Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NYC Atheists angry at 9/11 Firefighters being honored


  • Please log in to reply
128 replies to this topic

#46 Cat'sGrowl

Cat'sGrowl

    The Beast Lurks Once More

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,113 posts

Posted 21 June 2011 - 08:34 PM

I don't recall saying any of those things. Like I said, I think "the wall of separation" is exactly that, a wall that protects both ways. Government out of religion, religion out of the government. To me it's not a matter of "you either support the church in this or you support the state," I don't think this was a mythical wall that only protects one way.


But the two must cross at times. Period. You know that, we see it with what I posted in the original post. And when those times come, forcing the church to get rid of any semblance of their religion in a public arena, is a violation of the 1st Amendment. That's the issue at hand. Atheists who want to eliminate Christian, what's the word, let's say "material", that is in a public place, for no other reason than it hurts their feelings, is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Yet, we have atheists like those in the original post are trying to use the ridiculous and taken out of context "separation of church and state" line to protect their ego's. This is what I'm saying.

Edited by Cat'sGrowl, 21 June 2011 - 08:37 PM.


#47 Cat'sGrowl

Cat'sGrowl

    The Beast Lurks Once More

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,113 posts

Posted 21 June 2011 - 08:35 PM

We need more abortions. This thread is proof of such.


I don't know who your speaking to, but me and rodeo have had a rather civilized debate here. I think we need more people who are willing to keep their arguments civilized, not less. Otherwise you have a bunch of Fiz's running around.

I completely agree with your next post though, although I don't know where you stand on the issue, so it's quite possible I'm interpreting what you're saying incorrectly.

#48 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,932 posts

Posted 21 June 2011 - 08:52 PM

The first amendment reads

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.

(emphasis added)

How we ended up with the twisted poo interpretation that we have now is beyond me.


Because it wasn't left at that, Jefferson wrote many letters of explanation on what the intend of the amendment was. The "twisted interpretations" mostly aren't made up, they are taken from his writings.

#49 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,914 posts

Posted 21 June 2011 - 09:19 PM

Abortion would directly violate the Christian belief system. Which they aren't allowed to do..

I also don't think you have an actual understanding on what the 1st Amendment says..
For one, it never says anything about separation of church and state.


The first amendment is clear on the extent of separation of church and state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In addition no political office cannot be denied someone due to religion.

Also, the United States is allowed to directly violate the Christian belief system and has done so in many many ways. Not the least of which is outlawing slavery.

#50 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,530 posts

Posted 21 June 2011 - 09:45 PM

just like some Christians, some atheists give atheists a bad name :P

#51 Cat'sGrowl

Cat'sGrowl

    The Beast Lurks Once More

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,113 posts

Posted 21 June 2011 - 10:45 PM

The first amendment is clear on the extent of separation of church and state.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In addition no political office cannot be denied someone due to religion.

Also, the United States is allowed to directly violate the Christian belief system and has done so in many many ways. Not the least of which is outlawing slavery.


I recommend you read the entire thread, rather than picking and choosing.

#52 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,932 posts

Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:36 PM

Also, the United States is allowed to directly violate the Christian belief system and has done so in many many ways. Not the least of which is outlawing slavery.


oh sh!t :D

#53 lightsout

lightsout

    Doin' stuff...thaaaangs

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,704 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 12:20 AM

You really think that the Founding Fathers would've written the Constitution so that the beliefs of religious people could have no bearing on the governments decisions?


Yes. If you cite your reason as "it goes against my religious beliefs," then oh well. Your religious belief is a choice. Laws cannot be passed nor changed because it harms your belief in god or because your "god" said so. This country was made as a secular country. Respecting and consulting are two separate things. The first is what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do, the latter is what they didn't want us to do.

That religious freedoms could be watered down and stripped away if the government said so because "the church shouldn't matter in the affairs of the state"?


If YOUR religious beliefs directly effect other people, especially if these other people do not share your beliefs, then yes. This is why stem-cell research, abortions, etc are being halted. Because the religious right keeps halting progress. Your ability to swing your arm ends at my nose.

Are you honestly trying to propose that state has the power to legally tell the church what it has to do, and that the beliefs of those within the church have no affect on what is placed into law (a.k.a. prejudice)?


Basically, yes. If the church is trying to pass a law, for example, that makes school prayer mandatory at the beginning and end of each school day and everybody is required to go to church or receive a fine, then yes, absolutely. You have the freedom to believe in whatever god you wish, go to church, pray in public, etc. What you cannot do is say that my kids have to learn about creationism (which isn't even a real hypothesis, let alone a theory) and not evolution (which is a proven theory). Or even say that both should be in science classes. One involves science, one involves a fairy tale. Long story short, since the country is secular, no decision can be made to EXCLUDE those who are not of any particular religion for the sake of not hurting your feelings because you have a particular belief; which, again, you CHOOSE to believe.


Does that sound like Freedom of Religion to you? That takes away from the whole principle of so many people coming to America it isn't even funny.


