everyone, even atheists, have some form of belief.

TheRedneck

i have no desire to convert anyone to my way of belief. see, i guess what i see, that you seem to be missing is that while all the above is mostly true in my eyes. have you not noticed the last 8 or 9 years of "America is a Christian Nation" propoganda? it is one thing for a mormon to come to my door, or a nutjob to yell from a corner, or even for someone to assault me with their religious beliefs because i may have entered their turf, or whatever...but the christians, or "christians" are much much louder. they have been working overtime to align the supreme court to their views, they are trying to sway elections, they are all over the news reminding us that this is a "christian nation." this is where my problem is. if they were to determine the supreme court makeup, as they wish, and overturn roe v wade, as they wish...well that is a pretty mighty hand with which to throw your opinion around for a church isnt it? regardless of your views on the bill and what it means, that is a religious movement working, quite successfully, at mandating legislation that would effect half the population of the United States as well as everyone that cares about that half.
so where is the sanctions you speak of? what churches are being stripped of their tax-free status because they are trying to subvert the government.
in fact, where are the churches being sanctioned as you say? the catholic church has been revealed as the largest pedophile cult in history, and they are still tax-free and quite charitable. i do not see these churches that you claim the government is stripping of it's ability to serve the people. id love examples and how they relate.
look at it this way. if i were to run a store in town here and last christmas, i refused to decorate for christmas or acknowledge the holiday at all. i would be legally within my right. there would be nothing anyone could do legally. unfortunately, we live in a society where it would only be days before i was getting bad press all over town for my anti-christian views, i would lose business and suffer. but legally i would be right. of course i dont have any examples of that happening either. but then again, i cant find a store that does not give in, even the jewish owned shops know a good marketing scheme here.

reply to post by re22666
I agree we seem to agree on the majority of the issues. I'm not surprised, because I generally do agree with my more 'liberal' friends.

The major point of contention seems to be whether the "Christians" are using the law to force their beliefs, or the "non-Christians" are using it to attack churches. The answer is both. To support my earlier claim of the IRS intrusion into church pulpits:


Source: www.usccb.org...

Now, to support your claim, I will admit to the silliness being presented in the form of a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

The sad truth is that freedom of religion is under attack from both sides. My position is simply that Christians are not doing all of the attacking, and that neither side should be attacking the other. Many times in this thread I have admonished the Op for his out-of-control hatred. I do this not because he doesn't have the right to do so; he certainly does. I simply believe that he is enhancing the problem rather than solving it. It is my right to state that belief.

Any time the force (or the threat of force) of l;aw is used to in any way encourage or restrict religious views, it is unconstitutional and a slap in the face to everyone who has given their lives in defense of this country. that includes someone demanding a law for religious reasons, just as much as it includes someone demanding control over religion.

No, laws do not equate to compliance, especially when those laws are against either human nature or stated freedoms. But they do restrict freedom nonetheless. Should you be caught smoking pot, your freedom would be at risk. Even if that potential for being prosecuted is small, it does exist, and you can't tell me you would not try to hide your activity if, say, you noticed a police car behind you. Speeding is a slightly different situation, as the major cause is a lack of enforcement. Yet that risk of loss of freedom still exists, as evidenced by people slowing down (usually well below the speed limit ) whenever a flashing blue light appears.

America is not a 'Christian nation'. It is, rather, a secular nation with a Christian population. Any religion is tolerated legally (at least in theory), even the absence of religion. It must be that way. Should religious freedoms ever be truly sacrificed, we could easily slide into the mold of theocratic nations around the world. Remember that in some countries, the person screaming religious messages from the street corner can be legally beheaded. In others, failure to attend church is a legal crime, and is regularly punished. No, the only way to ensure that religious freedom will continue is to restrict government from enacting any laws that concern religion. Not laws that prohibit free religious practices (including telling others about your religious beliefs), nor laws that enforce religious actions. No laws respecting the establishment of a state religion, nor that restrict freedom of religion. That's what our Constitution says.

You cannot protect your own freedoms by restricting the freedoms of others. I bet we can agree on this as well.

