Jump to content

Separation of Church and State: A Fallacy


Recommended Posts

While I do agree that separation of church and state is taken a little too seriously, I do not think using the word Liberal as a curse word is required. Liberal does not mean "anti-christ" or "evil" or "traitor".

In other words, do not blame the whole, for the actions of the few (even if it is the few, that are in power).

Now, as to my comments about this subject matter....

One thing that bothers me to no end about the whole religion discussion is that EVERYONE seems to forget that there are a heck of a lot of religions out there to whom the word "God" (as a single entity) has little meaning.

I do not pledge allegiance to "one nation, under God" because I do not believe in a Judeo/Christian God. Nor do I sing "God bless America". However, in these dark times, I am feeling much more supportive of our government (than in the past). I actually agree with most of the actions they are taking to deal with this situation. This still doesn't prompt me to sing "God bless America". Why can't we bring the terminology to a state where it's -actually- fitting for all world religions? And make our patriotic songs to that effect. Or just make them non-religious. Because, after all is said and done, religion really has very little to do with patriotism.

I have NO problem with individuals practising their own religion. Or for that matter, nationally televised masses held because of the tragedy. Heck, I -watched- that big mass they had on the Friday after. Just don't pretend that Christianity and Judaism are the only religions in this country. Because they aren't.

I used to say, let's change the national anthem to "America the Beautiful". But I forgot about the line where it says "God shed his grace on thee". So to be honest, I am happy with the current anthem, because it is non-religious.

Ruled by the minority you say? Well, last I checked, I have as much right as you do. Not less because I am in the minority, but equal. And I am asking for that equality.

That is all.

Note: for those curious, I am Wiccan (for lack of closer religion).

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Gomez ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

Our currency is labeled "in God we trust"

Our pledge of allegiance identifies this country as "under God"

The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954 (Cold War anti-Soviet reaction). "One Nation Under God" explicitly establishes a State Monotheism.

"In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business."

The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.

The presidential oath of office is the only one in the Constitution, and it does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or the requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec.1).

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: pkzip ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melcar;

quote:

Ah, Yes, our Nation was founded on the Idea of God. And as you say Silk people are Free to Believe and Worship as they wish...

So what is the problem then with SEPERATING the religion from the State?

Just because of what Our Fore Fathers believed in? Our Nation was Meant to GROW and EVOLVE, become MORE tolerant Not less.

So you see nothing wrong with schools FORCING people to proclaim things the Students, and Parents may not believe in?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like it or not, this is a nation under God, and those who disagree with that have no right to pass laws to change that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So this is no longer a Government Of the People, For the People, BY the People. Unless we AGREE with our Fore Fathers Ideology?


Let me answer this with a quote and a follow up.

quote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

I interpret this to mean, that the legal process has no place either for or against religion. Therefore - a minority who complain in schools, or for that matter a majority - have no business telling those that do practice it where and when they can.

And FYI, your forefather's ideology is what made this country great, and it wasn't a religious ideology, it was the idea of government BY and FOR the people. And if the majority disagrees with that ideology, then yes it is no longer a government BY and FOR the people. It becomes a government BY and FOR the majority.

So guess what, under our constitution, legality has no jurisdiction (i.e. there can NOT be a law) prohibiting any group from practicing any religion wherever they so choose - so long as they aren't hurting someone else's rights.

And you don't have a right to be comfortable.

If you don't like what they do or say then you have a right not to listen. You can't make them quit saying it.

I disagree with Federal enforcement of Prayer, but if a school chooses to have prayer then tough luck if you don't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off Silk, Read my First post on this thread.

As for the Majority statment of yours, The majority does rule, that is the Basic premise of Democracy(Please note, I am aware the US is a Republic, not a Democracy). Afterall more than 3 people can't agree on when to have dinner.

quote:

I disagree with Federal enforcement of Prayer, but if a school chooses to have prayer then tough luck if you don't like it.

I agree with you if it is a Private School, they are governed by different rules. A PUBLIC school however MUST maintain neutrality. If a Public School allows any groups to use their premises then Yes, they must Allow ALL groups to use their premises. School sanctioned prayer however destroys the neutrality that they Need to have.

In response to Steve Schacher:

quote:

I had a state college humanities professor who was a priest. Should separation of church and state forced him out of the classroom? Do the workers in the government have to remove their necklasses with Crosses and Star of Davids?

