ZFGC
General => Other Discussion => Boards => Archive => Debates => Topic started by: YoVoBaller on May 03, 2006, 07:27:45 pm
-
Somewhere it was stated that on this forum, there's supposed to be seperation from church and state... In NO LEGAL DOCUMENT was that ever stated. It was a LETTER to the Danbury Baptists. Here's the portion of the letter, and some views upon it:
<I>Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is the basis for separation of church and state. Some people try to claim that this quote from Thomas Jefferson establishes the "separation of church and state" that we now have today:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ???make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,??? thus building a wall of separation between Church and State". 1
The first problem with that assertion is that this quote is not from an official government document. The second is that it was Jefferson's original intent that this meant that the church was to be protected from the government, not the reverse. </I>
The "separation from church and state" wasn't to get religion out of government, it was to clarify, that Government should interfere religion.
<I>Research by David Barton, founder of Wallbuilders, Inc. exposes the alleged separation of church and state for the myth that it really is. The words separation of church and state don't appear in any official government documents authored by the founding fathers. This concept and these particular words were invented by an ACLU attorney named Leo Pfeffer in 1947 in the Supreme Court case of Everson versus Board of Education of Ewing Township. That liberal supreme court imposed it on the nation by a 5 to 4 vote. The ACLU and other anti-Christian organizations and individuals have used it to harass Christians with ever since. It is also used by evolutionists to try to keep a theistic explanation of origins out of the public schools. Many young people today are not aware of the fact that this concept is an ACLU invention, and that it is the extreme opposite of what our founding fathers actually intended. In other words, there is virtually no constitutional support whatsoever for it. Let's examine two of the most common myths about the founding fathers that most public school students are being taught today because of the history revisionists.</I>
One final note:
<I>27 of our nation's 56 founding fathers had Christian seminary degrees. They certainly would have been aware of these directives spelled out in the Bible verses below about how to select leaders at all levels of government. Unfortunately the history revisionists that write our public school text books have left this important information out of what students are learning today. If you look at most web sites about the founding fathers, you'll also see that it's almost always omitted there as well. There is a deliberate effort on the part of secularists to keep this information from public school students.</I>
You take one thing from a letter, and now it becomes fact because of a court ruleing. To me that's stupid. NO WHERE DOES IT SAY SEPARATION FROM CHURCH AND STATE. I don't believe the founding fathers wanted it. But even if they had the idea of that. It was never expressed in a LEGAL document. So how does one letter, change the nation???
-
But it's not a bad thing. Whether or not the evidence you've given is correct (couldn't care less- it's USA stuff and I don't live there), it's not a good thing to make laws based purely on religious views.
Because other people can have perfectly justifiable, reasonable religious/non-religious views that may conflict with this, and to discriminate against them, even if they are a minority, is unfair.
-
The problem is... that we came here to found a nation with religious freedom. Mainly the people who came here, were christians who were persecuted by England. ALOT of our nation's founding fathers were christians, and they founded this nation on biblical principals. Now they are taking down the 10 commandments, and the stopped prayer in schoo. I hear the want to take One Nation under GOD, from our money. So what if it offends people? Gay marriage offends me, are they going to stop trying to make it legal? No. One Nation under God, offends you, are you going to stop trying to take it away? Probably not. If to me, unmoral ideas offend me, you tell me to get over it, and stop being so, Holyer-than-thou, But if my so called "morality" offends you, it must be taken away. So it doesn't offend you anymore. I wish alot of the apathetic christians would get off their butts, and fight Abortion, and Gay Marriage, like the way you fight for it, It was estimated by the CIA Factbook that 52% of people are Protestant. Then there are Catholics at 24%. That should mean that at least 75% should believe in biblical principles. Although I don't fully agree with the percentages. There are plenty of people who say they're christians but aren't. Also catholics... catholics are strange to me :) 75%-25% in a fight? the 75% should win, but the 75% aren't fighting, and are letting the 25% win alot. But I don't give a crap in this matter, whether your a christian or not. One Nation under GOD is our heritage. If it offends you, GET OVER IT.
-
Somewhere it was stated that on this forum, there's supposed to be seperation from church and state... In NO LEGAL DOCUMENT was that ever stated.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Constitution, First Amendment. This is what people used to say that spearation of Church and state is in the US.
