Indeed, it is the only part of the "Test Act" that has not been repealed.Deus Ex Machina said:Because of this state-sponsorship of the Anglican Church, there exists a discriminatory law in Britain forbidding Catholics from becoming head of state (i.e. King / Queen).
Why? That is I believe the point of this thread. Simply believing it doesn't make it right. As I stated at the beginning of the other thread several democracies have it in their constitution (usually, but not restricted to, the premable) mention of God/Christ/church.*Deus Ex Machina said:It would be be better that a government stays out of the business of religion entirely and therefore not discriminate.
You are correct, it is an assault on Christianity, by stealth. :2wave:aquapub said:And if there is any doubt that this Church and State war is about anti-Christianity and not religion in general, consider that the people trying to remove all things Christian from all things public (based on a lie) are the same ones who remained silent when California schools started requiring 5th graders to recite the 7 pillars of Islam and the girls to wear Muslim garb for so many weeks to graduate to the next grade.
Not even close to the truth! Ever read Article 6, clause 3 of the Constitution?aquapub said:The Constitution says nothing about the separation of church and state.
The current interpetation by the courts is exactly opposite the intended meaning. The states were supposed to be able to associate freely with whatever religion they wanted.
You know what that means, do you? It means that no one, no State, can impose religion as any sort of anything, period. It's so clear, so straight forward: NO RELIGIOUS TESTClause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Read it again:aquapub said:The Bill of Rights was never intended to protect anti-Christian bigots from having to tolerate religious free speech.
No law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion. That means that laws cannot be passed allowing for government involvement in any laws about religion, none. It also means that people do have the right to excercise their religious freedom so long as it does not involve the government, federal or state.Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Please, please prove to us how California public schools require students to recite the pillars of Islam and the BS dress thing! How can you write such trash and not provide any source for your bellowing?aquapub said:And if there is any doubt that this Church and State war is about anti-Christianity and not religion in general, consider that the people trying to remove all things Christian from all things public (based on a lie) are the same ones who remained silent when California schools started requiring 5th graders to recite the 7 pillars of Islam and the girls to wear Muslim garb for so many weeks to graduate to the next grade.
Britons also have a more homogeneous society than we here in multicultural melting pot America. I doubt that most Britons care whether they have a state-sponsored church or not. In fact, where I live, there are a large number of Anglican-communion Episcopal churches, so perhaps the English transplants must love having this little piece of home away from home close at hand.Montalban said:The degree of separation of church and state in the US is different from that in the UK. Both are multi-party democracies. It is clear that it is not 'necessary' to being a democracy to be like the US model, as Britain has a state-sponsored church.
A conspiracy against Christianity...?...probably not. However, there does seem to be a consorted effort to be "politically correct" & Christianity is certainly not a part of that political correctness.26 X World Champs said:As far as the Anti-Christian sh*t goes, talk about a sore winner! Christ interferes with my life all the time, and being Jewish I find it incredibly offensive. For you to suggest that there is a conspiracy against Christianity is beyond absurd! And yes, all things Christian SHOULD be removed from all things public, too damn bad.
What's really telling about your hypocrisy is that in the very same paragraph you bitch about how Christian symbols should be allowed and even taught in public, and then you expose your prejudice by making some absurd statement how offended you are by public displays of Islam.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am diametrically opposed to ALL religious symbols in public, whatever faith they might be.Arthur Fonzarelli said:A conspiracy against Christianity...?...probably not. However, there does seem to be a consorted effort to be "politically correct" & Christianity is certainly not a part of that political correctness.
As for any hypocrisy...you seem to have a problem with Christianity & it's symbols but not that of any other religion. Most Christians are not offended by these other religions or their symbols but are offended when they're allowed "public" access while Christianity is denied over & over again.
So, yes, there is hypocrisy; but it's not from the Christian community.