TheRedneck
P.S.: This rambles a little, I know, but I tried to cover all of your points. Forgive me if I missed some.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by re22666
I agree we seem to agree on the majority of the issues. I'm not surprised, because I generally do agree with my more 'liberal' friends.

The major point of contention seems to be whether the "Christians" are using the law to force their beliefs, or the "non-Christians" are using it to attack churches. The answer is both. To support my earlier claim of the IRS intrusion into church pulpits:

The following document is provided by the USCCB Office of General Counsel in order to assist (arch)dioceses, parishes, and other Catholic organizations ("Catholic organizations") that are exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") in distinguishing activities that are permitted during election campaigns from activities that are prohibited. This guidance focuses primarily on section 501(c)(3) of the IRC, because it contains a prohibition, which has been interpreted as absolute, against participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate, as a condition of maintaining federal income tax exemption.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source: www.usccb.org...

ok, i only read to here so far because i am already confused. what i am reading, says that churches have to watch how involved in politics they get or else the MAY face sanctions.
ok if they do, they might. it is written down on paper right? when is the last time the Catholic Church was stripped of it's tax free status in practice and not just in theory? now when was the last time that same church had influence over elections?


[edit on 8/23/2008 by re22666]

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Now, to support your claim, I will admit to the silliness being presented in the form of a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

The sad truth is that freedom of religion is under attack from both sides. My position is simply that Christians are not doing all of the attacking, and that neither side should be attacking the other. Many times in this thread I have admonished the Op for his out-of-control hatred. I do this not because he doesn't have the right to do so; he certainly does. I simply believe that he is enhancing the problem rather than solving it. It is my right to state that belief.

Any time the force (or the threat of force) of l;aw is used to in any way encourage or restrict religious views, it is unconstitutional and a slap in the face to everyone who has given their lives in defense of this country. that includes someone demanding a law for religious reasons, just as much as it includes someone demanding control over religion.

No, laws do not equate to compliance, especially when those laws are against either human nature or stated freedoms. But they do restrict freedom nonetheless. Should you be caught smoking pot, your freedom would be at risk. Even if that potential for being prosecuted is small, it does exist, and you can't tell me you would not try to hide your activity if, say, you noticed a police car behind you. Speeding is a slightly different situation, as the major cause is a lack of enforcement. Yet that risk of loss of freedom still exists, as evidenced by people slowing down (usually well below the speed limit

) whenever a flashing blue light appears.

America is not a 'Christian nation'. It is, rather, a secular nation with a Christian population. Any religion is tolerated legally (at least in theory), even the absence of religion. It must be that way. Should religious freedoms ever be truly sacrificed, we could easily slide into the mold of theocratic nations around the world. Remember that in some countries, the person screaming religious messages from the street corner can be legally beheaded. In others, failure to attend church is a legal crime, and is regularly punished. No, the only way to ensure that religious freedom will continue is to restrict government from enacting any laws that concern religion. Not laws that prohibit free religious practices (including telling others about your religious beliefs), nor laws that enforce religious actions. No laws respecting the establishment of a state religion, nor that restrict freedom of religion. That's what our Constitution says.

You cannot protect your own freedoms by restricting the freedoms of others. I bet we can agree on this as well.

TheRedneck
P.S.: This rambles a little, I know, but I tried to cover all of your points. Forgive me if I missed some.

i certainly do not care to restrice anyone's religious freedom. i never have. but then again, i have never had atheists come to my door with their agenda and refuse to leave until i did dial 911. i do not see atheist groups working their butts off to change the supreme court in order to fit their 'religious' views. i do not see atheist groups tellng their flock how to vote and why.
what i do see is this.
churches are very loud and involved in politics. churches do a great deal to sway their flock in one direction or another. politicians and religious leaders are constantly in a dance to prove to each other which one deserves the other one more and what they can then gain from the other.

you say you understand the legality does not necessarily translate to compliance. i ask again, when has the catholic church actually ever received that punishment? and when has it had influence over politics, thus our public agenda and laws. it is a really easy question.
or lets try it this way.
we have laws saying that religion cannot dictate policy.
case closed, you are right. there are laws.

