In a world where humans have so many (or none) versions of their God, who do you expect to enforce a right given you by your particular version?

We would be in better shape in the understanding and implementation of our freedoms if we would acknowledge that they come to us on a practical level from the forbearance of our fellow man/woman. What we choose within our freedom may be the discipline of this or that God and in that choice we may indeed be giving the strength to respect the rights granted (by Constitutional agreement) others to their own choice. The US Constitution said (says) that government cannot be the tool to force that choice and the federal, state, and local statutes even obligate the citizen to ignore religious difference in the public arena (but not private) for the sake of social harmony (and commerce).

It is the great secular compromise imposed on us by our Founders. Perhaps they saw fewer and shallower conflicts in religious doctrines and practices in their day. But they felt that the institution of churches were strong enough to handle matters in their domain without the assistance and coercion of government. They often resented the imposition of government into their worship and beliefs. Many "fled" their mother country to avoid government persecution on religious beliefs, if not in their generation, certainly within their known lineage.

It is an strange goal to regulate against causing peer pressure (or public friction) amongst persons who refuse to give their forbearance. The hiding of tokens of religion from public sight presupposes that someone will be "upset" or "coercively influenced" by seeing it. That is the mental problem of the viewer, not the wearer. There is a huge difference (in my mind) between a private person demonstrating his/her affiliation in a public place and a taxpayer-funded site/event being used to promote a religious practice (which the Constitution is interpreted to prohibit).

In a world where humans have so many (or none) versions of their God, who do you expect to enforce a right given you by your particular version?

We would be in better shape in the understanding and implementation of our freedoms if we would acknowledge that they come to us on a practical level from the forbearance of our fellow man/woman. What we choose within our freedom may be the discipline of this or that God and in that choice we may indeed be giving the strength to respect the rights granted (by Constitutional agreement) others to their own choice. The US Constitution said (says) that government cannot be the tool to force that choice and the federal, state, and local statutes even obligate the citizen to ignore religious difference in the public arena (but not private) for the sake of social harmony (and commerce).

It is the great secular compromise imposed on us by our Founders. Perhaps they saw fewer and shallower conflicts in religious doctrines and practices in their day. But they felt that the institution of churches were strong enough to handle matters in their domain without the assistance and coercion of government. They often resented the imposition of government into their worship and beliefs. Many "fled" their mother country to avoid government persecution on religious beliefs, if not in their generation, certainly within their known lineage.

It is an strange goal to regulate against causing peer pressure (or public friction) amongst persons who refuse to give their forbearance. The hiding of tokens of religion from public sight presupposes that someone will be "upset" or "coercively influenced" by seeing it. That is the mental problem of the viewer, not the wearer. There is a huge difference (in my mind) between a private person demonstrating his/her affiliation in a public place and a taxpayer-funded site/event being used to promote a religious practice (which the Constitution is interpreted to prohibit).

Very nicely said. It bothers me that for a couple hundred years no one had a problem with belief systems. What or to whom you paid homage as your particular deity did not matter to most people (excluding the witch trials, which is entirely another matter). Now within a span of a dozen or less years, it seems to have become an affront to many that their neighbor wears a cross around their neck, or a nativity scene is put on a church lawn.

There are more than one reason that our founding fathers wanted a separation between church and state and you have more than adequately provided one reason. The other reasons can wait for a more appropriate time for discussion.

I believe that you and I are in agreement that there is a distinction between monitoring what jewelry one wears and an endorsement of a specific religion by the government. I propose that the government has more pressing issues on their plate than being fashion police. We have a sinking economy, joblessness and underemployment, wars and threats from abroad, and so on. Would it not be in the nation's best interest for elected officials to tackle those issues before they start to pick out my accessories to my blue dress? The way I see it, governments to include our neighbors to the North are incapable of solving the real issues that face modern day so they, like true magicians, divert our attention with slight of word and hit those trigger subjects that are bound to grab our attention and emotions.

More Jews were k**led in the Crusades than Muslims. Pogroms against the Jew have been ongoing for nealy 2 millennium. Persecution because of faith has been continual since the dawn of Civiliation. It is nothing new. Lol, Obama and the "libtards," "Progs," "buggercrats," did not originate or condone or take active participation in religious persecution. This is such a tired and overworked theme. The suggestion such things have only begun to happen "within a span of a dozen or less years," as ginnyt suggests, is off the mark. If taken gloobally. In the Us, The Bible has served both Satan and Christ in making policy, though it was man that made that so.

ginnyt said, "It bothers me that for a couple hundred years no one had a problem with belief systems."
America had its start because of a problem with belief systems--and that goes back to European oppression.

Our country was not founded on Islamic, Buddha, or Judean ways. America's heritage is Christian, and that has to be respected by other religions. I don't dare what they wear, or drape themselves in, nor their jewelry, probably better than orange and purple spiked hair with all kinds of metal piercing their hide. I haven't studied Canadian histories of the people and it's heritage, but in your link it sounds like Canada doesn't want the same problem that Britain, France, and we have today. Even here in America Muzlims have beheaded their wives, k**led their teen children for wanting the Liberty America offers. We don't get to hear what sentences they received, if any. Middle east countries torment and k**l Christians, as well as oriental dictatorships. I'm sure Canada want's none of this in their country. Good for them, what ever works to keep the peace and people alive. If Canada makes themselves unappealing to outside religions coming in, and it works, great. Maybe we should have thought of that.

