4
   

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:09 am
Cyracuz wrote:
Wich groups are unattractive is a subjective matter. For my part, going from christian to nazi is a step up.


Ouch. Let's not paint with too broad a stoke here. I'm not a big fan of christian fanaticism or christian evangalism, but there are a lot of good people out there who are christians.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:10 am
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
If you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for everything.


What's your point?
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:12 am
rosborne979 wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
If you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for everything.


What's your point?


It's been made.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:14 am
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
If you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for everything.


What's your point?


It's been made.


Sorry, I don't get it.
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:15 am
Precisely! Keep reading, my friend.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:18 am
That is true rosborne. I believe that there are no bad people. There are only the ones who try to understand and those who try to justify their ignorance. Religious people fall into the latter.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:21 am
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
Precisely! Keep reading, my friend.


Thank you, oh wise and powerful leprechaun (who never says anything meaningful). Maybe we should pledge allegience to the vague and benevolent Bib instead of God Smile
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:23 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I think even a cursory review of history shows that the vast majority of the founders and architects of the Constituion expected most Americans to be religious and involved in religious activities and that this was a good thing. Some went so far as to suggest the Constitution wouldn't work otherwise.

I believe the founders and architects of the Constitution were determined that the federal government would not have the power to declare a state religion nor would it have any authority of any kind over what a persons must or must not believe in matters of religious faith. And finally it insisted that government would have no power to prevent people from exercizing their religious faith however they wished short of being a public nuiscance, disturbing the peace, or infringing on the rights of others.

They never thought it to be a right to never have to see or hear anything religious in public settings, nor would they have ever envisioned the strenuous applications of separation of church and state as are enforced by the courts in these modern times.


I haven't the time right now to read this entire thread....I've only just discovered it. I posted the following piece on another thread but I think it apropo here as well.

I don't for a minute feel confused about the fact that this is an opinion piece and not hard news. So please, everyone, don't explain it to me.

This paper from the ACLU archives is not updated. It refers to the re-election of Jesse Helms, for instance. But in spite of the fact that the paper was written some years ago, it still stands as an excellent source of facts regarding school prayer and the Constitution. Further, I think the author makes a good point about why we should be talking about the phenomenon of the religious right and their attempts to establish a theocracy.....whether they can do it or not. I've highlighted the parts most relevant to our discussion to make it easier and less time consuming to read.

http://archive.aclu.org/issues/religion/relig3.html


Quote:
THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT WANTS AMERICA
By John M. Swomley

Pat Robertson and his "Christian Coalition" have declared war on a large array of organizations deemed by them to be "irreligious" or "liberal." The list of the embattled, which the ACLU heads, includes the American Jewish Congress, People for the American Way, the National Organization for Women and several churches.

Many people, noting the Coalition's agenda against homosexuality, abortion, separation of church and state, and women's rights, regard Robertson-and-company as a disruptive element on the American political scene, but one that is temporary and ultimately bound to fail. That interpretation is simplistic.

The Christian Coalition is the largest of many right wing religious groups whose members want to reorder United States political affairs under the authority of a "Christian" government. Their overarching philosophy, alternately called "Christian Reconstruction" and "Dominion Theology," was first articulated in 1973 by Rousas John Rushdoony in Institutes of Biblical Law. That philosophy is nurtured by the Coalition on Revival (COR), a secretive inner circle whose steering committee includes most of the nation's right wing Christian leaders. This hard core, which promotes the unifying ideology of the Christian right, is led by Dr. Jay Grimstead.

Strongly influenced by COR and its credo, Pat Robertson renamed his CBN (for Christian Broadcasting Network) University, Regent University, explaining that "a regent is one who governs in the absence of a sovereign." Someday, he said, "we will rule and reign along with our sovereign, Jesus Christ." Toward that day, Regent is training graduate students in education, religion, law and communications to build theological and political alliances of ready-to-rule folk. Robertson's more immediate goal, control of the Republican Party, is seen as a necessary step in pursuit of the ultimate prize: a "Christian" United States -- meaning his brand of Christianity. Robertson's writings and speeches reflect essentially theocratic models. In his 1991 book, The New World Order, he writes:

"The founders of America at Plymouth Rock and in the Massachusetts Colony felt that they were organizing a society based on the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount .... They tried their best to model their institutions of governmental order after the Bible." Of course, the former clergyman romanticizes here. The early American leaders to whom he refers were people who burned "witches," hanged Quakers, slaughtered Native Americans, held Africans in bondage and taxed the populace to support religion.

Summarizing the colonial period, Robertson writes,

"... for almost two hundred years prior to our Constitution, all of the leadership of this nation had been steeped with biblical principles of the Old and New Testaments. Their new order was a nation founded squarely on concepts of the nature of God, the nature of man, the role of the family and the moral order as established by the God of Jacob."

What Robertson is extolling, among other things, is clerical control of politics. In colonial Massachusetts and Connecticut, reports William Warren Sweet in The Story of Religions in America, preachers' political influence was such that no one could be admitted to church membership without their consent, and voting in those colonies "was limited to church members." Sweet also describes a morals squad: "The tithing man ... was a township official who assisted the constable in watching over the morals of the community. There was one such official for every ten families, who ... was on the lookout for Sabbath breaking, tippling, gaming, and idleness."

