- Joined
- Aug 21, 2013
- Messages
- 23,086
- Reaction score
- 2,375
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Sounds like you'd be happier moving to Iran where theocracy is strictly enforced. In fact, please do us all a favor and get on that.
No one is arguing for a theocracy, so go ahead and give last rites to that pathetic strawman argument of yours.
And beware of liberal fundamentalists.
And there's one more point you should consider:
"The State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." - Justice Clark - the US Supreme Court decision Abington School District v. Schempp, 374, US 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963).
Don't kid yourself. Roughly 70% of the population of America identify themselves as Christians. And if enough of them want to pass a Constitutional Amendment to declare Christianity the select religion of the U.S., they can do it.
We can band together to outlaw abortion, gay marriage, and any number of other vices.
And there's one more point you should consider:
"The State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." - Justice Clark - the US Supreme Court decision Abington School District v. Schempp, 374, US 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963).
Yes you are. You're saying that gays should not have equal rights because your religion says so. Construct an argument that doesn't invoke *your* religious beliefs *at all* and then i will grant you're not trying to impose theocracy.
I mean what else are you trying to say by "the basis of equal rights" and "not going to let liberals throw god out of everything"? Preaching is annoying enough, but your methods of trying to ruin others' lives are only going to drive people, gay and hetero, away from the church.
You appeared to take that totally out of context. Removing such context changes the intent of what was being said.
The case was about a town that passed a law requiring students to study the Bible, the out of context snippet from Judge Clark involves a case where the court found such a requirement unconstitutional.
Here is the rest of it...
"It is insisted that, unless these religious exercises are permitted, a "religion of secularism" is established in the schools. We agree, of course, that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." Zorach v. Clauson, supra, at 314. We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect. In addition, it might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. But the exercises here do not fall into those categories. They are religious exercises, required by the States in violation of the command of the First Amendment that the Government maintain strict neutrality, neither aiding nor opposing religion.
Finally, we cannot accept that the concept of neutrality, which does not permit a State to require a religious exercise even with the consent of the majority of those [p226] affected, collides with the majority's right to free exercise of religion. [n10] While the Free Exercise Clause clearly prohibits the use of state action to deny the rights of free exercise to anyone, it has never meant that a majority could use the machinery of the State to practice its beliefs. Such a contention was effectively answered by Mr. Justice Jackson for the Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943):
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to . . . freedom of worship . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality. Though the application of that rule requires interpretation of a delicate sort, the rule itself is clearly and concisely stated in the words of the First Amendment. Applying that rule to the facts of these cases, we affirm the judgment in No. 142. [p227] In No. 119, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the Maryland Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
It is so ordered.
School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp
Abington School District v. Schempp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>>>>
:lamo
theres nothing more that needs said but i HAVE too, you seem to be under the impression that those Christians agree with you or even on those issues you named or even better yet that those christians are complete nut job mentally retarded morons that dont care about freedom and the rights of others.
Sorry YOU are the only one kidding yourself, what you described is a joke and can never happen.
Thanks for the laughs though, we appropriate it
btw im in that 70%
1.)You missed the point. And the point was what could happen if the majority of Christians and others wanted to pass a Constitutional Amendment you might not want to agree with.
2.) And at the rate this country is going down the tubes, watch out for Judgment and revival.
1.) i didnt miss that at all, that was the part that was sooooo funny, a complete joke and a failure, seems you missed that. That
2.) not worried about any of that, for my reliigon i worry about me and mine, as far as my country i supper happy with it and im not retarded enough to judge it or want any or my morals/religion forced on it. I actually thank god i live in a country like i do because it could be very different and if i lived in the wrong place i could be killed or legally forbidden to practice my religion, so im grateful. Sorry you seem not to be grateful and angry since you think its going down the tubes and your not in favor or freedom and equality but there are options for you. Find a place that doesnt like freedom and rights.
A knowledge of the founding fathers should enlighten one about what real freedom is:
Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who was also known as the “Father of Public Schools,” once had this to offer: “The only foundation for a republic is…religion. Without it there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty.”
Don’t miss the significance of that last statement: “..without virtue there can be no liberty….” The principle is clear – a lack of virtue engenders bondage. As one writer noted, “Intemperate men can never be free because their passions give rise to their fetters (bindings).” The more liberties a godless people achieve, the more enslaved they ultimately become in their worldly obsessions.
Still another founding father, the Reverend John Witherspoon, mirrored Benjamin Rush when he declared, “…Civil liberty cannot long be preserved without virtue….”
(The Righter Report)
The pro-gay community is in bondage to their iniquity. That's not freedom - that's bondage to sin.
Change is coming
Equal rights is coming
Its happening so much its actually hard to keep up with!
What state is next?
could be 20 before we know it
please add anything i missed.
I see the legalities of equality being addressed all over America, but I don't think the intention for social change is happening as fast.
