Here we go again!!

#21 Postby **streetsoldier** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:20 pm

It has been said that atheists may be "closer" to God than many Christians...God is NEVER off an atheist's mind. In fact, what we may have here are people who are not truly "godless", but God-haters...they cannot STAND any reference to Him at all.

Think about this carefully before responding...please.

Lindaloo · #22 Postby **Lindaloo** » Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:14 pm

I see your point. And I believe that is exactly what this man is, even though he claims to be an aethiest.

opera ghost · #23 Postby **opera ghost** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:34 am

streetsoldier wrote:It has been said that atheists may be "closer" to God than many Christians...God is NEVER off an atheist's mind. In fact, what we may have here are people who are not truly "godless", but God-haters...they cannot STAND any reference to Him at all.

Think about this carefully before responding...please.

I have a very good friend who's parents are total and complete atheists who also fit into your description- god-haters. Her father believes that organized religion is brainwashing and all but criminal. She was raised in that fashion, but "found" god when she went away to college. (I'm still at a loss as to how people "find" god- like he just popped out of a hat LOL.) Her parents have threatened to remove thier support and never let her darken thier door again just because she has found peace in a relationship with god.

On the other hand, my husbands best friend (and one of my good friends) is an athiest in the OTHER sense of the meaning- he doens't believe in god himself, can't truely find any meaning in religion- but he is tolerant and respectful of others beliefs. My husband and I still get a laugh out of the horrified face at our wedding (he was the best man) when he was cornered against a wall by a well meaning woman bearing communion- he had told everyone that since he didn't believe he felt it would be a mockery to actully take communion and so we told everyone to let him be... only one of the communion bearers was *DETERMINED* that the ENTIRE bridal party take communion and shoved the wafer in his mouth. (We had the same problem with our catholic Maid of Honor -Episcopal table that she couldn't participate in-... but she managed to escape) He had the most beligerant expression on his face and only took it so the ceremony wouldn't be interrupted. He wasn't upset that he'd been forced to participate in a religious act- he was upset because he understood how important communion was to my husband and didn't want his non-beliefs to challange the sanctity of the rituals for us. It didn't and my mom gave him a special kiss on the cheek for being such a good sport.

It's like there's a difference between a conservative and a radical conservative.

On the other hand- the beliefs of the man in charge of the lawsuit shouldn't be as firmly debated as the basic societal, ethical, and moral issues that the lawsuit itself challanges and seeks to change. If this were a murder case... or a kidnapping... or some other personal offence- then the background of the person bringing charges could and should be brought forth as part of the controversy.

However this is a societal issue that challanges current practice and speaks for more than just this lone man. I'm not alone, and never have been... neither is this man. Roe vs. Wade went beyond the people involved. This case also goes far, far beyond this one man- and any reasons that he has individually for pursuing it. He speaks for change- the schools speak for upholding tradition. That's why this is such a hotly debated topic- it's challanging so much more than this one man's relationship with his daughter... it's challanging tradition and the system.

I don't know a blessed thing about Roe or Wade to be honest with you. I only know the outcome and the debate- My parents weren't even out of high school when the case went through... much less contemplating kids. That's all that my children and grandchildren will know about this debate... a blurb in thier history books, maybe a paragraph, with names that have no meaning and daes that have no consequence. This is change vs. tradition... and both sides have supporters. Both sides have well thought out arguments and believe that they are right. Both sides have people that "should" be on the other side- like me (as a christian who loves god) and like the athiests who would rather not rock the boat.

People are strange... when you're a stranger...

GalvestonDuck · #24 Postby **GalvestonDuck** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:47 am

opera ghost wrote:On the other hand, my husbands best friend (and one of my good friends) is an athiest in the OTHER sense of the meaning- he doens't believe in god himself, can't truely find any meaning in religion- but he is tolerant and respectful of others beliefs. My husband and I still get a laugh out of the horrified face at our wedding (he was the best man) when he was cornered against a wall by a well meaning woman bearing communion- he had told everyone that since he didn't believe he felt it would be a mockery to actully take communion and so we told everyone to let him be... only one of the communion bearers was *DETERMINED* that the ENTIRE bridal party take communion and shoved the wafer in his mouth. (We had the same problem with our catholic Maid of Honor -Episcopal table that she couldn't participate in-... but she managed to escape) He had the most beligerant expression on his face and only took it so the ceremony wouldn't be interrupted. He wasn't upset that he'd been forced to participate in a religious act- he was upset because he understood how important communion was to my husband and didn't want his non-beliefs to challange the sanctity of the rituals for us. It didn't and my mom gave him a special kiss on the cheek for being such a good sport.

