Obama Attends Church for 1st Time in5 Months.

ziggy wrote:But when government allows a religious display- whether Christian or whatever, on public property, it is favoring THAT religion.

And if it doesn't then it is favoring humanism, also a religion.

The US Constitution says, the CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting the establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof. That is what the law states. NO law is made if a group of folks erect an Christmas display on public property. Additionally, the government isn't respecting anything.

The catch is the people on both sides have been really busy using the government to get what they want. All that has been accomplished thus far is a complete corruption of the 1st amendment. It is time to quit that crap and people get their ever lovin' noses out of others business.

If a group of folks place a Christmas display on public property, who is hurt by it? In reality, Nobody. Yet, we have people who just have to stick their nose in and whine and piss and moan. Then we have blooded gutted leach attorneys who see cases like this as a way to make money, who then take one these issues. On top of that we have organizations like the ACLU and People for Freedom From Religion who use the government to force their views on everyone. In the end the freedom you say you love so much is eroded away, all because YOU wanted to force you view on others and used the government to get your way. This is much like a group of 5 year olds act.

If a group of folks place a Christmas display on public property, who is hurt by it?

If the government allows Muslims to hold prayer on the Courthouse square 5 times a day during the month of Ramadan, who is hurt by that?

And if the government allows the Ku Klux Klan to burn a cross on the Courthouse square every night during Black History Month, who is hurt by that?

If the government allows witches and Pagans to sacrifice an animal in a pagan ritual on the courthouse square in celebration of Halloween, or of the solstices, or of whatever, who is hurt by that?

ziggy wrote:

If a group of folks place a Christmas display on public property, who is hurt by it?

If the government allows Muslims to hold prayer on the Courthouse square 5 times a day during the month of Ramadan, who is hurt by that?

And if the government allows the Ku Klux Klan to burn a cross on the Courthouse square, who is hurt by that?

If the government allows witches and Pagans to sacrifice an animal in a ritual on the courthouse square in celebration of Halloween, the solstices, or whatever, who is hurt by that?

Actually nobody. If muslims want to pray on the courthouse lawn, who am I or who are you to use the force of government to stop them. The same is true of Wiccans, pagans, and the Klan. On the other side of the coin, nothing prevents me from also being there and offering alternatives to what is happening or expressing my displeasure at said group, so long as I peaceful about it. Isn't that afterall what liberty is about?

This article is a fine example of what I'm talking about

This is the story of a Christain Flag being taken down in King, NC. There was no law respecting any religion over another. Niether Congress or anyone else for that matter was forcing anyone to participate in policy to which the disagree. Not one soul was being hurt by it. Not one soul was being deprived life, liberty, or property because the flag was flying there. All that took place here was someone decided they wanted the flag down and they used force and threat to do it. In this case the person used the ACLU, and People for the Seperation of Church and State and the cost of a law suit as a threat.

And if it doesn't then it is favoring humanism, also a religion.

Bullshit. This argument that agnosticism or atheism (or having no particular belief at all on the subject) is a religion is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

his is the story of a Christain Flag being taken down in King, NC. There was no law respecting any religion over another. Niether Congress or anyone else for that matter was forcing anyone to participate in policy to which the disagree. Not one soul was being hurt by it. Not one soul was being deprived life, liberty, or property because the flag was flying there. All that took place here was someone decided they wanted the flag down and they used force and threat to do it. In this case the person used the ACLU, and People for the Seperation of Church and State and the cost of a law suit as a threat.

Good. Why should YOUR religion be promoted and maintained with MY tax money?

I suppose a good question is whether anyone ever gets the chance to display material on courthouse lawns. If the answer is the Christians and no one else, then you are probably correct. However, if breast cancer awareness, support the troups, Lyons Club fundraisers, and what not, are allowed, then discriminating against Christianity is taking a religious stance, that being anti-religion. However, if no one is able to put out anything on the given courthouse lawn except the Christians, then I do think you have a situation of favoring one particular religion.


At Chicago's Daley Plaza, at Christmastime there is a creche, a menorah, and a star and crescent. I have no problem with this at all, as all three religions have a significant presence in Chicago. I think this is the one case in a thousand in which the city got it right.

Seems to me you understand the 1st Amendment SB. Those who claim nothing relating to Christianity can be displayed on public land do not.

Seems to me you understand the 1st Amendment SB. Those who claim nothing relating to Christianity can be displayed on public land do not.

Sez you.

Too bad the courts tend to disagree with your vast knowledge of the constitution.

Not all courts do disagree, at least not completely. Pull out some United States Government issued coins and bills and tell what it says on them.

Regardless, anyone with any intelligence at all should be able to read the 1st Amendment and see what it says. The problem is, too many are blinded by hatred.

