In God we trust.....

[CUDA]

Agreed, its not like they are saying

In Jehovah - Yahweh - Allah - Buddah - ETC ETC we trust

[Neo]

Atheism is a religion too, I demand that all Atheist texts and references be removed from anything to do with government no matter how trivial.

Remember folks: its "Freedom of religion," not "Freedom from religion."

I think this is the best thing I've heard Krom say anywhere (he's made plenty of good points at various times).

I tend to agree with this line of thinking; one could argue semantics and talk about what the word 'religion' and the word 'atheism' means, but that seems to be all theoretical. If in actuality atheism had been shown to simply be "not believing in God" then atheists wouldn't have all their interpretations of experimental observations that are a result of atheism. They wouldn't all say the same thing about science and other topics and force it on other people. I know that some people are true atheists and simply "don't believe in God" but 9 times out of 10 (or more ) they don't separate atheism from their beliefs. If you don't know what I'm talking about, just look at public education.

How can you be so arrogant as to think YOUR God is the ONLY true God! Christianity is but ONE religion out of multitudes in this world. So who's to say that the Christian God is the only God, and that ALL other people who may NOT believe in this God should be worshipping that God anyway just because Christians say so? You're forgetting that this nation is a giant melting pot of people and not all are Jews or Christians.

Why are you assuming that he's being arrogant? It's simple logic. Either one religion is right and the rest wrong, or all religions are wrong and something else that is actually logical (obviously not atheism ) is. But they can't all be right, if you mean "all are right" in a strict literal sense. Okay maybe it's not just logic but there's a bit of wisdom in there too, which few people seem to have these days. Even if Christianity isn't the be-all and end-all, if you read the books, the wisdom contained in scriptures cannot be denied. Same is true for other writings. Either something makes sense or it doesn't. I've met many people who call others "arrogant" as a cop out because they just want to believe whatever they want. I have no idea if this is what you are doing, but it's nothing new. I dunno about everyone else, but I just want to know what is true and if something I believe is not true, I welcome people who can prove something more accurate.

I think what was being said was that, if the government is supposed to be "by the people and for the people," it should balance what the people say and what is best for them, and defend the minority.

There's nothing funny about wanting the government to stand up for and support truth. You can debate all day whether or not it is Christianity, but the government doesn't have the right to keep out that which pertains to all things pure and divine.

[null0010]

Currently, Kagin is host for the Internet radio show “Answers in Atheism,” www.answersinatheism.net . He is also the current National Legal Director, and Kentucky State Director, for American Atheists. He is on its speaker’s bureau and in 2008 was voted onto the Board of Directors of American Atheists, Inc.

and why is he a crackpot and not other athiests? and why is your brand of athiesm better than his???

For the same reason that not all Christians are child molestors, or insane hate mongers, or followers of Fred Phelps, or bullies, or Crusaders, or members of the Inquisition.

[CUDA]

Currently, Kagin is host for the Internet radio show “Answers in Atheism,” www.answersinatheism.net . He is also the current National Legal Director, and Kentucky State Director, for American Atheists. He is on its speaker’s bureau and in 2008 was voted onto the Board of Directors of American Atheists, Inc.

and why is he a crackpot and not other athiests? and why is your brand of athiesm better than his???

For the same reason that not all Christians are child molestors, or insane hate mongers, or followers of Fred Phelps, or bullies, or Crusaders, or members of the Inquisition.

no doubt. but by what standards do you use to judge him??? if your going to judge Christians you have a base reference in the Bible to use for that judgement. but what base reference do you have to judge an athiests actions. you can call him a crackpot but thats just your opinion one that you have nothing to base it on.

Why is Kagin a crackpot???

[Tunnelcat]

When a religion starts interfering in the lives of law abiding non-followers, THAT'S when we really need the separation of church and state. That's not putting down Christians, it's protecting the NON-CHRISTIANS! Christians can worship as freely as they want, but the line needs to be drawn when they start to manipulate others that don't want to follow the Christian faith.... BLAH BLAH BLAH!

I was with you up until the point that your started to BLAH BLAH. thats where you went wrong.

