posted on October 25, 2003 06:49:18 AM new
LOL helen -
We have to strive not to be reactionary, Linda.
I suppose the reason so many in our Congress were outraged when the 9th Circuit court upheld taking Under God out of our pledge, was because they are reactionaries, even the democrats, huh?
It appeared to me that it was the outrage that resulted that caused it to be sent before our USSC for a decision on the matter.
And helen, I know you and others are well aware that our Congress starts each session with prayer. Done in a rotating basis, with different denominations giving those prayers.
That has also been a tradition.
So....since I've heard no revolution going on to stop that practice, am I to believe that all in our Congress are not following the 'law' of our constitution?
No...it's like I've said before. It's how we interpret those words.
posted on October 25, 2003 07:07:37 AM new
You use LOL as spits.
I'll repeat my answer since we are on another page and to illustrate that there is nothing funny about my remark in context.
"Why did our Congress vote to allow IN GOD WE TRUST on our coinage in the mid 1800's IF it was not allowed under our Constitution. Did our Congress not hold this so-called 'separation of church and state' belief?"
There was an increased religious sentiment during the Civil war...just as "one nation under god was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's to counter "godless commies".
We have to strive not to be reactionary, Linda.
..........
Now, going back to an action taken in the 19th century for your "proof"? is reactionary and there is nothing funny about it.
I don't agree that Congress should be in the business of prayer or prayer breakfasts.
posted on October 25, 2003 07:17:34 AM new
You don't agree. lol That comes as NO surprise to me.
There was an increased religious sentiment during the Civil war...just as "one nation under god was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's to counter "godless commies."
My point is it DOES NOT MATTER the 'WHY or the WHEN' it was put on our coins IF it was an unConstitutional act, it wouldn't have been allowed....in the 1800's nor in the 1950's...BUT IT WAS. And so is the prayer in our Congress. And so are the 10 Commandments that are right above our USSC justices heads that were put there in 1935.
There are hundreds of examples I could give, where these 'laws' were inacted. Why? Because those who voted didn't not see this as the supposed church/state issue that those of you claim it is.
They would have fought it tooth and nail, if it was judged to be unConstitutional. It wasn't.
posted on October 25, 2003 07:24:26 AM new
helen - You MAY want to write to Hillary as she serves in our Senate and she not only voted to give President Bush the authority to take this nation to war, but she also attends the prayer breakfasts in our government buildings.
Ask her why she doesn't object to that practice IF she agrees with this so-called separation of church and state.
posted on October 25, 2003 07:38:31 AM new
Nope, I know better than that. You once posted you would not vote for her is she decided to run...because she voted to support this President.
But that's not what this is all about.
Want to answer this question? In the examples I have given, IF this were against our Constitution, as you claim, they why do you believe our Congress would have allowed it?
posted on October 25, 2003 07:45:40 AM new
Linda, As I pointed out...public sentiment is a powerful influence on Congress. Look at the recent vote in support of Bush's illegal war. The Republican machine had the country in a patriotic fervor and many voted simply because it was politically expedient. Others voted because they were manipulated with lies.
The religious movement to add mottos to money and the Pledge of Allegiance were similarly influenced by public sentiment, as I pointed out above.
posted on October 25, 2003 07:52:40 AM new
Enjoy yourself.
public sentiment is a powerful influence on Congress.
Agreed. But this issue is being argued by the left who say that it violates our Constitution. Our Constitution is not supposed to be based on 'public sentiment' but rather on 'law'.
My position is these issue did not violate our Constitution or they wouldn't have been allowed. Nor would the prayer in our government buildings be allowed if the same were true.
It's about the right to freely practice one's religion where ever they wish. There are NO restrictions on where we can do this. As some say...you want to pray...go to your church and pray. Our constitution does not require we do so.
posted on October 25, 2003 08:45:46 AM new
Someone on these boards once posted the reminder that the bibles says "Render unto Cesaer the things that are Cesaer's,render to God that which is God's." IMO, the bible states to separate church and state. Political issues belong to the political figure Cesaer and the religious issues should belong to God.
The Bible - what better proof have we?
Edited because I can't spell Cesaer.
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Oct 25, 2003 08:47 AM ]
posted on October 25, 2003 10:53:18 AM new
Linda - I am curious as to how your or any other persons right to pray has been impeeded upon. That's what I don't get. I don't see any evidence that any individuals right to pray has been stepped on by the courts.