In my opinion not unless he was using that as a platform to preach his religion. He still maintains that neutrality even being a priest.

quote:

Do the workers in the government have to remove their necklasses with Crosses and Star of Davids?

No they shouldn't, BUT it should be worn under the outer clothing. For example you are allowed to wear any religious clothing with your uniform in the US Military, but again, it needs to be covered.

quote:

It's easy to say that we'll let the individual worker wear what he or she likes, but the larger State must not do certain things. But there is no larger State that does these things

We DO have a Larger state, we have a Republic. That is a REPRESENTATIVE Government. The workers are NOT the government, they simply facilitate it's functioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't see what the big deal is over someone wearing religious jewelry outside their clothing, even if they are a government employee. I also don't see what the big deal is with schools having a prayer/meditation moment, as long as it is respectful of ALL world religions. And yes, I mean in public schools. Heck, I'm sure an atheist kid will probably enjoy having a few moments where they don't have to do anything. So as long as it doesn't pertain to any one religion, it's fine by me. And I should add, isn't required that the student participate. However, if it is specific to one religion, or a few religions that happen to be in the majority....that's where it becomes wrong.

Which, in this case, it's best to just avoid the subject and require the schools to be neutral. Allow the kids to do what they want, but not have the school itself be involved.

Note: all of this applies only to public schools. Private schools are free to do as they choose, because well...a lot of them are religious affiliated. You go in knowing it's that way.

quote:

As for the Majority statment of yours, The majority does rule, that is the Basic premise of Democracy(Please note, I am aware the US is a Republic, not a Democracy). Afterall more than 3 people can't agree on when to have dinner.


While the majority DOES rule. It should rule in a manner that does NOT hinder the rights of the minority. The rights of the minority are equal to the rights of the majority. Otherwise all that hoopla about equal rights, goes right out the window. In this case, the minority would be those who do not practise Christian faith. Thus, the fair and equitable thing to do, would be to require that if a public school were to want such a prayer moment, that it treat ALL world religions equally. And yes, this should include schools in towns where there is no one practicing another religion. Why? Because of the possibility that someone moves there that is not of that religion. Because it teaches the children to respect other religions. Because it teaches children OF other religions (even knowledge of mere existance of other religions can have a major impact on how a growing mind reacts).

However, as I said previously in this message, this just isn't practical. Therefore it would be wiser and more economical to just avoid the issue and require that they not have such a school sponsored moment.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Gomez ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The workers are NOT the government, they simply facilitate it's functioning.

Then what do you call school teachers? If the workers are not the government, then prayers in schools are not being sanctioned by the government. It is just the workers with common faiths practicing together for a moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hehe, trapped by my own wording.

While they are not the government, during working hours, they are representatives of that government. As such have a responsibility to the neutrality I spoke of earlier. After hours... it's their business.

I do not mean to say they should not be able to participate, except during working hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the issue of prayer in schools, it is clearly unconstitutional. The government may not respect the establishment of religion- all religion, not just one or a few in particular. Just as the government cannot build a non-denominational place of worship, it cannot use taxpayer dollars to pay for time in school devoted to religion. Even if prayers are rotated so as to respect all major religions, religion itself is still incorporated into the school. There should not be a time set aside for whatever prayers one might offer either. If someone wants to pray, so be it; they can do it in their spare time. Whether a student choses to (and to whom to) pray is their buisiness, not the school's.

As for government employees wearing religious items on their person: I have no problem with that. So long as they aren't actively proselytizing on the job, their right to free expression is protected by the first amendment. The government may not prevent one of their employees from saying or wearing whatever they wish so long as it does not interfere with their job. The right of free expression, in my opinion, is more important than the principle of the seperation of church and state (related though they may be), which in itself is quite important.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps people are confusing government with civil service workers. Is my mailman "government?" Are the teachers down the street at the public school "government?"

How do you reconcile the after-hours practice of religion if a government worker who is Islamic wants to pray towards Mecca in the middle of the day? What do you do in the winter when it's dark early and the orthodox Jew needs to be home before the sun sets on Friday?

The idealistic view breaks down when it trickles down to the people, because the people ultimately have the first amendment protection on their side. People do not stop being citizens with all their protections because they work for a government office for a few hours a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EXTREME Example:

Suppose your mailman comes to your house with a Swastika on his forehead?

