anoasis - what would you have thought, what would you have done?
Adj, TLW, Mass - all of you, would there simply have been acceptance and calm and quiet?

Can you, do you imagine a large group of people the majority being Christian, would have sat silently, stayed silent????

Is there any offence at all?

LW – forgive me, but what point were you trying to make with the Declaration of Independence?

You wrote:
“”… my point, neither sexual preference nor ethnicity should be a basis for an individual or group to express him or themselves, so if the beautiful document called the constitution protects them why should it not protect every other single human being for professing his/her faith. “”

A person’s gender, gender preference or ethnicity is not a belief. Groups of people express themselves all the time. However, we don’t as a rule allow people to walk around nude, exclaiming the wonders of the human body. Do you find that an infringement of human rights?

You also say:
“”I feel that we are so biased against Christianity that sometimes we grab anything at reach to attack it.””

Are you talking about Christianity or about Catholicism? I have been on forums and to my utter disgust I see how ‘even other Christians’ attach the Catholic faith, a great many don’t even consider them Christians.

Many Christian choose to home school their children, because they don’t want them exposed to Wiccan, or Islamic or other “unwholesome” influences. Why? What influence are they exposed that others are not exposed with them around. What influence is in school that’s not in every part of society? So who’s being biased? Who is showing all this bias?

ADJ wrote:
“”from original post third paragraph
Due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, I am told that saying a Prayer is a violation of Federal Case Law.””

The speech in the OP is from 2000, it’s not so current.

You also ask:
“”should a homosexual be prevented from professing their homosexuality in a public place if employed by the state or should an ethnic group be banned for promoting their ethnicity in a public place if a public employee.””

I think it’s only been in the last 24 months that Federal and civil employment practices ‘included’ language prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals. Prior to that many hundred lost their jobs, when “their secret” was discovered or “uncovered”. Since heterosexuals can discuss their spouses, their dates, and in so doing ‘proclaim’ their heterosexuality, I think homosexuals can too.

Of course that’s only for federal and civil employees, many states do not have such employment practices, and hundreds loose or are restricted from jobs because of their homosexuality. So, at this time homosexuals DON’T have freedom of speech, not without great personal risk.



You also keep bringing this up so I will address it.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”
What that means is that anyone has the right to establish a church, a tabernacle, a temple or have a tent and call it “Heaven’s Gate”. It means that this government can not impede a new religion from cultivating members and they can’t deny any person or group from establishing and operating a belief system. (However, for some reason, NO ONE, ever mentions that those who practice Voodoo are prohibited from sacrificing animals)

” or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
It means that this government can not impede a new religion from cultivating members and they can’t deny any person or group from establishing and operating a belief system. (However, for some reason, NO ONE, ever mentions that those who practice Voodoo are prohibited from sacrificing animals)


EXCEPT for Voodoo; do you see anywhere that the law is prohibiting or interfering with the right of ‘LIKE MINDED’ people to congregate for fellowship? Is there anything prohibiting ANY person from attending a house of worship of their choice? Or creating a new one?

“or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”
I think many misunderstand what this freedom provides. It provides this country a means of open communication. We can freely speak to the press, and they can freely print our views. We can put signs stating our views on our personal property. Continue for more ways to freely speak.

“ or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”

Peaceably assemble, as in rent a hall and hold a rally. Because of abuses to the peaceably part, we must now obtain permit to assemble. That way, when the KKK comes to town the law is available to maintain the peace. We can also gather in our courthouses, statehouses, and town halls for the purpose of discussing legal affairs of the community or state.

And we have the right to petition (email, call, write) our representatives for “a redress of grievances”.

These things are ABSOLUTELY ALIVE AND WELL, and if there is a so great an offence being committed against Christians than ALL of these avenues are available.

HOWEVER, the above freedoms can be abused by anyone who would use a public forum, in a gathering designed for a particular purpose, to force others to listen to their personal opinions and views. Just because one has a microphone does not automatically give them freedom to speak their mind.

Eljay Said;
““No Islam is not interested in converting the world to its philosophy; it would rather eliminate those who don't adhere to it. That is what upsets me.””

What’s the difference between getting rid of people who don’t believe NOW, versus sending them to hell when they die?

If a good person is murdered, will he not go to heaven? And if an evil person is killed, will they not go to hell?
Islam believes exactly that, just as you do, that’s why they are willing to martyr themselves because they believe they are right.
So who has more faith?