<I>27 of our nation's 56 founding fathers had Christian seminary degrees. They certainly would have been aware of these directives spelled out in the Bible verses below about how to select leaders at all levels of government. Unfortunately the history revisionists that write our public school text books have left this important information out of what students are learning today. If you look at most web sites about the founding fathers, you'll also see that it's almost always omitted there as well. There is a deliberate effort on the part of secularists to keep this information from public school students.</I>
Proof please. Don't go stating that the liberal terrorists are out to get the history books without any sources.
I hear the want to take One Nation under GOD, from our money.
One Nation under GOD is our heritage.
Added in the 50's to say we're not filthy godless commies. Nothing to do with the founding principals of the nation. Not to mention you started said post with:
that we came here to found a nation with religious freedom.
God on money seems a little intimidating to this religious freedom, no?
the 75% should win, but the 75% aren't fighting, and are letting the 25% win alot.
Take your own advice:
If it offends you, GET OVER IT.
:)
And for good measure:
(http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5070/11415244949576gj.gif)
-
The thing is, no-one's forcing anyone to have abortions or get married to people of the same gender.
But forcing kids to pray in school, and forcing all legal tender to have the word "God" on them? That seems unfair.
Christians, as a whole, were never persecuted in England. There was just the big Church of England vs. Catholics thing for a while.
Okay, lemme put it like this... say you lived in a Muslim country, ruled by Muslim holy law and you were a woman and Islamic. What if you decided one day to be a christian? You'd get stoned to death for it. What if you wanted to do the same things as men do? You'd get stoned to death for it. See where I'm going with this?
I know Christianity based laws may seem fair to YOU, but think about it from someone else's perspective.
-
Christians, as a whole, were never persecuted in England. There was just the big Church of England vs. Catholics thing for a while.
Christians as a whole persecuted themselves in england.... :-p
Besides the entirety of england is christians/was christians so it's a little harder to engage in persecution.
-
Okay, lemme put it like this... say you lived in a Muslim country, ruled by Muslim holy law and you were a woman and Islamic. What if you decided one day to be a christian? You'd get stoned to death for it. What if you wanted to do the same things as men do? You'd get stoned to death for it. See where I'm going with this?
Quite ironic you mentioned that, a situation similar to this was in the newspaper the other day, a few muslims were trying to get someone extridited because he had decided to convert from shia law christianity. Ill see if i can find the newspaper page online.
Anyway im kepping out of this.
-
Christians, as a whole, were never persecuted in England. There was just the big Church of England vs. Catholics thing for a while.
Christians as a whole persecuted themselves in england.... :-p
Besides the entirety of england is christians/was christians so it's a little harder to engage in persecution.
But christians were never persecuted as a single group. At least not any time in the past 1000 years at least.
-
Somewhere it was stated that on this forum, there's supposed to be seperation from church and state... In NO LEGAL DOCUMENT was that ever stated.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Constitution, First Amendment. This is what people used to say that spearation of Church and state is in the US.
<I>27 of our nation's 56 founding fathers had Christian seminary degrees. They certainly would have been aware of these directives spelled out in the Bible verses below about how to select leaders at all levels of government. Unfortunately the history revisionists that write our public school text books have left this important information out of what students are learning today. If you look at most web sites about the founding fathers, you'll also see that it's almost always omitted there as well. There is a deliberate effort on the part of secularists to keep this information from public school students.</I>
Proof please. Don't go stating that the liberal terrorists are out to get the history books without any sources.
I hear the want to take One Nation under GOD, from our money.
One Nation under GOD is our heritage.
Added in the 50's to say we're not filthy godless commies. Nothing to do with the founding principals of the nation. Not to mention you started said post with:
that we came here to found a nation with religious freedom.
God on money seems a little intimidating to this religious freedom, no?
the 75% should win, but the 75% aren't fighting, and are letting the 25% win alot.
Take your own advice:
If it offends you, GET OVER IT.
:)
And for good measure:
(http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5070/11415244949576gj.gif)
Excelent post. ;)
In no legal documents does it have the phrase "Seperation of church and state", but the idea is definately there.
Also, if our country is about religious freedom, shouldn't people have the freedom to NOT say "Under God" in schools? That phrase was added in the 1950's during the cold war anyway >_>
-
The thing is, no-one's forcing anyone to have abortions or get married to people of the same gender.
But forcing kids to pray in school, and forcing all legal tender to have the word "God" on them? That seems unfair.
Problem is! Kids I know who go through public school try to pray, but get in trouble. Kid got in trouble just praying over his food. Now doesn't that seem unfair?