or maybe it is all just perspective. let me tell you about my friend "bobby."
bobby was repeatedly raped by a priest in his parrish from the age of 10 until he was 16. years later when this all became public knowledge, that preist was far far away. well, after bobby took his own life, some of us dug into it. father touchalot apparently left a pretty wide wake of similar damage as the catholic church shuffled him from one unsuspecting community to another. the authorities found all the evidence they needed, had the priest. what happend? he died quietly in a hospice with his sister and brother at his side. no court, no arrest, no trial, no NOTHING.
no, correct me if i am wrong but i am pretty sure that it is illegal to rape little boys. i would think that lots of little boys would mean, it is even more illegal but silly me, it just means he got to travel alot.
now, here i am at election time looking at an initiative that was sponsored, by proxy, through this church. we all knew the church was the brains behind the initiative because they bragged from the pulpit before implementing the shadow 'secular' club that went to city hall with this. so we all knew it was the church, yet here it is, now a legitimate policy to be voted on.
according to you that is also illegal.

this is why i could care less about the term 'legally' when it comes to churches and how they can push their beliefs.

raping children - illegal
churches dictating public policy - illegal

now, please come here to visit. be mindful of certain town ordinances, they were designed by local churches. but none will prevent you from going to the cemetary to tell bobby it is all ok becaue he was never molested, since apparently the church did not dictate town laws.

i guess we really agree on most everything except for the weight the word 'legally' has in this country. it is illegal to do many things but they still happen. why? because what good is any law without enforcement?

see, i live in the US where this stuff happens so i could care less what it says on the books about it happening. it IS happening. everyday i have to hear about some other religious organizations problem with a candidate or law and how the whole system is bending over backwards in order to appease them.
laws, shlaws, i will say it again. i understand that what you are saying is technically correct but in practice and in theory are two totally different things arent they?

reply to post by re22666
OK, first of all, I want to address 'Bobby'.

Pedophilia is a crime, and a sin according to any interpretation of Christianity I have come into contact with. Bobby's abuser should have been locked away for the remainder of his natural life. I am aware of the Catholic church's recent problems concerning this, as well as horrified at the lackluster way it has been handled. But I am not Catholic and have not been abused. All I can do is offer my support to the cause through my voice.

I am also aware that several churches wish to help write the laws of this country. I disagree with most of them. the only reason I say 'most' and not 'all' is that I examine every proposal in its own light, and not that of the ones who proposed it.

I heard Jerry Falwell spew his hatred on plenty of occasions. Many of those times I was forced to turn the radio/TV off to save my sanity. I have heard Pat Roberts say some of the dumbest things I have ever heard. In his case, I personally blame not the man, since I think he really has a good heart, but his case of foot-in-mouth disease. Perhaps someone should tell him to stop talking occasionally.

The problem with separation of church and state is that it can never exist completely. People are in charge of the state, and people have a right to their religious beliefs. There will always be those times that someone has to be told to back off. That's why we have the Constitution we have, to prevent personal religious views from overly intruding into state affairs and turning us into a theocracy. It's not a separation of church and state, it is a separation of church from state.

Remember that I want the same thing you do: religious freedom. Just as you do not wish to be forced into a church, nor do I wish to be prevented from going to a church. Falwell, Roberts, the entire Westboro Baptist Church (the ones who protest at soldiers' funerals), they are all enemies of that freedom, regardless of the label they use. They are our common foes, and the more we both accept each other's right to worship or not as we see fit, the more we can focus our combined energy on these common foes.

I guess what I am trying to say is, you have a thin skin, and it is actually hindering you from making allies in the constant fight to maintain freedom. That's not a put-down, just an observation. And believe me, there are plenty more fanatics out there to fight against. Personally, I can use every ally I can get. Religious specification not required.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by re22666
OK, first of all, I want to address 'Bobby'.

Pedophilia is a crime, and a sin according to any interpretation of Christianity I have come into contact with. Bobby's abuser should have been locked away for the remainder of his natural life. I am aware of the Catholic church's recent problems concerning this, as well as horrified at the lackluster way it has been handled. But I am not Catholic and have not been abused. All I can do is offer my support to the cause through my voice.