Bias and bigotry take many forms, but the one place we can not afford to let it slip into, is our laws. But it's already there, and has been there for a long time.

What some percieve as Bias, is only the correction of a flaw that existed, because the minority it affected was not 'free' enough to affect a change.

The minorities have rallied and they have PROPERLY used their freedom of speech, and their ability to redress their grievances. The laws are being set right. But any who think otherwise, have the same 'legal' freedoms to follow the course of actions designed to allow you to speek, to the right people, at the right time.

--- Mass - all of you, would there simply have been acceptance and calm and quiet?

Di, as far as I'm concerned, I live in a barbaric society. The US is in its second major oil-related war in recent years, and even the war protestors are driving SUVs. Self proclaimed environmentalists are rationalizing their support of the beef and pork industries with biology. Bouncers are using threats and intimidation to annex public property and roadways for their club's private use, and I'm the only one who fights it. (and only when it effects me personally) Newbie cops basely interfering with the right of free movement, because they need to 'prove whose in charge' - and cops who knowingly, deliberately lie about the law. Every night I say good night to at least 2 dozen crack heads (walking home) who are turning into zombies...the list goes on and on.

So, Di, yes, I already practice a lot of acceptance and calm and quiet. I might sit calmly and not respond, though I'll be thinking about options and their likely effects. Measure twice, cut once. Study the system, and choose methods/circumstances of influence where there is the most gain. I don't react to every wrongness I experience, I try to look for root causes.

excerpt form reds post


” or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
It means that this government can not impede a new religion from cultivating members and they can’t deny any person or group from establishing and operating a belief system. (However, for some reason, NO ONE, ever mentions that those who practice Voodoo are prohibited from sacrificing animals)

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

where does it say it is for

It means that this government can not impede a new religion from cultivating members

is that not a discrimination against established religion
possible trying to cultivate new members

or if the church of the blue leaves want to say
lets have a prayer at the football game it would be ok

i feel you are taking a dangerous liberty in your definition

how did you come up with it

Animal sacrifice and the law

In 1993 C.E., the Supreme Court decided to strike down a law against animal sacrifice. However, the decision does NOT mean that animal sacrifice is necessarily legal. It forbade laws which single out animal sacrifice in particular. But animal sacrifice can still be prosecuted under other, more general laws, e.g. against cruelty to animals, depending on where you live.

from
http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/politics/animal-sacr.html

from reds post

Many Christian choose to home school their children, because they don’t want them exposed to Wiccan, or Islamic or other “unwholesome” influences. Why? What influence are they exposed that others are not exposed with them around. What influence is in school that’s not in every part of society? So who’s being biased? Who is showing all this bias?

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

i wonder if those that do this are not do their children a deservice

not for the fact that they are home schooled

but for the fact they are sterilizing their environment

what happens when they grow up and the world is thrust upon them

how will they know what to think about something they are isolated from

red

i liked your coincided post

very good

would they sit quietly i doubt it

would they be right --- depends on their action

if they want to get up and walk out cool

if they wanna attack the 9th graders not so cool

and did those 9th graders parents teach them
that they are permitted to refuse to do that which is
against their beliefs

i still feel it is up to the parent to be responsible to upbring and for basic education of their children's lifestyle

yes this is a fine line and a tangled web both at
the same time

is there an easy answer --- no way

but does that mean we should use bad reasons for a infringement of a person's or a groups liberty's and rights -- no way

i wish i had the answer to this perilis situation

but giving the government the power of censorship is not it

they already have to much power in most areas

again i must say

i sure dislike (hate even)

arguing for organized religion

aaaaarrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

insert self hair pulling emoticon here

I wrote:
“It means that this government can not impede a new religion from cultivating members”

Adj replied:
“”is that not a discrimination against established religion
possible trying to cultivate new members””

ADJ – the freedom this constitution provides MUST maintain a balance between the rights of an individual and the rights of society. In this, there is a hierarchy. What is best for society is to limit the opportunity for unnecessary confrontation, or irritation, or oppression. For each individual to go about the pursuit of their happiness, they must be feel safe and protected within the society they exist. That means being free from harassment, free for discrimination, FREE FROM THE STATE overriding anything that the constitution has set forth.