The thing is, no-one's forcing anyone to have abortions or get married to people of the same gender.
True, but by the priniciples that this nation was founded on it should be illegal. Any other nations other than USA are excluded from this. Sorry for not stating that earlier :(
Christians, as a whole, were never persecuted in England. There was just the big Church of England vs. Catholics thing for a while.
I haven't read my history book in awhile so, sorry about that. BUT there wasn't really any freedom, since I think the Catholics were the majority at that time.
Okay, lemme put it like this... say you lived in a Muslim country, ruled by Muslim holy law and you were a woman and Islamic. What if you decided one day to be a christian? You'd get stoned to death for it. What if you wanted to do the same things as men do? You'd get stoned to death for it. See where I'm going with this?
I know Christianity based laws may seem fair to YOU, but think about it from someone else's perspective.
Here's the thing. Our debates will not end. Simple. I believe that I worship the one true God, and all others all false. So I would think that the laws mentioned created by that Muslim country, would be wrong. Simple. I believe Abortion is wrong, because it goes against my beliefs. Simple. You believe abortion is up to the person( or up to a certain term). Simple. I believe gay marriage is wrong, because it goes against my beliefs. Simple. You believe it's up to that person(if I'm not mistaken, feel free to correct on that). Simple.
That muslim country. Are the citizens going to uprise and change the law? Nope. Why? Because it goes against the beliefs the country was founded on, and they would most likely be killed. But here in America, we have the right to protest. So protest the people do. Yet, the things the people support, are violating the beliefs THIS country was founded on. Only difference. We're not going to kill anyone about it, and all it takes is one court, and some judges to change stuff. Which is wrong. Let the majority decide.
the 75% should win, but the 75% aren't fighting, and are letting the 25% win alot.
Take your own advice:
lol, I know and I agree. Yet some people are just too dang lazy >_< :)
And for good measure:
(http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5070/11415244949576gj.gif)
Umm considering the minority, is winning over the majority, and shouldn't the Majority of the nation's people decide what should, and should not be allowed? Since it ain't happening, then yes the Majority is being oppressed.
-
The majority are deciding, however.
America is one of the most right-wing, over conservative countries in the world. You have hardly any history at all, yet you're recklessly attached to it.
Does it really matter what the country was founded for? England's been around as a country, in some form or other, for.... I really don't know how long. Well over 1000 years. No-one really cares why the country was started.
Just move on. Being so attached to the past is holding you back, rather than letting you progress.
-
The thing is, no-one's forcing anyone to have abortions or get married to people of the same gender.
But forcing kids to pray in school, and forcing all legal tender to have the word "God" on them? That seems unfair.
Problem is! Kids I know who go through public school try to pray, but get in trouble. Kid got in trouble just praying over his food. Now doesn't that seem unfair?
They should be able to pray. Anyone preventing them from that is the same as making Jewish kids take off their yamakas, or muslim girls off their what-ever-you-call-its.
The thing is, no-one's forcing anyone to have abortions or get married to people of the same gender.
True, but by the priniciples that this nation was founded on it should be illegal. Any other nations other than USA are excluded from this. Sorry for not stating that earlier :(
that we came here to found a nation with religious freedom.
???
Okay, lemme put it like this... say you lived in a Muslim country, ruled by Muslim holy law and you were a woman and Islamic. What if you decided one day to be a christian? You'd get stoned to death for it. What if you wanted to do the same things as men do? You'd get stoned to death for it. See where I'm going with this?
I know Christianity based laws may seem fair to YOU, but think about it from someone else's perspective.
Here's the thing. Our debates will not end. Simple. I believe that I worship the one true God, and all others all false. So I would think that the laws mentioned created by that Muslim country, would be wrong. Simple. I believe Abortion is wrong, because it goes against my beliefs. Simple. You believe abortion is up to the person( or up to a certain term). Simple. I believe gay marriage is wrong, because it goes against my beliefs. Simple. You believe it's up to that person(if I'm not mistaken, feel free to correct on that). Simple.
That muslim country. Are the citizens going to uprise and change the law? Nope. Why? Because it goes against the beliefs the country was founded on, and they would most likely be killed. But here in America, we have the right to protest. So protest the people do. Yet, the things the people support, are violating the beliefs THIS country was founded on. Only difference. We're not going to kill anyone about it, and all it takes is one court, and some judges to change stuff. Which is wrong. Let the majority decide.