I'd put money down that says he would be FORCED to cover it or loose his job.

And I say this being a Civil Service worker.

Freedom of Speech or Expression does not remove the Required Professionalism.

Special concession are made to allow people their time to Pray during the day if required by their religion their Break times would be modified for this. Same as in the private sector, most places of employment will make concessions for it where possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

How do you reconcile the after-hours practice of religion if a government worker who is Islamic wants to pray towards Mecca in the middle of the day? What do you do in the winter when it's dark early and the orthodox Jew needs to be home before the sun sets on Friday?


Simple, allow them to do whatever it is that they need to do, but to make sure that they also work the required 8 hours a day. For the Jew, have him/her come in early friday morning. For the Islamic, extend his/her lunch break (or just allow them a separate break) so that they may do their ceremony at the appropriate hour, but then, work an extra to make up for that break.

With school, the same consideration should be made. I remember numerous occasions where Jewish children were not at school for some holiday they celebrated that we didn't. It makes sense to me.

EDIT: Noticing Melcar's post about the mailman. A Swastika is a -political- symbol. NOT religious...In fact, it's a racist symbol (although it wasn't always). And that is a kind of expression no one likes (unless you're a racist).

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Gomez ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

swas┬Àti┬Àka (swst-k)

n.

1. An ancient cosmic or religious symbol formed by a Greek cross with the ends of the arms bent at right angles in either a clockwise or a counterclockwise direction.

2. Such a symbol with a clockwise bend to the arms, used as the emblem of the Nazi party and of the German state under Adolf Hitler, officially adopted in 1935.

Source www.dictionary.com

As I said, EXTREME example, But it WAS a religious symbol before it was a Political symbol.

And even still Political symbols Do fall under Freedom of speech.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Melcar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably going to regret this, but I'm going to join this debate.

First of all, what's the ACLU?

Secondly, the section of the first amendment regarding religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I don't think 'establishment of religion' refers to a building, it refers to officiality. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that Congress is not allowed to pass a law establishing an official national religion. In other words, it's unconstitutional to officially state that America is a christian or jewish or whatever nation, because that would imply that citizens who exercise other religions or don't believe in religion are not Americans. It does not mean that congresspeople are not allowed to have any visible references to any religion on their person while they're in session. What would happen if a Muslim woman was elected to Congress? Does she hide her cover in another cover? That would be a direct contradiction to the first amendment because people are being prohibited from freely exercising their religion. Remember that the members of congress are also members of the American people whom they were elected to represent. They're allowed to vote, speak, and do anything else that's within their civil rights, including the free exercise of their religion.

One of the purposes of the first amendment is to allow everyone to freely exercise their religion within the boundaries of civil rights (eg you're not allowed to sacrifice a virgin), but nobody is allowed to establish their religion as the official religion of the nation or of any public organization that's supposed to represent all American citizens.

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread.

Swastikas were incorporated into the design of our City Hall when it was built many years ago. (Don't really know. would have to find out.) It caused quite a stir when someone took notice a few years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Swastika is an interesting symbol to discuss because of its potentially inadvertent references.

Its adoption by the Nazis has effectively demonized its visibility, which is not very fair to people practicing Buddhism where the Swastika is a symbol of good fortune (I think). So, if you see someone with a swastika on their person, they're not necessarily neo-nazis. In the case of Buddhism, there is a way of telling the difference (the spokes are in reverse order).

EDIT: So much for my line drawing skills.

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if you're willing to allow special consideration for civil servant/government workers to practice their faith, then why are you not willing to allow our teachers or students the same special consideration to practice their faith, as long as the required 8 hours a day are spent in the classroom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Menchise:

First of all, what's the ACLU?

American Civil Liberties Union

They were instrumental in helping to purge our country of signs hanging over water fountains that read, "Whites Only." They fought against the concentration camps built in the US for Americans that looked Japanese. Yet they fought for the right of the Ku Klux Klan to publicly demonstrate.

They are absolutely vilified by conservatives because of their stance on gun control, abortion, book banning, loyalty oaths, creationism, homosexuals, labor unions, etc., all the usual trigger words. The Far Right considers them to be, at best, a Satanic playground for rosy-eyed and meddlesome intellectuals; Pure Evil.

