Soap Box Religion Poll

[death_to_novell]

I think the world will be better without it, but I don't really give a damn so long as it stays out of public policy and the government doesn't go around endorsing religion (and yes, "In God We Trust" is a religious statement no matter how many whackjobs on the supreme court say it isn't).<BR><BR>My disdain for religion would be mostly eliminated if they spent more time doing that "love thy neighbor" shit they're so fond of talking about and a whole lot less drumming up hatred and fear and pushing an agenda of willful, blind stupidity.

 

[death_to_novell]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is what it is, and it is where it belongs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It belongs in the circular file along with all the other religious nonsense the government engages in, in obvious violation of the first amendment.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You REALLY need to spend a week or two with a handful of us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Frankly, having seen your postings here for years, I have no reason to believe you're anything but a perfect example of the kind of Christian who relishes in pushing hatred and fear along with a heavy dose of willful ignorance. Not all Christians are like that (e.g. the more liberal Episcopalians - the SO's dad just retired from the priesthood), but far, far too many are just like you.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am amazed that you don't see ANYONE doing good works. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I didn't say that. Why do you insist on lying about what other people say? Aren't you violating one of those commandments you're so fond of beating others over the head with?

 

[death_to_novell]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just because a minority want to re-write history to exclude religious motivations behind the founding of our country does not make that history so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And just because some other people want to rewrite history to invent religious motivations behind the founding of this country doesn't make it so. <BR><BR>Know how many times there was some sort of prayer at the constitutional convention? None (at least on record). It was suggested and shot down.<BR><BR>Know how many times God is mentioned in the constitution? Zero.<BR><BR>Know how many times the original oath of office mentioned God? Zero Again.<BR><BR>Know who described the 1st amendment as a wall of separation between church and state? That would be Thomas Jefferson<BR><BR>Remember that time Adams signed off on a treaty that said "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"?<BR><BR>The founders really did an amazingly poor job of letting their religious motivations be known.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not lying. You said "My disdain for religion..." You didn't specify a religion, or denomination, or sect. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that you are condemning all religion with your very broad brush. I cannot go by what you meant to say, only what you said. You have to fix it, not me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>"more" does not imply that they currently spend none, which is what you lied and said I said, which is, let us be clear, a <I>lie</I>. You are lying, and you and I and everyone who cares to look knows it.

 

[death_to_novell]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How is the state involved if a football team prays before they start a game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Because the state paid for the football field and likely paid for the coach.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Or if a pastor gives an invocation at the beginning of a graduation ceremony? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, the state paid for the building. The students are essentially a captive audience. How would you feel if a Jew or Muslim gave an invocation?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wasn't raised in a left-leaning, revisionist history part of the nation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You mean the part that reads things for what they actually say, instead of later going back and pretending that the people who wrote it meant anything other than separation of church and state, despite explicitly saying that's exactly what they meant? You're the one living in a revisionist fantasy land, not the people who take the time to read the document and read what the people who made said document had to say about what it meant and what they were trying to accomplish.

 

[death_to_novell]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is pretty weak. Thomas Jefferson wasn't even at the Constitutional convention - he was off in France. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You might have a point if the first amendment were done at the constitution convention (given that it's an amendment, it should be obvious that's not the case).<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The words "Establishment of Religion" had a specific, well understood meaning at the time it was written. Hell it still has that meaning today in Europe. It means the state has an official religion - it prints an official prayer book, it pays religious leaders, it pays for the upkeep of churches, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It meant, according to the people who pushed for it to begin with, that there would be no national religion and no endorsement of one religion over another (or none). We don't have to speculate about what they intended it to mean, because they wrote it down and then explained exactly what they intended.

 

[death_to_novell]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Faramir:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JasonF:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is pretty weak. Thomas Jefferson wasn't even at the Constitutional convention - he was off in France. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You might have a point if the first amendment were done at the constitution convention (given that it's an amendment, it should be obvious that's not the case). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Yeah sorry about that. But nonetheless it was Madison not Jefferson who proposed the BoR. Madison circa 1789 was much less of a firebrand than Jefferson.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The words "Establishment of Religion" had a specific, well understood meaning at the time it was written. Hell it still has that meaning today in Europe. It means the state has an official religion - it prints an official prayer book, it pays religious leaders, it pays for the upkeep of churches, etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It meant, according to the people who pushed for it to begin with, that there would be no national religion and no endorsement of one religion over another (or none). We don't have to speculate about what they intended it to mean, because they wrote it down and then explained exactly what they intended. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The problem is that without a public statement prior to the ratification, we cannot use drafters' statements to infer the reasonable beliefs of the ratifiers, which in the end is what counts. Instead with have to look to what a ratifier would have believed based on historical etymology. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR>You realize you can read what Madison himself had to say about the matter, right? And you also realize that the 1st amendment was largely based on a bill written by Jefferson.<BR><BR>I find it difficult to believe that you actually think "historical etymology" somehow bears more weight than the people who came up with the idea saying "This is what it means."

 

[death_to_novell]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Surely it is a basterdization of any sort of democratic legitimacy to allow the drafters of law to change the public meaning through later, private writings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Do you have any evidence at all that this actually happened, other than your own wishful thinking and baseless assertions?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No one has yet defended incorporating the Establishment clause against the states, when it clearly was meant only to apply to the federal government and cannot textually be incoporated into the due process clause since it is a structural rule not an indvidual right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There's an argument to be made that establishment of a state religion necessarily infringes on the people's right to practice whatever religion they want (or none).