For the most part I agree with you. I think most restrictions placed on public airwaves is an attempt to protect kids with bad parents. EXAMPLE: the bonehead kid who burned his house down after watching Beavis & Butthead. Not the show's fault; it was the lack of good parenting. On the other hand, we can't justify censorship under the guise of saving people from themselves.26 X World Champs said:Sorry to disappoint you, but I am diametrically opposed to ALL religious symbols in public, whatever faith they might be.
I have no problem with Christianity, the religion at all, not one little bit. I respect it, and I admire the ethos involved.
What I do have a problem with are people who think that Christianity is the rule of law, that if you do not adhere to Christian philosophy and principle that one is a Cretan, bound for hell, especially when this point of view is displayed in public.
All religions deserve equal time, in private. Majority opinion or majority rule mean squat when it comes to religious freedom, IMHO. The person who worships Klingons has equal rights to express those views as any other religion. I'm sickened when religious groups try to get things removed from the public domain in the name of their religion, it offends me. Telling others what they can watch or read or listen to is about as repulsive and anti-American as it gets. If someone doesn't want to watch something they can change the channel of turn it off, that is freedom of choice. When they try to turn it off so no one can see it that is an invasion of privacy and against my 1st amendment rights.
So, as I said, sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not against Christianity at all, I'm just against people who want to shove their religion down my throat, especially in the name of God. Is that OK with you?
I have no problem at all with anyone expressing their religious beliefs in public, just not with public money on government property. Being in private doesn't mean indoors or out of view of others, it just means that the site and funding comes from private resources, not from taxpayers.Arthur Fonzarelli said:For the most part I agree with you. I think most restrictions placed on public airwaves is an attempt to protect kids with bad parents. EXAMPLE: the bonehead kid who burned his house down after watching Beavis & Butthead. Not the show's fault; it was the lack of good parenting. On the other hand, we can't justify censorship under the guise of saving people from themselves.
Remember this: If you confine me to my church or home to express my religious beliefs then my 1st Amendment rights are being violated.
Not true, sorry. I have no love for any religious fanaticism regardless of sect. I also do not relate to our understand Islam virtually at all. I am mostly ignorant when it comes to the Koran, Islam, and its mores. In a nutshell, I know sh*t about it.Arthur Fonzarelli said:Though you claim not to be against Christianity I see that most of your complaints about religion involve Christianity & that you never expressed displeasure with Islamic symbols or Jewish symbols in public. You never express displeasure with the fact that those Islamic Terrorists consider you an Infidel if you don't believe as they do. They see it as the rule of law as well, but where is your tirade against them?
Yes. Makes perfect sense. I used to consider myself agnostic as well (During my high school & young adult years). I had a friend in high school who got "saved." He was always trying to shove it down all our throats. Many of our friends stop hanging out with him. One day his mother asked me why I was the only one who still came around...my reply was that Mike (my friend) allows me to be me & I allow him to be him & that someday he'd find some balance. The day my heart got pricked by the Lord I called my buddy Mike. Sure glad I had a friend like him.26 X World Champs said:What I do know is that here in the USA I am not subjected to Islamic principle and customs on a daily basis the way I am with Christianity. As far as Judaism goes, my family is Jewish but my personal beliefs are mostly agnostic, meaning I believe in a Higher Power, but I do not associate my Higher Power with a story or a set of rules that others want to impose upon me. My relationship with my Higher Power is very personal, between my Higher Power and me. I do not feel the need to share its existence as a means of approval of its existence. Does that make sense?
Our Constitution and Religion are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Our Constitution restricts our government and provides freedoms for it citizens. Religion imposes guidelines and rules for the people that choose to adhere to its teachings. They should not be mixed because they are two very overwhelming institutions. Our Constitution does not specifically state a separation of church and state, but it does imply it. The Bill of Rights, especially our First Amendment, is a means to protect the minority from the majority and therefore it does apply here.aquapub said:The Constitution says nothing about the separation of church and state.
New York and Virginia originally refused to join the union. The Bill of Rights was drafted largely to reassure them that the new federal government would not trample their rights.