[Nick, it would require a whole 'nother thread to discuss the ACLU, and you already know exactly how these guys would weigh in on the subject.]

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: pkzip ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So, if you're willing to allow special consideration for civil servant/government workers to practice their faith, then why are you not willing to allow our teachers or students the same special consideration to practice their faith, as long as the required 8 hours a day are spent in the classroom?

Steve perhaps you could read through this thread again to tell me where anybody said that they shouldn't be able to? I seem to have missed that post somewhere.

The only thing I Said was school SANCTIONED. In other words the Teacher/Principal/School worker - getting before a class and saying "Let us Pray". If a group of students have time during school hours(Recess, Whatever) and they get together and pray instead of play, who CARES? That is not the ISSUE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

On the issue of prayer in schools, it is clearly unconstitutional. The government may not respect the establishment of religion- all religion,

There is NOTHING clear about it, as a matter of fact, Public schooling, if you look at the constitution, is unconstitutional. It goes against the 10th amendment. Where in the constitution does it say that the Federal Government can have anything to do with public schooling. This is strictly a state issue, the Fed's are not supposed to have anything to do with it.

As far as your original statement, NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that there can be no prayer in school, because it says NOTHING about public school!!

Fact is that Congress prays, the Senate prays, the Supreme court prays, why shouldn't the public schools have a moment of silence, or even a prayer at the beginning of the school day? Answer: there is NO reason that they shouldn't, NONE!!!

It is not CLEARLY unconstitutional, it never has been, it was a ruling put out by a liberal judge that was feeling his power, and decided to read between the lines of the constitution.

The constitution means what it says, and says what it means. There is no READING BETWEEN THE LINES to create something that does not exist. It is not a living breathing document like many liberals would like us to believe. It is a piece of paper that sets out the rules, and those rules are above ALL others, and must be obeyed!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, unfortunately, it is more of a living breathing document than you realize. The spirit of the law is often hard to interpret. And it is interpreted differently by each and every person that reads it, conservative and liberal alike. Thus why in this debate alone, using just one mere excerpt from the Constitution, we can have soooo many different opinions. And conservatives are disagreeing with conservatives. Liberals are disagreeing with liberals. Look back over the thread and you'll see a pattern of people who agree and disagree, then look over the gun control thread and you'll see a completely different pattern. This isn't about Liberal vs Conservative. It's about interpretation vs interpretation.

I think that most people seem to agree that religious activities should be allowed, but the problem generally is that most people ignore a LOT of religions. The only way anything such as a prayer moment could be sanctioned is if it encompassed the whole of world religions. And the practicality of that is pretty low. So really, it's best to just avoid the issue (which is what I've been saying all along).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melcar:

quote:


And therein lies the problem Eclipse, I do not believe in a Sovereign God who controls everything. There is nothing greater that will punish me.

Then by your own words you stand condemned. Because of unbelief in a higher Power, you can then create your own moral code, there are no absolutes of right and wrong.

quote:


Starting with the Crusades as the most Notable. People found Justification in Christianity to KILL. Same thing for the Spanish Inquisition.

First off the Roman church is a perversion of true Christianity: the Crusades and the Inquisition are evidences of that perversion. Look back to the early church around 50 to 150 A.D., They were persecuted for their beliefs. Did they strike back, rebel, or force others to believe with threats of bodily harm? No. The examples of their lives and the truth of the gospel were enough to cause their ranks to swell. Only after Constantine I made Christianity the religion of the state did pagan practices and deviation from the truth find their way into the chiurch, and then only gradually until the bloated monstronsity of the Roman Church appeared in the middle ages.

quote:


So I'm afraid that just shot your argument of having a god who will punish you keeps you from doing wrong. People do wrong for their own reasons. They may make justification for it somewhere, but what it comes down to is quite simply they are EVIL, and do what they want, regardless of their religeon.

If you will reread what I posted I did not say that knowing that a soverign God exists and will one day judge all humans would prevent crime, the main argument was that there is a moral code that is to be followed. Why should it remind us of a soverign God and why should it be followed? Because it was instituted by God.

quote:


Which brings us to today, Osama Bin Laden, he claims religious justification for his attacks on the US. According to Many Muslims(Both in the US and the Middle East) There is NO justification for what he does in Islam.

According to his religion he is justified. Fundamental Islam has only two types of people Believers and Infadels, to them the only thing to do with Infidels is to kill them.