Whoa! I'm confused...was this a Catholic ceremony or Episcopalian?

shaner · #25 Postby **shaner** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:11 am

opera ghost wrote:It's difficult to be a student who refuses to recite the pledge. Sure it's allowed. Sure you can just not say the words. but you're asking for a very adult attitude from children and teenagers. A student in my 4th and 5th grade classes was asked to leave the room if she would not recite the pledge. The teacher didn't want to look at her while she ignored the pledge that was held so dear. Anna fought it both of the years I was there on religious grounds- NOT because she didn't believe in god- but because she did not believe in the god that was represented by the pledge.

Kids laughed at her. Kids taunted her. They called her a commie and a traitor. She was ostracized repeatedly. She stood alone out in the school hallway- an outcast because she was exercizing her right to NOT say the pledge because it was not true to her religion.

I can relate. I was a Canadian kid in 10th grade at a suburban Pittsburgh high school, and I refused to say the Pledge simply because I was not an American. I was a kid, I really didn't want to be in the States, I had to follow my Dad. I missed my home, I missed Canada. But I got that exact same treatment.

I find it curious that the US feels it necessary to have a daily affirmation of loyalty to their country. Then again, I did grow up singng Oh Canada! before class. I also grew up saying the Lords Prayer before class too. I also find it curious that the Canadian government actually pays for and airs TV commercials telling Canadians how great their country is. I guess I'm a little off topic.

BTW, can anybody point me to the "separation of church and state" thing? The only thing I've ever seen is that "Congress may not endorse a state sponsored religion". You don't believe in God? That's fine, but you're in the minority, and in a democracy, majority rules. As well, it's ironic that the choice you made to not believe in God was a choice given to you by God Himself.

opera ghost · #26 Postby **opera ghost** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:17 am

*grins* You're confused? Try adding in a non-demoninational bride. (We had one athiest, a catholic, two baptists, one methodist, and a wiccan in our bridal party....)

It was an Episcopal ceremony- open table

Apparently (I know little about the catholic faith personally) my catholic maid of honor couldn't take communion at another faith's table. But confusion is natural *grins* It was a very amusing ceremony all things considered.

opera ghost · #27 Postby **opera ghost** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:31 am

shaner wrote:
opera ghost wrote:It's difficult to be a student who refuses to recite the pledge. Sure it's allowed. Sure you can just not say the words. but you're asking for a very adult attitude from children and teenagers. A student in my 4th and 5th grade classes was asked to leave the room if she would not recite the pledge. The teacher didn't want to look at her while she ignored the pledge that was held so dear. Anna fought it both of the years I was there on religious grounds- NOT because she didn't believe in god- but because she did not believe in the god that was represented by the pledge.

Kids laughed at her. Kids taunted her. They called her a commie and a traitor. She was ostracized repeatedly. She stood alone out in the school hallway- an outcast because she was exercizing her right to NOT say the pledge because it was not true to her religion.
I can relate. I was a Canadian kid in 10th grade at a suburban Pittsburgh high school, and I refused to say the Pledge simply because I was not an American. I was a kid, I really didn't want to be in the States, I had to follow my Dad. I missed my home, I missed Canada. But I got that exact same treatment.

I find it curious that the US feels it necessary to have a daily affirmation of loyalty to their country. Then again, I did grow up singng Oh Canada! before class. I also grew up saying the Lords Prayer before class too. I also find it curious that the Canadian government actually pays for and airs TV commercials telling Canadians how great their country is. I guess I'm a little off topic.

BTW, can anybody point me to the "separation of church and state" thing? The only thing I've ever seen is that "Congress may not endorse a state sponsored religion". You don't believe in God? That's fine, but you're in the minority, and in a democracy, majority rules. As well, it's ironic that the choice you made to not believe in God was a choice given to you by God Himself.

Ugh. I do believe in god, thank you

And you'd be surprised at how often the majority doesn't rule- the US isn't a true -by the people- voting majority. (at least one president has lost the popular vote and won the election!) There are quite a few things which are agaisnt the popular majority which still occur- The US is big on the rights of the minority- see the disabled, the minority races, for that matter see the RIAA *grins* They're certainly in the minority of popular opinion but they're likely to win. You just have to have the support of the majority of the people who are actully counted- proving yet again... it's not what you know- it's who you know.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
-- the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

Religious liberty and separation of church and state are the cornerstones of the American way of life. The Framers of the Constitution designed the First Amendment's religion clauses to embrace two key concepts: the government will not endorse or oppose any particular religious viewpoint (or religion generally), and will not interfere with the right of citizens to practice their faith. As Thomas Jefferson put it, the American people created a "wall of separation between church and state."
-Americans United for Separation of Church and State
(frankly they sum it up more cleanly than I'm likely to)

Endorsing the seperation of church and state does not mean that one is not religious- only that someone wants there to be a wall between government and religion.

shaner · #28 Postby **shaner** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 11:53 am

Sorry, I did not mean to imply in any way that you did not believe in God. I was using a general "you", directed at non-believers.

