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.

I can't vouch for the site...but the facts are verifiable.

http://www.humanbeams.com/politics/p105brayton-acludefendsreligion.shtml

Dispatches From the Culture Wars
ACLU Defending Religious Liberty
by Ed Brayton

Contrary to the hysterically overblown view so common on the religious right (a view intentionally planted there by frauds and hucksters like Pat Robertson), the ACLU regularly goes to court to defend Christian churches and organizations. I've mentioned in the past their work on behalf of Jerry Falwell (himself a fraud and a huckster, but the Constitution covers his right to be one as well) against the City of Lynchburg to overturn a city ordinance limiting the amount of property a church could own within the city limits. They also defended Falwell in a case that overturned the state of Virginia's constitutional provision banning churches from incorporating. They also filed briefs defending the Lamb's Chapel in support of their claim against a school district for not allowing them access to school facilities to show a series of anti-abortion films (all other community groups were allowed to rent school facilities and the Equal Access Act says they cannot discriminate against religious groups). Here are a few other cases going on right now where the ACLU is defending the free exercise of religion.

The ACLU of Nebraska is defending a Presbyterian church, the Church of the Awesome God, against the city of Lincoln. The city is trying to force the church to put in expensive industrial safety equipment because it's on the edge of an industrial area, a requirement that would result in the church having to shut down entirely. The ACLU office notes that the city is not requiring the same thing of businesses in the same area, only of the church, saying, "If there were a true danger requiring these changes, should it not apply to day care centers and health clinics also?" Indeed there would be. Says Tim Butz, the executive director of the ACLU of Nebraska:

"In addition to being the worship center for their members, this church also gives back to Lincoln in every way they can," Butz said. "They are a food bank collection point, they provide low-income families with holiday cheer and offer their church space for meetings of UNL Christian youth, they do outreach at the City Mission and hold rummage sales for charity. The Church of the Awesome God should be given a ?'thank you' by the city, not letters threatening them with eviction."

Boy, that sure sounds anti-Christian to me. That sure sounds like an organization intent on stamping out Christianity from our society, doesn't it?

Here's another case:

DETROIT â€" The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today announced an out-of-court settlement between the Utica Community School District and a local student over the censorship of her 2001 yearbook entry. The studentâ€TMs entry had been deleted from the yearbook because it contained a passage from the Bible.

“While it is true that the Constitution forbids public schools to promote religion, schools must be careful not to suppress the private religious expression of students,” said ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg, who represented the student. “In this case, a high school purported to create an open forum for student expression, yet censored a studentâ€TMs speech because it was religious in nature.”

The student, Abbey Moler, was valedictorian of Stevenson High Schoolâ€TMs class of 2001 in Sterling Heights, a town of 17,000 located 25 miles north of Detroit. She and a handful of other noteworthy graduates were profiled in a section of the yearbook listing the studentsâ€TM activities and the colleges they planned to attend. In addition, each student was invited to share some words of wisdom or advice to pass on to the rest of the school.

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.