I Say We Duke It Out!

Would you be attending said church, LTX?

No, you have not answered these questions. You have no described what "choices" are to be elective, nor what the hell elective is supposed to mean. You are also continuing to conflate freedom of speech with the free exercise of religion. No one is telling you that you cannot practice your religion outside your home or a church, you are being told that you have no right to include it public places and events, at the public expense. So, no, you have never answered the question of the point at which you think separation of church and state should end. And that is the crux of the biscuit here.



I'm making no rules, but i'll let you know that the ridicule which gets you so snooty and self-righteous is a direct product of your playing stupid games in your posts. What the basis for your vote may or may not be is a matter in which i have not the slightest interest--it is your foolishness to attempt to make that an important consideration here, not mine.



As i've already pointed out, this is not either a topic of interest to me, nor one germane to this discussion. It is part an parcel with your feeble attempt to introduce an reductio ad absurdum argument to the effect that freedom from religion infringes upon your free exercise of religion, and that therefore we are discussing equivalent but opposite position. We are not. We are discussing the separation of church and state, and the consequent right others have to be free from religion to which they do not subscribe. Demanding that no religion be promoted publicly or publicly financed does not infringe your free exercise of religion. You have asserted that it does, but you have not even provided an explantion of how that is so, let alone proven your case.



This is most certainly true. I have at no time commented on the basis upon which you make decisions. I have only ever stated that no one has the right to put their religion into public places and events at the public expense.



Good, i found your snotty speculation about whether or not i vote offensive--therefore, as i explained, i made a remark which i had hoped would be offensive to you. I'm glad to think that it succeeded.



That is a matter of no interest to me.



The operative word here is "seem." I entertain no such belief, and care not in the least whether or not you think as much.



You could not possibly have been stating a fact as you do not know whether or not i vote--and your very language acknowledges it. It was snotty, through and through. You trot out a tone like that all the time, and then try to deny that you ever indulge in personal remarks. Your posts so often reek of the stench of lies and hypocricy.

Setanta Wrote:



This is completely false. You have never clearly stated at what point your support for the concept of the separation of church and state ends. You have never explained how it is that you contend freedom from religion infringes your free exercise of religion. You absolutely have not answered either of these question.



For the good and sufficient reason that we are not.



This is completely false. I make no effort to either foist my beliefs onto others or to incorporate what i believe into public places and events at the public expense. Unless and until you explain at what point you believe the separation of church and state ought to end, anyone here has the right to assume that at some point you intend that your religious beliefs should be incorporated into public places and events at the public expense. You want to impose on others. I simply intend to resist the imposition. These are not equivalent positions.

Back on topic.

There's literally millions to be mined from the credulous . . . i venture to assert that you and i have chosen far less remunerative career paths . . .

I think if someone wants a Bible class taught it should be offered as an elective course. I think the choice should stay with the people. Elective as in they can either take the class if they want to or not take the class if they don't want to.

I have no right to have it at public events, etc., at public expense? I happen to be part of the public so the expense would also be mine.

Not equivalent positions? You want things the way you want them. I want things the way I want them. What is so unequal about that? You are imposing your wants upon me just as much as you can call me imposing my wants upon you. That's why we vote, Setanta.

Which is why we oppose your ideas, Momma. You don't want separation of church and state and we do. That's why there is no compromising.

I understand set's and other's point. He is merely saying that people can be as religious as much as they want to in public which would include places outside their own home, it just shouldn't be a product of the government. I agree.

He did mention some kind of store that is owned by a Jewish family and for that reason the owners of the store are closed on Jewish holidays and Saturdays. I assume that places like wal-mart and huddle house are owned by private people and they have the right to close on Sundays and Christmas if they so choose, wouldn't they?

It would be different if Wal-Mart or another similar place was owned by the government. The Government is for all the people not individuals or groups of people. So do you all think, say the library or the post office, should be open on Christmas? Novel idea but I can't imagine it happening. I would think people would want to save their fights for something else myself. I celebrate Christmas (but not as a religious holiday), so maybe I can't appreciate how people of other faiths or not faith feel about this issue.

Oh, I get it now. You get things the way you want them and you will be happy. Well, what about the other side that gets nothing that they want?

The idea of a compromise is so both sides can live with something. As long as one side is not willing to compromise one iota it will always be an unresolved issue.

So, let's see if I have this right. Abortion is okay because it's a choice a woman should have. And if I lobby and vote against abortion I am wrong because I am denying someone the right of choice.

An elective Bible class is not okay because it's a choice you don't think they should have? And if you lobby and vote against this elective class you are right because you are denying someone the right of choice merely because it is in a public school, which both our taxpayer dollars go toward?

Oh yeah, it's clear now.

No.
I'm a bit picky about the bread and wine I choose these days. I like mine guilt free. (and French or Italian)

setanta wrote:



True, but I think we sleep free from the fear of conscience.

Why should a bible class be taught in public school? Isn't that what church is for? Now, an elective comparative religion class would be ok, in that it would teach kids about all religions and maybe teach a little tolerance along the way.