TerryRC wrote:Seems to me you understand the 1st Amendment SB. Those who claim nothing relating to Christianity can be displayed on public land do not.

Sez you.

Too bad the courts tend to disagree with your vast knowledge of the constitution.

Are you suggesting that the courts cannot be wrong?

Cf Dred Scott vs. Samford.

I also notice, TerryRC, that you completely ignore (because it is not in your best propagandic interest) that I, an evangelical, unashamed Christian, have no problem sharing public space with other religions.

TC says...Too bad the courts tend to disagree with your vast knowledge of the constitution.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Turns out he's wrong. The courts do agree with me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In a shift away from strict church-state separation, the Supreme Court gave its approval Wednesday to displaying a Christian cross on government land to honor the war dead, saying the Constitution "does not require the eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

Speaking for a divided court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the 1st Amendment calls for a middle-ground "policy of accommodation" toward religious displays on public land, not a total ban on symbols of faith.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/29/nation/la-na-court-cross-20100429

TerryRC wrote:And if it doesn't then it is favoring humanism, also a religion.

Bullshit. This argument that agnosticism or atheism (or having no particular belief at all on the subject) is a religion is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

•A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,

•religious - extremely scrupulous and conscientious; "religious in observing the rules of health"

Those who have "tunnel vision" are seriously limited in their abilities to converse intelligently.

Those who have "tunnel vision" are seriously limited in their abilities to converse intelligently.

Those that speak only in baseless accusations or japes and jabs CANNOT converse intelligently.

You meaningless post did not, in fact, even address my assertion.

Here is is again: This argument that agnosticism or atheism (or having no particular belief at all on the subject) is a religion is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Also, we know, that in reality, people will not allow some displays from some religions.

Do you think the citizens would tolerate an islamic flag at this vets monument? I highly doubt it, even though there are muslims in the military.

Do you think the satanists would get a fair shake on a permanent monument on public lands? You know they wouldn't.

Religious displays on public lands are like gum in school - if you don't have enough for everyone, leave it at home.

Religious people already have a place to put symbols - churches and homes. Why do then need our parks also?

You are ignoring the most recent Supreme Court decision Terry in which the court stated "the 1st Amendment calls for a middle-ground "policy of accommodation" toward religious displays on public land, not a total ban on symbols of faith."

You were wrong when you said the courts did not agree with me. I'm not surprised you had no comment. Why so? Wasn't it you that espoused the virtues of admitting when you were wrong.

TerryRC wrote: And if it doesn't then it is favoring humanism, also a religion.

Bullshit. This argument that agnosticism or atheism (or having no particular belief at all on the subject) is a religion is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Right back at you pal. Atheism and agnosticism are equally religions under the true defination of religion.

TerryRC wrote:his is the story of a Christain Flag being taken down in King, NC. There was no law respecting any religion over another. Niether Congress or anyone else for that matter was forcing anyone to participate in policy to which the disagree. Not one soul was being hurt by it. Not one soul was being deprived life, liberty, or property because the flag was flying there. All that took place here was someone decided they wanted the flag down and they used force and threat to do it. In this case the person used the ACLU, and People for the Seperation of Church and State and the cost of a law suit as a threat.

Good. Why should YOUR religion be promoted and maintained with MY tax money?

First, My relgion is not be prompted the flag was there out fo respect to the men and women buried there. Secondly, it costed the taxpayer not a dime. If you are going to argue the cost thing then, in fact, it has cost the taxpayers more just to grant your wish to shove your view ont he entire world than it would to have acted like an adult and accepted that not all people believe as you. Truthfully it infuriates me that me tax dollars go to defend against cases like this where some bunghole want his/her way no matter what.

Right back at you pal. Atheism and agnosticism are equally religions under the true defination of religion.

Atheism and agnosticism are religions under which "true definition" of religion?

Right back at you pal. Atheism and agnosticism are equally religions under the true defination of religion.

Prove it.

You are ignoring the most recent Supreme Court decision Terry in which the court stated "the 1st Amendment calls for a middle-ground "policy of accommodation" toward religious displays on public land, not a total ban on symbols of faith."

Up until now, that was the case. A 5-4 split, hmmm... .Can I scream "activist judges"?

I notice it got kicked back to a lower court. This is a wrong decision. As J.P. Steven said:

“I certainly agree that the nation should memorialize the service of those who fought and died in World War I, but it cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message.”

We will see that the final decision is. Personally, I would have let the cross stay because of its historical value. I do think that any new permanent markers on public land should be strictly secular.

Now why don't you supporters of religious displays at public expense answer my questions:

Do you think the citizens would tolerate an islamic flag at this vets monument? I highly doubt it, even though there are muslims in the military.

Do you think the satanists would get a fair shake on a permanent monument on public lands?

