Soviet Union survivor: President spits in face of every U.S. citizen

Its funny how these threads start on one subject, but by the end of the thread, we could be talking about unicorns.

 

Exactly what I was thinking but we're all guilty.

 

The quotes that I "cherry-picked" red prove that our founding fathers considered us to be a Christian nation. Your revisionist "cherry-picked" quotes are famously taken out of context or misrepresent the individuals historically documented beliefs.

Separation of church and state is a good thing red, but you seem to not understand what that statement means. It is not the absence of religion from government but the reverse...the absence of government from religion.

Congress did approve the first reader red and I will locate a source that states this.

 

Why is this even an issue? We never did this when I was in a public school (of course, that was 20 years ago or so), and I don't remember anyone complaining about not getting enough praying time in. What is the moment of silence required if it's not religiously motivated? And you are correct, it doesn't endorse a specific religion, but the only people who are demanding it are religious zealots. Freedom of religion also guarantees the freedom from religion if one so chooses, regardless of the brand.

It discriminates against anyone that does not believe in them. Not only should the government have no right to impose a particular religion on us, it also does not have the right to impose the very idea of it on us. As I said, religion is very much a personal choice.

If you are agreeing that the Ten Commandments shouldn't have any bearing on our legal system, then why is it necessary that they be displayed in the courthouses? Why is this required for religious people to not feel like they're being persecuted? Besides, you and I both know that the courts are run by imperfect humans. Whether it's a judge, jury, defender, or prosecutor, there is a lot of interpretation and judgment involved in the process. Casting an air of religious belief in a courtroom could potentially flaw the process, and is not a risk that we should be willing to take.

So much time and money? I wasn't aware that the argument against taking them down was based on economics.

Again, what is the point of having them on display since they have no bearing on our laws? I'd honestly like an answer to this question. Why is it necessary that they are on display?

Really? You don't care which one? And you don't care how much of it, just as long as you're not forced to practice a different religion? That sounds pretty self-serving, to me. So, then, if it was decided that we must all honor Shabbos and not do any sort of work on Saturdays, you would be ok with that as long as you could still choose your religion? Oh well wait, that's imposing a religion on you, just as it is to interject any amount of religion into government. So where do you draw the line?
When dealing with laws and government, you've got to be a lot more specific than just 'some religion.' And it would never be enough for the zealots.

In fact, I think that's exactly what it does. It says that you have the freedom to choose and express your religion, but not that the government must support you or use public funding to support your choice. Besides, isn't the freedom to chose and practice as you so desire enough? What more do you want? How are your personal rights to religious practice being degraded by the separation of church and state?

 

chaos i agree with everything you just said.

my view is that there should be no affiliation with any religion at school. and i will take it a step further, i think in god we trust should be taken off money, and i also think that politicians should have to keep their religion to themselves. Ok maybe they should have to tell the public what their religion is for background history, but other than that, i see no reason why our leaders should always mix god with politics.

where is maximilian robespierre when you need him.:hihi: