-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tom DeLay: US doesn't need seperation of church and state
- Thread starter WedgeX
- Start date
- Status
xsarien said:
In that case, fair reigns supreme which is my point.
All I am saying is that you either have a government that tries to be fair to everyone(in which case the illegal gay marriage thing was not right) or you have a government that does the will of the people(in which case the assault on Iraq was not originally right). Either way, you can blame Bush for doing something wrong.
And your point would be? While I think those events are morally wrong, the people who are left the short end of the stick either fight back or leave he country. IMO anyone who isnt willing to die for their beliefs are not worthy any respect in the first place.
But thats just my opinion.
Kabuki Waq
Member
Socreges said:
:lol :lol
Jefferson did write the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom which is the direct predecessor of the First Amendment, but Madison also wrote Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments(excellent read) and presented the official proposal for the Bill of Rights to Congress in 1789 with the following wording:
Which was then boiled down to two lines:Madison said:
First Amendment of the US Constitution said:
ZombieSupaStar
Member
QAAHAHAHAH
Mike Works
Member
:lolSocreges said:
The bottom line is that if government starts siding the christian fundamentalists, then the rights of muslims, hindus, buddhists, etc are all infringed because they are forced to be subject to the Christian God. Furthermore, if government decides christians get special treatment, then it is but a mere afterthought away that only a specific christian sect gets special treatment. How's that for fucking liberty.
Hitokage said:
This is hardly government siding with Christians. There are no laws now limiting religious freedom. There are no laws forcing people to conform to Christian ideals unless they are by coincidence such as ''thou shalt not steal''. What you think might happen is not in line with what is happening now. It's more of a conspiracy theory than anything because I truly believe most Americans are in favor of religious freedom.
There is no special treatment taking place. This is a statue on a lawn, not a law giving Christians special benefits. Hito... I don't mean this as an attack because everything you say is aligned with your belief system and I respect that, but I refuse to believe you would be argueing this if Christians were protesting a Buddhist statue on state property. If anything you would be attacking the protesting Christian nutjobs.
Say, for the sake of argument, I'm a judge and I've created a religion called Nathanism. The tennents include the following:olimario said:
Anyone who worships anything other than me as their deity will suffer eternal damnation.
Anyone who does not sacrifice their first born son on the day of his birth shall be deprived of food until death.
Any man who does not rape his daughters on their eleventh birthday shall, in turn, be raped by me.
Now say I post these tennents in front of my court room, no problems, eh?
NLB2 said:
No problems as long as his personal beliefs don't effect his judgements. I see no problem with a display of one's religious beliefs as long as those beliefs don't find their way into legal proceedings and judgements.
People are able to remain objective in spite of their beliefs, believe it or not.
As long as there was no law saying that Nike must be held in high regard and no law saying that nobody could disagree with nike, then yes, it would be fine AND constitutional. People's rights would not be effected.
Olimario, you're out of your element. You're like a babe, lost in the woods.
Right-o, back to seriousness land, the problem with putting a statue or plaque on goverment property with some sort of religous symbol(whether it be the Ten Commandments, the Star of David, the inverted Pentagram or the seal of Vishnu) is that the prescence of said symbol is tacit approval of that ONE RELIGION, which the government MAY NOT, let me repeat, MAY NOT, engage in.
How's that for plain fucking english for you, you Texas Jesus Freak? Simple enough?
Oh, and just for shits and giggles:
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
-Thomas Jefferson
Now shut the fuck up and go back to taking pictures of your neighbor/dog/girlfriend.
Right-o, back to seriousness land, the problem with putting a statue or plaque on goverment property with some sort of religous symbol(whether it be the Ten Commandments, the Star of David, the inverted Pentagram or the seal of Vishnu) is that the prescence of said symbol is tacit approval of that ONE RELIGION, which the government MAY NOT, let me repeat, MAY NOT, engage in.
How's that for plain fucking english for you, you Texas Jesus Freak? Simple enough?
Oh, and just for shits and giggles:
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
-Thomas Jefferson
Now shut the fuck up and go back to taking pictures of your neighbor/dog/girlfriend.
Raoul Duke said:
You're out of your mind... Your radical views are rarely in line with the simple reality they're based on.
A statue is not a law. The statue is not forcing people to hold Christianity in high esteem. The statue is not forcing people to worship the God of the Bible. There is no law not any hint of law suggesting either of those things.
If there was, why ARE MUSLIMS STILL PRACTICING ISLAM IN THIS JESUS COUNTRY? WE MUST KICK THEM OUT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT IS CLEARLY CHRISTIAN AND CLEARLY HOLDS THE VIEW THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE RELIGION ABOVE ALL OTHERS... Didn't you see the statue? The magical, law-making statue?
And it's a good thing Jefferson's personal beliefs aren't in the constitution or you might actually have a point.
olimario said:
I dont care if it is right or wrong. You either protect the rights of the minority or you side with the majority. If you side with the majoritym you will have to pay the price when the time comes as war criminal or whatever.
What I am trying to get at is, what is right and wrong changes with the times, in the end it is up to you to do what makes you feel good and not do otherwise and hope things work out nice. Because there is no way you can be sure your actions are the right thing to do for ever. For example, what happens if satanism is the correct religion? What you have been doing the the past was wrong.
So you're attempting to posit that a statue of the Ten Commandments doesn't imply that the judge, or sheriff, or town selectman or whoever the fuck decided to have it erected on govt. property prefers and advocates Christianity over any other form of religion?olimario said:
Is that person not an agent of the government, whether local or national? Does the government have a duty to NOT advocate one form of religion? Does this person's actions, as a representative of that government, not interfere with that?
You're daft.
