100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Seperation of Church and State | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
ok...go slower....i'm going on 2 nights of no sleep here   rose go back up and read my posts a different view may make it easier to understand |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
didn't I just say the same thing???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
didn't I just say the same thing??? i do not know which same thing i took many of the post as to say those that are religious should not practice while holding office which lead to me posting this ----------- the government share not establish nor hender the practice of vote out those that you feel are not of the fiber you want in office but to say because they are in office they can not practice their religion is unconstitutional --------- now plz quit making me defend religion PLZ  <<<---they are watching
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey - I said athiesm is a religion because they believe to not believe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey - I said athiesm is a religion because they believe to not believe it is a non belief in religion unless they have a set of beliefs it is not a religion ---- re·li·gion (r-ljn) n. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion ------------- i guess that means it is not a religion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
that's where I got it from. they have a cause, principle or activity pursued with zeal or conscientios devotion. have you not seen some of the posts?? I think there is zeal there |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=define%3A+atheism&spell=1
atheism is a principle belief that there is no god. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Given that a lot of atheists are prone to pushing their non-belief on others (which is funny since they cry about the opposite being done to them) that would make it fall under the definition of religion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
de·vo·tion (d-vshn)
n. 1. Ardent, often selfless affection and dedication, as to a person or principle. See Synonyms at love. 2. Religious ardor or zeal; piety. 3. a. An act of religious observance or prayer, especially when private. Often used in the plural. b. devotions Prayers or religious texts: a book of devotions. 4. The act of devoting or the state of being devoted. ------------- prin·ci·ple (prns-pl) n. 1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy. 2. a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle. b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency. 3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action. 4. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation. 5. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of jet propulsion. 6. Chemistry One of the elements that compose a substance, especially one that gives some special quality or effect. 7. A basic source. See Usage Note at principal. ---------------- well ok i will say it is a possibility but i doubt you will be able to get tax exempt status if you start a following but who knows  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
de·vo·tion (d-vshn) n. 1. Ardent, often selfless affection and dedication, as to a person or principle. See Synonyms at love. 2. Religious ardor or zeal; piety. 3. a. An act of religious observance or prayer, especially when private. Often used in the plural. b. devotions Prayers or religious texts: a book of devotions. 4. The act of devoting or the state of being devoted. ------------- prin·ci·ple (prns-pl) n. 1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy. 2. a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle. b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency. 3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action. 4. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation. 5. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of jet propulsion. 6. Chemistry One of the elements that compose a substance, especially one that gives some special quality or effect. 7. A basic source. See Usage Note at principal. ---------------- well ok i will say it is a possibility but i doubt you will be able to get tax exempt status if you start a following but who knows lol ok....but aren't we supposed to separate church and state anyway??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Thu 03/13/08 07:44 PM
|
|
lol ok....but aren't we supposed to separate church and state anyway??? No. The "state" simply cannot establish any religion or infringe on the right of an individual to express their own religious beliefs. There is no separation technically. The Founders were pretty smart back in their day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
didn't I just say the same thing??? i do not know which same thing i took many of the post as to say those that are religious should not practice while holding office which lead to me posting this ----------- the government share not establish nor hender the practice of vote out those that you feel are not of the fiber you want in office but to say because they are in office they can not practice their religion is unconstitutional --------- now plz quit making me defend religion PLZ <<<---they are watching |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok....but I was still right about it being a religion at least
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ok....but I was still right about it being a religion at least it is a possibility i will give you that much |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Religion can basically be what anyone wants it to be, it is a belief in something unprovable so to define it is very ambiguous at best.
