Nativity scene = religious, menorah & crescent aren't?

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
actually the what the constitution prohibits is "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

by allowing symbols of other religions to be displayed but not a symbol of another, the law is directly broken. if a state run institution prohibits ANY religious view from expressing itself then it has prohibited the free exercise of that religion. the government is not above it's own laws.

also if no symbols are permitted at all, that is against the law too. one religious view(the atheistic view) would be favored above all others. and again it would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

That's simply your interpretation of the first amendment. I'm just thankful you don't sit on the supreme court (or any court for that matter). In a way though, you've created your own conundrum: You can't have the absense of any symbols because that would push the atheist view and you can't have some (or really all) because there would always be an imbalance between representations or one religion not represented. I'm surprised your head doesn't simply explode from the paradox of it all.

it is not an "interpretation" but takaing it quite literal, the government is beholden to it's own laws. and the law says that exersiising religion cannot be forbidden very directly and literally.. i bet your thankful i am not on the supreme courts, i would take the position that assures fairness for everyone, and not let one group impose it's atheistic or even theistic views on everyone else, there is no conundrum, no paradox. you on the other hand have not been able to explain how a view that is opposite to theism can be neutral toward the opposing view when taking actions to supress it. true neutrality would do nothing. take no actions.

you obviously did not pay attention to my point which no on on this board thus far has refuted, and that is that the only for way the federal government to remain neutral is to take no action at all, and let local communities decide for themselves rather than force any one view on everyone at the federal level.


of course, people who want thier view to reign over others are not interested in being fair to everyone. they want things thier way.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: rjain
The crusader is at it again.

You have YET TO PROVE that not allowing theists nor atheists to put their religious symbols up is somehow biased against theists.

actually i made a good case in the other thread, you could not use logic and reason to disprove my assertions, all you could do is call me names like "crusader" and "zealot" look at your statement... it itself proves my point because many religions displaying symbols is part of exercising many religions especially during holidays(BTW the word holiday orginates form the term HOLY day) pertaining to them. the constitution specifically states "or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

"not allowing" IS "prohibiting"

You forgot to mention that ONLY YOU could actually follow your insane logic that twists and turns back on itself like a snake eating its own tail. If anyone dared to actually follow you down that road to certain insanity, they'd end up traveling back in time through a tear ripped into the time-space continuum. You're like the insane hermit living on the outskirts of town. Convinced of your own genius, everyone else steers clear from the obvious madness.

can you demonstrate my logic to be "insane"? so far all you and rajain can do is label and call names and make ad hom statements like your preceding post, but not make a logical counter-argument. whre is the "insanitiy" in being fair to everyone and letting local communities decide for themselves what the want in thier local courthouse?

you can start by explaining to me why one view should take precedence to all others on the federal level and why the federal government should be set above it's own laws. after all, law forbidding discrimination based on race apply to the government itself, how is it the law saying the government cannot forbid the exercising of religion do not apply to itself when all other laws do? also perhaps you can bring me to understand how "not allowing" and "prohibiting" are somehow not the same thing.

it is date night with the wife so i must be going here in about 1/2 an hour and be back around 10 pm cst, that should give you plenty of time to think on it.

merry CHRISTmas!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
it is not an "interpretation" but takaing it quite literal, the government is beholden to it's own laws. and the law says that exersiising religion cannot be forbidden very directly and literally..

Yes, that old argument... Only no one is proposing that we forbid the free exercise of religion. Just do it somewhere other than government property where it might cause some confusion as to what our official national religion is. Next.

i bet your thankful i am not on the supreme courts, i would take the position that assures fairness for everyone, and not let one group impose it's atheistic or even theistic views on everyone else, there is no conundrum, no paradox. you on the other hand have not been able to explain how a view that is opposite to theism can be neutral toward the opposing view when taking actions to supress it. true neutrality would do nothing. take no actions.

True neutrality is the absense of religious icons, sentiment or propoganda on government property. That includes Federal, State, County and City property. I don't see why this is a problem. Do you not understand the definition of "neutrality?" You sure act like you don't understand it.

you obviously did not pay attention to my point which no on on this board thus far has refuted, and that is that the only for way the federal government to remain neutral is to take no action at all, and let local communities decide for themselves rather than force any one view on everyone at the federal level.

