Really want to know what's going wrong in the World?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Why? Don't christains pay taxes? Aren't they allowed to express freely?

Sure, christians pay taxes, along with Jews, Hindus, Muslims and atheists, etc.

Christians do express freely when they erect religious symbols on their private property. When on public-funded property the expression originates from government and the result is the government endorsing/promoting a specific religion: a constitutional no-no. This is not in place to limit the freedom of christians. It's in place to guarantee the religious freedom of all Americans.

Where in the Constitution is it a no-no?
Please state.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If anything, this shows us what is RIGHT in our country. We operate by a rule of law and the laws must be enforced. Enforcing the First Amendment preserves everyone's freedom.

Personally, I hold no faith that any leader in this country does things for the the good of the people. Nor do I believe that any of them are qualified to make laws based on the constitution, regardless of the amendment, because I have yet to see ANYone keep it in the context in which it was written.

Let me put it this way. Expecting one of our "leaders" to put themselves in the founding fathers shoes so they can understand what they meant when they wrote something 235 years ago, is akin to expecting the founding fathers to have had the foresight to know how this country was going to be 235 years down the road.

Now, expecting our founding fathers to have that kind of foresight is unrealistic. But expecting the the "leaders" in this country to have the intelligence required to understand the language of a 235 year old document so they can "translate" it correctly ( linguistics and grammar were MUCH different back then) so they can keep it in the context in which it was meant when it was written, is NOT unrealistic.

So why don't they do it? I'll tell you why............THEY'RE IDIOTS!!!!!!

The credo on this site is "Deny Ignorance" TD. I've done my part today. What have you done?

Originally posted by InTheShadows

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If anything, this shows us what is RIGHT in our country. We operate by a rule of law and the laws must be enforced. Enforcing the First Amendment preserves everyone's freedom.

Personally, I hold no faith that any leader in this country does things for the the good of the people.

In this case the decision was not made by a leader, but by a judge interpreting the rules established by the founding fathers. We don't have to worry about our "leader" (president?) handling such things.

Originally posted by beezzer
Where in the Constitution is it a no-no?
Please state.

The First Amendment.
For details on the case in the OP you may wish to read the judge's ruling.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I did. So when Michael Bloomberg helped the imam to forward the9/11 mosque, he was violating the Constitution?

I find the dichotomy illuminating.

Please illuminate further.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

Then by your own words in this thread you are as guilty as I, my friend.

Absolutely! There is no denying I am as guilty, no, more guilty than you my friend. I never denied this.

The difference is I have seen what I have done and stopped. I have repented. I have forgiven and sought forgiveness. Lastly, no matter what struggles may come my way, I will not ever do that which I know is wrong again.

So, what did I do that was wrong?

1. I judged others either by condemnation or by my silence while they were being condemned.
2. I continued to support the system of our oppression. I was a good citizen, followed the laws, and even went into the military to defend our oppressors.
3. I sought safety at the expense of freedom.
4. I did not love others enough to bring them up to my level. I was above them.

These things I have done I am not proud of. They are part of my journey in life though. Had I the eyes to see what world I was creating when I was in my youth, I would not have done many things. What I can say, and it is no defence, is that I did what I was taught to do by society.

No more! I will gladly stand up for your rights my friend. But first, there are many who are suffering much more than you. There are Brothers and Sisters locked away in prisons, families are being torn apart, people are being forced to the streets, others have been there for far too long.

Before I can worry about the minor inconvenience of a religious symbol being publicly displayed, I must first focus on bringing awareness to those beings who live and breath and actually suffer for the world we have created.

There is much to fix in our systems of iniquity.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by beezzer


How is a private mosque, built on private land with private money the same as an icon of a particular religion being placed on public land?

IMO, keep the thing up and allow other religions to place icons alongside or combined into the mural/display as a whole. I am of the "all or nothing" mindset.

Originally posted by BiggyMcBigPants
reply to post by beezzer

 

How is a private mosque, built on private land with private money the same as an icon of a particular religion being placed on public land?

When the government either federal or local, endorses and promotes it!

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by InTheShadows

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If anything, this shows us what is RIGHT in our country. We operate by a rule of law and the laws must be enforced. Enforcing the First Amendment preserves everyone's freedom.

Personally, I hold no faith that any leader in this country does things for the the good of the people.

In this case the decision was not made by a leader, but by a judge interpreting the rules established by the founding fathers. We don't have to worry about our "leader" (president?) handling such things.

leader (lēd′ər)

noun

1. a person or thing that leads; directing, commanding, or guiding head, as of a group or activity


So by virtue of definition, a judge is a leader. If he/she is not, then who leads a courtroom?

