Why are those on the left tolerant of everything, save for christians and Jews?

[AlbqOwl]

I have no fear of religion. In fact, I am Catholic and at one time had intentions of joining the priesthood, so the bigotry "dog wont hunt." I said, there are plenty of opportunities at the beginning of the day for children to have a moment of silence. Its called the 16 hours between the end of one day and the beginning of the next school day. Take your pick which moment you want. There is also recess, lunch, morning break, and anytime the teacher walks out of the room. I dont see a need to have a designated moment of silence every day.

I don't see a need to do cut outs, use the color brown, or several dozen other things that school kids routinely do, when other activities would serve the same purpose.

The concept here is to get kids settled down at the beginning of the school day, shut them up, get them focused, and teachers tell me that a moment of silence accomplishes that. That you or anybody else doesn't see the point is unimportant if the teacher and the kids do see the point.

So that brings me back to the original premise. What is more oppressive of human rights? Having a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day or forbidding teachers and school kids from having that?

 

[jallman]

I don't see a need to do cut outs, use the color brown, or several dozen other things that school kids routinely do, when other activities would serve the same purpose.

The concept here is to get kids settled down at the beginning of the school day, shut them up, get them focused, and teachers tell me that a moment of silence accomplishes that. That you or anybody else doesn't see the point is unimportant if the teacher and the kids do see the point.

So that brings me back to the original premise. What is more oppressive of human rights? Having a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day or forbidding teachers and school kids from having that?

I think we are getting bogged down in technicalities here. I am not attacking anyone's right to have this moment of silence. But there is enough time in a day for a person or group to set aside for this purpose. To foster the idea that the school should encourage this as a particular activity every day is a waste of time that could be spent learning. And I agree with earlier posts... this is simply opening a doorway for it to be used for a religious purpose. This shouldnt even be an argument to begin with. A moment of silence, by its nature is personal, and so not an infringement on any other's rights. I am just saying I dont see a need for it to be school sanctioned or promoted. It's personal and so should be done on a student's personal time.

 

[Columbusite]

I think we are getting bogged down in technicalities here. I am not attacking anyone's right to have this moment of silence. But there is enough time in a day for a person or group to set aside for this purpose. To foster the idea that the school should encourage this as a particular activity every day is a waste of time that could be spent learning. And I agree with earlier posts... this is simply opening a doorway for it to be used for a religious purpose. This shouldnt even be an argument to begin with. A moment of silence, by its nature is personal, and so not an infringement on any other's rights. I am just saying I dont see a need for it to be school sanctioned or promoted. It's personal and so should be done on a student's personal time.

And it's hard for it to be personal when it is school led. Really, I don't get this anti-religious crap. If I were, I'd be against any kind of prayer in schools, but I'm not. If following our Constitution makes me a bigot, well then I guess I am. Saying that Christians have a right to pray at anytime they want in school. The nerve. From the reactions here it sounds like I'm saying they should be rounded up sent to a gulag.

 

[dragonslayer]

I am a Proud Liberal Democrat Christian. All this is just plain trash.. I am certainly tolerant of christians and Jews. What a stupid subject for a post.

Of course I want to keep the KKK type of christianity away from our children, and out of our schools.

What has the Ten commandments have to do with Christianity? Take em out of our halls. Why do we need them? They are fine to read in the old testament.

some of yu right wing almost Americans, you all talk like you have feathers in your heads instead of Hair.

Christianity belongs in our homes and churches, not in our schools.

God bless America, in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

[ElGringo17]

To answere the title: because leftists are hipocritical bigots.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I am a Proud Liberal Democrat Christian. All this is just plain trash.. I am certainly tolerant of christians and Jews. What a stupid subject for a post.

Of course I want to keep the KKK type of christianity away from our children, and out of our schools.