As for problems with the ACLU:

http://www.aclu.org/news/n100298a.html

Evolution as a "science?" Please show me someone who was around at the big bang, or how a premordial pile of sludge magically transformed into a cell, or even ONE recorded instance of one creature gradually becomming another. They say that Creationism isn't a science, and they are right because it requires FAITH to accept and believe. Yet evolution, which has yet to be proved is taught as science. Unless we have seen it occurr or have proof of it, it too requires faith to believe. Evolution is a religion of atheism. Taking a quote from the scopes trial we can see the OPPISITE has happened.

quote:


"If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private school . . . At the next session you may ban books and newspapers. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant, and try to foist your own religion upon the minds of men."

Clarence Darrow, during the Scopes trial


Now it is a crime to teach Creationism, or even PRAY in school.

http://www.aclu.org/news/2001/n062201b.html

The Ten Commandments are a civil law code, I'm sure that there wouldn't be a fuss over putting up the code of Hammurabi or Justinian's codex. Because they are found in the Bible they are attacked as a sign of "religious inequity" by the ACLU.

If you read through the various cases the ACLU has supported in the past, it will take issues that the PEOPLE have decided on to the highest courts so that the will of the FEW are imposed on the MANY. And you ask about a government FOR the PEOPLE and BY the PEOPLE. The ACLU is trying to force its religion of atheism on the people of the United States, that is what I have against the ACLU.

Aaron

[ 10-21-2001: Message edited by: Eclipse ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The only thing I Said was school SANCTIONED. In other words the Teacher/Principal/School worker - getting before a class and saying "Let us Pray".

But what if the school teacher gets in front of the class and says "Let's have a moment of silence for each of you to do with as you please?" All that the school would be doing at this point is to give the student the time to spend as he/she sees fit. Would just giving them a moment at the start of the day be too much like sanctioning?

How about all the other stuff that the teachers teach today that many feel are beyond the 3 "R's" and fall into social activism? Many people treat environmental activism as a religion -- call them the "Gaia" movement if you will -- would sanctioning extreme environmentalism be akin to promoting a religion? Again, we would have a situation where some people treat it as a faith, others do not recognized it such, and disagreements over who's right abound? Do we err on the side of caution and prohibit it or do we make a value judgment? If we make a value judgment on one person's disputed religion, do we allow value judgments on the others as well?

All that I'm saying is that it isn't black and white when either: 1) religion is involved, 2) people are involved, 3)government is involved, 4) interpreting what constitutes government is involved. Therefore, you are right that we leave it up to the Supreme Court to interpret. If the Supreme Court goes one way this decade, they are free to change their minds in the next decade as generations pass and new centers emerge.

I would suggest that we do not leave it up to the ACLU to decide. I don't know exactly when they started behaving like the fifth branch of government (behind the media at number four). The ABA is lining up behind them as the sixth branch with their supposed judicial nominee oversight. The events of 9/11 have caused this country to take a giant lurch to the right, and the ripple effects are starting to emerge more clearly now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally by eclipse

First off the Roman church is a perversion of true Christianity: the Crusades and the Inquisition are evidences of that perversion. Look back to the early church around 50 to 150 A.D., They were persecuted for their beliefs. Did they strike back, rebel, or force others to believe with threats of bodily harm? No. The examples of their lives and the truth of the gospel were enough to cause their ranks to swell. Only after Constantine I made Christianity the religion of the state did pagan practices and deviation from the truth find their way into the chiurch, and then only gradually until the bloated monstronsity of the Roman Church appeared in the middle ages.


And if you want to know the truth about that, Constantine was dying when he was "converted" he died right after that, but because he has been "converted" his hier did the deed, not Constantine himself.

Constantine was a devout Pagan, and would never have converted to a religion such as Roman Catholicism nor Christianity.

Just a little history to thrown into the mix!! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've more or less skipped over the last third of this thread, as I can see that this thread is going nowhere pretty quickly. Let me first declare my bias. I DO believe there is a God and I DO believe he sent Jesus as a final sacrifice for anyone willing to accept it.