Yes, but it makes no sense. Once any religious icons, sentiments or propoganda are placed on government property it becomes an issue. It doesn't matter who puts it there or who decides on it. You think just because the local church bingo ladies all pool their winnings and buy a ten commandments plaque to slap on the outside of a government building, that somehow makes it OK?

of course, people who want thier view to reign over others are not interested in being fair to everyone. they want things thier way.

I have no interest in "reign(ing) over others" I simply understand the very basic concept that religious neutrality = no icons, sentiments or propoganda of ANY religion. And I don't want to hear any crap about religious neutrality = atheism, 'cause you'd be dead wrong on that count too.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Yes, that old argument... Only no one is proposing that we forbid the free exercise of religion. Just do it somewhere other than government property where it might cause some confusion as to what our official national religion is. Next.

yes an old argument, one that is still not refuted, but as always sidestepped. the government is bound by it's own laws, PERIOD. confusion about what official state religion?!?! ROFL! there would be no confusion perhaps excepting perhaps the very stupid, because there would be no official state religious view! EVERYONE would be free to exercise thier religion and it would be done on the local level. and no one viewpoint would reign at and within the government. if i went to a country and saw no signs of religion, i would assume it was atheistic...an probobly opressively so such as other nations officially atheistic have turned out to be.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
True neutrality is the absense of religious icons, sentiment or propoganda on government property. That includes Federal, State, County and City property. I don't see why this is a problem. Do you not understand the definition of "neutrality?" You sure act like you don't understand it.

atheism is the opposite view of theism, atheists forcing the government to prohibit the display of other views that do not fit their dogma is not a neutral action or position. an opposing view acting in opposition to a differing view is opposition, not neutrality. this simple fact destroys your whole argument. i understand neutrality perfectly! it takes no side at all and does nothing favoring ANY side, the only way for the federal government to be truly neutral is to stay out of it, that means letting local communities decide what they want for themselves.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
but it makes no sense. Once any religious icons, sentiments or propoganda are placed on government property it becomes an issue. It doesn't matter who puts it there or who decides on it. You think just because the local church bingo ladies all pool their winnings and buy a ten commandments plaque to slap on the outside of a government building, that somehow makes it OK?

if it is a reflection of the majority of the local community, what is wrong with it? in the same fashion...if a community of muslims want a monument of the koran, or buddhists want a statue of buddha, or atheists a stature of madeline murry o'hair, that is THIER business, not yours, not mine. i have enough faith in my position that it will win out eventually through the superiority of it's philosophy and truthfulness, not through oppressive legislation.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I have no interest in "reign(ing) over others" I simply understand the very basic concept that religious neutrality = no icons, sentiments or propoganda of ANY religion. And I don't want to hear any crap about religious neutrality = atheism, 'cause you'd be dead wrong on that count too.

your words say one thing, but favoring one views dominance at the expense of others through the federal government says another. religious neutrality does NOT = atheism, i have never said it did, in fact i repeatedly point out it is a religious view like any other. religions are opinions on the nature and existance of God, so is atheism...an OPPOSING view. when an atheist sees a monument from a differing view, gets offended and has it removed because he believes differently, that is in no way "neutral". that is a member of an opposing viewpoint getting his way at the expense of the other view, that is one view gaining preeminance over another through the government, which is in direct violation of the 1st amendment because one "establishment of religion" (the atheistic view) is "respected" over others AND the government is placing itself over it's own laws to which itself is bound by forbidding the exercise of religion. this is a nation made up of very different cultures and religious views, no one view or position will accurately portray the difference in people and thier beliefs, no one view should be adopted as federal policy.

we can boil this whole argument down to one question:

if i as a christian often labeled(wrongly so) as "intolerant" am willing to let other views have equal rights of expression in thier localities, then why are'nt you?

now it is time to play some generals zero hour! goodnight and merry CHRISTmas!

 

[glenn1]

if it is a reflection of the majority of the local community, what is wrong with it? in the same fashion...if a community of muslims want a monument of the koran, or buddhists want a statue of buddha, or atheists a stature of madeline murry o'hair, that is THIER business, not yours, not mine. i have enough faith in my position that it will win out eventually through the superiority of it's philosophy and truthfulness, not through oppressive legislation.