Yes, it does. You can freely do what you want regarding your religion. But if something like abortion comes up, you cannot say that it should be illegal because it goes against your religious belief. As previously stated, abortion involves choice. If you don't want tax dollars going towards that, too bad. I don't want my tax dollars going towards the military (at least, in these days, since we're in meaningless wars), but they do. I don't want my tax dollars going towards locking people up for weed, but they do. Get over it. It is gonna happen.

Separation of church and state DOES work both ways. The state cannot MAKE YOU believe in one particular religion, nor can it persecute you for ANY religious belief you hold. And the church is not allowed to influence the state in any matter, because then the beliefs of one group are being forced on the rest (which is where the evolution in schools debate comes in. However, it shouldn't even be a debate).

The country is about the PEOPLE. NOT the people's beliefs or lack thereof. What we can all agree on is that we are people. Religious beliefs have no bearing on anything that goes on outside of your own existence or those who share your beliefs. Separation of church and state is clear to those who understand that this country WAS NOT founded on religious belief, let alone Christianity. I have never heard anybody BUT Christians have some issue with separation of church and state. Wonder why that is...

On the issue of the OP, I don't see much of a problem. It is people finding a reason to be pissed off. Do they have a case? Maybe. But I don't think it should have been mentioned. It is as dumb as the debate about the mosque or rec center or whatever the hell it was. Now, if they were petitioning the "In god we trust" signs, then absolutely, they have a definitive case.

Edited by XLightsOutX, 22 June 2011 - 12:32 AM.


#54 Cat'sGrowl

Cat'sGrowl

    The Beast Lurks Once More

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,113 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 12:54 AM

Yes. If you cite your reason as "it goes against my religious beliefs," then oh well. Your religious belief is a choice. Laws cannot be passed nor changed because it harms your belief in god or because your "god" said so. This country was made as a secular country. Respecting and consulting are two separate things. The first is what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do, the latter is what they didn't want us to do.



If YOUR religious beliefs directly effect other people, especially if these other people do not share your beliefs, then yes. This is why stem-cell research, abortions, etc are being halted. Because the religious right keeps halting progress. Your ability to swing your arm ends at my nose.



Basically, yes. If the church is trying to pass a law, for example, that makes school prayer mandatory at the beginning and end of each school day and everybody is required to go to church or receive a fine, then yes, absolutely. You have the freedom to believe in whatever god you wish, go to church, pray in public, etc. What you cannot do is say that my kids have to learn about creationism (which isn't even a real hypothesis, let alone a theory) and not evolution (which is a proven theory). Or even say that both should be in science classes. One involves science, one involves a fairy tale. Long story short, since the country is secular, no decision can be made to EXCLUDE those who are not of any particular religion for the sake of not hurting your feelings because you have a particular belief; which, again, you CHOOSE to believe.




Yes, it does. You can freely do what you want regarding your religion. But if something like abortion comes up, you cannot say that it should be illegal because it goes against your religious belief. As previously stated, abortion involves choice. If you don't want tax dollars going towards that, too bad. I don't want my tax dollars going towards the military (at least, in these days, since we're in meaningless wars), but they do. I don't want my tax dollars going towards locking people up for weed, but they do. Get over it. It is gonna happen.

Separation of church and state DOES work both ways. The state cannot MAKE YOU believe in one particular religion, nor can it persecute you for ANY religious belief you hold. And the church is not allowed to influence the state in any matter, because then the beliefs of one group are being forced on the rest (which is where the evolution in schools debate comes in. However, it shouldn't even be a debate).

The country is about the PEOPLE. NOT the people's beliefs or lack thereof. What we can all agree on is that we are people. Religious beliefs have no bearing on anything that goes on outside of your own existence or those who share your beliefs. Separation of church and state is clear to those who understand that this country WAS NOT founded on religious belief, let alone Christianity. I have never heard anybody BUT Christians have some issue with separation of church and state. Wonder why that is...

On the issue of the OP, I don't see much of a problem. It is people finding a reason to be pissed off. Do they have a case? Maybe. But I don't think it should have been mentioned. It is as dumb as the debate about the mosque or rec center or whatever the hell it was. Now, if they were petitioning the "In god we trust" signs, then absolutely, they have a definitive case.


Ladies and gentlemen, the perfect, living, breathing example of the modern liberal warped view of the Constitution.

Rather than address each piece of your post, let me go back to what I've already stated numerous times in this thread, as it is the root belief behind your post.

If you think that the 1st Amendment was written to keep the opinion of religious people out of any law-making, you're wrong. Period. And your whole argument goes down with it. That's simply all there is to it.
As I've stated, the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution says this:

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.


Now. Let's go back once more to things I've already stated. The word "respecting" does not equal "advocating." It is NOT, let me emphasize, NOT saying that Congress isn't permitted make any law that makes any religion "look good." It is NOT saying it's illegal for Congress to advocate any religion in any way, hence, it is perfectly legal for Congress to rule that the street sign is indeed, Constitutional, by being funded by the state. Bottom Line: It IS Constitutional for the State to acknowledge religion. It is NOT Constitutional for the State to DETRACT from religion or it's believers.