The KKK is not a religion, it is a white supremacist group, what they do has nothing to do with christianity although they certainly hide behind it, I agree that their message has no business in schools, but I digress, secondly, maybe you as a proud liberal Democrat Christian are tolerant of religion in public, but there are some from your side of the fence seen on television and in court cases trying to do the opposite of your claim, I don't see the right doing this, hence the thread starters inquiry.

What has the Ten commandments have to do with Christianity? Take em out of our halls. Why do we need them? They are fine to read in the old testament.

The ten comandments are the key set of behavioral rules and as a christian you and I believe they are the word of god, regardless of such they are still great social rules and most certainly can't hurt if out in a courthouse.

some of yu right wing almost Americans, you all talk like you have feathers in your heads instead of Hair.

"almost americans"? Why even make an assumption that someone with a differing opinion is less than american because you don't like what they say, now I will say this, I am sick of people saying that conservatives want to take away civil liberties and rights, that is not the case, the ones who advocate censorship are right wing and are kooks, but the left takes shots at other liberties such as the right to run a private business as seen fit by it's rightful owner, and also liberals take shots at people's right to happiness by constantly attacking their choices such as what type of vehicle to own, their choice in the type of house they live in, and even their right to minimal taxation(thus punishing hard work), don't get me started on the anti-military rhetoric, to disagree with the current war is fine, that is your right, but to say that our soldiers are murderers and baby killers, to treat them with disrespect when they return, to use their fellow soldiers deaths as a political tool, and even to say they aren't needed and deserve to lose wars(the extreme left does feel this way, just listen to some of them) and the like isn't exactly patriotic now, is it?

Christianity belongs in our homes and churches, not in our schools.

Okay, so if someone said blacks don't belong in white schools then that would be racism and would be wrong, to say that gays shouldn't be given equal rights would also be intolerant, to exclude qualified women from male dominated fields would be bad as well, these are all examples of intolerance, and so is banning religious expression from schools, it is discrimination, it is intolerance, and it is WRONG.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The ACLU, you know the defenders of that piece of paper called the “constitution”, have never in anyway endorsed or supported any case or ideology that restricts an individual’s right to believe in what ever God he or she chooses to believe in, or to practice their beliefs.

What liberals are against is using government to endorse, promote, or compel any specific religious beliefs. For example, a certain former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was well within his rights to hold any religious belief he chose to hold. Furthermore he was well within his rights to practice that belief. In fact, if he wanted to pastor a church on Sunday, he was well within his rights to do so. However, he could not use his public position to promote or endorse those beliefs or to compel others to adhere to them.

We are a nation founded on the principle of a separation of church and state. That is what differentiates us from a nation like Iran or like what Iraq looks like it will be. We are not a theocracy.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The ACLU, you know the defenders of that piece of paper called the “constitution”, have never in anyway endorsed or supported any case or ideology that restricts an individual’s right to believe in what ever God he or she chooses to believe in, or to practice their beliefs.

The big problem with the ACLU is that they defend "their" interpretation of the constitution, and some of their positions are more damaging to the constitution than helpful to the individual.

What liberals are against is using government to endorse, promote, or compel any specific religious beliefs. For example, a certain former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was well within his rights to hold any religious belief he chose to hold. Furthermore he was well within his rights to practice that belief. In fact, if he wanted to pastor a church on Sunday, he was well within his rights to do so. However, he could not use his public position to promote or endorse those beliefs or to compel others to adhere to them.

- The only mention of religious prohibition is the establishment thereof, that boils down to simply creating a singular religion for all sponsored by the state, it has nothing to do with overall prohibition of religion on publicly owned grounds. The worst thing about the "seperation of church and state" issue is that it empowers minorities to censor the majorities expression of their religion on publicly owned grounds, that in itself is unconstitutional.
- A counter example, this Former Chief Justice ruled over a district that was heavily christian, therefore, he being a christian himself did something that was a representation of his constituents, also, against the communities wishes, he was overruled and their monument was removed, censorship is censorship I say.
- Counterpoint two: Since the Former Chief Justice is a representative of the state, by liberal SOCAS logic, then he could not teach his religion becuase that would fall under the endorsement/support violation that they so fear.