Pah. These arguments are a fucking smokescreen, the same as gay marriage, evolution and other conservative social issues. They're there to distract the national debate so that the Government can rob us fucking blind and we won't care because we're too busy arguing about a dumb fucking statue or whether or not it's ok for Adam and Steve to get married. Thanks for being a good little pawn, Gary. Your hero George W. Bush would like to thank you, and when the oil runs out in 2012, he will send you a postcard from his secret island retreat once again emphasizing how grateful he is that all of you simple, simple creatures made the destruction of civilization possible. He'll be kissing a man and urinating on a copy of the Bible on that postcard, Gary. Do you know why? BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY, YOU GULLIBLE BASTARDS.
If you want to get nitpicky technical on this, it depends on the sect. Oh, and make sure you aren't thinking of confucianism.monk said:
And a court declaring the Ten Commandments to be the source of American law, a claim which is utterly absurd unless you wanted to realign where executive power comes from, isn't endorsement?olimario said:
Oh, of course. I'm just an evil PERSECUTOR OF CHRISTIANS. That's my true motive, and I must do my part in Christ vs. The World. Fuck you. The freedom that protects my beliefs is the same freedom that protects christians, and the only people who don't have anything to lose by taking that away are the ruling class.
Raoul Duke said:
You're out of your mind.
A person can advocate whatever the fuck they want as long as they practice objectivity according the law in their respective government jobs. Are you saying that all judges are required to be religiously neutral on a personal level? Are you saying all government officials need to be?
The rights of the people are being protected. If this judge infringes on the rights of somebody because he rules according to the bible and not according to US law, then he is in the wrong and everyone will support his removal and punishment.
Hitokage said:If you want to get nitpicky technical on this, it depends on the sect. Oh, and make sure you aren't thinking of confucianism.
And a court declaring the Ten Commandments to be the source of American law, a claim which is utterly absurd unless you wanted to realign where executive power comes from, isn't endorsement?
Was it an official court ruling made law, or the view of a judge off the record? You're right... It is an absurb view, but not a view that infringes on the rights of the citizens. Like I said in my reply to RD, "The rights of the people are being protected. If this judge infringes on the rights of somebody because he rules according to the bible and not according to US law, then he is in the wrong and everyone will support his removal and punishment."
Hitokage said:
It may not actually be that way, but you sure do your part to make it seem that way. If you read my posts I'm in full support of religious freedom and religious tolerance. I would be the first to jump on the government if they were to enact a law setting Christianity any higher than any other religion in this country.
Hitokage said:
It absolutely is. It's his right to voice his views publically. As long as he doesn't let those personal views that conflict with US law enter his courtroom and effect his judgement, it's fine.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Raoul Duke said:
Is it just me, or would it have been awesome if Jesus said something like this...
Hitokage said:
The court hardly claims this. Like I said, if they made a ruling that was in line with the Bible and out of line with US law they would be fired and everyone would be in support of it.
The statue is a reflection of Christian beliefs, but those beliefs aren't imposed on US citizens and those beliefs, when out of line with US law, are not allowed to effect the court's ruling.
olimario
I am not a racist, but I play one on the Internet, and 3 out of 4 racist agree that black people like watermelons.
That says it all really.
I'm going to try one more time.
Ok, say you have a man who believes in a religion that advocates eating children. This man just SO HAPPENS to be a school teacher. Should he be allowed to bring his religous trappings to his work place amongst the children? Am I getting through to you? Is there anything to get through to? I wonder, I really wonder.
You know kid, if I had the time, money and drugs, I would drive to Houston or Friendsville or wherethefuckever you live, abduct you, dose you with about one liquid ounce of LSD, and make you watch all sorts of liberal propaganda and satanist films. Just for shits and giggles.
I am not a racist, but I play one on the Internet, and 3 out of 4 racist agree that black people like watermelons.
That says it all really.
I'm going to try one more time.
Ok, say you have a man who believes in a religion that advocates eating children. This man just SO HAPPENS to be a school teacher. Should he be allowed to bring his religous trappings to his work place amongst the children? Am I getting through to you? Is there anything to get through to? I wonder, I really wonder.
You know kid, if I had the time, money and drugs, I would drive to Houston or Friendsville or wherethefuckever you live, abduct you, dose you with about one liquid ounce of LSD, and make you watch all sorts of liberal propaganda and satanist films. Just for shits and giggles.
TACIT.FUCKING.APPROVAL.olimario said:
Do you comprehend? If I am a muslim man going into the courtroom of a judge with the Ten Commandments on the wall, how comfortable am I going to feel? Flip it around on you: you are a Christian man, going into the courtroom of a judge with a Pentagram on the wall. How do you feel?
Raoul Duke said:
Your story is out of line with the issue at hand. He wouldn't be punished by law for doing so, but he would be fired from the school and possibly sued for emotionally scarring children. Would he win the lawsuit? Possibly.
You're making your views clear, but they aren't right.
Are we protecting feelings or rights, Raoul? Making somebody feel uncomfortable isn't against the law and is a personal problem of the person effected.
What if it's well established that the judge is a Christian, but he has no crosses up in his courtroom. Won't the muslim man on trial, knowing the judge is a Christian, still feel uncomfortable.
Shogmaster
Member
Raoul Duke said:
Why do you bother to use logic with the boy? Just verbally abuse him like everyone else and move on.
Uh, no, they ARE right. Just because you've been raised to believe you're right doesn't make you right, you intractable spoiled brat. THE SUPREME COURT HAS INTERPRETED THE LAW, REPEATEDLY, TO MEAN THAT THERE SHALL BE NO OVERT OR TACIT APPROVAL OF RELIGION BY THE GOVERMENT. Like a judge posting the Ten Commandments.olimario said:
Idiot.
- Status