Where did I error? That Christians see themselves as victims or that they want to force or manipulate the non-Christian people of our society to follow their worldview? Or is it the fact that 1950's Commie fear mongering was the direct influencing factor that caused this little religious nugget to be put into our Pledge of Allegiance in the first place? Oh, and CUDA, is that Clint Eastwood I see scowling from your avatar?

AND when a government starts interfering in the rights of people to follow their own conscience. It happens. A lot.

Granted, but at what point do you allow a society's citizens TOTAL freedom to do whatever they want, even if it impacts others? In other words, to hell with the rights of the whole, the individual is king. Don't you think that the group, society, has rights too? Government is supposed to balance the rights and freedoms of individuals against the rights and freedoms of all of society. We all have to live together as a whole, not as a mob of self-centered cretins. But I will grant you that government tends to shift towards giving itself more power and control and it needs constant monitoring to keep it in check. Unfortunately, that push and pull tends to swing back and forth to the extreme. It never seems to be stable.

[AlphaDoG]

Where did I error? That Christians see themselves as victims or that they want to force or manipulate the non-Christian people of our society to follow their worldview? Or is it the fact that 1950's Commie fear mongering was the direct influencing factor that caused this little religious nugget to be put into our Pledge of Allegiance in the first place? Oh, and CUDA, is that Clint Eastwood I see scowling from your avatar?

Let's see your errors.

1st, we Christians do not see ourselves as victims, we see ourselves as VICTORIOUS.

2nd, we do not want to force our worldview on others, we indeed want to see others VICTORIOUS in our spiritual view.

[Grendel]

Oh, and CUDA, is that Clint Eastwood I see scowling from your avatar?

Yea, he's scowling at him Great movie BTW.

[null0010]

Currently, Kagin is host for the Internet radio show “Answers in Atheism,” www.answersinatheism.net . He is also the current National Legal Director, and Kentucky State Director, for American Atheists. He is on its speaker’s bureau and in 2008 was voted onto the Board of Directors of American Atheists, Inc.

and why is he a crackpot and not other athiests? and why is your brand of athiesm better than his???

For the same reason that not all Christians are child molestors, or insane hate mongers, or followers of Fred Phelps, or bullies, or Crusaders, or members of the Inquisition.

no doubt. but by what standards do you use to judge him??? if your going to judge Christians you have a base reference in the Bible to use for that judgement. but what base reference do you have to judge an athiests actions. you can call him a crackpot but thats just your opinion one that you have nothing to base it on.

Why is Kagin a crackpot???

I never said he was a crackpot. And why do you speak of judgement? That is the place of God, not men.

[CUDA]

Bee judged Kagin and called him a crackpot,
you chose to jump into my conversation with Bee about Kagin.
FINAL judgement is God's sole domain. Man's judgement is through out the Bible but it comes with a warning.

Where did I error? That Christians see themselves as victims or that they want to force or manipulate the non-Christian people of our society to follow their worldview?

you err on both points

1. Christians have rights that they feel get trampled on. just like Athiests, Blacks, Latino's, you. and when we feel those rights have been infringed we exercise our Contitutional right to speak out about it.

2. Christianinty is not like Sharia Muslim we CANNOT and DO NOT force our beliefs on any one. we have the right to speak out about those beliefs just like anyone else and to exercise our Constitutional right of " the Free exercise there of"

Or is it the fact that 1950's Commie fear mongering was the direct influencing factor that caused this little religious nugget to be put into our Pledge of Allegiance in the first place?

you could be wrong on this point also. it may have been a sign of the times but it does not appear to be the DIRECT influence behind the addition. FYI I was under the same impression as you on this matter so I was wrong also.

