|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|12-14-2006 11:19 AM|
Christianity has been a big part of this country, and will continue to be one. There is no great conspiracy to make this a godless country. If you dont get to put up your savior on the cross on the white house lawn it does not mean you are being prosecuted. Take a look at what real religious prosecution looks like (look up something on the spanish inquisition, or lebanons christian population, or all the crap in dafur), and you will see the difference. No one is getting burned at the stake, or shot, or imprisoned. Quit the wining already.
To the other side: Are you retards? How is it that an organization that is supposed to fight FOR civil rights, is obsessed with taking them away? Where are those people who are seriously offended by merry christmas? Get over it. Everybody puts up trees and gives presents. Its a fun time, its good for the economy. If you choose not to believe in the origins of it, then dont. I mean no one throws a fit over halloween, right? (I'm probably wrong, I heard some catholics were upset about it). What difference does it make if a judge has a cross in his chambers, or on the front of the courthouse? Ok, yes it sends a message that can be misenterpreted, but so what? How many confusing messages do we encounter on a daily basis?
Here is my personal policy. I'll celebrate any holidays I'll get paid to celebrate. If someone suggested we get a month of for rammadan, I'm right there with them! I dont care if the dollar bill in my pocket says "In God We Trust" or "All Hail Satan" on it. what I do care about, is wether this dollar bill can buy me a gallon of gas, or just over a third of one.
If you are for some reason offended with other peoples religious beliefs, find a way of dealing with it, that does not involve wasting everyone else's time. Dont like the pledge of alligence? Too bad, its already written this way.
Common people, we are involved in a massive war (which everyone has hot feelings about) we are trying to outmanuever 2 massive economies. Who cares if we call it a xmas tree of a holiday tree? Is it too much to ask from our govenring bodies to occupy themselves with something important, or at least usefull?
|11-24-2006 03:31 PM|
Sidenotes: just read Kissinger's comments on Usa Today......
WTF he's still alive? OMG....Impressive........
On topic....The way i see it....Yes, our country was founded with Christianity roots, has some symbols, and wording in laws, Blah, blah, blah, fine.....we still Offer fredom of religion, Our govenment dont throw our founding religious beliefs into issues constantly, or brow beat other religions within the country.....all the nit picking now between any religions needs to end....."I think we are talking about only one religion doing the pissing and moaning here, right?.....not going to mention the.... Said religion....."
It's not like Lutherans and Catholics are car bombing eachother here.... ...although both are christian.....
"I still don't get how any true Christians could ever be so nasty to each other but the history says time and again that they could....." Yeah, that is an interesting point, it may just have been a pissing match, but still.....
Very interesting point....
Anyways....should be "when in Rome....."
I mean, If I moved tooooo...........Egypt......I'm not gonna go to the local ACLU equivalant and piss and moan about not having a Burger King and too much hummus for sale, or vacation in Sweden and complain because too many chicks are blond... Religious freedom here......do your thing, shut up, done......simple concept.
|11-24-2006 12:24 PM|
Actually those front lawn restrictions are usually covenants in restricted small neighborhood organizations, not as a matter of public policy. They are for the neighborhood orpanization only and are part of a contract drawn up by the property owners. It's the contract aspect that carries any possibility of enforcement, not public law specifically on that topic.
Now, on public owned property, like a courthouse, it does step into a different realm because of the government, therfore public, ownership. The government isn't allowed to support religion as a matter of law, and rightly so. This is the stuff that gets so much press but is really straightforward if you step back a couple paces and look at it in the big picture. There are many borderline abuses of this and if somebody chooses to make an issue of it, they have a good chance of winning it. It's not likely to survive a challenge in court.
It's often the ACLU that gets involved in these things as well as many public policy issues and as far as I'm concerned, I'm glad they do. Most don't make the public's radar screen because they aren't sexxy enough, but most have real personal rights repercussions for all of us. If you ever find yourself in a spot you'll be glad they're there for you because you couldn't afford to do it on your own.
