>
Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Home Members List Top Posters Arcade Casino Toolbar
Go Back   Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards > The Razor > Politics and Religion Forum
Mark Forums Read rel="nofollow">Mark Forums Read
Register All Albums FAQDonate Calendar

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-07-2004, 11:15 AM   #16
jeepndd
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2004
Location: milton, nh
Posts: 117
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $10000


jeepndd is an unknown quantity at this point
I think the modern ideology of "Separation of church and state" goes beyond the extreme and clearly was never intended by our founders. The best example of this is that "Separation of church and state" appears no where in either the Constitution nor the Bill of rights. I believe that the founders just didn't want a state sponsored church like England had. Reading any document they produced it just baffles the mind how anyone could conclude that they wanted the government to trample on the rights of all but athiests. In fact, since the Constitution expressly forbids any test of religion to hold office as the strongest possible case that the founders intended that none would be forced to practice the religion of another under our government. Like it or not, no god is atheism and it is no more right to force god out of the daily lives of our people than it is to force god into the daily lives of our people.

Our modern interpretations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights seems to fly in the face of the Founders intent. You should all try reading not only the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but the Federalist Papers. I think many of you will be quite surprised at what the Founders really intended.
__________________
Don
  jeepndd is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2004, 01:35 PM   #17
Mark_Henderson
very stable genius
 
Mark_Henderson's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Titletown
Posts: 8,781
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $235250


Mark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets it
Mark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets it
Quote:
Originally posted by jeepndd
Reading any document they produced it just baffles the mind how anyone could conclude that they wanted the government to trample on the rights of all but athiests.

Like it or not, no god is atheism and it is no more right to force god out of the daily lives of our people than it is to force god into the daily lives of our people. [/B]
Jeep, that was well written, so I'll bite. I've quoted two sentences of yours. How, in our opinion, is government now being asked "to trample on the rights of all but atheists" and how does it conceivably "force god out of the daily lives of our people".

I feel fairly certain that I can practice any far flung religion I choose in my free time. How am i wrong?

Last edited by Mark_Henderson; 08-07-2004 at 02:54 PM..
__________________
"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they are being fooled." -- Mark Twain
  Mark_Henderson is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2004, 06:02 PM   #18
Flagg the Wanderer
Sonic sez: Clawk Moar Ringz!
 
Flagg the Wanderer's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 13,082
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $316931


Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.
Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I feel fairly certain that I can practice any far flung religion I choose in my free time. How am i wrong?
Because schools can teach children all about "our duty to Mother Earth" but kids can't even get together of their own volition on school property to discuss the Bible?

Let's put it this way: I see the Church/State issue simply as "religiously neutral." To me, that means that kids doing a Koranic study group should be treated the same as a chess club.

What the current caselaw has done is state that you don't have the right to gather and discuss certain beliefs in a public forum (by which I mean a publicly FUNDED forum, like a school). That's not neutrality.

Now, I agree with Church/State separation, but it SHOULD be noted that most of the documents of the founders that dealt with this issue were focussed on (as has been discussed) keeping the State out of the Church, not vice-versa. Now, I think that our world has changed, and we should be wary of mixing the two in either direction, but if we're going to look back to the founders, we should make sure we're reading for context.

This is why I'm against faith-based charities getting government support, actually.
__________________
I came into this world screaming and covered in someone else's blood...I have *no problem* going out the same way!
  Flagg the Wanderer is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2004, 08:57 PM   #19
Mark_Henderson
very stable genius
 
Mark_Henderson's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Titletown
Posts: 8,781
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $235250


Mark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets it
Mark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets it
Quote:
Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Because schools can teach children all about "our duty to Mother Earth" but kids can't even get together of their own volition on school property to discuss the Bible?
support, actually.
I fail to see how it "tramples anyone's rights" for children to wait until 3 PM to have whatever kind of God festival they choose. When I was a kid, I went to Hebrew School two days a week after school. I don't see why I should have expected to do this on publicly funded property during the middle of school hours.

Injecting religion into public school is bound to be exclusionary. If you lived in Saudi Arabia and most of the kids had an Islamic ho-down before soccer games, wouldn't your child feel excluded? How about an immigrant from India (or wherever), whose child is on a high school football team in Texas where the majority of the players join in a Christian prayer before game time?

Is it really "oppressive" for people to check their religion at the door when they enter the public domain? The majority of their lives are lived outside it and they have complete freedom to practice whatever they choose.