We are a nation founded on the principle of a separation of church and state. That is what differentiates us from a nation like Iran or like what Iraq looks like it will be. We are not a theocracy.

No, we are not a nation founded on the ideal of "Seperation of Church and State" that concept came from judicial interpretation of the constitution and is a direct result of judicial review, they overturned a well understood practice in the 1950's, well after the founding of this nation. Also, this nation was not a theocracy before said interpretation and with a larger secular community based on freedom and liberty I don't see how the theory of us becoming one is even valid.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Here is the problem:

1. Fundamentalist Christians believe that all of our most basic laws are based in Christian morality.

2. Liberals, intellectual conservatives, and other groups believe that all of our most basic laws are based in the principle that an individuals right to live their life the way they choose to live their life extends to the point that it does not interfere with another individuals right to live their life the way they choose to live their life.

Some of the Founders were very religious, some agnostic, some deist, and some atheist. In fact, if anything, the people who govern us today are by and large more religious as a group than the Founding Fathers were. So basically, even at the time of our founding, there were those who believed that America should be a Christian theocracy that is tolerant of other religions, and those that believed that America should be a secular nation with religious freedom. That is why both the fundies, and the normal people (that’s a joke) both have plenty of historical documents to point to that backs up their political philosophy.

Those who adhere to the first governing philosophy believe that there is no separation of church and state and the state can do anything in so far is religion goes short of establishing a federal religion.

Those who adhere to the second governing philosophy believe that there is a separation of church and state and that while individuals have the right to hold any faith they choose and practice that faith in any way they choose so long as their actions do not impede another individual’s right to do the same. However, the state cannot be used as a tool promote, endorse, or compel any specific religious beliefs.

I am a Christian, but I also adhere to that second governing philosophy. In fact, I don’t think that my faith is so weak that it needs a government to promote and or endorse it. Moreover, the Supreme Court has said that my view is the constitutional view. I would also say that my view is the one that grants individuals the most freedom that an individual can possibly be afforded without impairing the rights of others. Now, you may say that the courts have only came to that conclusion in the last half century or so, but I don’t see where that is a valid argument at all because the courts came to the conclusion that segregation was unconstitutional in the last fifty years and that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional in the last fifty years. It doesn’t matter how long it takes the courts to interpret something, because if something is constitutional or unconstitutional, it is no matter how long it takes the courts to move the nation to that point.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Here is the problem:

1. Fundamentalist Christians believe that all of our most basic laws are based in Christian morality.

According to the Federalist papers and other sources, so did the Founding Fathers. Christianity was the only game in town at the time, and they rightfully understood that their views of morality, right and wrong, legal and illegal, came from their basic religious teachings.

2. Liberals, intellectual conservatives, and other groups believe that all of our most basic laws are based in the principle that an individuals right to live their life the way they choose to live their life extends to the point that it does not interfere with another individuals right to live their life the way they choose to live their life.

You can include most Christians in that group too.

Some of the Founders were very religious, some agnostic, some deist, and some atheist. In fact, if anything, the people who govern us today are by and large more religious as a group than the Founding Fathers were. So basically, even at the time of our founding, there were those who believed that America should be a Christian theocracy that is tolerant of other religions, and those that believed that America should be a secular nation with religious freedom. That is why both the fundies, and the normal people (that’s a joke) both have plenty of historical documents to point to that backs up their political philosophy.

The fact was, the original colonies, at the time the Constitution was being drafted were mostly a lot of little theocracies. There was no religious freedom within those that were. And while some of the Founders were part of those same little theocracies, they rightfully recognized how destructive it would have been for one of them to have been able to force their views on the others. Thus, they determined they would keep the federal government out of the business of condoning or condemning any one religious belief system. If there were any of the Constitutional architects that supported a religious theocracy, I missed that in history class.

Those who adhere to the first governing philosophy believe that there is no separation of church and state and the state can do anything in so far is religion goes short of establishing a federal religion.