Something a lot of people don't remember is that the judges, from the lowest court to the Supreme Court, don't seek out issues and then pass judgement. The issue must be brought to them in some form of legal action. They listen to the arguements and apply the law to their best judgement... keyword judge. Appeals to higher courts exist to add layers of additional recourse in an attempt to make sure that all parties have a fair chance, especially when they feel their judgement was wrong.
While we're at it, "Legislating from the bench" is a nasty catch phrase that often gets used to pigeon hole judges who have usually done nothing but apply the law or the Constitution. Most of the time it's the law that's not clearly worded in its intent or steps over the bounds of Constitutionality. It's then up to the legislatures to either write the law properly in the first place, go back and fix it so it's clear, or get a Constitutional Ammendment for those laws that can't meet that requirement. Other than that, shutup when something was tried that didn't pass muster and the judge did no more than his job with the rules he was handed. More often than not, the "legislating from the bench" charge is a case of "shooting the messenger", blaming the judge for your inability to have your way when it's against the Constitution or against the law.
|11-24-2006 11:25 AM|
|11-23-2006 03:22 PM|
I looked it up. Per the US Treasury web site: The addition of "In God We Trust" to our currency was first in 1864, Civil War time, and was on coins only. Makes sense that that would be the time frame in light of the issues and upheaval of the time. It was first added to paper currency in 1957. It was in conjunction with the addition of "..under God" to the Pledge of Allegience.
Doesn't sound like any impression left from some recent discussions, does it?
|11-23-2006 02:53 PM|
Thanksgiving as a National Holiday can be called a secular holiday but it has religious overtones and is often adopted in some way by different religions. Much of the country's choices through the years have religious overtones and it's therefore not at all inaccurate to acknowledge that we live in a country with a largely Judeo-Christian ethic. It'd be silly to think that when that's who set it up, it would be devoid of any such tone. The problem starts when those things are injected directly into secular government.
An awareness of these problems was very much a part of this country's history. A large part of what brought many of the earliest immigrants here, and a large part of why the founding fathers were so against state sponsored religion, was their direct experience with religious persecution throughout Europe by zealots, virtually ALL Christian, just not THEIR particular BRAND of Christianity... (which I still find patently contradictory). It's what drove the founding fathers to insist that they be seperate and it's that history that makes me agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!
I still don't get how any true Christians could ever be so nasty to each other but the history says time and again that they could, and it'd be utterly stupid to think we can re-visit that scene with the power of law, with any different result. Then throw in some other religions from elsewhere and the anticipated results become impossible. The founding fathers had quite enough of that in Europe and wisely set it up so we wouldn't do that ANYMORE.
And if that's not enough, look around the world today and see how religion based countries do for their citizens. It gets ugly. The freedom IS here, folks CAN be religious, and we don't need the state to stick their nose in it. In fact, we can do quite a bit better WITHOUT that. The fact that religion has thrived here makes that case beautifully. Let's keep it that way and NOT screw it up. And even better yet, for those who ARE religious, any religion, does your God need the help of some politicians to manage HIS affairs? I hardly think so. Believe what you will, live that, and hope you're right on Judgement day.
Soooo, Merry Christmas!
|11-23-2006 08:31 AM|
And where's Vash?
Can Vash come out and play?
|11-23-2006 08:30 AM|
I'm still wondering where Thanksgiving falls in...
|11-23-2006 06:53 AM|
IMO, whether you're religious or not, it's best for all to keep that out of government. It has a way of biting all involved in embarrassing places.
|11-23-2006 04:31 AM|
Funny how Christianity functioned soo long in this country, parallel to other religions, without a fuss untill the late 90s.
I dont know how many people know it, but there is a LLLLLOT of religions practiced in the United States.
Only one or two keep stirring up Shait,....in the metro detroit area, at least....while one can broadcast it's prayer time thru bull horns and loud speakers for all the public to hear, yet another is obstructed from having its home owners put their own symbols of faith on their own front lawn, on their own property.
Even Paganisim never drew this much attention......
I hate to ponder the future of this county if things do not change.
If I spent the time to send the ACLU anything, it would be bad.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|