Addition of the words "under God"
Louis A. Bowman (1872-1959) was the first to initiate the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea.[8][9] He spent his adult life in the Chicago area and was Chaplain of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. At a meeting on February 12, 1948,[citation needed] Lincoln's Birthday, he led the Society in swearing the Pledge with two words added, "under God." He stated that the words came from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Though not all manuscript versions of the Gettysburg Address contain the words "under God", all the reporters' transcripts of the speech as delivered do, as perhaps Lincoln may have deviated from his prepared text and inserted the phrase when he said "that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom." Bowman repeated his revised version of the Pledge at other meetings.[8]

In 1951, the Knights of Columbus, the world's largest Catholic fraternal service organization, also began including the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.[10] In New York City, on April 30, 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to amend the text of their Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by addition of the words "under God" after the words "one nation." Over the next two years, the idea spread throughout Knights of Columbus organizations nationwide. On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus at its annual meeting adopted a resolution urging that the change be made universal and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President (as Presiding Officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The National Fraternal Congress meeting in Boston on September 24, 1952, adopted a similar resolution upon the recommendation of its president, Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. Several State Fraternal Congresses acted likewise almost immediately thereafter. This campaign led to several official attempts to prompt Congress to adopt the Knights of Columbus’ policy for the entire nation. These attempts failed.

In 1952, Holger Christian Langmack wrote a letter to President Truman suggesting the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Langmack was a Danish philosopher and educator who came to America in 1911. He was one of the originators of the Prayer Breakfast and a religious leader in Washington, D.C. President Truman met with him along with several others to discuss the inclusion of "under God" and also "love" just before "liberty and justice".[citation needed] At the suggestion of a correspondent, Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution to add the words "under God" to the Pledge in 1953.


Rev. Dr. George MacPherson Docherty (left) and President Eisenhower (second from left) on the morning of February 7, 1954, at the New York Avenue Presbyterian ChurchPrior to February 1954, no attempt to get the Pledge officially amended succeeded. The final successful push came from George MacPherson Docherty. Some American presidents honored Lincoln's birthday by attending services at the church Lincoln attended, New York Avenue Presbyterian Church by sitting in Lincoln's pew on the Sunday nearest February 12. On February 7, 1954, with President Eisenhower sitting in Lincoln's pew, the church's pastor, George MacPherson Docherty, delivered a sermon based on the Gettysburg Address titled "A New Birth of Freedom." He argued that the nation's might lay not in arms but its spirit and higher purpose. He noted that the Pledge's sentiments could be those of any nation, that "there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life." He cited Lincoln's words "under God" as defining words that set the United States apart from other nations.

President Eisenhower, though raised a Jehovah's Witness, had been baptized a Presbyterian just a year before. He responded enthusiastically to Docherty in a conversation following the service. Eisenhower acted on his suggestion the next day and on February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.[11]

The phrase "under God" was incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance June 14, 1954, by a Joint Resolution of Congress amending §7 of the Flag Code enacted in 1942.[11]

When Docherty’s sermon was published in 1958[12], President Eisenhower took the opportunity to write to Dr. Docherty with gratitude for the opportunity to once again read the sermon.

[woodchip]

Granted, but at what point do you allow a society's citizens TOTAL freedom to do whatever they want, even if it impacts others? In other words, to hell with the rights of the whole, the individual is king. Don't you think that the group, society, has rights too?

And if the majority of society prefers seeing "In God We Trust", should it not then be allowed?

[Neo]

What the heck is it with you guys and the Pledge of Allegiance? =P

[Tunnelcat]

CUDA, maybe I'm over blowing things, but out of curiosity, which Christian rights do you think the rest of secular society has been trampling on lately? A lot of Christians seem to be up in arms about SOMETHING the rest of us are doing.

Grendel or CUDA, what movie is that Clint picture from? Must be recent because he's looking a little mature. But Clint is just like a fine wine, he gets better as he ages.

Woodchip, maybe we should have a national vote on whether to keep the \"In God We Trust\" phrase in the Pledge. I'd be interested in the results. And what would be the flap if the majority wanted it OUT (although highly unlikely)?

AlphaDog, explain to me in what way are Christians VICTORIOUS and over whom?

[Heretic]

What movie is that Clint picture from? Must be recent because he's looking a little mature. But Clint is just like a fine wine, he gets better as he ages.

Guess you haven't seen Gran Torino yet Have ya.

[Kilarin]

Well Kilarin, one of those "god given rights" is LIFE. I want my government to protect it

I certainly agree that the government has a responsibility to try and prevent murder.

at what point do you allow a society's citizens TOTAL freedom to do whatever they want, even if it impacts others? In other words, to hell with the rights of the whole, the individual is king. Don't you think that the group, society, has rights too? Government is supposed to balance the rights and freedoms of individuals against the rights and freedoms of all of society. We all have to live together as a whole, not as a mob of self-centered cretins.