Most of those who believe there was no consitutional intent for separation of Church and State are not pro-theocracy people by any stretch of the imagination. They believe that it was a given that religious people would and should be informed and interested in their system of self-government and that they would participate in it. It was intended that government itself would neither favor nor prohibit any particular religious belief, but it was fully expected that those in government would and should be people of faith, and that faith would help guide them in good government. Some went so far to say that the Republic would not survive other than by moral principles, and they believed that their faith was the basis for the moral principles they believe in.

The intent was that the Church would have no power to dictate what government had to be and government would have no power to dictate what religion should be. There was no intent that either would have no opinion or concern for the other.

As a Christian, I have as much right as any other person to express my opinions about what government should be and that may very well be heavily influenced by my religious faith. The athiest has the very same right. Government in turn cannot punish either of us for our beliefs and cannot favor one of us over the other.

Those who adhere to the second governing philosophy believe that there is a separation of church and state and that while individuals have the right to hold any faith they choose and practice that faith in any way they choose so long as their actions do not impede another individual’s right to do the same. However, the state cannot be used as a tool promote, endorse, or compel any specific religious beliefs.

I am a Christian, but I also adhere to that second governing philosophy. In fact, I don’t think that my faith is so weak that it needs a government to promote and or endorse it. Moreover, the Supreme Court has said that my view is the constitutional view. I would also say that my view is the one that grants individuals the most freedom that an individual can possibly be afforded without impairing the rights of others. Now, you may say that the courts have only came to that conclusion in the last half century or so, but I don’t see where that is a valid argument at all because the courts came to the conclusion that segregation was unconstitutional in the last fifty years and that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional in the last fifty years. It doesn’t matter how long it takes the courts to interpret something, because if something is constitutional or unconstitutional, it is no matter how long it takes the courts to move the nation to that point.

We are in agreement that the State cannot be used as a tool to compel, endorse, or compel any particular religious belief. Further laws and practices that exist should apply equally to all. The State is within its right to say that the religious are prohibited from practices that the non-religious are not allowed to do. (We can't offer up human sacrifices, for instance, and the guys are limited to one wife no matter what the church doctrine allows.)

Where we probably are in disagreement the most, however, is in the area of what consists of 'establishment or promotion or favor' of religion. I think it is as wrong for a school to give the impression that a child's faith is unacceptable there as it is for a school to be pushing a particular religious belief. To get uptight about community customs of the school choir incorporating classical religious Christmas carols into a school program or an old beloved crech appearing on the courthouse lawn at Christmas time or a Star of David at Yom Kippor goes way beyond any notion of 'no establishment of religion'. Yes, if one group gets to have their symbols on special occasions, all groups must be allowed their symbols on special occasions, but does anybody honestly think such creates a theocracy?

The whole issue could be resolved with just a measure of tolerance. Nobody is going to be warped by hearing "The First Noel" in the city park or in the school winter concert. And how does it hurt anybody if a beloved historic creche appears on the courthouse lawn for a few weeks at Christmas? Are you compelled to burst into prayer if you walk past a granite statue with the Ten Commandments engraved on it?

I wonder how we avoided having a theocracy for the most of 200 years when religion was very visible in all communities and had heavy influence in the schools and in local governments? Before the ACLU went anal about this stuff and before the angry few started petitioning SCOTUS to rule religion in public view illegal anywhere?

It seems to me ideology has taken over common sense in a lot of these things.

 

[marchare]

According to the Federalist papers and other sources, so did the Founding Fathers. Christianity was the only game in town at the time, and they rightfully understood that their views of morality, right and wrong, legal and illegal, came from their basic religious teachings.

If authors of the Federalist Papers imply this, they were simply wrong. The principle influence in the founding of the republic was The Enlightenment.

Most of those who believe there was no consitutional intent for separation of Church and State are not pro-theocracy people by any stretch of the imagination.

Kidding right? Non-theocrats?