Let the majority decide then. Just because you have read that 75% are christians DOESN'T MEAN that 75% are voting for pro-christian laws.
And for good measure:
(http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/5070/11415244949576gj.gif)
Umm considering the minority, is winning over the majority, and shouldn't the Majority of the nation's people decide what should, and should not be allowed? Since it ain't happening, then yes the Majority is being oppressed.
Where is the minority winning over the majority? Where is christianity being oppressed? Elaborate.
-
Let the majority decide then. Just because you have read that 75% are christians DOESN'T MEAN that 75% are voting for pro-christian laws.
That's a fair point. I'm a buddhist, and therefore believe that no-one should eat meat. But I would never vote "yes" on a law that banned eating meat, simply because I believe it's the sort of thing that people should have freedom on. It won't cause that much harm if they do, and if they did stop eating meat, I believe it should be for the right reasons, not because they were forced to adhere to my religion.
I would feel endless guilt if I ever opressed anyone into following my religion. I wonder why a lot of other people don't, though...
-
After reading my posts y'all can probably tell I suck at debates >.>
But instead of replying to all those replies :o ALL THOSE REPLIES!
Ok, Abortion, gay marriage those topics. Christians(real ones, not posers) Believe that abortion, is murder. Gay marriage, is wrong. Based on what we believe. Why don't we let people have their own choice to do so? Because the majority says no, and the majority, believes it's wrong. When the majority stands on something, the majority should be favored, in the eyes of government. "Opressing" my beliefs. IT's not just my beliefs, it's what the country was founded on. Allowing gay marriage, would be destroying the foundation we are founded on. Also. You think everyone has the choice to have an abortion or not. Free will. OK dude, I come into your home with a gun. I believe it's ok to kill people. Or I want to because it's my free will. Do you want murderers going loose? No. We have laws against murder. So if he does kill you, then he goes to jail, or receives captial punishment. Your being just as discriminitory against other people, as we are you. You want abortion, but not murder. You want gay marriage, but not rape, or stealing. Well the majority doesn't want abortion, or gay marriage. They want freedom to pray in a public school, or to start a Bible club. But we're not getting that. Why? Because the minority, read one letter, used it the wrong way, and now the majority is hindered by the minority. You want abortion, but we can't start a bible club. You want gay marriage, but you don't allow the teaching of science, under the ideas of creationists. You teach evolution, which is just a theory as pure fact. The Majority thinks evolution is false, yet it's still being taught because the minority believes it. Thing is, I know no matter how long we do this. Nothing good is coming out of this. I just wanted to state, that Separation from Church and State is pure bull. It was on letter, saying that Government should stay out of religion, and not control it. Not that Religion can't influence Government in any way.
-
You can't use freedom of religion to back this up. Let's take the supreme court case, New York board of education vs. i forgot who...The schools were forcing students to pray to God before school started. What if you don't believe in God? No freedom there...
-
Ok, Abortion, gay marriage those topics. Christians(real ones, not posers) Believe that abortion, is murder
You just denounced every christian denomination apart from the Roman Catholic church (roughly).
-
You can't use freedom of religion to back this up. Let's take the supreme court case, New York board of education vs. i forgot who...The schools were forcing students to pray to God before school started. What if you don't believe in God? No freedom there...
I perfectly agree, you cannot FORCE them to do anything... but there are so many things where christians are being forced not to pray(not like the can stop them though), where they can't have there own meeting. I heard something the ACLU prohibited some christmas card, because it violated "separation from church and state" Don't you think that's a little ridiculous?
Ok, Abortion, gay marriage those topics. Christians(real ones, not posers) Believe that abortion, is murder
You just denounced every christian denomination apart from the Roman Catholic church (roughly).
umm excuse my, lack of understanding of that, but what does that mean?
-
As far as I've been taught Roman Catholics are the only christian section that believe life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder.
You said that only real christians believe that abortion is murder and therefore that means that only roman catholics are real christians by your logic.
-
After reading my posts y'all can probably tell I suck at debates >.>
But instead of replying to all those replies :o ALL THOSE REPLIES!