As you can see, for a society, like ours, the whole is more important than the individual, but only because individuals benefit the most from a peaceful society where intrusion by other individual opinion, views and beliefs, are kept to a minimum. In this way we can be tolerant and accept that each is entitled to the same freedoms, as long as they fit the parameters that maintain a balance for the most peaceful society possible

In other words – no one is stopping door to door sales calls, not even for religion. No one is prohibiting the distribution of religious pamphlets – I get at least 5 a month were I work. All of them Christian, not that I care, it’s just that I’m a captive audience in that environment. Because I MUST work, and to keep my job I can not voice MY OPINION, to customers who persist in trying to convert me.

ADJ write:
“”or if the church of the blue leaves want to say
lets have a prayer at the football game it would be ok “”

What we are discussing here in this thread is what you are referring to. What has happened in society is the “personal” the "individual" has become the ALL IMPORTANT factor. By maintaining such a view, there is no respect given to the freedoms and comforts of others in society. We must be able to discern where the line is between the value of ‘personal’ and the value of society as a whole.

We can’t give the ‘individual’ the right to lead others in prayer, because there is no single prayer that could possibly cover all the belief systems adequately, fairly. Silent ‘prayer’ or ‘meditation’, also ignores the fact that non-believers may feel some oppression from being constantly forced to be witness to such things.

Public acceptance of such things such personal intrusion is often due to the fact that those with an opposing view are in the minority, and most of the time that minority is not considered worthy of respect. That is discrimination, by those who feel they have MORE right to THEIR freedom than another.

Adj:
“”In 1993 C.E., the Supreme Court decided to strike down a law against animal sacrifice. However, the decision does NOT mean that animal sacrifice is necessarily legal. It forbade laws which single out animal sacrifice in particular. But animal sacrifice can still be prosecuted under other, more general laws, e.g. against cruelty to animals, depending on where you live.””


NO LAW OUTSIDE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS TO SUPERCEDE THE BASIC FEDERAL CODE. In this case the freedom to worship as ones believes.

Some courses of action are meant to keep peace and order and to maintain the comfort level in society as a whole. Such a course of action should never be taken lightly, for the simple fact that is may put limits on what another does with their beliefs. So society and ultimately our elected representatives determine what will most effectively maintain the civility that allows individuals the comfort level necessary to pursue their goals.

Adj writes:
“”i feel you are taking a dangerous liberty in your definition
how did you come up with it””

First we must understand the history that led to the creation of this republic. In that history we can see all the elements of government that our founders sought to eliminate. They did this by taking the overall view that for a society to allow every citizen certain basic human rights, that government had to be formed to administer the laws that would enable society as a whole to function with civility.

Our history is abundantly rich with letters and written documents that provide the thought processes, that defined what a civil society of free and equal citizens would consist of. The arguments that are bantered, the support and the disagreements, that led to the making of a document, of a government is an exemplary testament to critical thinking. Through this testament we are privy to the thought processes that ultimately defined what the goals and ideals of this country should be.

BUT, what was created is only a foundation piece. In order to continue to attain the idealistic state that it’s offering attempts to provide, we have to ‘amend’ it as time and change bring inconsistencies to light. And always it must be maintained that Freedom of the individual requires that society respects and is willing to give others the same benefit from every law.

If that fails, we create laws that protect that 'ideal', before the individual. The individual may be in the majority, or in the minority. But if their actions continue to interrupt the peace of a civil environment and they can not be swayed from disrupting the peace, than a law is required to restrain such action.

For 200 years the vast majority of this country held to Christianity. For that reason it permeated every sector of civility. When the minorities became a group large enough to contest this, it began to disrupt the peace.

This gave new light to the numbers of people who felt their freedom to pursue their goals was being impeded. When the freedom of enough individuals is at stake and is causing disruption in the public sector, then we have to defer to the historicity that led to our founding Constitution. This includes all the idealism it was created with to determine how best to amend it.

That has been done. It is now up to individuals to respect the rights of others, and allow them the pursuit of their religion, WITHOUT, being forced to bear witness to or par-take of or adhere to anything that would signify that one group has any more freedom than another.

ADJ writes:
“”and did those 9th graders parents teach them
that they are permitted to refuse to do that which is
against their beliefs””

Surely you can’t be arguing that they stand on the law? You know, the one that allows us the freedom FROM religious view? This is in contradiction to what you’re arguing against. We either ALL have the right to be free from the religious views of others, or we don’t.