Last edited by Mark_Henderson; 08-08-2004 at 11:34 PM..
__________________
"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they are being fooled." -- Mark Twain
  Mark_Henderson is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2004, 07:35 AM   #20
Flagg the Wanderer
Sonic sez: Clawk Moar Ringz!
 
Flagg the Wanderer's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 13,082
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $316931


Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.
Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.
You know what? I don't care about kids "feeling excluded." Maybe if we didn't worry so much about always making them feel like they are part of the crowd, THEY wouldn't feel like it was the be-all and end-all, making their friends more important than their families.

And speaking for myself and many that I know, I cannot and will not check my religion at the door ANYWHERE. It quite literally IS who I am. Asking people to do that belittles their faith. Seperation means religious neutrality, period. Therefore, if kids want to get together and pray to Jesus, Satan, Allah, or Shiva, they should do so.

And in the instance you cite about Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't be upset. I'd use it as a learning experience, because kids should get used to being ostricized and belittled from time to time based on what they believe. It's called learning to make a stand and have the courage of your convictions. I HOPE my kids would feel left out in that instance, and I hope they'd know why...it goes back to what townes said, about the separation of church and state promoting religion rather than discouraging it. I agree.

Interesting how you didn't address my first point. Do you see what I'm getting at with that? The "secular" religions are not so regulated - the Earth Mother is a central figure in Druidic and Wiccan theology (such as it is). Yet children get a field day on April 22 (or whatever) to discuss their duty to Mother Earth.

More to the point of your response, though - why should anyone have to check their faith at the door? It isn't as if the kids are trying to get the school to buy them equipment or anything - they just need an empty room, or not even that.

Here's the big problem, IMO: with the religious freedom in this country, ANYTHING can be a religion. That's not a problem per se, but where it runs into problems is when you add Free Speech into the equation.
So Johnny stands up at lunch, and starts preaching about his polytheistic faith, in which the Gods play competitive mumbly-peg with galaxies, in order to see who gets to scare the mortals and give them really weird instructions. He may get taken to the principal's office, but he has free speech, no big deal.
Janie does the same thing, and starts preaching about Jesus, etc. This is a much bigger deal. Why?

That's my problem - the way this is set up, "established" faiths are put at an automatic disadvantage because they are "established."
__________________
I came into this world screaming and covered in someone else's blood...I have *no problem* going out the same way!
  Flagg the Wanderer is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2004, 09:28 AM   #21
jeepndd
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2004
Location: milton, nh
Posts: 117
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $10000


jeepndd is an unknown quantity at this point
Mark, that's a fair question but it will take a little time to compose. I will get to it as soon as I can. I will explain with examples how we have religion intolerance which has in far too many ways usurped the religious freedom that the founding fathers intended.
__________________
Don
  jeepndd is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2004, 12:16 PM   #22
dreadlord
Registered User
 
dreadlord's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 159
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $3750


dreadlord is an unknown quantity at this point
Believe it or not there is a difference between separation of church and state to that of the absence of church in state. You can have one without the other. The historical implication of this (since there really isn't a direct constiutional relationship) is that the founders of this country came here in order to practice their own faith. The separation of church and state came as a direct response to forcing a "national religion" which is the exact reason why people came to this country to begin with. Essentially this term is used to reinforce the notion that people are\should be allowed to practice whatever faith they want. And that includes people within the Government itself. If anything the underlying tone of this term was to ensure that the secular motions of the church was not corrupted by what is termed "the outside world".

We're not really suggesting that we don't live in a pluralistic society are we? Where the church and government view things the same way. I'd be interesting in hearing somebody substantiate this claim if that's what is being said.
__________________
~ Dread Lord
  dreadlord is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2004, 05:20 PM   #23
townes
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: big banana republic
Posts: 376
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $10000


townes is an unknown quantity at this point
Anyone, including governmental leaders, has a right to whatever faith they believe in, what they don't have a right to do is use it as the reasoning behind policy decisions, nor does the majority when it comes to the relation of church/state. You are absolutely right that this country was founded upon the freedom to worship in whatever faith you wish to worship in, which is why state sponsored religion is in opposition to the beliefs this country is based upon.

The President can be a Sikh, a Baptist, a Jew, a Catholic, or any of a number of faith's, EVEN A NON BELIEVER , just as long as they don't use it as the basis for creating and validating policy.