Seen in its correct context, it is obvious that when the founding fathers wrote in the 1st Amendment that "no law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion," they were restricting the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from imposing a national religion on the STATES, not authorizing federal courts to tell states that their governors cannot take oaths on bibles or to tell little girls they can't pray quietly in school.
The current interpetation by the courts is exactly opposite the intended meaning. The states were supposed to be able to associate freely with whatever religion they wanted.
The Bill of Rights was never intended to protect anti-Christian bigots from having to tolerate religious free speech.
And if there is any doubt that this Church and State war is about anti-Christianity and not religion in general, consider that the people trying to remove all things Christian from all things public (based on a lie) are the same ones who remained silent when California schools started requiring 5th graders to recite the 7 pillars of Islam and the girls to wear Muslim garb for so many weeks to graduate to the next grade.
That is false and it is close to being itself racist. Great Britain is even without migrants a multi-natioanl nation consisting of English, and various Celts; Cornish, Welsh, Scots, and Irish.geekgrrl said:Britons also have a more homogeneous society than we here in multicultural melting pot America. I doubt that most Britons care whether they have a state-sponsored church or not. In fact, where I live, there are a large number of Anglican-communion Episcopal churches, so perhaps the English transplants must love having this little piece of home away from home close at hand.
What was it you were proud of? Obviously not a large body of people who disagree with you wishing to live the way they want to live; i.e. democracy.Just Me said:I used to be proud to be an American; but lately, we're becoming a fundamentalist country whose laws are becoming more and more dictated by religion....what religion is that?
So when was American un-Christian?Just Me said:Christianity of course.
There mere fact that there are people who disagree to something is meaningless. I can say something is a chair, and find 100 people who agree, then find someone who says it's an elephant. The fact that it's a chair, and we can find someone who is in 'disagreement' therefore does not equate to what you think it does.Just Me said:It's not surprising that there are Americans who are speaking out against Bush's "crusade".
Oops, again you're surprised that a number of people don't think like you do.Just Me said:What is surprising is that there are so many Americans who want us to be a fundamentalist country.
So the nature of 'fundamentalist' is abhorrent to you? (as you seem to equate Christian fundamentalist and Iraqi (Muslim) fundamentalist as being the same.Just Me said:How can we expect Iraq to lose its fundamentalist ways when we are growing them here in America?
Science is always disproving itself, no need to alter it.Just Me said:Doesn't anyone see the irony? What is Bush doing in the white house? Americans truly are ignorant. We're even trying to alter science because it may disprove religion....I'm disgusted.
Canada was always more open-minded; where did the slaves run away to?Just Me said:Even Canada is more open-minded and progressive than America now.
Oops, again. Anti-democraticJust Me said:We're going back in time and that seems to be the will of the ignorant people.
Probably because Islamic fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism aren't the same thing. Think "Buddhist fundamentalist"; someone who wants to get back to the peaceful core at the heart of Buddhism.Just Me said:If there is some hostility towards those who push their religious ideals in Iraq, that is understood here in America; but when there is hostility towards those who push their religious ideals here in America....it's not. Why is that?
So you're saying it's only a matter of perceptiongalenrox said:Any anger towards christianity is not the fault of the ACLU, or any other group promoting the seperation of church and state, but instead it comes from inside. Outside of the christian community there is a belief that christians are all like the craziest faction of the evangelical church, because 41% of Americans identify themselves of evangelical christians, and the only evangelicals people see are the Jerry Falwells and Bill Frists and the Focus on the Familys, when in fact they are just a representation of the radical, insanely hypocritical faction of the evangelical christian church.
It's a silly assumption that the whole of Christian thought is in the Bible. Even the Bible notes this...galenrox said:I ran into an evangelical priest at the Orcas Island airport in Washington. We got to talking about the evangelical church, and then to the perception of evangelicals, and he said something very interesting, when the issue of the anti-gay feelings within the christian faith. "I wrote a book listing every single thing that Jesus said about homosexuality. It's 0 pages long."