I'm really not so much worried about the rights of "society", but society is made up of individuals who have rights, and those rights must be protected, even against the tyranny of the majority. My rights end where yours begin. I don't have the right to start fires on my property that endanger your property. I don't have the right to go and beat someone up because they converted my son to a different religion. And even if the majority of society thinks homosexuality is a sin, they don't have the right to tell grownups what they can do with their genitals behind closed doors.

Which brings us to:

And if the majority of society prefers seeing "In God We Trust", should it not then be allowed?

The founding fathers of the US established a constitutional republic instead of a true democracy to prevent exactly that. The tyranny of the majority. In a true democracy, the majority can do whatever they like. In a constitutional republic, the constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the minority. Its not perfect, because a large enough and mean enough majority can always amend (or ignore) the constitution and do what they want. But its the best model we have.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Franklin, Benjamin

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

[AlphaDoG]

AlphaDog, explain to me in what way are Christians VICTORIOUS and over whom?

Kind of late right now, I'll get back to this in the morning.

[AlphaDoG]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Franklin, Benjamin

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

I could not have said it better. Thank you Ben and Tom.

[Neo]

And even if the majority of society thinks homosexuality is a sin, they don't have the right to tell grownups what they can do with their genitals behind closed doors.

But they be lookin' like a fool with they pants on the ground. =P

[null0010]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Franklin, Benjamin

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

I could not have said it better. Thank you Ben and Tom.

That is why federalism was invented.

[AlphaDoG]

AlphaDog, explain to me in what way are Christians VICTORIOUS and over whom?

Kind of late right now, I'll get back to this in the morning.

I'm not a preacher, but let me say this for I believe it to be true.

When a Christian asks for forgiveness in Christ Jesus and turns away from sin, that Christian is VICTORIOUS over death. So you see TC, you can not bait me into saying we are VICTORIOUS over another human, instead, Victory over death is what I personally strive for.

All human flesh will perish eventually, the flesh is but a vessel for the soul and spirit which will live in perpetuity either in Heaven or Hell, and each individual has the FREE WILL to choose their destiny.

50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—
52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
55 "Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

[CUDA]

CUDA, maybe I'm over blowing things, but out of curiosity, which Christian rights do you think the rest of secular society has been trampling on lately? A lot of Christians seem to be up in arms about SOMETHING the rest of us are doing.

a few examples of somethings that have been done recently. and I will not address the BROAD brush stroke of "the rest of us"

A Christian private-school teacher is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow constitutionally protected prayer outside the court building after her class was "abruptly" ordered to stop praying on the grounds.

Maureen Rigo, a teacher at Wickenburg Christian Academy in Arizona, took her class to the Supreme Court complex May 5 for an educational tour.

The students stood off to the side at the bottom steps of the Oval Plaza, bowed their heads and quietly prayed amongst themselves, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal team Rigo contacted after the incident.

"Even though they were not obstructing traffic, not demonstrating and praying quietly in a conversational tone so as to not attract attention, a court police officer approached the group and told them to stop praying in that public area immediately," ADF reported. "The prayer was stopped based on a statute, 40 U.S.C. §6135, which bars parades and processions on Supreme Court grounds."

Article 1 'Or the Free exercise there of"
Article 20 Right to peaceful assembly

This upholds the right to peaceful assembly which should not be denied except in situations of national security or public safety. The right to violent assembly is not upheld. However, international standards limit the use of force by authorities in controlling peaceful or non-peaceful assemblies. International standards require that law enforcement officials should use force only as a last resort, in proportion to the threat posed, and in a way to minimize damage or injury

In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. This act demanded many religious accommodations to be made on public property. In 1993, a federal court mandated a San Diego district to allow students to have religious activities during lunchtime.