Religious displays on public lands are like gum in school - if you don't have enough for everyone, leave it at home.

Religious people already have a place to put symbols - churches and homes. Why do they need our parks also?

TerryRC wrote:Right back at you pal. Atheism and agnosticism are equally religions under the true defination of religion.

Prove it.

re·li·gion   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled
[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

Under the defination of religion athesim and aganostism qualify.

TerryRC wrote: Do you think the citizens would tolerate an islamic flag at this vets monument? I highly doubt it, even though there are muslims in the military.

Do you think the satanists would get a fair shake on a permanent monument on public lands?

Religious displays on public lands are like gum in school - if you don't have enough for everyone, leave it at home.

So your solution is to replace these religions with your religion of atheism?

TerryRC wrote:Religious people already have a place to put symbols - churches and homes. Why do they need our parks also?

Because we pay taxes to support these places just as you do. If you believe you have the right to shove our views aside and replace them with yours you are wrong.

However, I could go along with your view under one circumstance. That circumstance is simple, I don't pay taxes to support parks and other public places where you get offended if anything christain is placed.

Under the defination of religion athesim and aganostism qualify.

So you have to use a disingenuous definition.

So EVERY strongly held belief is a religion? Strong belief in aliens is a religion? Thinking that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll is a religion?

Your definition is so vague as to be USELESS.

We know that, in this context, the only definition that applies is the first one and possibly the second one you cited.

Because we pay taxes to support these places just as you do. If you believe you have the right to shove our views aside and replace them with yours you are wrong.

And you get your churches tax free. You want it all, don't you. You want your tax free church to proselytize from. You want your house to proselytize from and you want my public space to proselytize from.

Greedy. Why don't you pray in your closet, instead of in the synagogues and on the corners with the hypocrites, as Matthew tells you?

I'd bet you would soil yourself if the satanists wanted to put a cement upside down cross with a goat head on it on public land.

TerryRC wrote:Those who have "tunnel vision" are seriously limited in their abilities to converse intelligently.

Those that speak only in baseless accusations or japes and jabs CANNOT converse intelligently.

You meaningless post did not, in fact, even address my assertion.

Here is is again: This argument that agnosticism or atheism (or having no particular belief at all on the subject) is a religion is like saying NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Also, we know, that in reality, people will not allow some displays from some religions.

Do you think the citizens would tolerate an islamic flag at this vets monument? I highly doubt it, even though there are muslims in the military.

Do you think the satanists would get a fair shake on a permanent monument on public lands? You know they wouldn't.

Religious displays on public lands are like gum in school - if you don't have enough for everyone, leave it at home.

Religious people already have a place to put symbols - churches and homes. Why do then need our parks also?

someone who has decided that God does not exist has come to a religious conclusion, no differently than someone who has determined that the Democrats are wrong on public policy has come to a political conclusion.

someone who has decided that God does not exist has come to a religious logical conclusion, no differently than someone who has determined that the Democrats are wrong on public policy has come to a political conclusion.

Fixed that for you. That is what atheists believe.

Then there is me that says, "... I don't know. I have never had a personal message from any gods. All religions claim to be the truth but they can't all be right. Can any of them be right... ? I don't know...".

That makes me an agnostic. I take a neutral stance because there is no proof one way or the other, nor can there be when dealing with a SUPERNATURAL being. My opinion - I don't have much use for religion. Religions are created by men, not gods, and are for, in the most part, controlling people, not saving them

If there turns out to be a god, fine. If there isn't, I'm still content to have lived and have enjoyed my life.

This agnostic doesn't see how agnosticism can be viewed as a religion.

She does agree, however, that for some atheists, atheism most certainly is a religion.

She does agree, however, that for some atheists, atheism most certainly is a religion.

Agreed. Militant atheists are obnoxious.

I'm against new non-secular displays on public lands because I know, in practice, standards would not be applied fairly across the board. History shows us countless examples of this.

It, for instance, is funny that the Berkeley Co. Commission always starts with a christian prayer, never anything but, even though the Commission has jurisdiction over the people and properties of many religions. You can find the minutes for the meetings at www.berkeleycountycomm.org/.

That is why I oppose new religious displays on public lands. It can't and won't be done fairly. Besides the religious have a place to display and worship. We call it "church".

Why is it Terry that when the courts agree with you, it is a good decision and you tout it but once you were proven wrong, it was suddenly a 5-4 decision by an activist judge. And why didn't you comment about the currency point? Does the money you spend not say "In God We Trust" and if it does, why do you spend it. Why do you not sue to have it removed?

As to the Berkerly County Commission, do you have any proof where one has requested to say a Jewish or Islamic prayer and was denied? If not, you have no point.

Seems to me you've gotten really good at talking out both sides of your ass. No wonder Sam owns you.