You mean to tell me you ignore evils when they happen, and you consider this 'normal'?galenrox said:The problem that arises is more normal evangelicals, like myself, aren't nearly as interesting, because what do we do? We're real busy not holding aborted fetuses in front of the capital, bombing abortion clinics because of a pro-life ethos (ironic, right?), and not acting like somehow we're morally superior to everyone else solely because we believe what we believe, and that's just not that interesting.
So you're proposing that when abortion goes on, we ignore it?galenrox said:And there is a problem with the current attack on the seperation of church and state, and I am disgusted and extremely disappointed with evangelicals who are trying to continue this attack, because last time I checked, evangelism was about showing people the path to the light of God, not forcing them down it at gun point.
Sure, you can create a 'hip' church that makes people feel good about what ever it is that they do and hope that somehow they ignore this relativst nonsense and realise that the pathway to God is not to make your own way, but to by like Christ; who by the way said to the adulteress "Go, and sin no more" NOT "Hey, girl, whatever"galenrox said:So if we want people to stop assuming we're all facist nut jobs, we need the normals of us to come out and show that we're not all facist nut jobs, because that's what the people are seeing, and I'd hate us too.
I am not Evangelical. I don't even live in the same country as Falwell (assuming as I will that he's not Australian, or in Australia at the moment), so I'm not going around explaining to Americans to join him. In fact, read my post, I never mentioned him, whoever he is.galenrox said:The only reason there's a mistake in perception is because we, or at least I, a non-crazy facist evangelical, don't go explaining that those who want to have our faith become the letter of the law are so embarassed by people like you and Falwell that even now I'm not comfortable identifying myself as an evangelical, solely based on the fact that I might be associated with people like you.
What's sillier than assuming that this is the measure I make for what Jesus did, or didn't say.galenrox said:And answer me this, what's sillier, assuming Jesus didn't say something, because there is no proof that he did, or assuming that he did, just completely randomly?
So, you believe your 'neighbour' doesn't extend to the 'unborn'?galenrox said:I don't ignore abortion clinic bombings, there's just not much I can do, considering that I don't run in those circles. I'm a member of several pro-choice organizations, and so I don't think the people who are insane enough to view killing real live BORN human beings as somehow being pro-life would really listen to me too much. And I consider myself a "normal" christian because I don't believe in a church based government, and I accept that there are people with other beliefs that are just as valid. And I don't view "love thy neighbor" as a joke.
See above post with regards ignoring sin.galenrox said:As far as abortion goes, why is it your business in the first place?
And I suppose you believe that if you ignore the deaths of countless unborn people, that's showing God's love, but your guilt can be assuaged because a few dozen people have (in the thousands of years abortions have been undertaken), have been killed.galenrox said:It's not, but if it really gets under your skin that much, show people, through God's love (thus without calling them names, or showing them gross stuff like aborted fetuses, but appeal to the best in them, not the worst), that abortions are wrong. That's THE ONLY christian way to go about that sort of thing.
What logic would you give a madman?galenrox said:I am not proposing a life free of right and wrong. I have very firm beliefs on what I believe is right, and what I believe is wrong, and if I meet someone who is doing something that I believe is wrong, since I lack Jesus's charisma, I personally have to try to appeal to someone's logic in showing them why I think it's wrong.
This might be true, I don't even know who Falwell is.galenrox said:That's the difference between me and the evangelicals that get media attention,
You'd make a good soldier. Someone shoots at you, you get up and try reasoning with them. Logic sometimes suggests that logic need not apply to the situation.galenrox said:I explain why I feel things are wrong, while others just yell at people "IT'S WRONG! STOP!" and couldn't answer why, on a logical basis, for the life of them.