First, yes more Jews have been slain for their beliefs than most. But, I said nothing about the persecution of any particular religion in my comments.
Second, I said nothing in my comments about Obama or current administration.
Third, I was speaking about the US and not a global affair with just a curtsey nod to Canada because it was in the original thread.
Fourth, I did not mention Satan in my comments.
Fifth, I did not discuss why people settled in the new world.
Lastly, It does bother me on a personal level that many of the complaints regarding the wear of personal symbols of faith has reared its ugly head within the past few years. This was a personal opinion and quite frankly I see no reason to change or vacate that position.

Perhaps you are so preoccupied with finding fault in what I write that you are blind to the issues that are important to this nation. I am sure that the condition of poverty, unemployment, shrinking economy, and such should be the primary focus of our elected officials.

But, thank you for your critique of my comments. I can see, by the misspellings that you are once again upset over something or perhaps have done too much celebrating. Therefore, I will not take your comments personally. I hope you feel better tomorrow.

I have heard that you have authored books and therefore are more able to render opinions on American history than I, so it is with respect that I reply to your comment.

Whereas it is true that the America was not founded in the beliefs of "Islamic, Buddha, or Judean ways" I must say that it was not necessarily formed on the Christian faith either. It is a fact that Franklin and Jefferson were deists, Washington harbored a pantheistic sense of providential destiny, John Adams began a Congregationalist and ended a Unitarian, Hamilton was a lukewarm Anglican for most of his life but embraced a more actively Christian posture after his son died in a duel. One quasi-religious conviction they all shared, however, was a discernible obsession with living on in the memory of posterity. These men were compulsive hoarders, for the writings and scribbling of each were well preserved, and there are boxes of documents describing their thoughts on religion, to include the argument over the request of Benjamin Franklin to have a Chaplin offer prayer at the signing of the Declaration of Independence which was shot down by the other founding fathers. The one thing they were in agreement on was insistence that religion was a private matter in which the state should not interfere.

Perhaps you are so preoccupied in defending what you wrote that you twisted most of what I said beyond recognition.

It was not personal, per se, a critique of your comments: it was merely history.

I am sober almost thirty years, so your derogatory inference that I am drunk is more of your easy slander. You appear to be with such comments a most vindictive person; I hope I am misreading. Two misspellings, one because that letter is not functional. This attack is wearisome because you make frequent typos or misspellings and I take it as simply that: no profound or h**eful inferences as explanations. I let it go: try it!


As to the beginning of your statement, I never said you said any of your enumerated protestations. I was giving my opinion alone. Don't be so self-centered as to think it all revolves around you.

Your statement that "It bothers me that for a couple hundred years no one had a problem with belief systems" is lacking in reality. Most of the states in America were formed to protect a certain denomination against persecution. Maryland was meant as a refuge for Catholics.

I believe that one of rumitoids posts comments on misunderstandings and misinterpretations of peoples posts: I have not published book"s" on American History, I have published "1" book on Faith, involving Interpretation of Scripture. My book is soley about the Holy Bible and thinking in a manner people aren't used to, in the mind (spirit) of God, rather than the carnal mind. I've not posted anything else about it. I studied and researched ancient cultures and religions, mainly the ancient Hebrews/Jews into modern times. This is how misunderstandings happen, and why I try to post only off of "fact," then attempt to protect and preserve "fact". Still, knowing how the govt can change facts to suite themselves, leaves me with a twinge on insecurity as I post, but I give it my heart, not just thought, or by the seat of my pants. If I have no understanding of a posts context material, I won't post on it. American history is not my strong point t***hfully, past the 170 year long Mayflower Compact that was America's "First form of Govt," which was truly a Covenant. I do enjoy reading your posts ginnyt.

If your comments were a recital of history, then why quote my comment? Could you not have quoted your own opening remarks, just do a reply, or even quick reply? All options available to you to avoid any misunderstanding of finger pointing and is used for generalized remarks. You opted to quote me, so I felt compelled to respond. This was being polite, not self-centered.

Truly, I do not wish to have any conversations or debates with you. It is obvious that you look for conflict with me, otherwise you would honor my request that you NOT reply directly to me as a commentator. The reason that I had asked you to NOT single me out is to avoid any conflicts. But, now I believe, after reading many of your writings that you are incapable of honoring that request, as this may be part of your potential histrionic personality disorder. This is in no way slander or written in a mean spirited frame of mind, just an observation.

"It is obvious that you look for conflict with me": you casually insult me, without provocatoion, and I am looking for conflict with you? You immediately stoop to insults when at a loss of words with me.Lol, then continue the insults and claim objectivity: you are a card, as mom would say. I tried to make amends and heal the rift; you come back yet again with demeaning remarks...and try to put flowers on some of them to look objective. Quit the theatrics. You want to insult, just do it! Or get lost.

More Jews were k**led in the Crusades than Muslims. Pogroms against the Jew have been ongoing for nealy 2 millennium. Persecution because of faith has been continual since the dawn of Civiliation. It is nothing new. Lol, Obama and the "libtards," "Progs," "buggercrats," did not originate or condone or take active participation in religious persecution. This is such a tired and overworked theme. The suggestion such things have only begun to happen "within a span of a dozen or less years," as ginnyt suggests, is off the mark. If taken globally. In the Us, The Bible has served both Satan and Christ in making policy, though it was man that made that so.

ginnyt said, "It bothers me that for a couple hundred years no one had a problem with belief systems."
America had its start because of a problem with belief systems--and that goes back to European oppression.