You would think by now that with so many recognized categories of human beings that people would get the subtle sub-text of just learning to accept people for who they are, even if you find something about them weird and contrary. To put it another way, it's kind of pathetic that in the year 2013 we are still having these huge national battles to settle social issues.
To shed more light on this, compare this to what happened in Canada. There was one parliamentary debate on the issue in the year 2000, and after a vote the matter was settled. Gays could get married if they want, and individual Churches were free or not free to marry them. You can't blame it on homogeneity in Canadian culture, there are just as many right wingers there. So what's our problem in America? How hard is it?
Listen to the words of all the major social activist figures of the past 50 years. There may be philosophical differences, but the underlying tone is all the same: it does not need to be so hard for us to grow as a society to the point where people can be who they need to be, yet they still have mutual respect and cohesion.
The gay rights debate seemingly had to happen, and it's still happening. That doesn't mean I should pretend I'm not sick of it. I'm sick of the rampant pro-gay and anti-gay arguments. I just want it to be a non-issue already, like it always ends up being after people spend years blowing hot air over it.
Why can't we, as a nation, just skip the whole fighting part and go right to the solution we always end up at anyway? *grits teeth*
I see the legalities of equality being addressed all over America, but I don't think the intention for social change is happening as fast.
You would think by now that with so many recognized categories of human beings that people would get the subtle sub-text of just learning to accept people for who they are, even if you find something about them weird and contrary. To put it another way, it's kind of pathetic that in the year 2013 we are still having these huge national battles to settle social issues.
To shed more light on this, compare this to what happened in Canada. There was one parliamentary debate on the issue in the year 2000, and after a vote the matter was settled. Gays could get married if they want, and individual Churches were free or not free to marry them. You can't blame it on homogeneity in Canadian culture, there are just as many right wingers there. So what's our problem in America? How hard is it?
Listen to the words of all the major social activist figures of the past 50 years. There may be philosophical differences, but the underlying tone is all the same: it does not need to be so hard for us to grow as a society to the point where people can be who they need to be, yet they still have mutual respect and cohesion.
The gay rights debate seemingly had to happen, and it's still happening. That doesn't mean I should pretend I'm not sick of it. I'm sick of the rampant pro-gay and anti-gay arguments. I just want it to be a non-issue already, like it always ends up being after people spend years blowing hot air over it.
Why can't we, as a nation, just skip the whole fighting part and go right to the solution we always end up at anyway? *grits teeth*
Same reason mississippi still disapproves of interracial marriage, while they marry their cousins. It is entirely pathetic, but then this country has quite a pathetic history when it comes to minority rights. It's perpetually at least 20 years behind Canada/western Europe on just about every social issue. If Scotus had the balls to do this back when Canada did, or if the public gave up its prejudices more willingly, it would be a non issue by now. As it is, sorry you're sick of it, but rights do matter, so it's going to continue.
Did you read what you just posted?
Religion is exalted in our society, and the state is to be neutral? I don't think you really like that, do you?
So I rest my case.
Is it just a matter then of blaming it on the puritanical base? I don't know if I totally buy that.
It seems like our culture is very rooted in fighting, which means intensely debating everything. No one shares their opinion more readily than Americans. (It's not a bad or good thing, it's just a fact.) The way we collectively come to terms with change in this country has its own unique flavor.
LMAO
remind me how this and your opinions impact anything i said or any of the facts? oh thats right they dont lol
The FACT remains as far as this country is concerned it is freedom, sorry that hurts your feelings but after we grant gays equal rights you are free to move or just stay and stew that fellow americans enjoy the same freedoms/rights as you because thats whats coming.
The GREAT part is about this country though is after words you will still be able to express, say, preach, teach and believe in your discriminatory and bigoted ways all you want. You just dont get to violate the rights of others.
Isnt that awesome!?!?!?!
You should, the case you quoted does not support your position. Again, the government under the force of law requiring Bible studies was found unconstitutional.
Chuckle...
Look who's bigoted against Biblical values and those who embrace them!
But I will tell you one thing: Your spiritually-challenged, pro-gay fantasies will come to a screeching end at the Judgment Seat.
I don't support mandatory Bible study, although it might be enlightening to a great many of the radical left wing progressives.
But the gist of the ruling was that secularism should not be rammed down anyone's throats either, at the expense of religious beliefs. Equality, remember? The state is to be neutral?
You're so adorable. Had a good laugh about this with a female friend. She's going to name a new sex toy after you. I need to ask if it's a pity or hate **** thing.
Once again you are lost while trying to post in the *religion forum* How long you been doing this? Changed anyone's mind? Saved any souls? Let me help you: Nope!
How is secularism rammed down peoples throats?
You've got to be kidding.
By evicting God and Christ from everywhere and everything they can, and they've been doing it for decades, if not longer.
Could you be more specific? From what I can tell religious institutions are all around.
Just go to the website of the ACLJ.org (American Center for Law and Justice) and look at the cases they've been working on for the last several decades. That will give you a sample.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?