Ok, Abortion, gay marriage those topics. Christians(real ones, not posers) Believe that abortion, is murder. Gay marriage, is wrong. Based on what we believe. Why don't we let people have their own choice to do so? Because the majority says no, and the majority, believes it's wrong. When the majority stands on something, the majority should be favored, in the eyes of government. "Opressing" my beliefs. IT's not just my beliefs, it's what the country was founded on. Allowing gay marriage, would be destroying the foundation we are founded on. Also. You think everyone has the choice to have an abortion or not. Free will. OK dude, I come into your home with a gun. I believe it's ok to kill people. Or I want to because it's my free will. Do you want murderers going loose? No. We have laws against murder. So if he does kill you, then he goes to jail, or receives captial punishment. Your being just as discriminitory against other people, as we are you. You want abortion, but not murder. You want gay marriage, but not rape, or stealing. Well the majority doesn't want abortion, or gay marriage. They want freedom to pray in a public school, or to start a Bible club. But we're not getting that. Why? Because the minority, read one letter, used it the wrong way, and now the majority is hindered by the minority. You want abortion, but we can't start a bible club. You want gay marriage, but you don't allow the teaching of science, under the ideas of creationists. You teach evolution, which is just a theory as pure fact. The Majority thinks evolution is false, yet it's still being taught because the minority believes it. Thing is, I know no matter how long we do this. Nothing good is coming out of this. I just wanted to state, that Separation from Church and State is pure bull. It was on letter, saying that Government should stay out of religion, and not control it. Not that Religion can't influence Government in any way.
According to the constitution, you can have your bible club.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And it would help if you read the replies,
Where is the minority winning over the majority? Where is christianity being oppressed? Elaborate.
-
Ok, Abortion, gay marriage those topics. Christians(real ones, not posers) Believe that abortion, is murder
Who are you to decide who is or is not a real christian? "Christian" only means that according to their religion, Christ is the messiah and son of God. Christianity has divided so many times, that saying and a real christian is anything but someone who believes that can be contested. If you bring up practically any issue, then you will probably find two different christian sects who have opposing opinions. As long as they believe in Christ, they are real christians. That is the definition.
"Opressing" my beliefs.
With things like gay marriage or abortion, allowing it doesn't opress your beliefs at all. Are you being forced to say that they're okay? Are you being made to kill unborn children and marry men? No, not at all. You can go on and believe whatever you want is evil, but by disallowing them, you are saying that others who believe otherwise cannot follow their beliefs with the freedom that they deserve as much as you.
You teach evolution, which is just a theory as pure fact. The Majority thinks evolution is false, yet it's still being taught because the minority believes it.
Oh really? What majority? Do you mean that every christian believe it all started with Adam and Eve? Evolution may be theoretical, but so is most science. Practically every scientific aspect is nearly impossible to prove. It is rather much easier to disprove others and stick with the most plausible. That computer you're using is made possible purely by the fact that so far, our theories about data and electricity aren't wrong. Evolution may not be proven, but it's more plausible than Adam and Eve, which does in fact have disproving scientific evidence, such as early man.
-
If you're going into a science vs. religion debate, I'll sum it up nicely:
Every concept of science is reached by a logical progression of things that can be proven, or have significant evidence even to suggest that it happened by means that are already proven, or logically could happen by what is known to be true. Every concept of science is linked in some way.
Has belief in God without use of science ever created a working car?
-
Has belief in God without use of science ever created a working car?
Belief in evolution hasn't exactly done anything like that, either.
-
Has belief in God without use of science ever created a working car?
Belief in evolution hasn't exactly done anything like that, either.
It's lead to a better understanding of selective breeding and hereditary diseases.
'sides, like I said, all scientific concepts are linked. Go far enough back, and you'll find, from evolutions, the concepts that designed a car.
-
Has belief in God without use of science ever created a working car?
Belief in evolution hasn't exactly done anything like that, either.
It's lead to a better understanding of selective breeding and hereditary diseases.
'sides, like I said, all scientific concepts are linked. Go far enough back, and you'll find, from evolutions, the concepts that designed a car.
Go back and religion is linked to government. Your point is?
-
My issue with seperation of church and state, is the liberal mindset that accompanies it. They're all "Freedom from religion!", and whenever we say "but we're also garenteed freedom of religion!", they're all "don't impose your morals on others" and we're all "no, you slugs in ditches, you don't impose YOURS".
But they win the debate because they used to own all the media (yay! Fox News ^_^)
-
My issue with seperation of church and state, is the liberal mindset that accompanies it. They're all "Freedom from religion!", and whenever we say "but we're also garenteed freedom of religion!", they're all "don't impose your morals on others" and we're all "no, you slugs in ditches, you don't impose YOURS".