Now here’s another view of your surmise. Why should ANY CHILD in ANY public arena be put in a position of having to determine WHEN their beliefs are being infringed upon?

Also, there is much dispute, today, about the lack of respect for adults, and authority, not to mention peers. Now why, as adults, would we want to worry about other adults into whose care we are putting our children?

This alone is reason enough to prohibit anything more than private, personal religious beliefs in our PUBLIC domains. How can anyone expect to raise civil, caring, concerned citizens when we can’t even trust other adults, who are in positions of authority, where our children are concerned?

Finally you write:
“”i still feel it is up to the parent to be responsible to upbring and for basic education of their children's lifestyle””

That’s the most logical point you can make for supporting what I have been saying all along. Individuals who have equality and are granted the pursuit of their individual goals, are indeed allowed to teach any lifestyle they will to THEIR children.

But any parent who neglects to teach that this lifestyle is a privilege, the right to which can only be claimed if the same rights are granted to others, is only teaching an individualistic view. This is the kind of views that puts the individual before society, that regards the individual comforts without regard to society and in this thread, and others, this is the value that I’ve seen permeating throughout.

The Constitution and it's supporting codes and laws are the sum total of an idealistic premise that people must have the rights to pursue their goals.

This premise takes the stand that peace and civility are the best way to provide a comfortable land of opportunity, free from government oppression and public discrimination.

That is the basis for a "Republic, of the poeple, for the people and by the poeple"

i have yet to see a response to this comment

which is the reason i am debating the point i am debating

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

one of my previous posts ::::::::::

the street corner side walk is also

funded by public money

did you even read my other post

if anything funded w/public money can be dictated

then b4 long free speech will be a thing of the past

Redy wrote:

"What’s the difference between getting rid of people who don’t believe NOW, versus sending them to hell when they die?"

>>> Because no one is SENT to hell, they chose it for themselves. For the correct interpretation is that if you do not CHOSE to spend eternity with God, you most surely will not.

i posted the declaration of independance because that was the first official document of this nation, and in this document God is mentioned.
therefore, I argue that this country was founded by believers.
since about 30 or 40 years ago the traditional customs of this country have been changed to satisfy certain groups, and that is just perfect for me, but if these groups are getting the right they deserve (notice I'm saying that they as human beings deserve those rights), but once they get their rights be happy with that, don't try to take over the rights of the other people who have been christian for generations.

DJ- I responded to your previous posts ::::::::::

"the street corner side walk is also
funded by public money
did you even read my other post
if anything funded w/public money can be dictated
then b4 long free speech will be a thing of the past"

But I will try to be clearer, perhaps I put too many thoughts into one post and so jumbled it...

I have no problem with the principal, or anyone else, praying at a football game or on a street corner, on a bus, on a plane in a car in a bar in a house with a mouse,

well you get the idea. But here he did 2 things that were really wrong:

1. He used his position as principal to create a captive audiance for his disparagement of others. E.g. His comments about gays, birth control users, environmentalists, etc. No head of a school should encourage their students to make fun of each other.

2. He didn't just pray, he had a microphone only because of his position and he abused that position by co-ercing others to pray with him. That is an abuse of power not free speech.

I say again, we don't necessarily have free speech at work. If you cuss at a cliant you will be fired. He should be fired.

Redy-

I would do the same no matter who the prayer was to or about, I would not participate and I would ask others if they felt this was appropriate and a good example to our children.

I'm assuming I might be somewhat limited in my movement- being in a football stands. I would take my children and leave. If possible I would try to speak to the principal to tell him how wrong I felt his actions were... but it might not be possible to do much there depending on noise and other factors so I might have to wait until the next day or trying to call other parents later that night.

But I would not accept this behavior. I feel that this man was having a temper tantrum and as he is supposed to lead children that would be unacceptable to me....

LW-

I do not "pick on christians". But I do dislike being told that a certain religion is the *only* way. It seems that here most who speak that way (and "pick on" me), are chrisitians.

Not all Christians believe that. I have had some really nice talks with priests and ministers who believed that they knew "a way" to "heaven" and not "the only way". And some of them didn't believe in hell or original sin either. They did believe that Jesus was the messiah which is why they identified themselves as Christians.

As far as the mention of God in the constitution having anything to do with Christianity-
how does that follow?

I believe in God. I love God. But I am not a Christian.