As far as I can tell, the president of the United States does not have to interpret the Constitution. He simply endorses (or not) decisions made by those who do. Judges, lawmakers, congressmen, etc.....(leaders)

When a person says "any leader", they are implying more than one. The word leader may not be plural, but when preceded by the word "any", the implication is there.

Besides which, if I were going to refer to the president, it certainly wouldn't be that of a leader. That ship sailed after Kennedy was shot.

Sorry dude, but you seem too put WAY too much stock in TPTB.

well I could really tell ya what's going on
in the world but I'm afraid I'll have to decline.
Cuz if I did tell ya, ur head would explode.
And that's not good

Federal Judges make an Oath to get their job.

Read that Oath. They need to be held to it.

God's in their Oath.

What everyone concerned about these type rulings by government keep missing is that the government has adopted a state religion called Secular Socialism. It is competition with other churches to acquire disciples. While most religions promote belief in a supreme being and promise utopia after death and require adherence based upon faith, the Secular Socialist require a belief in a Supreme central government and promise a utopia on earth, yet everytime it has been implemented it has created the opposite. The faith of the secular socialists is far stronger than the faiths in a supreme being. No scientific proof can be provided for the existence of a supreme being, while ample evidence exists for the results of a supreme government's inability to create utopia.

Originally posted by billyjack
What everyone concerned about these type rulings by government keep missing is that the government has adopted a state religion called Secular Socialism. It is competition with other churches to acquire disciples. While most religions promote belief in a supreme being and promise utopia after death and require adherence based upon faith, the Secular Socialist require a belief in a Supreme central government and promise a utopia on earth, yet everytime it has been implemented it has created the opposite. The faith of the secular socialists is far stronger than the faiths in a supreme being. No scientific proof can be provided for the existence of a supreme being, while ample evidence exists for the results of a supreme government's inability to create utopia.

If we did what our various faiths tell us to, Love each other, then we can make the Utopia here on this earth. God didn't make this mess, WE did. God gave us all we need to make this existence heaven. It is right in front of our eyes. We just don't want to share it.

With Love,

Your Brother

Christianity is the most coddled religion in the western world and yet its adherents seem to forever find new examples of how they are "wronged". Let me ask you this... How many Muslims, Buddhists, or representatives of non-Christian faiths have ever knocked on your front door looking to convert you?

Seriously, the whole thing comes off like watching a spoiled rotten brat of a child throwing a tantrum just because they were told "No" once out of ten million times. It's sad. Very, very sad.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide
Christianity is the most coddled religion in the western world and yet its adherents seem to forever find new examples of how they are "wronged". Let me ask you this... How many Muslims, Buddhists, or representatives of non-Christian faiths have ever knocked on your front door looking to convert you?

You can't blame them my friend. There is a lot of misunderstanding within the Christian community as to what the "Good News" is they are suppose to be spreading. If it was rightly understood, you would welcome them into your home and graciously accept the "Good News". The Roman Catholic Church was the one who took Christs teachings, the "Good News", and twisted into the deified "Worship him to be saved" cult that it is today.

A Christian who understands Christs teachings would simply say, "I love you" and "Is there anything that you need?". This is Christs teachings, to love and assist one another.

Originally posted by Hefficide
Seriously, the whole thing comes off like watching a spoiled rotten brat of a child throwing a tantrum just because they were told "No" once out of ten million times. It's sad. Very, very sad.

~Heff

This statement comes off as a spoiled child throwing a tantrum saying "NO! I want it my way!"

See, we are all children protecting our immature point of view at all costs. It is when we can say "I understand your point of view, here is my own that I'd like to share." and "I love you for being you." that we will have grown up, even if by only a little.

Judge not, Love all, be at peace.

With Love,

Your Brother

OP. My post on page 1 should not be misconstrued as a blanket agreement with the selectiveness and trendiness with which this was done. I was simply trying to shed some light on what I felt to be an error in interpretation.

At the very least, I would agree that this case, among others, has an ulterior motive behind it. And that is probably to set precedent. Otherwise, they would have been enforcing this country wide, and long before now. There are plenty of christian symbols on public properties across the US. But now that precedent has been set, you will probably see this more often. Although I doubt the MSM is going to call attention to every case. They usually select which cases get coverage based on which direction they want the consensus of the people to lean.

Klassified.

Originally posted by beezzer
I did. So when Michael Bloomberg helped the imam to forward the9/11 mosque, he was violating the Constitution?

In what way did he "help the imam to forward the 9/11 mosque"?

Please clarify