I read the 1st Amendment to say the government will not impose a particular religion on the people (remember, they were mostly running away from the government invented Anglican Church). In other words, there's no state sponsored religion. People are free to make up their minds about religion. Doesn't Congress and the House say a prayer before sitting anyways? How hypocritical is that then? I don't see how saying a voluntary prayer in school or a legislative building imposes a religion on anyone.

Besides, I really believe that religion should be taught at home anyways. It's a parental responsibility, not a shool responsibilty. That being said, I do send my kids to a private Christian school, because I really want that influence on them. But I pay for that influence.

#29 Postby **streetsoldier** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:08 pm

If you reexamine the amendment, you will see that it has NO "separation of church and state" clause. This is actually a quote from then-President Thomas Jefferson, from a letter he wrote in response to a Baptist pastor's group's question as to whether Maryland (a primarily Catholic populated state at the time) could, or would, make Roman Catholicism the "state religion" and force them to live elsewhere or convert, as was done in Europe.

Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" actually was taken out of context here...its meaning was that the churches were forever protected FROM State interference at all levels. Note again the passage above..."freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM it", and the subclause the ACLU, etc. wants us to ignore..."nor prohibit the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"....a cautionary notice that the State MUST keep their hands OFF of anyone who professes his/her faith and exercises that belief, without fear of censure by either the State or his fellow citizen.

TexasStooge · #30 Postby **TexasStooge** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:16 pm

Let them say the pledge like this:

I pledge allegance,
To the slag,
Of the United Snakes of Emilio.
In to the repudnance,
For which he stands
One naked, under garment,
Invisible man,
With Liberachi and cheese puffs for all!

opera ghost · #31 Postby **opera ghost** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:19 pm

shaner wrote:Sorry, I did not mean to imply in any way that you did not believe in God. I was using a general "you", directed at non-believers.

I read the 1st Amendment to say the government will not impose a particular religion on the people (remember, they were mostly running away from the government invented Anglican Church). In other words, there's no state sponsored religion. People are free to make up their minds about religion. Doesn't Congress and the House say a prayer before sitting anyways? How hypocritical is that then? I don't see how saying a voluntary prayer in school or a legislative building imposes a religion on anyone.

Besides, I really believe that religion should be taught at home anyways. It's a parental responsibility, not a shool responsibilty. That being said, I do send my kids to a private Christian school, because I really want that influence on them. But I pay for that influence.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about the religion at home experience.

I can't even pretend to debate on the hypocricy of our government... My mind boggles even trying to compute. It's like Rush in an earlier topic here. Sure he was a hypocrite to speak out against addicts while being one- but I'd rather him be a hypocrite and further the spirit of the cause than him NOT use his power as a public figure to help the cause.

I'd rather my goverment continue to rule in the spirit that our forefounders wrote into the constitution than to never rule at all because they are hypocrites.

Voluntary and totally unsponsored and un-supported prayer IS ALLOWED IN SCHOOLS! The government will not and cannot remove the ability for a student to take time out of his or her day to say a prayer to whatever god they worship as they head in to a test. They can, and do, remove the schools right to support or sponsor those prayers. One of the tests that is used to determine the constitutionality of policy is the Lemon test. The test has served as the basis for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

It's not the ONLY test they use- it's just one of the ways that the court determines whether a policy or law violates the constitution.

And- no problem about the whole not believeing in god-thing

opera ghost · #32 Postby **opera ghost** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:23 pm

streetsoilder- I was very careful to seperate the actual amendment from the presidental quote- using italiacs and spacing

I'm very well aware that they are seperate ( :lol:

)

Many arguments about religion in government convey that we have veered from the origional "spirit" of the consitution/amendments and thier christian writers. I tossed in the quote because itreflected both one of the origional intents and the way that I view the ammendment.

Your mileage my vary

GalvestonDuck · #33 Postby **GalvestonDuck** » Mon Oct 20, 2003 12:35 pm

opera ghost wrote:Apparently (I know little about the catholic faith personally) my catholic maid of honor couldn't take communion at another faith's table. But confusion is natural *grins* It was a very amusing ceremony all things considered.

LOL! Confusion is right.

I was taught that, as a Catholic, I could receive communion in another church, but that someone from another church (faith) could not receive communion in the Catholic church, because other churches do not accept it as a holy sacrament.

Rules, rules, rules.

Here we go again!!

Who is online