Does that sound one sided? Good. Because it was meant to be. As has been stated, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution was done so to protect the church from the state (for reasons why, see the hundreds of years of religious oppression that preceded this signing of the Constitution.) And it ends there. Separation of church and state never comes into it, because that line doesn't exist. You really think a bunch of God-fearing men (although largely Deist) would write a binding document saying that the beliefs of a religious group are irrelevant? That they would tell the grand portion of the population that their opinion on the issues don't matter? That a grand majority of them would sign something agreeing that their own opinions on something are irrelevant? PLEASE tell me you haven't actually deluded yourself into thinking that..

The entire premise of the Constitution is that each man is created equal with certain unalienable rights by his Creator, yet you somehow believe that the men who lived and died for that sentiment, put into law that the opinion of those who believe in the Creator don't matter?

"Every man created by God is equal, and his opinion matters! Except for those that believe in the Creator! Their opinion should be ignored!" (God being a general term in this case)

Say what?!

I feel bad for our Founding Fathers. They did everything they could to try and prevent something like this from happening, but people will always find a way to undermine and back-door something to achieve their own agenda. People will always look for the loophole or will misconstrue a vague definition to get it their way. Sad, sad day in the U.S. when people start believing that the opinion of Christians, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or so on, are just irrelevant. I really don't know if there's any bouncing back from that.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

-Thomas Jefferson.

Edited by Cat'sGrowl, 22 June 2011 - 01:22 AM.


#55 JoCoLoco

JoCoLoco

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 262 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 01:05 AM

not evolution (which is a proven theory).


Not to offend, or condescend, but this is a ridiculous statement. If it was proven, they would call it Evolutionary Fact, and not Evolutionary Theory. The full process of evolution has never been witnessed in nature, nor reproduced in an artificial setting. Not once has a beneficial genetic mutation (which is necessary to the theoretical process of evolution) been recorded, rather every known mutation - and if I'm not mistaken all were induced directly or indirectly by human involvement - has been at best useless and worst detrimental. It's nearly unthinkable to track the progress of evolution, given the massive span of time purportedly needed to achieve it. The concept of evolution is simply the result of learned men who don't believe in a universal architect surveying the natural world and creating their own myth to explain it. Though the "evidence" sounds feasible to some, I myself just don't see it. I've been wrong before however.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's just as great a leap of faith to believe in a non-documented theory built on circumstantial evidence at best, as it is to believe in a being unimaginably greater than oneself - who no living man has tangible proof of - that created the universe by force of will.

Again, not trying to be a douchebag, and sorry for the completely off topic tangential rant.

#56 SZ James (banned)

SZ James (banned)

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,929 posts
  • Locationfresh out the grave

Posted 22 June 2011 - 01:57 AM

The entire premise of the Constitution is that each man is created equal with certain unalienable rights by his Creator, yet you somehow believe that the men who lived and died for that sentiment, put into law that the opinion of those who believe in the Creator don't matter?

"Every man created by God is equal, and his opinion matters! Except for those that believe in the Creator! Their opinion should be ignored!" (God being a general term in this case)

Say what?!

I feel bad for our Founding Fathers. They did everything they could to try and prevent something like this from happening, but people will always find a way to undermine and back-door something to achieve their own agenda. People will always look for the loophole or will misconstrue a vague definition to get it their way. Sad, sad day in the U.S. when people start believing that the opinion of Christians, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or so on, are just irrelevant. I really don't know if there's any bouncing back from that.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

-Thomas Jefferson.


that quote is not found in the constitution therefore your entire argument is invalid

#57 pantherfan49

pantherfan49

    Angry inventor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,368 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 03:42 AM

Because it wasn't left at that, Jefferson wrote many letters of explanation on what the intend of the amendment was. The "twisted interpretations" mostly aren't made up, they are taken from his writings.


Don't you think that maybe those further explanations should have made their way into the text of the Amendment? Instead we are stuck re-interpreting the otherwise plain language of the 1st A based on one writer's memos.

#58 pantherfan49

pantherfan49

    Angry inventor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,368 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 03:46 AM

I completely agree with your next post though, although I don't know where you stand on the issue, so it's quite possible I'm interpreting what you're saying incorrectly.


Where I stand really doesn't take away from the truthfulness of the statement.

But if you care, I just get slightly angry at how much the meaning of the Constitution has been changed by legal scholars throughout the years. If you want to change the constitution, then fuging change the constitution through the Amendment process. Don't trot out political hack judges that will ignore the relevant words at issue, dig deep into one of the founder's personal writings, or look to European law to reach the political decision that each judge wants, etc.

#59 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,346 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 06:45 AM

Thats a great idea, because the Second Amendment clearly states that the reason people are allowed to carry firearms is so they can form a state militia, not this self protection mumbo jumbo, and since we don't have them anymore, we can get rid of all the guns!

#60 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,751 posts

Posted 22 June 2011 - 06:49 AM

you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
abortion would directly violate the christian belief system. Which they aren't allowed to do..

i also don't think you have an actual understanding on what the 1st amendment says..
For one, it never says anything about separation of church and state.




what?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com