In spite of this, we hear of teachers being fired for silently reading a personal Bible during a study hall. Students are not allowed to have student-led Christian prayer at graduations. Students from parochial schools are denied open gym time at the local public school in their district

and this one is local
Example 3. Athey Creek Middle school had rented out their facilities to a local church for 11 years. along with renting it to various other secular organizations.
recently 1 new member of the school board objected to this use AGAINST the schools wishes, as the Church had been a model renter and had purchased many new things that the school was in need of in these tough economic times. yet in violation of the law passed in 2000 referenced in my previous example. the school board kicked the church out, while at the same time allowing the other secular oganizations to remain.

these are just a few examples of thisngs that the "rest of us" do on a regular basis.

[null0010]

A Christian private-school teacher is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to allow constitutionally protected prayer outside the court building after her class was "abruptly" ordered to stop praying on the grounds.

Maureen Rigo, a teacher at Wickenburg Christian Academy in Arizona, took her class to the Supreme Court complex May 5 for an educational tour.

The students stood off to the side at the bottom steps of the Oval Plaza, bowed their heads and quietly prayed amongst themselves, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal team Rigo contacted after the incident.

"Even though they were not obstructing traffic, not demonstrating and praying quietly in a conversational tone so as to not attract attention, a court police officer approached the group and told them to stop praying in that public area immediately," ADF reported. "The prayer was stopped based on a statute, 40 U.S.C. §6135, which bars parades and processions on Supreme Court grounds."

Article 1 'Or the Free exercise there of"
Article 20 Right to peaceful assembly

This upholds the right to peaceful assembly which should not be denied except in situations of national security or public safety. The right to violent assembly is not upheld. However, international standards limit the use of force by authorities in controlling peaceful or non-peaceful assemblies. International standards require that law enforcement officials should use force only as a last resort, in proportion to the threat posed, and in a way to minimize damage or injury

That's a security thing. No security team anywhere would like seeing a group of people huddling together like that. I've worked in security, and while my first thought is hardly, "terrorists!" it is still standard policy to disrupt/disperse such groups.

[CUDA]

\"The prayer was stopped based on a statute, 40 U.S.C. §6135, which bars parades and processions on Supreme Court grounds.\"

you must have missed this part.

and the prayer was neither a Parade or a procession

[flip]

Yeah and not to mention Null that makes you a part of the problem. Dispersing people \"before\" anything happens is to totally trample on their rights as citizens and free Americans and I'm pretty sure when and if the @#$% ever hits the fan, people like you will be held accountable. The police officer in this instance was wrong and stepped outside of his place and oath. Just a fear monger in my opinion and uses the fear of \"what if\" to keep slowly tightening the noose. Everybody complains about Obama and Bush but nobody ever seems to realize that socialism is entirely impossible without the \"henchmen\".

[Tunnelcat]

at what point do you allow a society's citizens TOTAL freedom to do whatever they want, even if it impacts others? In other words, to hell with the rights of the whole, the individual is king. Don't you think that the group, society, has rights too? Government is supposed to balance the rights and freedoms of individuals against the rights and freedoms of all of society. We all have to live together as a whole, not as a mob of self-centered cretins.

I'm really not so much worried about the rights of "society", but society is made up of individuals who have rights, and those rights must be protected, even against the tyranny of the majority. My rights end where yours begin. I don't have the right to start fires on my property that endanger your property. I don't have the right to go and beat someone up because they converted my son to a different religion. And even if the majority of society thinks homosexuality is a sin, they don't have the right to tell grownups what they can do with their genitals behind closed doors.

Which brings us to:

And if the majority of society prefers seeing "In God We Trust", should it not then be allowed?

The founding fathers of the US established a constitutional republic instead of a true democracy to prevent exactly that. The tyranny of the majority. In a true democracy, the majority can do whatever they like. In a constitutional republic, the constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the minority. Its not perfect, because a large enough and mean enough majority can always amend (or ignore) the constitution and do what they want. But its the best model we have.

I agree with everything you've stated here Kilarin. I have no argument. However, the tyranny of the majority always seems to rear it's ugly head whenever a particular majority starts seeing it's majority power waning. White European Americans are now experiencing that very situation and they don't seem to be taking it very well. In fact, they're getting downright hostile, especially towards Latino, Black and Asian Americans, which are a growing segment of the U.S. population. I see this as the major reason for the upsurge of the Tea Party. Oh, they use other excuses like the big deficits and big government, which are problems by the way, but it really comes down to losing majority rule and power in the U.S. Why do you think all the White Militias are gearing up NOW? Why do you think that Christians are whining about a 'Culture War" that needs to be won?