You wanting things the way you want them could lead to other's rights being taken away. You've said in other threads that you would lobby against abortion rights. You don't want one, don't have one, but don't take away somebody else's right to choose. You don't want compromise, you want things your way and that's it. When there was a discussion about the commandments monument, you said we nonbelievers should look the other way. How is that a compromise? Specially when the law says it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. Same thing with the pledge, we are just supposed to skip over the "god" part. I remember it when the "god" part wasn't in there and I'd like to see it go back the original, the way the author intended it. I think your idea of a 50-50 deal is to get the hyphen, too.

This is the sort of thing that happens when that kind of thinking gets out of hand:

Michigan Court Punishes Catholic Man for Refusing Conversion to Pentecostal Faith in Drug Rehab Program (7/20/2004)


ACLU Appeals to Michigan Supreme Court to Reverse Conviction

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DETROIT - The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan today asked the state Supreme Court to hear the case of a Catholic man who was criminally punished for not completing a Pentecostal drug rehabilitation program, which prevented him from practicing his own religious faith. His request to be transferred to another program that would allow him to practice his own faith was denied and he was sentenced to six months in jail and boot camp.

"This man was punished for insisting on the right to practice his own religion and refusing to be religiously indoctrinated as a condition of a court order," said Kary Moss, Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan. "The endorsement of any faith as well as the discouragement of any other is clearly a violation of the First Amendment."

Joseph Hanas of Genesee County, now 22 years old, pled guilty in the Genesee Circuit Court to a charge of marijuana possession in February 2001. He was placed in the county's "drug court" for non-violent offenders, which allowed for a deferred sentence and possible dismissal of the charges if he successfully completed the Inner City Christian Outreach Residential Program.

Unbeknownst to Hanas when he entered the program, one of the goals of Christian Outreach was to convert him from Catholicism to the Pentecostal faith. According to ACLU legal papers, Hanas was forced to read the bible for seven hours a day and was tested on Pentecostal principles. The staff also told him that Catholicism was a form of witchcraft and they confiscated both his rosary and Holy Communion prayer book. At one point, the program director told his aunt that he "gave up his right of freedom of religion when he was placed into this program." Hanas was told that in order to complete the program successfully he would have to declare he was "saved" and was threatened that if he didn't do what the pastor told him to do, he would be "washed of the program and go to prison."

After seven weeks of being coerced to practice the Pentecostal faith and receiving no drug treatment whatsoever, Hanas left Christian Outreach and requested reassignment to another facility. Despite his request, Judge Robert M. Ransom determined that he did not satisfactorily complete the drug court program and sentenced him to serve three months in jail and three months in boot camp. It was only after his release from boot camp that he finally received drug treatment at a secular residential rehabilitation program.

"I needed help," Hanas said Joe. "Instead I was forced to practice someone else's religion."

Concern over government-funded religion, specifically in the administration of social service programs that may fire or refuse to hire employees if they are not of the same religion, has been increasing in recent years.

"This case underscores the danger of the state mandating participation in a religious institution," said Greg Gibbs, one of the ACLU cooperating attorneys working on this case. "Mr. Hanas' free exercise of religion has been greatly jeopardized."

In addition to Moss and Gibbs, cooperating attorney Frank S. Ravitch and ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg are representing Hanas.

http://www.aclu.org//religion/frb/16354prs20040720.html
The ACLU's Application for Leave to Appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court is online at http://www.aclumich.org/pdf/briefs/hanasapplicationtosupremecourt

P

If they had an elective bible class in a public school, then to be fair, they should include all the religions as well; otherwise you would be promoting one religion over another.

That would be fair

Just for the sake of argument -
if you only teach English, are you promoting the English language over all others?

revel,

Yes, that is the kind of class I was specifically talking about.

pauligirl,

Well, here is where we differ. These things have been in place since before I was born. Of course, I am going to be resistant to them being taken out.

If you will also remember I never denied I would be taking away someone's choice if I had my way about abortion.

I still think there is room for compromise on most issues. But let's be fair pauligirl, I have offered compromises and have met staunch resistance.

Mesquite and I came to a compromise about the pledge of allegiance and I had no problem with that at all. But, the compromise he offered was something that satisfied us both.

As I said, no compromise when it comes to separation of church and state. Abortion is a woman's choice, not Momma's or anyone else's. How you get it's stepping on your rights if a woman decides on her own what to do with her own body, I don't get.

edgar,

In the case of abortion, I advocate for the child. I feel the life of the child is more important than the convenience of the mother. I am speaking strictly of abortions of convenience.

man I don't look at new posting and look what happens in a day

Edgar,
Just as you feel it is your right to advocate that abortion is ok, it is also the right of others to advocate that it is not.

And that is my point I keep trying to make. Both sides are lobbying, arguing, voting, etc., for what they want. As long as it is done within legal means, then no one should have a problem with the other because we are all exercising our legal rights. Woo hoo Intrepid!

You are free to advocate anything you like. That doesn't give you the right to interfere in the womans's decision.