Gore's Old Running Mate more Conservative

I would say that for me not being a Christian, it hasn't had any effect on my life at all. I don't want it to be forced in the schools, and I don't want prayer in the schools, but I also don't want it to be forced out of public view. I understand that out nation was founded on the Judua/Christian beleif system, and that is what has made our nation as good as it is. Our laws were written after the 10 commandments and a great majority of our moral code is also founded off of the Judua/Christian beleif system.

I haven't seen religion per se attacked verbally, but I've seen the imposition of religion on science, teaching and pharmacy prescriptions etc.treated with dismay.
If you have any reputable sources for this verbal attack you speak of, I'd like to see them.

The "application" of religion though, that's a serious matter, for the Constitution clearly forbid all three branches(by inference) from "applying religion" to the citizenry of this nascent country. This after a majority of its citizens had escaped "applied religion" in their native lands.

Keep in mind that "applied religion" also led to genocide commited against the Native population. It wasn't all about land or squaws torturing white men as Hollywood has portrayed it.
By the way SC. I appreciate you giving me a chance to collect my views in such a friendly confine.

You've guessed wrong. I have no gripe against Christianity itself, although I pass a jaded eye over Christianity's history and I shudder. I resent the application of Christianity(thanks SC) into everyday life.

SCoates wrote:



No not at all. I want religion to remain where it belongs in the houses of worship, in ones heart and in the home. I would like to see people practice what the preach. What I do not want to see is religion interfering with the mechanism of government. As has been said repeatedly what is needed is freedom to practice the religion of our choice and freedom from religion in government.

Note: the ten Commandments placed in the courthouse and I also believe in Texas was the Protestant version. Not the Catholic or Hebrew versions.
In addition the cross is a symbol of Christianity only.
Regarding tyranny of the minority the laws of this nation are and always should be to prevent tyranny by the majority. The majority can always protect itself.

Thanks, that was next on the agenda.

No, not me. I'm in awe of the Judeo-Christian moral teachings.

To say that the ACLU is 'atheist,' or anti-religious in some way, is laughable.

To say that Christianity hasn't had a bloody, violent history in which millions of people were murdered, is laughable.

To say that America was founded on the Judeo-Christian belief system is laughable. Our founding fathers were extremely careful to seperate their religious beliefs from their political ones; why can't people do the same today? (laziness)

Christianists in this country get attacked because they are always trying to legislate morality into people who don't want it.

We must tread very carefully in the next few years in order to maintain our seperation of Church and state, for there are many who would undo it at the first opportunity....

Cycloptichorn

Yes I am, for a couple of reasons

Placing the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse is meant to imply that the laws of our nation are derived from the Ten Commandments as Baldimo erroneously believes. Nothing could be further from the truth.
American law is based on England's Common law and neither is based on Christianity or the Ten Commandments.

"common law
n. the traditional unwritten law of England, based on custom and usage, which began to develop over a thousand years before the founding of the United States. The best of the pre-Saxon compendiums of the common law was reportedly written by a woman, Queen Martia, wife of a king of a small English kingdom. Together with a book on the "law of the monarchy" by a Duke of Cornwall, Queen Martia's work was translated into the emerging English language by King Alfred (849-899 A.D.). When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. By the 14th century legal decisions and commentaries on the common law began providing precedents for the courts and lawyers to follow. It did not include the so-called law of equity (chancery), which came from the royal power to order or prohibit specific acts. The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer's bible. Today almost all common law has been enacted into statutes with modern variations by all the states except Louisiana, which is still influenced by the Napoleonic Code. In some states the principles of Common Law are so basic they are applied without reference to statute."

The second reason is that I firmly believe there should be no religious icons(church) displayed on government property(state). Thus "public" is the opposite of "private". And private property is protected from the intent of separation of church and state.

The only news item recently that I have qualms about is the drive by the ACLU to remove a tiny cross on the LA county seal. Since California was founded by missions it follows that the cross should be displayed in a non religious, historical context. However, LA county folded. I don't think they had the stomach to fight the challenge.

What are those people opposed to them doing? Are they not trying to impose their morality into people who don't want it?

That's a really good question and it's something I've been wrestling with.
I ask myself:"Does my non-belief create an imposition on believers...and how does it do that?"

The concept of "non Believers" and rational people is Live and let live." On the other hand the religious fundamental community follows the maxim of "live as I believe" and will do all in it's power to impose their beliefs upon all.

You are wrong au.

I don't like the term rational at all for it's antonym is irrational and I don't consider religious based groups irrational. I prefer reasoned people as in:

"There is a struggle between superstition and reason being fought in our society."

Big-screen Imax theaters typically offer lavish visual spectacles with bland and uplifting scripts. Their films are seldom the stuff of controversy. So it was a bit of a shock to learn that a dozen or so Imax theaters in the United States, mostly in the South, have been shying away from science documentaries that might offend Christian fundamentalists. Worse yet, some of those theaters are located in science centers or museums, the supposed expositors of scientific truth for public education..
"Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," depicting the bizarre creatures that flourish near hot, sulfurous vents in the ocean floor, is the current focus of controversy. It was vetted for accuracy by a panel of scientists and was sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation, a government funding agency, and Rutgers University. It raised hackles by suggesting that life on Earth may have originated at these undersea vents..
No one can object if Imax theaters, whether commercial or located in museums, turned down the deep sea film in the belief that it was too boring, as some managers indicated. But it is surely unacceptable for science museums to reject the film in part because some people in test audiences complained that the material was blasphemous. The Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, which made that judgment initially, wisely reversed itself after its cowardice was widely criticized..
The danger in self-censorship by museums is that it will reduce the already tiny world of Imax theaters available for big-screen science documentaries. Producers have a hard time making money as it is. It would be unfortunate if censorship by science museums helped drive them away from topics that might offend

It sounds like, for the most part, we're just overlooking each other's views.

For example, the ten commandments are so well known, and were even more prevalent when the nation was founded, it would be improbable that the commandment wasn't at least in the back of the minds of those who made the law not to kill. Some of the commandments were looked to as a template, since many of them present concepts which transcend religion: don't kill, don't steal, don't lie. Though they all, especially the ones I haven't listed, have a certain ammount of subjective relavance (is that a little redundant?).

It sounds to me like both sides are describing an elephant, and just looking at different ends.

Of course, there is always the threat of the extremist minorities, which are also an extreme minority... they just talk louder than the majority.

Anyway, all I mean to say is that I think I understand both sides, and believe that most of the points listed would be more accepted if they were more diplomatic.

No one should be forced to practice religion, but there are certain principles which everyone should abide by, which happen to reflect religion.

Panzade
OK from now on I will not call people religious fundamentalist. It will be superstitious people. :wink:

I've never lost a minute of sleep worrying about people like you Coates.

SCoates
Do you believe that the founding fathers or anyone else needs the ten commandments to tell them that stealing, killing and, etc., are wrong. Aside from these self evident commandments there are also several that deal with religion only. There is no doubt that the ten commandments is a religious tract

Shunnamite just posted this wonderful credo

Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with. His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine. ~~Henry S. Haskins

Both sides should keep this in mind.