CUDA, I see no problem with prayers in large, open public places and peacefully assembling to do so, as long as all groups are given that right equally. The problem I is see is when it involves a captive public audience and a confined space that doesn't allow for freedom of movement away from that group using the space. Public schools are a good example. These are NOT places of worship, they are places of learning and are supposed to be a secular environment, free of religious indoctrination. If a parent wishes to teach his or her child about their personal religion, they are free to do so in their own place of worship and private home. Why insist upon prayer in the public schools when it clearly violates the secular nature of those schools? As a taxpayer, I willingly pay taxes to support a public school system, but only if it's secular and free from any religion. If Christians don't like gays, for example, that's their right within their personal belief system. But when they have to deal with the public and those public spaces, they'll either have to work with those they dislike or be denied public access. Find a private space if need be.

AlphaDog, you can ask forgiveness from Jesus and claim victory over death if it pleases you and makes you happy. That's what religion is for and there's even a region of the brain that deals with religiosity. I'm not against that or denying it to you. But please, let others follow their own beliefs, even if they don't mesh with yours. Your religion is not any more superior to what others believe or live, despite what you may think, so frankly, Christianity really needs to stay out of public politics since it influences us ALL.

Heretic, I haven't seen that Clint movie yet, but it's definitely one I've been meaning to see.

[Heretic]

Just out of curiosity how many White European Americans are standing on street corners calling for the killing of black babies. In fact why not do a search with these words.

\"White people calling for the death of blacks\"

With bing you get this for the top choice

http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/b ... cks_to.htm

Google you get this for number one

http://www.martinlutherking.org/rapperlyrics.html

Here try these words \"White people killing blacks\"

See what you get there.

Oh you dropped your sign again

[CUDA]

CUDA, I see no problem with prayers in large, open public places and peacefully assembling to do so, as long as all groups are given that right equally. The problem I is see is when it involves a captive public audience and a confined space that doesn't allow for freedom of movement away from that group using the space. Public schools are a good example. These are NOT places of worship, they are places of learning and are supposed to be a secular environment, free of religious indoctrination. If a parent wishes to teach his or her child about their personal religion, they are free to do so in their own place of worship and private home. Why insist upon prayer in the public schools when it clearly violates the secular nature of those schools? As a taxpayer, I willingly pay taxes to support a public school system, but only if it's secular and free from any religion. If Christians don't like gays, for example, that's their right within their personal belief system. But when they have to deal with the public and those public spaces, they'll either have to work with those they dislike or be denied public access. Find a private space if need be.

you have just made my point about "what the rest of us do" Thx

free of religious indoctrination

personally I take offense at your implication that anytime a prayer is spoken in a public place or religion is talked about in a school or a a government building it's indoctrination. its called freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship or limitation, or both.

why do you wish to censor us???? are you that afraid of our way of thinking????

in·doc·tri·nate
   /ɪnˈdɒktrəˌneɪt/ Show Spelled[in-dok-truh-neyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1.
to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

the right to talk about or teach "religion" does NOT constitute indoctrination. this is no different than talking about or teaching Math, Science, Liberal arts. its called educating

teach
   /titʃ/ Show Spelled [teech] Show IPA verb, taught, teach·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in:

Why is Imparting Knowledge of God such a scary prospect for the Non-believer. if your as smart as you claim to be or we are as dumb as you claim us to be you should be able to reason it for your selves. Why can't a school have elective classes on religion? isn't that what school is supposed to be about? enlightenment??? free thinking????
why do you need such protection from the education process.

‘We are at times too ready to believe that the present is the only possible state of things.’

— Marcel Proust

oh and FYI Gran Torino is an Excellent Movie

[Bet51987]

.

[Isaac]

oh and FYI Gran Torino is an Excellent Movie

x2, by today's standards...