I agree with an "open access" interpretation. If the local Methodist Church wants to donate a tasteful holiday display, that's fine. Ditto if the local synogogue, mosque, temple, or <fill in the blank here> wants to do the same for one of their celebration days. The first amendment doesn't guarantee that all points of view actually do get expressed, only that the people have equal rights and opportunities to do so.

I do believe that it is both appropriate and reasonable to be able to place restrictions on size, placement, and duration of displays. Meaning, during the December holiday season, no putting a huge manger scene out front, a tiny menorah hidden behind a shed, and telling the Buddhists to take a hike with their display when their clebrate day comes around or telling the atheists that they can't have something advocating their POV.

 

[dahunan]

Many PUBLIC schools just finished CATERING to RAMADAN Schoolchildren by making sure they had special foods prepared for their lunches in the cafeteria

We should probably go back and find out which forefathers believed in the Christian God and WIPE AWAY all of their works because they were obviously delusional and posessed.

Since MARRIAGE is rooted in religion then NO Marriages shall be allowed!

 

[RandomCoil]

I disagree that the lack of theistic symbols indicates advocation of atheism. It's hardly atheism's fault that it doesn't have a fun symbol. Actually, the Darwin fish might be close. Until schools start putting those all over and excluding crosses, crescents, 6-point stars, and the like, I'm going to stick with the argument that a lack of symbols is the best approximation of the government staying out of parent's right to guide their child's belief system.

As for DAHUNAN's marriage remark, yes, clearly marriage will be outlawed because it's religious. Just like churches have been outlawed for years now. Also, the schools probably had to really stretch to provide special lunches to children celebrating Ramadan, what with that including _fasting_ during daylight hours. I can't imagine how much money they spent on not serving lunches to students. I'll start worrying about it around the time kids have to go to school on Christmas, like they do on Yom Kippur, throughout Ramadan, and on Darwin's birthday, whenever that is.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Many PUBLIC schools just finished CATERING to RAMADAN Schoolchildren by making sure they had special foods prepared for their lunches in the cafeteria

We should probably go back and find out which forefathers believed in the Christian God and WIPE AWAY all of their works because they were obviously delusional and posessed.

Since MARRIAGE is rooted in religion then NO Marriages shall be allowed!

I don't get it.

Do you noe what ramadan is.

Fast during the day....eat when sun sets

How the hell do you cater to school kids when lunch is between 11-2 which is still day 4 me...even during winter sun doesn't go down till 4-5

 

[rjain]

I still don't see how the state government is somehow privy to abuses of power that the federal government isn't. Shadohawk, are you somehow saying that every state is totally homogenous as far as relgious beliefs go? That may be true in some states, but that's not true in states where there is a free flow of people in and out. People bring ideas with them. But you STILL haven't shown how forbidding atheists and theists equally from using government for the propagation of their religious beliefs somehow favors the atheistic religions.

FYI, "Darwinism" has nothing to do with "atheism". Just because something doesn't specifically say the God of Abraham doesn't exist doesn't mean that it forbids any gods from existing. By that logic, Hinduism would be atheism, but maybe that's what you Christian radical neo-conservatives think because you believe that putting the Ten Commandments on a government building somehow treats all theistic reigions equally.

 

[rjain]

An interesting observation about Shadohawk's re-interpretation of religoius freedom. If his view were correct, then laws forbidding the free exercise of minority religions must be allowed because they are an exercise of the government's freedom of religion.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
They shouldn't have any of that garbage in schools. Take down the damn Christmas tree as well.

Agreed. Take one down, and take them ALL down.

I think Christians (in the normative sense of the word) need to start speaking out against the religious extremists parading under the banner of Christianity - otherwise, they all get lumped into the same grouping.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Many PUBLIC schools just finished CATERING to RAMADAN Schoolchildren by making sure they had special foods prepared for their lunches in the cafeteria

We should probably go back and find out which forefathers believed in the Christian God and WIPE AWAY all of their works because they were obviously delusional and posessed.

Since MARRIAGE is rooted in religion then NO Marriages shall be allowed!

Actually, sociologists would argue that marriage is a SOCIAL institution rather than a religious one. Religion is also a social institution, but marriage hardly finds its roots in religion - it has been used for political manipulation, legal ends, and so forth.

Secondly, it's well acknowledged that the "Founding Fathers" were, for the most part deists, although this is contested by some who maintain that several may have been atheists but withheld their true beliefs due to social pressures.