Yes, organized prayer in schools is banned - that only means that you will no longer pray in predeterminined syncronized form with others that believe differenently than you. To me that makes perfct sense unless of course you would not mind a muslim teacher leading their entire class, muslim or not, in noon prayer call practiced on their prayers rugs and facing Mecca.
Prayer is supposed to be a personal, spiitual and individualistic activity. Why are people so bound and determined to innstitutionalize it? Why must it be done audibly and publicly?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 25, 2003 12:13:49 PM new
Linda, I said
“So when the religious right achieves it’s desire and the church has greater powers over the State and Judiciary”
NOT
‘greater powers THAN the state…’
And you don’t see what ‘christians’ like Thurmon preach, or Heston and in your popular culture like your may TV Evangelists.
And what do you expect from some of them, when USA have given them PROVOCATION
86%…..Yeaaaah Right!!!
I wonder if that includes the ‘black collar criminals’ & the wishy washy believers that are ‘luke warm’ and will be judged by god to be worthy of being ‘spat out’
And who among those ‘respects the Sabbath’
I don’t know that they qualify to be proper ‘believers’.
Linda, the ‘point you were trying to make’ still doesn’t answer my questions.
If you do answer, please remember that you believe that woman came of spare rib and therefore there may be a case for limiting her contractual capacity (among other things), just as she once (not long ago in the Anglo World) enjoyed.
posted on October 25, 2003 01:00:09 PM new
fenix - how your or any other persons right to pray has been impeeded upon.
There are continuing reports where a Christian can't do this or that, here or there. Each time we've had a discussion on religion, I've listed the one's I've seen. The latest I can recall was the teacher who was ordered to not wear a simple cross on her necklace to school anymore. This whole thing is headed off in a VERY wrong direction, imo. That's what I'm tired of and why I support the position I do.
organized prayer in schools is banned - that only means that you will no longer pray in predeterminined syncronized form with others that believe differenently than you.
My argument to that is where in our Constitution does it limit, in any way, our right to practice our religion? It doesn't. But through the hard work of others, little by little this right is being taken away. I'm not speaking to forcing anyone to do anything. I'm speaking to allowing any one to practice their religion, freely, with no restrictions.
[b[unless of course you would not mind a muslim teacher leading their entire class, muslim or not, in noon prayer call practiced on their prayers rugs and facing Mecca[/b]. That's exactly what currently goes on in our Congress today. But I'm not really addressing the issue of group prayer, rather the issue of not being allowed to pray before meals while on school grounds, not being able to meet with two friends, sit down and have a Bible sharing group, etc., etc., etc. No where does our Constitution put limits on where we can practice our religion. Be it Muslim, Hindu etc.
Prayer is supposed to be a personal, spiitual and individualistic activity. It is to some degree. But because you and others decide where and when one can practice their religion, doesn't make it law. Nor part of our Constitution.
Why must it be done audibly and publicly? Because, under our Constitution they have a RIGHT to, that's why. I may not do it, but they should be allowed to if they want to.
posted on October 25, 2003 01:33:26 PM new
This to me is another great example of what I mean about people practicing their religious beliefs....and the outrage of those on the left who now think a man doesn't have a right to express his own views IN A CHURCH.
This article says it all. And it's not that I agree with what's being said, as much as it is his right to say it IN A CHURCH. Just as I don't agree with what the KKK represent, but do support their right to say it.
"IN AN EMERGING scandal, NBC News has produced tapes proving beyond deniability that the new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence is ... a Christian. Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin has been captured on a series of grainy tapes, attesting to his faith at churches and prayer breakfasts."
"Having driven the Judeo-Christian value system out of the public square, the classrooms and the Alabama Supreme Court, liberals now want to drive it out of church."
edited to add:
Take a look on the ACLJ.com website. There you will see many cases where people who feel their rights are being taken away, find support of those freedoms.
"ACLJ: Federal Court in KY Declares Unconstitutional Library Policy that Resulted in Employee being Fired for Wearing Cross Necklace"
"September 3, 2003
(Bowling Green, KY) - The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, announced today that a federal court in Bowling Green, Kentucky said it was wrong for a public library to fire an employee for wearing a necklace with a cross pendant to work."
"In a decision received today, a federal court declared the library policy unconstitutional and said it violated the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment."
"This is a very important decision that underscores the fact that employees have constitutional rights to express their faith in the workplace so long as that expression does not interfere with the work setting," said Frank Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ, which represents the library employee."