They believe that it was a given that religious people would and should be informed and interested in their system of self-government and that they would participate in it. It was intended that government itself would neither favor nor prohibit any particular religious belief,...

Bravo! All Americans, religious or not, should be informed, interested, and participating.
The First Amendment doesn’t say or even remotely imply “particular” religion, by the way. The motive for the insertion of “particular” is obvious.
And these non-theocrats:

...fully expected that those in government would and should be people of faith, and that faith would help guide them in good government. Some went so far to say that the Republic would not survive other than by moral principles, and they believed that their faith was the basis for the moral principles they believe in.

If the non-theocrat’s belief that the faith-basis of moral beliefs, is itself moral, I’d say we have some seriously circular reasoning. Please imagine also non-racists: “…fully expected that those in government would and should be people of the white race, and that whiteness would help guide them in good government. Some went so far to say that the Republic would not survive other than by moral principles, and they believed that their whiteness was the basis for the moral principles they believe in.”
…sound familiar?

The intent was that the Church would have no power to dictate what government had to be and government would have no power to dictate what religion should be. There was no intent that either would have no opinion or concern for the other.

Just what part of the church could government legally have “opinion or concern” for? Still non-theocrats?

As a Christian, I have as much right as any other person to express my opinions about what government should be and that may very well be heavily influenced by my religious faith. The atheist has the very same right. Government in turn cannot punish either of us for our beliefs and cannot favor one of us over the other.

American’s faith influencing public policy, great! But by what mechanism? By posting the Ten Commandments on public property to make it look official?
The Civil Rights Movement, especially with the leadership of Dr. King, compellingly illustrates the power of faith to affect change in public policy. The Movement did not insist that government or even their foes be Christian, but that the Movement be Christian. “Turn the other cheek.” “Pray for those hating” ,etc. The result? Further guarantee of everyone’s civil rights, and the evisceration of the KKK curtailing its state sponsored terrorism. The very words of Jesus doing a work in the twentieth century.
The claim made by some that liberals are a hate group, banning religious expression from the “public square”, is a transparent example of the Right’s method of reframing the issue, to that of their own victim status. A little like the use of “particular”. Notice too, the spin job of referring to all of those court cases as “about religion” when all of them are really about government. Transparent.

 

[Timequake]

So what exactly is an intellectual conservative?

 

[AlbqOwl]

If authors of the Federalist Papers imply this, they were simply wrong. The principle influence in the founding of the republic was The Enlightenment.

Kidding right? Non-theocrats?

Bravo! All Americans, religious or not, should be informed, interested, and participating.
The First Amendment doesn’t say or even remotely imply “particular” religion, by the way. The motive for the insertion of “particular” is obvious.
And these non-theocrats:

If the non-theocrat’s belief that the faith-basis of moral beliefs, is itself moral, I’d say we have some seriously circular reasoning. Please imagine also non-racists: “…fully expected that those in government would and should be people of the white race, and that whiteness would help guide them in good government. Some went so far to say that the Republic would not survive other than by moral principles, and they believed that their whiteness was the basis for the moral principles they believe in.”
…sound familiar?

Just what part of the church could government legally have “opinion or concern” for? Still non-theocrats?

American’s faith influencing public policy, great! But by what mechanism? By posting the Ten Commandments on public property to make it look official?
The Civil Rights Movement, especially with the leadership of Dr. King, compellingly illustrates the power of faith to affect change in public policy. The Movement did not insist that government or even their foes be Christian, but that the Movement be Christian. “Turn the other cheek.” “Pray for those hating” ,etc. The result? Further guarantee of everyone’s civil rights, and the evisceration of the KKK curtailing its state sponsored terrorism. The very words of Jesus doing a work in the twentieth century.
The claim made by some that liberals are a hate group, banning religious expression from the “public square”, is a transparent example of the Right’s method of reframing the issue, to that of their own victim status. A little like the use of “particular”. Notice too, the spin job of referring to all of those court cases as “about religion” when all of them are really about government. Transparent.