NEXT, I believe that ALL PEOPLE have the absolute inalienable right to their own beliefs and opinions, as well as the absolute and inalienable right to EXPRESS those beliefs and opinions. One of the things that makes America great is the freedom to share ideas. THAT is what sets us apart from countries like Afghanistan. If everyone has a voice, people can make up their own minds. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE DOES ANY PERSON OR ENTITY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SILENCE ANOTHER PERSON OR ENTITY DUE TO AN OPPOSING OPINION OR BELIEF. The idea behind democracy is that everyone has an equal say.

NEXT, the government is a group of people run for the people by the people. The larger entity does not support any religion or ideal because it does not exist. The people do, however, and have their own ideals and beliefs. Each and every one of those people should have the right to express those ideals and beliefs regardless of any approval or dissapproval of the majority or minority.

NEXT, the fundamental laws of the United States are based the moral codes outlined in the Cannon (You will never hear me refer to it as "The Bible" since that is a general term that can be used many different ways). IE: The Ten Commandments. For reference, here they are (Not an exact translation. More on that later):

1) You shall have no other gods than me.

2) You shall niether make nor worship any idol (Or other created thing).

3) You shall not take the name of you Lord in vain.

4) Remember the Sabbath (The day of rest) and keep it holy.

5) Honor your father and mother.

6) You shall not MURDER (Frequently translated KILL, but incorrectly).

7) You shall not commit adultery.

8) You shall not steal.

9) You shall not bear false witness about your neighbor.

10) You shall not covet [anything that is someone else's).

Now, other than the first three, even the most liberal person shouldn't have too much to argue about.

1-3) That's a whole 'nuther can of worms.

4) Do you think that everyone should work seven days a week. God has ordained that you should take at least one day a week off, just to relax and take a load off.

5) Truth be told, MOST parents DO care about their children. In this day and age its a sad thing that that parents and children don't respect or love one another more. I could go off on a tangent about the decay of societiel values, but it's a global issues as much as an American or religious one. But seriously, why are Maternal insults always so effective?

6) Do you REALLY have to think about this one? How would you feel if someone close to you got shot because somebody wanted their shoes or credit cards? There is a difference between "kill" and "murder" as well. As you already know, even God ordained the deaths of entire civilizations. And that just for breaking the first two commandments (Or should I say, rather, principles -- for those will argue what happened BEFORE the Commandments were given).

7) There have been more movies made than one could comprehend JUST on this ONE subject. It breaks hearts and ruins lives. Disobeying any of these Commandments may achieve no less.

8) Surely you must have had something stolen at one time or another. Whether is be some change you kept in your car or perhaps your car itself. You how does this make you feel? Again, this hurts people. Thats why God commands that it not be done.

9) Again, I should not have to explain.

10) Why should you not covet? Because it may make it that much easier to slip and break one of the other commandments. Rather than wish you had your friends new computer, aspire for one LIKE it, or better than it. As an analogy, I think that works well.

NOW, Atheism. Secularism. Whatever you wish to call it... isn't that a religion as well? It requires faith dosn't it? As much as you'll hear high profile people telling you that "this is true" or "that is false", they often have no evidence that can withstand reasonable scrutiny. As has been mentioned already in this thread, if you tell somebody something enough, they will believe it. And that is one of the most effective tactics used by liberals and atheists. Generations have grown up exposed to only one viewpoint -- evolution. A secular belief. Since that is the what they grew up being told, and what is constantly beng reinforced, they refuse to believe any other ideal--because that would make numerous role models of thers LIARS. They aren't willing to accept that. And so, we get generations of narrow minded people who have been raised to believe that any other possibilities are simply false. Does this argument sound familiar to you at all? It should. It was the same argument first used to get Evolution INTO our schools. Teach the ideas side by side with their strengths and weaknesses.

The problem here is that there is more historical evidence in support of the Cannon than there is in support of evolution. I have heard it constantly said that the "Bible" (Cannon) is "full of errors." The simple and most damning response is "Would you care to point one out to me?"

Now for a new bit of personal info. I do not trust english translations of the Cannonical Books. But since I am no Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew scholar, I instead cross reference a litteral "Bible" with several more widely used translations. The literal takes precedence over any of the others, since translation has such a tendancy to change the meanings of things.

Atheism is the religion of godlessness. As far as I am concerned, any atheist is welcome to his own beliefs. Just as I may attempt to convince an atheist that his beliefs are incorrect, he may also attempt convince me that mine are. He does not, however, have the right to tape my mouth.

I will more than happy to participate in any further discussion, but I think I've written enough tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...