I agree that Jesus was about justice. I don't ignore this. However going about on web-sites putting down people as idiots, simply because they disagree with you and that there are more of them than you, and you live in a society that takes the considerations of the masses into account, makes you look to be as bigoted as they are; and when you make assumptions about what you think I believe, and argue against that, reinforces this perception.galenrox said:And keep in mind that if you are going to use Jesus's word as a basis for a legal system, let's not ignore the more liberal politics of Jesus, such as a call to a social welfare system ("Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, what you do to least of you, you'll be doing to me.") or 100% taxes ("Who's face is on the coin?" "Caeser" "Then give to Caeser what belongs to him.") hmmmm?
First: you can't say First twice in making two different points. LOL...sorry, just had to point that out.galenrox said:First, I'll answer some of your questions. First, I don't consider the unborn people, sorry, difference of opinion, though I am willing to be convinced through science, and so I don't view abortion as a sin.
I think it is rather simple. I just don't see it as a matter of choice. Is a fetus a life or not? Once we can legally answer that question then the law becomes clear. We wouldn't even need "abortion laws." If a fetus is not a life then there can be no convictions of killing an unborn child. If the fetus is a life then all laws concerning murder would apply. I personally believe the latter but would settle for consistency in the law.galenrox said:haha, touche on the saying first twice thing.
And you raise an interesting point on the convincting people of double murder for the killing of pregnant women. There's definately some sort of double standard there.
I've never said that this is a simple issue with simple answers, and I apologize if I've made it seem as such. I think there the issue is a woman being forced to terminate a pregnancy over a woman willingly terminating a pregnancy. It's kind of like the difference between consensual sex and rape. But yeah, that's a good point, and it's really in a gray area.
The point is that legally we have to make a decision upon where life begins. Whether we use science, a popular vote, or allow our legislators hash it out; we need to clarify it for application of the law.galenrox said:True, but since we don't know for a fact where life begins, it isn't simple.
Also, no offense, but seeing things in absolutes is a sign of ignorance (most of the time). And are you really opposed to tolerance? I mean, are you dead serious? People needed to use tolerance to accept the Fonz, considering he didn't fit into their white bread world.
What, you think they're aliens?galenrox said:First, I'll answer some of your questions. First, I don't consider the unborn people, sorry, difference of opinion, though I am willing to be convinced through science, and so I don't view abortion as a sin.
Yes, some children just cause an inconevience. We should kill them.galenrox said:I view it as unfortunate, because a woman getting pregnant should be one of the happiest occasions in a family's life, but unfortunately that's frequently not the case, so it would be intentionally naiive to pretend that it was.
Sure, we are doing that now.galenrox said:And what's the problem with talking to people? Almost everything wrong with the world comes from a lack of understanding! If more people just sat down and talked, and gave an honest effort to understand where everyone was coming from, and was able to put a human, not a statistic or a television image or a photograph, behind every problem, things would be a whole lot better.
It is the opinion of the 'tradition' of the Christian church. So, yes, by your rationale, it might be 'arrogant'. I don't apologise that I support Christian values. I know this might upset you; if a large number of people share the same ideas.galenrox said:But now I have a couple of questions for you. First, considering that whether or not the unborn are alive is an opinion, not a fact, doesn't it seem a tad arrogant to you to try to base legislation on your opinion, and define what a sin is based on your opinion?
Ah, bigotry comes in all shapes and sizes. My un-American opinion be damned!galenrox said:Also, considering the discussion is about the American constitution, you being an australian, why should your opinion matter in the first place?
What a red-neck!galenrox said:Why don't you worry about your own country? I am real sick of people from far worse countries (this doesn't neccisarily extend to Australia, whose political situation I know little about, moreso to like, France or England) than mine consistently criticizing America, and ignoring that their countries are FALLING APART! Sorry, little rant, but yeah, why should I care what you think?
Very true. The British in India could have been said to be intolerant when they imposed their laws. One of these was the banning of a time-honoured tradition called suttee... which was the ritual practice of throwing a widow on her late husband's funeral pyre.Arthur Fonzarelli said:Tolerance of everything leads to acceptance of things unacceptable.