But they win the debate because they used to own all the media (yay! Fox News ^_^)
Uh. Any evidence to back this up, Possum? Sounds like a load of conspiracy theories to me. :P
-
My issue with seperation of church and state, is the liberal mindset that accompanies it. They're all "Freedom from religion!", and whenever we say "but we're also garenteed freedom of religion!", they're all "don't impose your morals on others" and we're all "no, you slugs in ditches, you don't impose YOURS".
But they win the debate because they used to own all the media (yay! Fox News ^_^)
Uh. Any evidence to back this up, Possum? Sounds like a load of conspiracy theories to me. :P
Well, I'm just using personal experience. No proof or anything, but people tend to side liberally, because that's what they've grown up watching ;)
EDIT: To clarify.... this is in America. Gosh, I really need to have a more global perspective ;)
-
My issue with seperation of church and state, is the liberal mindset that accompanies it. They're all "Freedom from religion!", and whenever we say "but we're also garenteed freedom of religion!", they're all "don't impose your morals on others" and we're all "no, you slugs in ditches, you don't impose YOURS".
But they win the debate because they used to own all the media (yay! Fox News ^_^)
Uh. Any evidence to back this up, Possum? Sounds like a load of conspiracy theories to me. :P
Well, I'm just using personal experience. No proof or anything, but people tend to side liberally, because that's what they've grown up watching ;)
Nope, not really. Conservative media controls the TV over here, and I grew up in- what was- a very consertive, catholic family. We're more liberal now, but it's not because of a shift in media.
-
Possum are you calling Fox LIBERAL? XD
Possum, I understand what you're saying, I just disagree.
For example the 'under god' thing. If it is removed, it doesnt prevent you from practicing your religion at all, it just makes it optional for everybody. Therefor, its more freedom for the people who aren't religous, but you still keep your right to pray.
If you are at a school that doesnt let you pray, they're going against the constitiution, just as a school MAKING you pray would be doing.
-
For example the 'under god' thing. If it is removed, it doesnt prevent you from practicing your religion at all, it just makes it optional for everybody. Therefor, its more freedom for the people who aren't religous, but you still keep your right to pray.
It's ALREADY optional for everybody. Why do they have to remove it to take away OUR option? They don't have to say "under God", if such a humble phrase offends their superiority complex.
If you are at a school that doesnt let you pray, they're going against the constitiution, just as a school MAKING you pray would be doing.
I agree.
-
For example the 'under god' thing. If it is removed, it doesnt prevent you from practicing your religion at all, it just makes it optional for everybody. Therefor, its more freedom for the people who aren't religous, but you still keep your right to pray.
It's ALREADY optional for everybody. Why do they have to remove it to take away OUR option? They don't have to say "under God", if such a humble phrase offends their superiority complex.
If it was removed, you can still say it. Same argument either way. I don't think it matters other than the reason it was added (those damn godless commies).
-
If you are at a school that doesnt let you pray, they're going against the constitiution, just as a school MAKING you pray would be doing.
I agree.
That's one thing I'd forgotten I wanted to mention. People go nuts over people imposing their religions, then everyone freaks out and goes nuts doing the opposite. One extreme to the other is not good :P.
-
For example the 'under god' thing. If it is removed, it doesnt prevent you from practicing your religion at all, it just makes it optional for everybody. Therefor, its more freedom for the people who aren't religous, but you still keep your right to pray.
It's ALREADY optional for everybody. Why do they have to remove it to take away OUR option? They don't have to say "under God", if such a humble phrase offends their superiority complex.
If it was removed, you can still say it. Same argument either way. I don't think it matters other than the reason it was added (those damn godless commies).
You can't make up new parts to the pledge. I'm failing to see any logic in this argument. you can abstain from saying the pledge, or certain parts of it, but if you take a part out: it's out. You simply no longer have the option.
-
For example the 'under god' thing. If it is removed, it doesnt prevent you from practicing your religion at all, it just makes it optional for everybody. Therefor, its more freedom for the people who aren't religous, but you still keep your right to pray.
It's ALREADY optional for everybody. Why do they have to remove it to take away OUR option? They don't have to say "under God", if such a humble phrase offends their superiority complex.
If it was removed, you can still say it. Same argument either way. I don't think it matters other than the reason it was added (those damn godless commies).
You can't make up new parts to the pledge. I'm failing to see any logic in this argument. you can abstain from saying the pledge, or certain parts of it, but if you take a part out: it's out. You simply no longer have the option.
