Navysnipe Loc: Old West

These rights have been around a lot longer than our government.

Navysnipe Loc: Old West

Congratulations on your sobriety. :thumbup:

Thinkmanvt

What an excellent discussion of what a government-sponsored religion does to its society. If America is to avoid the imbalances and injustices of the Islamic countries, it must behave differently. It must, as a matter of principle, not allow its Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, atheist, wh**ever citizens to be treated as an inferior class. That is indeed what the 1st Amendment states as one of our most cherished goals. The Constitution ensures that government will not be used to persecute its citizens for difference of religious opinion, but it is only the acceptance of an American spirit amongst its citizens which will also protect the rights of the "not my religion" people from the private abuses of mobs and self-approved censors on religious expression and belief.

There is a dilemma in opposing a group who diametrically hold an opinion and motivation that your society finds repugnant. On small scale, it is the dilemma of the playground bully muscling his way amongst peaceful children who just want to go to school. How many times do our TV dads tell us to stand up to the bully and find the way to talk to them peacefully into leaving us alone? And how many times instead does that episode have us ball up our fist and use the bully's tactics against him? Idealist versus practical? It takes some unusual strength and courage to stick to your ideals. It is understandable when so many mere mortal Americans had too much difficulty for adhere to the principles they hold dear. Regrettable, but understandable.

bahmer

Is this what you are referring to AuntiE?

I Corinthians 11:2-16.

2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying with anything down over his head dishonors his head, 5 but every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a woman will not be covered, then let her be shorn! But since it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For indeed a man ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason the woman should have authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 In any case, woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman, in the Lord; 12 for as woman is [created] from man, so man is now [born] through woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Homestead

Nahh, the stooges are the ones following Islam.

Homestead

Nahh, the stooges are the ones following Islam.

rhomin57 Loc: Far Northern CA.

Correction: That was 156 years that the Mayflower Compact stood as this countries first form of government. Actually, the amount of time that "Christian" Faith based religions have been on this northern continent of America is 393 years. The time since the declaration of independence to now, 237. How's that doing so far?

Miss Brandi

Ummm...time for a little sanity in this discussion...The true issue is not about what religion someone is or whether it is dictated by a government...the issue is the FREEDOM to practice and believe wh**ever it is you believe without fear.

UnionSparky Loc: left coast

It's not just the freedom to believe but the inalienable right to freedom from persecution.
I don't think it's just my thinking, the ACLU seems to be fighting to remove just Judeo-Christian forms of religious expressions from the public. This under the guise of "separation of church and state". The intended meaning of this was not to have a representative, such as a cardinal of the catholic church, ruling with the president. One needs to understand how there had been 'cleansings' of Catholics and Protestants in Europe, along with Jewish persecution.

bahmer

Thats bad enough but then to lift up Islam as some virtues religion that supports women and children is ludicrous. Thats like elevating bank robbery and extortion as honorable trades and people to be emulated.

UnionSparky Loc: left coast

To me it is not that Islamic values are being lifted, the constant chiseling at the Judeo-Christian icons, such as not allowing the Ten Commandments on a government building. Or no nativity scenes at Christmas time, while no opposition to other religions. Yet this is considered PC.

Thinkmanvt

There are Christian images and icons on government buildings that can be removed -- there are not Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, etc icons present. The campaign to bring these shared secular buildings back to being religious neutral is going to be, by the history of Christian encroachment, one-sided. It is a "corrective action" (in the view of those Constitution-waving citizens) like eliminating s***ery and race discrimination fourscore and some years after the Constitution was accepted in its original form.

When that first ratification took place, there were already many State and local instances of a blending of the government and religious lives. The 1st Amendment said the Federal government could have no role in promoting any religion, but it is the 14th Amendment in 1868 that extended the due process and equal protection principles to State and local governments. S***ery was something that could be legally (in US Courts) ended with the signing of legislation (but not necessarily the unlawful discrimination in practice outside judicial proceedings), but the belated decision to separate religion and government at the State and local levels involved standing buildings and deeply formed habits of mind that coupled the basis of government laws and the ethics and morality of the populace's religious upbringing.

Homestead

How's the coolaid?

Homestead

The way the Constitution was set up, the congress ran the country and the people ran congress, both directly by themselves or indirectly through the states.

If you don't think Obama has usurped the Constitution and is bypassing congress and running this country through the presidency, you have not been paying attention.

Thinkmanvt

OK, pick one example for discussion so that I can follow what your reasoning is. Despite what some have labeled me, I really am trying to figure how I have come into disagreement with so many people.

For example: The ACA legislation was written and enacted by Legislative Congress, signed by the Executive POTUS, and ruled Constitutionally valid by the Judicial Supreme Court. Its implementation then goes to the Executive branch again. Its funding battles are ongoing in the Legislative branch once again. This seems like the normal operation of the Federal government to me (i.e. no different than FDR' Social Security, LBJ's Medicare, or RMN's EPA, for example).