This is one of those issues where "majority rule" has nothing to do with it, as the constitution was, in large part, created to protect the rights of the minorities and individuals, not to guard the rights of the majority or policymakers.

Imo the beauty of the constitution, is that it creates an environment where all should have the opportunity to prosper, and believe subsequent interpretations of that document should be based more in the spirit of the concept and not in fine print.
  townes is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2004, 07:03 AM   #24
Flagg the Wanderer
Sonic sez: Clawk Moar Ringz!
 
Flagg the Wanderer's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 13,082
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $316931


Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.
Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.Flagg the Wanderer is your brother, your best friend forever.
Quote:
Originally posted by townes
The President can be a Sikh, a Baptist, a Jew, a Catholic, or any of a number of faith's, EVEN A NON BELIEVER , just as long as they don't use it as the basis for creating and validating policy.
How would you plan on enforcing this? Hell, how would you plan on determining this?
__________________
I came into this world screaming and covered in someone else's blood...I have *no problem* going out the same way!
  Flagg the Wanderer is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2004, 07:04 AM   #25
dreadlord
Registered User
 
dreadlord's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 159
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $3750


dreadlord is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by townes
Anyone, including governmental leaders, has a right to whatever faith they believe in, what they don't have a right to do is use it as the reasoning behind policy decisions, nor does the majority when it comes to the relation of church/state. You are absolutely right that this country was founded upon the freedom to worship in whatever faith you wish to worship in, which is why state sponsored religion is in opposition to the beliefs this country is based upon.

The President can be a Sikh, a Baptist, a Jew, a Catholic, or any of a number of faith's, EVEN A NON BELIEVER , just as long as they don't use it as the basis for creating and validating policy.

This is one of those issues where "majority rule" has nothing to do with it, as the constitution was, in large part, created to protect the rights of the minorities and individuals, not to guard the rights of the majority or policymakers.

Imo the beauty of the constitution, is that it creates an environment where all should have the opportunity to prosper, and believe subsequent interpretations of that document should be based more in the spirit of the concept and not in fine print.
Ok but what's the real problem here? Are we talking about state sponsered religion or funding faith based charities? I'm under the impression that these are two distinctly different things. Are we talking about the Government funding faith based charities in general? Or the claim of funding certain faith based charities which results in the the perception of state sponsered religion? I'm not disagreeing with you per se. I'm trying to clarify 1) what we are talking about in an attempt to 2) figure out how policy is being defined by it.
__________________
~ Dread Lord
  dreadlord is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2004, 05:09 PM   #26
townes
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: big banana republic
Posts: 376
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $10000


townes is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
How would you plan on enforcing this? Hell, how would you plan on determining this?

The only way i have, with my vote.

I determine it by how they act and what they say. When W says he "consults with a higher father" on matters of strength it tells me that he is weighing the voice in his head more than the voice of the only other living President to declare war on Iraq (who he incidentally didn't consult?), who just happens to be his father?


Presidents are entitled to their faith, not the right to choose ours for us.
  townes is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2004, 05:15 PM   #27
townes
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: big banana republic
Posts: 376
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $10000


townes is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by dreadlord
Ok but what's the real problem here? Are we talking about state sponsered religion or funding faith based charities? I'm under the impression that these are two distinctly different things. Are we talking about the Government funding faith based charities in general? Or the claim of funding certain faith based charities which results in the the perception of state sponsered religion? I'm not disagreeing with you per se. I'm trying to clarify 1) what we are talking about in an attempt to 2) figure out how policy is being defined by it.



I'm not opposed to government sponsorship of charities as long as they can find a way to do so in a very balanced fashion, which won't be easy.

Where government crosses the line is in suggesting that any religion has more validity or credibility than others do. Everyone has a right to worship whatever belief they wish to in this country, and insuring that we continue to adhere to that philosophy was clearly a goal of those who wrote the constitution.

We aren't a "Christian Nation" and we aren't an "Athiest nation" we are a nation where people have the right to believe in what they want, without the government weighing in on their beliefs.

It's really none of their goddamn business.
  townes is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2004, 07:23 AM   #28
dreadlord
Registered User
 
dreadlord's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 159
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $3750


dreadlord is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by townes
I'm not opposed to government sponsorship of charities as long as they can find a way to do so in a very balanced fashion, which won't be easy.