The presence of it makes the very pledge religious, which is agains the whole seperation thing.
'Cos, y'know, there's no refernce to Allah in there, is there?
-
'Cos, y'know, there's no refernce to Allah in there, is there?
Was this nation founded on Allah? But if it were to be added, you wouldn't hear me complain. I just wouldn't say it.
-
'Cos, y'know, there's no refernce to Allah in there, is there?
Was this nation founded on Allah? But if it were to be added, you wouldn't hear me complain. I just wouldn't say it.
No, the nation was founded on stealing land off indigenious tribes. But that's not the point either.
How a nation was founded should have NOTHING to do with his actions in the present day.
-
'Cos, y'know, there's no refernce to Allah in there, is there?
Was this nation founded on Allah? But if it were to be added, you wouldn't hear me complain. I just wouldn't say it.
No, the nation was founded on stealing land off indigenious tribes. But that's not the point either.
How can you defend that?
How a nation was founded should have NOTHING to do with his actions in the present day.
Okay... so what do we do with the constitution? Burn it?
-
'Cos, y'know, there's no refernce to Allah in there, is there?
Was this nation founded on Allah? But if it were to be added, you wouldn't hear me complain. I just wouldn't say it.
No, the nation was founded on stealing land off indigenious tribes. But that's not the point either.
How can you defend that?
Your government wasn't exactly started by the people who got there first, was it? Or even the first people to settle there. Just the most recent to take the whole lot over.
Not really important, but w/e.
How a nation was founded should have NOTHING to do with his actions in the present day.
Okay... so what do we do with the constitution? Burn it?
Feel free to. Much of it is irrelevant these days.
I mean, if the constitution was so important, why are there so many amendments to it?
-
Your government wasn't exactly started by the people who got there first, was it? Or even the first people to settle there. Just the most recent to take the whole lot over.
Not really important, but w/e.
And I suppose Romania is founded on abortion because 78% of all pregnancies are terminated?
I'm not sure if you're using the same definition for "founded on" as I am. :P
Feel free to. Much of it is irrelevant these days.
I mean, if the constitution was so important, why are there so many amendments to it?
Because our country was founded on it. The ammendments are there to fix issues, because things change with time, and sometimes equality isn't written in the constitution. It just needs patching up. Not burning.
-
Your government wasn't exactly started by the people who got there first, was it? Or even the first people to settle there. Just the most recent to take the whole lot over.
Not really important, but w/e.
And I suppose Romania is founded on abortion because 78% of all pregnancies are terminated?
I'm not sure if you're using the same definition for "founded on" as I am. :P
Maybe not, but I think I'm using an accurate one at least.
Feel free to. Much of it is irrelevant these days.
I mean, if the constitution was so important, why are there so many amendments to it?
Because our country was founded on it. The ammendments are there to fix issues, because things change with time, and sometimes equality isn't written in the constitution. It just needs patching up. Not burning.
Wouldn't it be easier to re-write the whole thing and start from scratch every hundred years or so?
-
Feel free to. Much of it is irrelevant these days.
I mean, if the constitution was so important, why are there so many amendments to it?
Because our country was founded on it. The ammendments are there to fix issues, because things change with time, and sometimes equality isn't written in the constitution. It just needs patching up. Not burning.
Wouldn't it be easier to re-write the whole thing and start from scratch every hundred years or so?
Conspiracy Theory. [Limey Edit: More content please?]
-
Wouldn't it be easier to re-write the whole thing and start from scratch every hundred years or so?
No, considering that would necessitate the rewriting of a large portion of the legal system.
-
Feel free to. Much of it is irrelevant these days.
I mean, if the constitution was so important, why are there so many amendments to it?
Because our country was founded on it. The ammendments are there to fix issues, because things change with time, and sometimes equality isn't written in the constitution. It just needs patching up. Not burning.
Wouldn't it be easier to re-write the whole thing and start from scratch every hundred years or so?
Why fix what's not broken?
-
Wouldn't it be easier to re-write the whole thing and start from scratch every hundred years or so?
No, considering that would necessitate the rewriting of a large portion of the legal system.
Not really. All you do is take the bits of the original constitution and each succeeding amendment that are still relevant, and scrap the rest.
All that happens if you don't is that you either: a) get a load of backward laws enforced that have no purpose or b) a load of laws that exist that no-one pays attention to.