Pat Robertson claims that "...the Supreme Court of the supposedly Christian United States guaranteed the moral collapse of this nation when it forbade children in the public schools to pray to the god of Jacob, to learn of His moral law or even to view in their classrooms the heart of the law, the Ten Commandments." Actually, the Supreme Court has never banned private prayer if performed silently in class or in the cafeteria over lunch. In 1962, in Engle v. Vitale, the court banned school-sponsored prayer; and in 1963, in the Pennsylvania case Abington Township v. Schempp, it banned Bible reading as worship. The Court has permitted objectively taught courses on the Bible as literature, on the philosophy or sociology of religion, and on comparative religion. It has also allowed religious clubs to meet after instructional hours if other extra-curricular clubs are permitted to meet. Moreover, many states did not even have school-sponsored prayers or Bible readings prior to 1962.

The Christian Coalition has become a force in American politics, providing the margin for Jesse Helms' re-election. Its Christian Broadcasting Network has 1,485 radio stations and 336 television stations (numbers as of 1989), with Robertson's "700 Club" -- annual income, about $140 million -- airing daily on TV. In close touch with Robertson are other groups like James Dobson's Focus on the Family, which employs about 1,000 people, publishes eight periodicals and broadcasts on more than 1,500 radio stations.

Although the bulk of Robertson's support comes from fundamentalist Protestants and Catholics, not all fundamentalists and evangelicals support his politics or his theology. Thus, the ACLU, in coalition with both religious and secular organizations, should strive to reach as many people as possible with its message of church-state separation and other civil liberties values.
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:28 am
rosborne979 wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
Precisely! Keep reading, my friend.


Thank you, oh wise and powerful leprechaun (who never says anything meaningful). Maybe we should pledge allegience to the vague and benevolent Bib instead of God Smile


You are too kind, warm, affectionate, professorial and intuitive. Question Idea
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:31 am
Ros writes
Quote:
Fox, you keep saying that because people are not "forced" to recite the pledge, that nothing in the pledge can be construed as an "establishment" of religion. But even adults have a hard time ignoring peer pressure, and little kids thrive on acceptance. Don't you think it's a bit underhanded to claim that the pledge is not forced on anyone, when the implication is that little kids will have to single themselves out in the class by objecting to a pledge to their country which everyone else is saying? I think that's asking a lot from a 2nd grader to step away from the group and then explain that they still support their country, but don't want to imply a belief in god with their pledge.


I think the pledge is no more coercive that is anything children are exposed to in school. The child may have been taught strict "God created the world in six days" Creationism for instance, but is required to be exposed to the theory of evotion however much it might bother the child. The child may prefer the version of history that the pioneers were brave visionaries who forged a nation out of the wilderness and is bothered if such are presented as exploiters of the land and cruel racists where it came to the Indians. A child who's father makes his living as a logger might be uncomfortable when told that logging should be suspended in favor of an endangered species. A child who believes that some principles of Marxism are commendable might be disturbed by a teacher denouncing all Marxism as posing a danger to freedoms. The child is likely, however, to be required to write or recite those things that make him/her uncomfortable. S/he is not required to recite the pledge.

It's all relative and must be considered practically. To single out an innocuous phrase as somehow of major importance and ignore everything else that might bother children or make them uncomfortable just seems excessively anal to me. And there is no requirement that children attend a school where the Pledge is recited either. The parents have every right to homeschool or find a private school more attuned to their preferences.

When it is a matter of rights, the rights should be the primary consideration no matter how many people want a thing to be a certain way. When it is a matter of preference, the majority should prevail.
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:37 am
Foxfyre wrote:
When it is a matter of rights, the rights should be the primary consideration no matter how many people want a thing to be a certain way. When it is a matter of preference, the majority should prevail.


There is a difference between having rights and being responsible when implementing such rights. Not exercising ones rights is sometimes more responsible than exercising them.

Majority should prevail! That's not always a smart move - humans are fickle, subject to peer pressure and the pack syndrome.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:40 am
rosborne979 wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
If you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for everything.


What's your point?


It's been made.


Sorry, I don't get it.


There is nothing to be gotten, Rosborne. Bib plays this game...all the time, it seems now.

But mostly, he posts empty words.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:40 am
Then Biblio, if group A consisting of 10 people wants the carpet to be blue and group B wants the carpet to be red, and group A is offended by red, how do you decide the matter?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:40 am
Why foxyfire. Why does there have to be anything? Why does the majority have to have it their way? Can we not have it NO WAY IN PARTICULAR, and then you can do as you chose regardless of what most people think.

When it's a matter of preference all choises should be equal. When the majority prevails all choises are no longer equal, and that is oppressive. If I don't want my child to get stuffed with subjective propaganda I have to homeschool them? Why can you not just stuff this subjective propaganda into your kids on your spare time instead of shouting about the majority?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:41 am
nah, I am pretty sure mob rule is best, it cuts right through the need to think independently.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:42 am
Quote:
Then Biblio, if group A consisting of 10 people wants the carpet to be blue and group B wants the carpet to be red, and group A is offended by red, how do you decide the matter?


install a white carpet and give group a glasses with blue tint and group b glasses with red tint.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:42 am
LOL, Dys........good point with so few words.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:43 am
Re: Democracy is best served by strict separation of...
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
hyper426 wrote:
Resolved: Democracy is best served by stricty separation of church and state. Here is the new NFL/TFA topic. Have at it! Very Happy


Was it not the "Church" that instituted democracy in the first place?!


No.

Lemme rephrase that...

NO!


Open-minded as ever, Frank. Perhaps you'd like to try again - I wasn't quite sure what you were trying to say.


Sure, Bib. Which part didn't you understand...the "N" or the "O?"

And I would love to hear a defense of the notion that the "Church" instituted democracy in the first place.

That ought to be a laugh!
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:45 am
It was the exclamation mark I didn't understand. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 11:47 am
The relevance of posts in here is definitely on a rising curve.. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 05:08:26