The Preamble of the Constitution states one of the purposes of the Constitution is to "promote the common welfare". I am indeed saying the Founding Fathers were non-theocrats even as most were people of faith, specifically Christian. They were not wrong in their view of religion or in their views of the origins of their sense of morality.

The government has long recognized that the Church, the synagogue, the mosque, the Buddhist Temple, etc. provide comfort and stablility for a community and that they attend to certain educational, ministry, and charitiable needs in the community, and thus religious groups are afforded the same not-for-profit, tax-exempt status as other institutions (libraries, hospitals, humane societies, etc.) that are also beneficial to the communiy. The government could not provide such provisions for ONLY Christians or ONLY Jews, but so long as all are treated equally, it is perfectly constitutional. Religious groups are also subject to the same regulations and prohibitions as any secular not-for-profit group.

Religion is part of the history and heritage of this country, and to forbid recognition of that fact is to restrict freedoms as well as violate the second part of the First Amendment. That creche or Minorrah or other religious object on the courthouse lawn is part of a celebration meaningful to a segment of that community. It is no more coercive or favoring a faith than is the enormous bronze statue of a Roman god that graces the main corridor of the Albuquerque airport (also government property.)

Those who are so bitter and angry at anyone expressing a religious concept are whittling away at individual freedoms and seem to be intent on removing any evidence of anything religious from the entire public sector. Yes, if you have a tolerant policy, there is a possibility that nuts that nobody likes will also participate. But that is preferable to curtailing everybody else's freedoms.

 

[marchare]

Religion is part of the history and heritage of this country, and to forbid recognition of that fact is to restrict freedoms as well as violate the second part of the First Amendment.

It’s not recognized unless recognized by the state? What is this fixation with the state? Your Faith may be very powerful but it hasn’t any power over heathens like me, and that is where the state comes in. That’s why the Righteous Right has this fixation. No?

Those who are so bitter and angry at anyone expressing a religious concept are whittling away at individual freedoms and seem to be intent on removing any evidence of anything religious from the entire public sector.

I can’t speak for “the left”, but I do have little tolerance for those insisting that “expressing a religious concept” must be done by law. Don’t spin this into some kind of warped bitterness against religious expression, where “people of faith” are victims. It’s transparent. The Righteous Right is clearly hell-bent on de-secularizing our republic. A secular republic is not a secular nation.
Hey try this folks: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen

 

[AlbqOwl]

It’s not recognized unless recognized by the state? What is this fixation with the state? Your Faith may be very powerful but it hasn’t any power over heathens like me, and that is where the state comes in. That’s why the Righteous Right has this fixation. No?]

This whole argument was based on the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Neither I nor the state can force you, 'the old heathen' as you call yourself, to profess any religious faith or participate in any relgiious exercise. And conversely, neither you nor the state should be able to forbid me from doing so.

I can’t speak for “the left”, but I do have little tolerance for those insisting that “expressing a religious concept” must be done by law. Don’t spin this into some kind of warped bitterness against religious expression, where “people of faith” are victims. It’s transparent. The Righteous Right is clearly hell-bent on de-secularizing our republic. A secular republic is not a secular nation.

I do not want 'expressing a religious concept' to be done by law. I support the first part of the phrase.....the government will not establish relgiion.....as seriously as I take the second part. And the second part allowing religious expression is already the law by virtue of the First Amendment. Some are tring to change the law to make the second half of the First Amendment meaningless.

 

[marchare]

Some?
Who, and how?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Those who are traumatized if there is a generic little prayer before a football game and file suit. Those are are horrified if there is a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day because somebody could use that time to pray and file suit. Those who are disgusted at the sight of a granite statue with historic religious phrases engraved on it and file suit. Those who can't stand Christians celebrating Christmas with carols in the Christmas concert o with a rustic old creche on the courthouse lawn and file suit. Those who don't want the military to have chaplains and file suit. Those who are freaked out by a child choosing the Bible for her extemporaneous reading at 'show and tell' and file suit.