[null0010]

Yeah and not to mention Null that makes you a part of the problem. Dispersing people "before" anything happens is to totally trample on their rights as citizens and free Americans and I'm pretty sure when and if the @#$% ever hits the fan, people like you will be held accountable. The police officer in this instance was wrong and stepped outside of his place and oath. Just a fear monger in my opinion and uses the fear of "what if" to keep slowly tightening the noose. Everybody complains about Obama and Bush but nobody ever seems to realize that socialism is entirely impossible without the "henchmen".

Are you ... serious? I'm talking about my experience with private security firms and applying it to this situation to try and make sense of it.

I never said I condoned this decision to break up that prayer ring or magic circle or whatever it was. I was merely trying to offer a possible reason it was done. It's called "trying to understand the other perspective."

[flip]

Oh sorry then. I was speaking in the context of a government official breaking up a peaceful assembly outside of a public courthouse and figured you were to. Just for the record I'm pretty sure the reason you gave for his actions is probably the right one too, but in his position it was a huge overstep and a common one at that.

[Kilarin]

http://xkcd.com/774/

[CUDA]

...The right to talk about or teach "religion" does NOT constitute indoctrination. this is no different than talking about or

teaching Math, Science, Liberal arts. its called educating.

Not when it comes to religion. Schools should teach the latest and most accepted theories whether it be mathematics, science, or what have you and there isn't enough time in the learning years to waste explaining the contradictions between religion and science where one says the earth was flooded with water and scientific evidence finds no genesis layer to support that. Kids shouldn't be taught that humans were created by an intelligent being. They should be taught the latest and most accepted theories.

... Why can't a school have elective classes on religion? isn't that what school is supposed to be about? enlightenment??? free thinking????

If you believe in "separation of church and state" then you must believe in total separation or there is no separation.

...why do you need such protection from the education process.

It's the other way around and I've been arguing that for years here. That's why I don't want religion taught in schools. It's a destructive environment for religion that will turn kids away.

Bee

Sorry until you answer my previous question here

...also then why the need for the ritual??? seems by his action it's a religion.

There isn't any need. He's just a crackpot who has some crackpots following him. We have no rituals or persons we pray to thus we have no religion. (In the true sense of the word)


Bee

Apparently your not familiar with one of the leading athiests in the country.

Currently, Kagin is host for the Internet radio show “Answers in Atheism,” www.answersinatheism.net . He is also the current National Legal Director, and Kentucky State Director, for American Atheists. He is on its speaker’s bureau and in 2008 was voted onto the Board of Directors of American Atheists, Inc.

and why is he a crackpot and not other athiests? and why is your brand of athiesm better than his???

your pulling your typical tactic, and your just a Troll so I will not have a direct discussion with you. because as I pointed out here.

viewtopic.php?t=17145&postdays=0&postor ... y&start=30

first you dont ask tough questions. and when you have asked me a direct question I HAVE answered you, then you for some unkown reason when you get asked a direct question you either deflect or you seem to conveniently drop from posting.

you always run away when your asked to answer anything. as you did earlier in this post. So first answer my question and then I will engage in a dialog with you.

[null0010]

Oh sorry then. I was speaking in the context of a government official breaking up a peaceful assembly outside of a public courthouse and figured you were to. Just for the record I'm pretty sure the reason you gave for his actions is probably the right one too, but in his position it was a huge overstep and a common one at that.

I agree that this was a huge overstep, but I also think that the people organizing this prayer ring were aware or expecting or hoping that something like this would happen, just so they could complain.

Prayer, to be effective, does not require physical proximity to the thing you are praying about. There was no metaphysical or spiritual reason that they needed to be in front of the Supreme Court building.

[CUDA]

I agree that this was a huge overstep, but I also think that the people organizing this prayer ring were aware or expecting or hoping that something like this would happen, just so they could complain.

And I'm sure you have something to back up this assumption???

[null0010]

I agree that this was a huge overstep, but I also think that the people organizing this prayer ring were aware or expecting or hoping that something like this would happen, just so they could complain.

And I'm sure you have something to back up this assumption???

It's something I would do.

[Fusion pimp]

you always run away when your asked to answer anything. as you did earlier in this post. So first answer my question and then I will engage in a dialog with you.

She won't answer your question. She avoids questions she doesn't like the answer to and will make up some absurd excuse to why she won't answer it. I know quite a few who have given up on discussing anything with her because of it.

