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.

 

Public Religious Displays

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


"The State" in the constituion refers to the Federal government; not the States.




posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


I thought this thread had something to do with parks.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sara123123
"The State" in the constituion refers to the Federal government; not the States.


You are absolutely incorrect. "The State" refers to the individual states. Just reading Article 4 would tell you that. When the Constitution refers to the federal government and/or the country as a whole, it either says "United States" or names the specific branch it's referring to such as the many times it says "Congress shall" or "Congress shall make no". When it does neither it's referring to the the 'several States', as it calls them, meaning each state.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


Well, first of all, it's a symbol of Christianity. Looking at the past of Christianity, and things done in the name of Christianity, some might find Christianity (and it's associated symbols) offensive.

Second, like I said, it's also about holding our government to a standard.


Hundreds of millions have been impoverished, imprisoned and murdered by atheist states. Atheists have murdered more innocent people for their inccorrect social beliefs than Christian states have done in two thousand years. Should we persecute atheists in this "justice" scheme of guilt by association?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You don't mind this argument of not looking at offensive art if it is Christians complaining about porn. It is too bad that what is true for one offended person is true for the other who is easily offended in a free society.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brood
Does anyone else find it hilarious that often the same people defending government funded religious displays are the ones who say they should not be "subjected to looking at" a Gay Pride event?

How's that log in your eye treating you...?
edit on 25-11-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)


Yeah, I think it is hillarious to see these atheists whining about having to see a religious display in their amoral Utopia. They have some wood to unload from their eyes for sure.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

So for those who say "this is just trivial and we should accept it" - - - - SCREW THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If a city/government allows any Religious symbol/presentation on public land - - - it is Wrong!!! Period!!!

Government and Religion are NOT compatible - - - EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!! For any reason!!!!!!!!!!!



Atheism and state don't mix well either if you look at the track record of mass murder and oppression conducted in atheist states in the name of their social religion. Atheists have murdered more innocent people for incorrect thought over the past few hundred years than Christian states murdered in all it's 2,000 year history.

Religious freedom is the best design where the Federal government stays out of mandating a religion or atheism.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sara123123

Originally posted by Annee

So for those who say "this is just trivial and we should accept it" - - - - SCREW THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If a city/government allows any Religious symbol/presentation on public land - - - it is Wrong!!! Period!!!

Government and Religion are NOT compatible - - - EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!! For any reason!!!!!!!!!!!



Atheism and state don't mix well either if you look at the track record of mass murder and oppression conducted in atheist states in the name of their social religion. Atheists have murdered more innocent people for incorrect thought over the past few hundred years than Christian states murdered in all it's 2,000 year history.

Religious freedom is the best design where the Federal government stays out of mandating a religion or atheism.


Oh please - - humor me - - and provide statistics.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


In the Black Book of Communism, Stalin murdered 30 million people in his term. Mao murdered 27 million in his term. The Soviets continued to murder incorrect beleivers until the wall fell and it is estimated that another 100 million fell to the atheist empire. China still murders the politically incorrect (and sells their organs on the black market) and unborn children by the hundreds of millions. The wikileaks just revealed the chi-coms are chasing people around the world who promote the rights of Buddists and befriend the Dahli Lama. Then you have Cuba, Viet Nam (whose atheist slaughter is marked by a mountain of skulls) and all the other atheist regimes.

Is that good enough for you? Proud? Still riding around on that high atheist horse of sinlessness?



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I wonder how many Atheist complain about receiving a Christmas bonus? I'm sure all you guys are just as vocal in disgust when your boss hands you a little check for the holidays. I have noticed since I was little, a rapid decline in the spirit of Christmas from all the ACLU crowd... No commercial well even say the word Christmas anymore, but every other BS holiday gets a nod. I remember every Christmas commercial being magical, now it all PC garbage.
So Thanks ACLU, thanks for ruining Christmas for everybody.... Happy Holidays (cause I can't say Happy Christmas, cause it might offend somebody, who thinks Christians are idiots). Sorry a manger and a little baby on City property is so offensive. Separation of Church and State, only means no nationalize religion. I wish the founding fathers would have worded everything a little more clear, So that joy killing Atheist could understand..



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by sara123123
 



I don't think that the atrocities you attribute to governments were ever done "in the name of Atheism" or because the leaders were atheists. Rather, they were politically motivated to keep people under control and to kill them if they found it necessary. It just so happened that they saw organized religion as an obstacle to their political goals.

On the other hand, the Crusades, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, all done in the name of Christianity. Hitler definitely mentions his Christian influences many times in his writing. These are only major Christian atrocities, there are countless other religion-inspired killings. The only reason the "Atheist" murders are supposedly higher in number is because of weapons technology and larger populations. However, as I stated before, attributing the "Atheist" atrocities to atheism itself is an extremely large stretch.


Originally posted by sara123123
Yeah, I think it is hillarious to see these atheists whining about having to see a religious display in their amoral Utopia.