"The fact that our client was fired for wearing a cross pendant on a necklace to work is not only absurd but unconstitutional as well. This decision sends an important message that employers cannot discriminate against employees who choose to express their religious beliefs in the workplace."
--------
And on that same site you can read another case, almost exactly the same. A teacher, in Pittsburg, PA, wearing a cross on her necklace lost her job. But won her case and got her job back.
NO ONE should have to spend money to defend themselves for wearing a cross anywhere, imo. And, at least, in these two case, they won.
So...am I angry over these kind of religious issues continually being taken to these extremes? You bet I am.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 25, 2003 02:09 PM ]
posted on October 25, 2003 03:32:06 PM new
Linda - I have to admit that due to poor TV reception I end up watching a great deal of NBC News - I have not seen anything on this "emerging scandal". The only objection that I read, even in the Coulter article is an amitedly ludicrous one by Islamic leaders regarding the linking of Bin Lauden and Saddam , as mulims, to Satan. There are two recording breaking leaps made there... The first is made by the Islamic Leaders, the second made by Coulter if this is in any way seen as an attempt to silence religion.
There seems to be a huge misconception on the part of the far right that those that believe in a seperation of church and state believe that those that work for the state should bedevoid of church. While there are some that do push the envelope too far on that matter, the majority just want those that work for the state to make decisions based on the will of the people and the best interest of the state as opposed to the dictations of their church.
You as an individual can pray anywhere you want, however you cannot expect me to do it as well and that is why organized school prayer has been banned in public institutions.
As for the woman not allowed to wear a cross to school. I agree with you, that was ridiculous. As I said, there are people at the far end of every issue that will always try to push the envelope, one can only hope that in the end, cooler heads prevail.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 25, 2003 06:35:28 PM new
All which the ‘crucifix’ stories ‘prove’ to me is that you have jerks in America ‘too’.
No body can be fairly dismissed for wearing a cross.
I recently gave you a link to a story about an Indian that had recently immigrated to America and was knifed and murdered by some good’ol’boys for wearing a turban. I see sweet little or nothing being done to curb the a-holy-ness of hatred of certain-Semites or the rise in anti-certain-Semitism.
I once worked, for a short period, in the public health system here; and was called in to a ‘superior’s’ office and with 3 superiors present was threatened with a misconduct notice (3 and your out), not for speaking during work but for speaking Greek to another Greek speaking employee.
Without seeking legal opinion; I took them to task and I told them, there and then, that that I could not stop them from issuing the notice but that I would continue to speak Greek if I felt like it, and that if I was dismissed for it, then I may have a case for ‘unfair dismissal’.
They backed off: IMO Justice prevailed.
But we still I have the right to speak in English too.
My point is that just as in America, we here have persons with extreme bias views and that fact that an individual or 3 makes certain demands, (as in the case of the cross) does not mean a ‘demoralising’ of our cultures.
We do not need, nor should we have, laws to change in order to strengthen the ‘hold’ of English as a first language in Australia.
Can you imagine a change in laws to strengthen the practice of English as a first language, I wonder if I would have retained a job then.
To seek moves to strengthen the powers of the Christian Church opens the path to a return to the dark ages of religious persecutions.
About one year ago, some schools here made failed moves which ‘attempted’ to restrict Muslim girls from wearing a hair scarf (or whatever they call it).
In spite of your constitution, I would imagine that such a move would already be much easier to bring about in America.
IMO the global perception, and mine, and of many Americans is already such that America has already reached such a level of religious intolerance, legal or not, your effective level of anti-certain-Semite social intolerance is already there.
It seems clear to me Linda that the reason you haven’t answered my 2 questions, is because you find them difficult or impossible to answer in your favour. As you can see no way of assuring your fellow Americans that an (FBI) Federal Bureau of Inquisitions along with heightened Religious discrimination will not result from a rise in the powers of the church.
posted on October 26, 2003 10:22:04 PM new
God called and chose some pulpit patriots to bring the good news to Americans and force it on to the world.?
posted on October 27, 2003 02:46:12 AM new
WHAT?
Still no answers to my questions,
That’s rIGHT Linda, you believe in ‘Ve Ask Ze Qvestions’
‘Still Holocaust Denial’ from the religious right?
Just from the hip, but have you ever considered it ironic that the Arab states in which christian USA has had the greatest influence are the ones most likely to be lacking in what we like to think basic civil rights. ie Saudi Arabia, Kuwait & Iran. (lest we forget Iraq)
The recalcitrant Turks seem to being doing better than all.