Bett- I think you have a good heart, but you're unbelievably naive.

[Bet51987]

.

[CUDA]

Thank you

...The right to talk about or teach "religion" does NOT constitute indoctrination. this is no different than talking about or

teaching Math, Science, Liberal arts. its called educating.

Not when it comes to religion. Schools should teach the latest and most accepted theories whether it be mathematics, science, or what have you and there isn't enough time in the learning years to waste explaining the contradictions between religion and science where one says the earth was flooded with water and scientific evidence finds no genesis layer to support that. Kids shouldn't be taught that humans were created by an intelligent being. They should be taught the latest and most accepted theories.

so you are willing to teach something that is unproven as fact in the public school system just because it is the latest and most accepted theory???? is this what you call education????

ed·u·ca·tion   /ˌɛdʒʊˈkeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[ej-oo-key-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.

it seems to me if more people understood religion there might not be so much ignorance about it. Give them the Knowledge and let the idividual deciede. again dont be afraid.

plus your stance is not accepting the 1st amendment and our "freedom of religion". your stance is freedom from religion.

... Why can't a school have elective classes on religion? isn't that what school is supposed to be about? enlightenment??? free thinking????

If you believe in "separation of church and state" then you must believe in total separation or there is no separation.

what is "TOTAL" separation??? do you go as far as forbidding a member of the government from going to church?? or a Military Color guard from attending a funeral of a fallen soldier at a Church?? or how about Arlington National Cemetary?? its Government land and yet the Government pays to have crosses put on the graves of the soldiers. how does your "TOTAL" separation of church and state address this????

...why do you need such protection from the education process.

It's the other way around and I've been arguing that for years here. That's why I don't want religion taught in schools. It's a destructive environment for religion that will turn kids away.

Bee

how is it destructive?? examples please

[Kilarin]

That's why I don't want religion taught in schools. It's a destructive environment for religion that will turn kids away.

how is it destructive?? examples please

I'm going to agree with Bettina on teaching religion in public schools. Private school is a completely different animal.

The point being that if the public schools try to teach religion, they will have to do so under government control. Which means what you will end up with is some namby, pamby, washed down and mixed up religion with all of the life drained out of it.

Private school does not have to try and please everyone. A private school can actually teach the doctrine of a specific and real religion.

Religion does not belong in the public school system. Either give your kid his religious education at home and school, or, if you want a religious educational environment, actually send the munchkin to a private school of your choice. It costs, but its worth it.

Now then, where Bettina and I will diverge, of course, is on whether Intelligent Design is inherently religious.

In my opinion: Science used to have a problem with spending its time trying to support religion. Science shouldn't do that. Unfortunately, instead of changing science to have an objective point of view, it just switched religions. Now Science defends Naturalism instead of Christianity.

But, we've BEEN through that argument many times before. No need to rabbit trail down that path again.

[flip]

I agree that this was a huge overstep, but I also think that the people organizing this prayer ring were aware or expecting or hoping that something like this would happen, just so they could complain.

Maybe, but then I would call that a peaceful demonstration and free exercise of constitutional rights. Use them or lose them. I'll give another example of the same nature.
Here in GA it is legal to open carry a knife, which I do. Now the GA Assembly has specifically made a law stating that no other government agency in GA can make weapons laws except for the assembly themselves.
Now every school in GA has posted on the front door that no weapons are allowed period, but that's not really the case because the law specifically says I can open carry a knife or concealed carry with a permit, so I do.
Whenever I go to a school function, I continue to exercise my rights to open carry, even knowing I might be hassled. I do this purposely because first it is my right and second so others will know it is their right also. I have seen many times while doing this, people discreetly find a police officer and \"inform\" them I was carrying.
One time I even overheard a deputy sheriff whisper to the chief of police \"He has a knife on school grounds isn't that illegal?\" and the chief then replied \"according to GA law he has that right and that's whats wrong with America today, people don't know their rights.\" I was impressed by 2 things there. First, was the response of the chief of police, and secondly, that the deputy sheriff had no idea. I feel by openly exercising your rights is first to keep them, and secondly, to educate others that don't know as to what they are. That's the only way to keep them from silently fading away.