A person who chooses not to believe a religion is not religious at any level. They take life for what it is and live it based on human values and morals. I do not even claim to be atheist, others call me that. I do not belief in a or many beings greater than ourselves who somehow judge, manipulate, or reward us for our behavior. I do not want to pray to or even acknowledge a non existant being. I do not care if others choose to as long as they do not try to "save" me from myself. I do not want my children to be exposed to it until they are old enough to choose intelligently that they want to participate in a religion. I will not accept that the religious right has any power over me at all. I will not accept that the religious right should have any power in my government at all, other than the right to vote which is given. I do not stand alone in these convictions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and they have scientology churches....hence science is a religion
not sure where I'm going with this bu I'm going an will tell you when I get there
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry. The Establishment clause is very clear. You obviously don't give a crap because you want the government to embrace the atheist view (no god, no prayer) and infringe on everybody else. You can't have it both ways. There's no need to be sorry. You're simply wrong. To not embrace religious concepts at all, is not the same as embracing atheism. The government would not be saying that there is no God. All the government would be saying is that they can't take an official stance on any religious concept because it's not their place to do so. So you're conclusion that taking this stance represents supporting atheism doesn't hold water. Besides, I don’t want the government to embrace atheism. I’m not an atheist. And even if I was I still wouldn’t want the government to embrace atheism. They aren’t suppose to take any stance on religious concepts at all. Period. It’s not their place. Religion is a personal relationship between spirits and God. A government as a whole has no place in religion. It’s simply not a useful concept to a government. What are they going to use it for??? It’s simply has no purpose in government. It’s a totally useless concept for government, unless they are going to follow a specific doctrine or religion. Other than that it’s totally useless. It has no pragmatic value at all. It serves no purpose for a government. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry. The Establishment clause is very clear. You obviously don't give a crap because you want the government to embrace the atheist view (no god, no prayer) and infringe on everybody else. You can't have it both ways. There's no need to be sorry. You're simply wrong. To not embrace religious concepts at all, is not the same as embracing atheism. The government would not be saying that there is no God. All the government would be saying is that they can't take an official stance on any religious concept because it's not their place to do so. So you're conclusion that taking this stance represents supporting atheism doesn't hold water. Besides, I don’t want the government to embrace atheism. I’m not an atheist. And even if I was I still wouldn’t want the government to embrace atheism. They aren’t suppose to take any stance on religious concepts at all. Period. It’s not their place. Religion is a personal relationship between spirits and God. A government as a whole has no place in religion. It’s simply not a useful concept to a government. What are they going to use it for??? It’s simply has no purpose in government. It’s a totally useless concept for government, unless they are going to follow a specific doctrine or religion. Other than that it’s totally useless. It has no pragmatic value at all. It serves no purpose for a government. the government share not establish nor hender the practice of vote out those that you feel are not of the fiber you want in office but to say because they are in office they can not practice their religion is unconstitutional |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but if athiesm is a religious belief...and the government bans all other religious practices...like the pledge...then isn't that church and state?
things that make you go hmmm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the government share not establish nor hender the practice of vote out those that you feel are not of the fiber you want in office but to say because they are in office they can not practice their religion is unconstitutional Who said anything about government officials not being allowed to practice their religion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry. The Establishment clause is very clear. You obviously don't give a crap because you want the government to embrace the atheist view (no god, no prayer) and infringe on everybody else. You can't have it both ways. There's no need to be sorry. You're simply wrong. To not embrace religious concepts at all, is not the same as embracing atheism. The government would not be saying that there is no God. All the government would be saying is that they can't take an official stance on any religious concept because it's not their place to do so. So you're conclusion that taking this stance represents supporting atheism doesn't hold water. The government would be saying no such thing. The Founders believed there was a "God." Removing the word "God" from all government documents would be a statement from the government that the Founders were wrong to believe there was a "God." That's why atheists support doing so. Besides, I don’t want the government to embrace atheism. I’m not an atheist. And even if I was I still wouldn’t want the government to embrace atheism. Yet you are here attempting to make the same flawed argument that atheists make. The government isn't forcing anyone to believe in anything. They aren’t suppose to take any stance on religious concepts at all. Period. The government isn't. It’s not their place. Religion is a personal relationship between spirits and God. A government as a whole has no place in religion. It’s simply not a useful concept to a government. What are they going to use it for??? It’s simply has no purpose in government. It’s a totally useless concept for government, unless they are going to follow a specific doctrine or religion. Other than that it’s totally useless. It has no pragmatic value at all. It serves no purpose for a government. Again, already told you the historical basis for the word "God" in government documents and doctrine. The Founders were religious. If you so choose, maybe you can get a bunch of your fellow atheists together and overthrow a government of your own. Then you can choose to word your founding documents any way you wish. Until then, deal with it. |
|
|
|
|