You do realize that religion isn't a requirement for morals, right? Just look at the Humanist movement.

reply to post by Target Earth
 


A lot of atheists still celebrate holidays like Christmas, just not the religious parts of it (many of the traditions of Christmas are definitely not Christian in origin). Birthdays aren't (as far as I know) religious holidays. Why can't we enjoy the festivities of Christmas (presents, food, decorations) in the same way?
edit on 29-11-2010 by PieKeeper because: it just felt good.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sara123123
 


You REALLY need to pick up a history book! Let's just look at a few of the 'Biggies'... The Crusades... The Inquisition... The Conquistadors... The Holocaust... The Bosnian Ethnic Cleansing... All in the name of the Christian God... Or at least justified by the Bible...

And for the record, I'm against religious dispays on public property, and I am NOT an Atheist... I'm also NOT a Christian, just for the record...



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by sara123123
 


You REALLY need to pick up a history book! Let's just look at a few of the 'Biggies'... The Crusades... The Inquisition... The Conquistadors... The Holocaust... The Bosnian Ethnic Cleansing... All in the name of the Christian God...


You know, those horrendous atrocities you listed weren't committed by real Christians, but by those who used the religion as a false justification for asserting control over others. It is really unfair to characterize an entire religion and all of its adherents, based on the actions of people who, clearly, were not acting in accordance with the teachings of its architect.


Or at least justified by the Bible.


Those events were not justified by the Bible, because they all occurred after its penning. As a matter of fact, there was no justification for them, religious or political.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WTFover
Those events were not justified by the Bible, because they all occurred after its penning. As a matter of fact, there was no justification for them, religious or political.


I disagree.

There are definitely places in the bible where it says to kill unbelievers, to bride-kidnap, etc.


Originally posted by WTFover
You know, those horrendous atrocities you listed weren't committed by real Christians


No True Scotsman?
edit on 29-11-2010 by PieKeeper because: possible logical fallacy detected.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


LINK

Separation of Church and State - The Metaphor and the Constitution
"Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business. Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

However, currently the implied common meaning and the use of the metaphor is strictly for the church staying out of the state's business. The opposite meaning essentially cannot be found in the media, the judiciary, or in public debate and is not any part of the agenda of the ACLU or the judiciary.

This, in conjunction with several other factors, makes the "separation of church and state" metaphor an icon for eliminating anything having to do with Christian theism, the religion of our heritage, in the public arena. One of these factors is the use of the metaphor in place of the actual words of the constitution in discourse and debate. This allows the true meaning of the words in the constitution to be effectively changed to the implied meaning of the metaphor and the effect of the "free exercise" clause to be obviated. Another factor facilitating the icon to censor all forms of Christian theism in the public arena is a complete misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause.

Separation of Church and State - The Establishment Clause in Context
In addition to the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor misrepresenting the words of the establishment clause, the true meaning of the establishment clause is also misrepresented. The "establishment" clause states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." Before these words can be put in context and the true meaning of the clause can be correctly identified, we need to examine the word "religion" and put it in America's historical context at the time the constitution was framed. In addition, we need to examine the previous European historical background of the founders of our country to identify what specifically motivated them to place the "establishment" clause in the constitution.

To accomplish this, we need to add more specificity to the word "religion" to clarify both the American and European historical backgrounds and put the word "religion" in proper context. We need to delineate between doctrinal and denominational religion. We also need to understand that the doctrinal religion being discussed is Christian Theism, which is defined by a belief in the Bible. We know what specific Christian denominational religions are.

Separation of Church and State - Constitution Framers Historical Context
# The "Separation of Church and State" metaphor blurs the distinction between a doctrinal religion and a denominational religion. This places the doctrinal religion we have embraced in the same basket as an organized denominational religion with potential to merge with the state. The documentary evidence of the doctrinal Christian religion origin of this nation is voluminous. The Supreme Court thoroughly studied this issue, and in 1892 gave what is known as the Trinity Decision. In that decision the Supreme Court declared, "this is a Christian nation." John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." The founders were definitely Christian for the most part. At least 90 to 95 percentage of them were practicing, Trinitarian Christians. This and the additional supporting evidence below show conclusively that the concern that motivated the framers to include the establishment clause in the constitution was definitely not fear of the doctrinal religion of Christian Theism. It was understood that Christian Theism was the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear, it was something believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, the framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion! Some additional evidences that indicate Christian Theism was the national doctrinal religion are listed below: Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."

# The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.
# God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
# As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.
# Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
# The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.
# Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
# Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
# Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."
# Our national anthem mentions God.
# The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
# The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.
# Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.
# Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.
# The Bible was used as a textbook in the schools.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
There are definitely places in the bible where it says to kill unbelievers, to bride-kidnap, etc.


I'd be interested to see those, if you'll send them to me.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 





posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


The quotes were from Judean law and not the teachings of Christ. Though I will cede many who call themselves Christians don't understand this distinction, either.

I'm sending you a U2U with more.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
With the state of our country today, this is what you want to hold the goverrnment accountable for? Wow, no wonder we're in the state we're in..................far more important things to get upset about.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


This is a local issue in my home city. A single person can change a lot more in a community than in an entire nation. This is not a federal government issue, so don't misrepresent the situation that I have presented.

In any case, who said that I'm only allowed to champion a single cause? It's actually quite possible that this is just one of many causes that I would lend my time to.
edit on 29-11-2010 by PieKeeper because: it reads better.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join