I'm not saying it needs to be done over a short time span, but every 100 years or so does seem like a good amount of time for it.
Feel free to. Much of it is irrelevant these days.
I mean, if the constitution was so important, why are there so many amendments to it?
Because our country was founded on it. The ammendments are there to fix issues, because things change with time, and sometimes equality isn't written in the constitution. It just needs patching up. Not burning.
Wouldn't it be easier to re-write the whole thing and start from scratch every hundred years or so?
Why fix what's not broken?
Who says it's not broken?
There's plenty of stuff in your constitution and various amendments that are no longer relevant.
E.g. the right to carry firearms.
-
how is the second amendment irrevelant? It is one of the biggest issues today. And really, how can you even say that the constitution is broken and outdated? It has been, is, and will continue to be one of if not the best model for a budding democracy trying to set of a government. If you actually look at the constitution itself, it just sets up the government. It doesn't make laws. It just makes 3 branches of government and gives a basic outline of what they can and can't do. Amendments can be changed at any time through congressional action, so really, what is the problem with them? Amendments have been taken out before and if congress feels that there are a bunch of useless amendments then they can take them out. Not really a big deal... In fact, that is why a system to amend the constitution was implemented, so it would be able to survive and adapt to changes in the world.
-
There's plenty of stuff in your constitution and various amendments that are no longer relevant.
E.g. the right to carry firearms.
Considering the fact that a lot of Americans still want their guns, I'd say it is still a relevant amendment, no?
-
There's plenty of stuff in your constitution and various amendments that are no longer relevant.
E.g. the right to carry firearms.
Considering the fact that a lot of Americans still want their guns, I'd say it is still a relevant amendment, no?
Defintely. I certainly would hate it if we starting imposing strict gun control laws. Bush already banned semi-automatic weapons... I think that we just need laws on those who have poor mental health carrying weapons. I don't see a need to abolish one of our oldest, most basic rights!
-
Bush already banned semi-automatic weapons...
With that, I'd say it's about time. Things have gotten a wee bit out of hand. Anything more than just a pistol seems excessive for "personal safety" to me.
And with that, I have strayed this topic about enough. Shall we all get back on track? (If someone wants to continue the gun discussion, feel free to make a new thread)
-
There's plenty of stuff in your constitution and various amendments that are no longer relevant.
E.g. the right to carry firearms.
Considering the fact that a lot of Americans still want their guns, I'd say it is still a relevant amendment, no?
No, I think the fact that they want to carry guns makes it a very irrelevant amendment, considering the number of firearm related incidents.
In the same way that people wanting to take drugs, develop pathogens or develop nuclear weapons in no way makes any laws allowing them to do those things relevant.
-
No, I think the fact that they want to carry guns makes it a very irrelevant amendment, considering the number of firearm related incidents.
Seriously. I mean 250,000 times a year, guns are POINTED (not even used) in self-defense. It's irrelevent that we'd even debate taking away someone's right to defend themselves.
Pyru, you seem to be a big fan of "choice", no?
-
No, I think the fact that they want to carry guns makes it a very irrelevant amendment, considering the number of firearm related incidents.
Seriously. I mean 250,000 times a year, guns are POINTED (not even used) in self-defense. It's irrelevent that we'd even debate taking away someone's right to defend themselves.
Pyru, you seem to be a big fan of "choice", no?
But not the choice to kill whoever you like. That's all guns really do when you shoot them at someone: kill or injure.
And if you point it in self-defence, you're threatening to kill someone.
Firearms aren't abudant over here, but we don't have a high rate of problems caused by people being unable to "defend themselves" with firearms.
-
For example the 'under god' thing. If it is removed, it doesnt prevent you from practicing your religion at all, it just makes it optional for everybody. Therefor, its more freedom for the people who aren't religous, but you still keep your right to pray.
It's ALREADY optional for everybody. Why do they have to remove it to take away OUR option? They don't have to say "under God", if such a humble phrase offends their superiority complex.
If it was removed, you can still say it. Same argument either way. I don't think it matters other than the reason it was added (those damn godless commies).
You can't make up new parts to the pledge.
Ironic, considering that "under god" was added in 1954.
-
Ironic, considering that "under god" was added in 1954.
Pretty late considering I posted that at the beginning of May, no?
Anyway, you're taking it out of context, for those of you too lazy to search for the page (took me a while to find it myself :P) my full comment was located at: http://www.zfgc.com/index.php/topic,1939.msg27063.html#msg27063