 

[marchare]

Those who are traumatized if there is a generic little prayer before a football game and file suit. Those are horrified if there is a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day because somebody could use that time to pray and file suit.

Are you saying that a suit was filed because of a plaintiff’s horror at the thought of someone else praying? That would be thrown out of court as completely baseless.

Just what kind of nuts are:

…disgusted at the sight of a granite statue with historic religious phrases engraved on it...

I was disgusted at the sight of a justice installing a granite idol with his Ten Commandments into a State Supreme Court building, as this justice proclaimed America to be a theocracy. What do the Commandments have to say about idol worship anyway?

Those who can't stand Christians celebrating Christmas with carols in the Christmas concert o with a rustic old creche on the courthouse lawn and file suit.

No we can’t put this creche on our own or church property can we? It’s got to be tax supported property to remind heathens who the real official Americans are.

Those who don't want the military to have chaplains and file suit. Those who are freaked out by a child choosing the Bible for her extemporaneous reading at 'show and tell' and file suit.

I’d like to see the specifics of these cases.
I’m not buying the “Christians are victims” spin anyway. All of the above mentioned cases are not over religion. The defendants are all government institutions and establishment of religion is what is at issue. Nobody is busting down your church door demanding correct interpretation of scriptures, or what prayers are ok, or whether women can be clergy, etc. Your faith is not under attack.
Christianity has many hundreds of years experience involved with government. They were called The Dark Ages. That is a fact that cannot be denied. Our Republic is not to be used as a sounding board for anyone’s faith, majority or not.
By the way, the repetitive use of “people of faith” makes it seem that you have folks pigeonholed into the faith ”haves” and “have nots”. Am I being presumptuous in guessing that you consider yourself belonging to the former?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Are you saying that a suit was filed because of a plaintiff’s horror at the thought of someone else praying? That would be thrown out of court as completely baseless.

Just what kind of nuts are:

I was disgusted at the sight of a justice installing a granite idol with his Ten Commandments into a State Supreme Court building, as this justice proclaimed America to be a theocracy. What do the Commandments have to say about idol worship anyway?


No we can’t put this creche on our own or church property can we? It’s got to be tax supported property to remind heathens who the real official Americans are.


I’d like to see the specifics of these cases.
I’m not buying the “Christians are victims” spin anyway. All of the above mentioned cases are not over religion. The defendants are all government institutions and establishment of religion is what is at issue. Nobody is busting down your church door demanding correct interpretation of scriptures, or what prayers are ok, or whether women can be clergy, etc. Your faith is not under attack.
Christianity has many hundreds of years experience involved with government. They were called The Dark Ages. That is a fact that cannot be denied. Our Republic is not to be used as a sounding board for anyone’s faith, majority or not.
By the way, the repetitive use of “people of faith” makes it seem that you have folks pigeonholed into the faith ”haves” and “have nots”. Am I being presumptuous in guessing that you consider yourself belonging to the former?

And so you build strawmen in irrelevent subjects "Christianity has many hundreds of years experience with government" et al and semantics "people of faith" and what could be done instead of rather than deal with the issues presented. Unless you care to comment on the specific issues presented, I will presume you concede their credibility.

 

[marchare]

So what exactly is an intellectual conservative?

First time ever seeing those two words together, honest!
Kinda like “jumbo shrimp” though.

And so you build strawmen in irrelevent subjects "Christianity has many hundreds of years experience with government" et al and semantics "people of faith" and what could be done instead of rather than deal with the issues presented. Unless you care to comment on the specific issues presented, I will presume you concede their credibility.

The Dark Ages irrelevant? "people of faith", your words, not mine.
Issues presented by who? Anyone examining the last few posts on this thread will see many issues avoided, such as the deliberate framing of issues by the right. The name of this thread ”Why are those on the left tolerant of everything, save for Christians and Jews?” is a very good example of such spin. Do you really believe liberals to be intolerant of Christians and Jews? Careful now!