I am also aware that several churches wish to help write the laws of this country. I disagree with most of them. the only reason I say 'most' and not 'all' is that I examine every proposal in its own light, and not that of the ones who proposed it.

I heard Jerry Falwell spew his hatred on plenty of occasions. Many of those times I was forced to turn the radio/TV off to save my sanity. I have heard Pat Roberts say some of the dumbest things I have ever heard. In his case, I personally blame not the man, since I think he really has a good heart, but his case of foot-in-mouth disease. Perhaps someone should tell him to stop talking occasionally.

The problem with separation of church and state is that it can never exist completely. People are in charge of the state, and people have a right to their religious beliefs. There will always be those times that someone has to be told to back off. That's why we have the Constitution we have, to prevent personal religious views from overly intruding into state affairs and turning us into a theocracy. It's not a separation of church and state, it is a separation of church from state.

Remember that I want the same thing you do: religious freedom. Just as you do not wish to be forced into a church, nor do I wish to be prevented from going to a church. Falwell, Roberts, the entire Westboro Baptist Church (the ones who protest at soldiers' funerals), they are all enemies of that freedom, regardless of the label they use. They are our common foes, and the more we both accept each other's right to worship or not as we see fit, the more we can focus our combined energy on these common foes.

I guess what I am trying to say is, you have a thin skin, and it is actually hindering you from making allies in the constant fight to maintain freedom. That's not a put-down, just an observation. And believe me, there are plenty more fanatics out there to fight against. Personally, I can use every ally I can get. Religious specification not required.

TheRedneck

oh i am not thin skinned. because i am defensive of my point? i dont resort to insulting you, i am having a discussion i thought you expressed great delight in continuing but now i am thin skinned? that is dissappointing. anyway, it seems more like you have given up. you mention my point but never actually address it. i said that religions are cramming themselves down peoples throats and that it is sanctioned in the US by our government.
you said that legally they cannot do that.
i said that 'legally' means very little in this world.
you said it does.
i was pointing out that if it did, father molester would have gone to jail long before he met bobby. bobby would be alive (well he would not have taken himself out like that. that church and no other would ever get any political agenda through.
if "legally" really meant anything, none of that would have happend but it did and it does.
so my point was that christians especially, have a very good method for cramming their beliefs down everyone's throat and the government is more than willing to help and allow. it is illegal to carry ice cream in your pocket in KY too. there is all kinds of stuff on the books.
it is not enforced.
i thought we were debating whether or not christians were forcing anythng on anyone here.
first they werent. then they werent, "LEGALLY," now i am just thin skinned and you never addressed it. that quite the let down.

reply to post by re22666


i would also like to add. there is one way to ensure pure seperation of church and state. you are not going to like it, and i am not saying it is what should be, but it is a way.

for people to start shunning anyone with religious faith as a superstitious moron. we stop electing anyone proven to be a superstitious moron.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Remember that I want the same thing you do: religious freedom. Just as you do not wish to be forced into a church, nor do I wish to be prevented from going to a church. Falwell, Roberts, the entire Westboro Baptist Church (the ones who protest at soldiers' funerals), they are all enemies of that freedom, regardless of the label they use. They are our common foes, and the more we both accept each other's right to worship or not as we see fit, the more we can focus our combined energy on these common foes.

how about this. we both want the same thing, religious freedom.
we both see the above example of enemies of that.
so far right?

i see those people doing those things in the name of their god.

where are the people trying in any way to prevent you from praying to your god or going to your church?

see i can show you religious fanatics pushing their religion on others.
you just showed us religious fanatics pushing their religion on others.

i am just waiting to hear how your religious rightst are being hampered? who is trying to stop you from pracicing? i will fight them by your side or in your stead, good sir. please point me to them.

or perhaps, just maybe. i am not so thin skinned as you have moved the goal posts until they no longer exsist and you are actually either agreeing with me, or unwittingly reinforcing my statement.

reply to post by re22666
O.... K....

I have tried desperately to be civil in this exchange, and to address my points, but these points seem to be shifting and my attempts at civility have apparently been hateful somehow.

So the best thing i can do at this point is to concede defeat and move on.

You're right; I am wrong. You win; I lose.

TheRedneck