Where government crosses the line is in suggesting that any religion has more validity or credibility than others do. Everyone has a right to worship whatever belief they wish to in this country, and insuring that we continue to adhere to that philosophy was clearly a goal of those who wrote the constitution.

We aren't a "Christian Nation" and we aren't an "Athiest nation" we are a nation where people have the right to believe in what they want, without the government weighing in on their beliefs.

It's really none of their goddamn business.
I won't argue with keeping the nose of the government out of my choice of religious practice(or lack of). I also won't argue the whole "In God we trust" issue either. Though I will point out that this particular issue did not originate from this administration and it's historical significance stems back to equating religious abstinence to communism. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. I'm at a loss on what exactly this administration has done to cross the line suggesting that it's not acceptable to practice anything other than Christianity. It's clear that Bush (and other members of his cabinet etc) practice this religion but have they really come out and stated that every American should practice this faith If this conclusion has been brought about by funding faith based charities than I have two issues that I would like clarification on. I am under the impression that the funding for these charities are given via applications (much like grants etc). So is the lack of funding for particular religious charities based on simply not applying or preferred selction by the government? If it's the latter what information are you basing this off of?
__________________
~ Dread Lord
  dreadlord is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2004, 08:17 AM   #29
dreadlord
Registered User
 
dreadlord's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 159
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $3750


dreadlord is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally posted by mgoblue101415
I am a huge advocate of separation of church and state.

I'm for taking "in god we trust" off currency. How hypocrytical was it of the founding fathers to want the separation, but then put that statement on money??

Oh, wait, that's because back when the country was founded Christianity was just about the ONLY religion. So, they had no problem throwing the word God all over the place. Plus, the only reason they wanted a separation of church and state was so that the US government wouldn't be subjected to church law, like the English thrown had been throughout the centuries. They wanted to make their own laws.

But I for one think there should be definite separation. Take that off the money, no commandments or prayer in Public schools, no Government endorsed mention of God, such as before every session in Congress. Perhaps the definition of "separation" should be shown to some of these people.

You don't need God to have values and morals and respect for your fellow humans.

Keep God in the Church and out of the Government. The US Government involves every American, not just those who believe in God.
As I pointed out to Townes previously, the origin or separating church from and state was to secure the secular laws not the other way around. In other words, it was desinged to make sure that you could practice your own faith and believe in whatever religious governance of your choice. The notion that "In God we trust", religious practice in school and any other type of mention of God is a far cry from saying you can't practice whatever faith you want. To that end it's reasonable to challenge these religious endorsements. It's also reasonable to be upset with the government for wanting to maintain the status quo on these endorsements. What isn't reasonable is to assume the government is claiming you must practice Christianity. That simply isn't true.
__________________
~ Dread Lord
  dreadlord is offline Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-2004, 01:23 PM   #30
Mark_Henderson
very stable genius
 
Mark_Henderson's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Titletown
Posts: 8,781
Posting Frequency


Casino cash: $235250


Mark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets it
Mark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets itMark_Henderson gets it
Quote:
Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer
Interesting how you didn't address my first point. Do you see what I'm getting at with that? The "secular" religions are not so regulated - the Earth Mother is a central figure in Druidic and Wiccan theology (such as it is). Yet children get a field day on April 22 (or whatever) to discuss their duty to Mother Earth.
I was just looking back and noticed this one. No disrepect, but the reason I didn't address this point is because I thought it was silly. I grew up in the 70's and we had pretty long elementary school units on the environment where they taught us about what had happened with DDT, acid raid, etc. Just because kids do something outside on Earth Day, are you actually claiming that they are being indoctrinated in some kind of Celtic Druidic/Wiccan rituals? How about when little kids do art activities centered around Halloween -- are you saying that is equivalent to talking about Jesus? When they make a paper mache turkey before Thanksgiving, are they being indoctrinated in the cult of the Egyptian bird God Ibis?

When I was a kid, we also had long school units focused on the dangers of smoking. Unless you're a tobacco industry lobbyist, you'd probably be o.k. with that. One of the goals of education is to raise responsible citizens. With the environment, the goal is to hopefully instill a sense of responsibility, so that when some of the kids grow up to be corporate executives, they won't entirely base their decisions on the shareholders' bottom line. Unfortunately, that would disqualify them from serving in the Bush administration.
__________________
"It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they are being fooled." -- Mark Twain
  Mark_Henderson is offline Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Template-Modifications by TMS
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.