Random Political Thoughts

[CornyCrow]

Jefferson was only one of the Founding Fathers. I seem to remember him writing his own version of the bible as well. "Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the Son of God" is a quote attributed to his rationale for cutting out any references to miracles, the supernatural, or the Ressurection.

That frightens me more than allowing prayer in school.

p.s. prayer is allowed in schools, it just cannot be school led mandatory prayer. Hope that doesn't cause you to denounce your citizenship.

Jesus said he was the son of God, but also that we are all children of the most high.   That can legitimately be interpreted in different ways.  There is a verse in which he says 'This ye shall do, and greater', which implies that we are all capable of divinity.   THere are religions that take Jesus as one path to God, but not the only way.  There is a heart of fairness in decent human beings that leads them to be suspicious of any religion that presents itself as the ONLY way. 
 

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Do I even need to respond to someone who can't figure out how a quote tag works on the history of the separation of church and state?

[21st Century Man]

Ummmmmmmmmmm... that's exactly what the founding fathers had in mind. You saying the founding fathers would be cool with prayer in school shows you clearly do not understand your revolutionary era history. Read up on Thomas Jefferson thoughts on religion and government.

The fact that you or any American thinks that frightens me. You're free to think what you want to think but you're simply wrong about that.

They have a parson lead them in prayer in Congress before every session and they always have.  You are the one that is ignorant.

[onan]

I would love to see Christian principles applied to the mindset of politicians. All I see is lip service to constituents and blowjobs to corporations.

[21st Century Man]

A number of founders were deists.  They saw the danger of having any one religion influencing government.  Don't forget many fled the old country due to religious persecution.  If we open the door to religion in the system, we deal with encroaching Islam and Satanism and all in between.  Religion, to my way of thinking, should be personal.  It should be the thing that moves the heart and mind toward compassion and understanding and not the thing that preaches dogma and tells others what they can and cannot do.  How many parents pray or meditate with their children at home?

I think religion gets too many breaks as it is.  I think they should be taxed.

2 Founders were deists.  Jefferson and Franklin though Franklin became more of a believer near the end of his life.   The only true atheist of that generation was Thomas Paine, who did not participate in the Constitutional Convention or in the writing of The Declaration of Independence. The vast majority of Founders were indeed quite Christian and believed that God would bestow His blessings on a country that honored him.  Thus the prayers in Congress, schools,  and other functions.  It was never their intent to take God out of government or our lives.  All it meant was that we did not want to have a state religion like the Anglican Church in England set up by Henry VIII. Do some research and you will find out all of this is true.  Sure Jefferson had his own personal beliefs as was his right but you will find little of that in our Founding Documents.  As a matter of fact, he was in France during the Constitutional Convention.


Research, research, research, people!!!  Don't make ignorant comments without backing them up.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

They have a parson lead them in prayer in Congress before every session and they always have.  You are the one that is ignorant.

...and that dissuades the history of the separation of church and state because? And it's been open to all faiths, not just Christian. So some symbolic bullshit before congress means that we should have prayer in schools or it's sweeping statement on the first amendment? Jesus. I get why you're a Cruz supporter.

[onan]

Personal beliefs and organized religion are completely different.

[21st Century Man]

...and that dissuades the history of the separation of church and state because? And it's been open to all faiths, not just Christian. So some symbolic bullshit before congress means that we should have prayer in schools or it's sweeping statement on the first amendment? Jesus. I get why you're a Cruz supporter.

Prayer in schools is fine.  Let the muslim pray in his own way.  The Christian pray in his manner, the buddhist in his way.  Prayer should not be banned in schools.  You need to stop drinking at the trough of Madelyn Murray O'Hare.

[albrecht]

I think the reason one reason that "religion," or more particularly various Christian denominations, have been successful in the USA was because we did not have a "state church"- like so many European countries did/do. So they could be independent, get people of varying political opinions in pews, and not corrupted by being associated directly with some sovereign or government. But our Founders, or the people they represented, except maybe Paine, never wanted religion to be illegal, banned, or not associated with government, public functions, etc at all. Just no state church.

[21st Century Man]

...and that dissuades the history of the separation of church and state because? And it's been open to all faiths, not just Christian. So some symbolic bullshit before congress means that we should have prayer in schools or it's sweeping statement on the first amendment? Jesus. I get why you're a Cruz supporter.

Seriously have you really studied the documents and dug into the background for each amendment?  You need to.  Of course it is open to all faiths.  I never said it shouldn't be.

[21st Century Man]

I think the reason one reason that "religion," or more particularly various Christian denominations, have been successful in the USA was because we did not have a "state church"- like so many European countries did/do. So they could be independent, get people of varying political opinions in pews, and not corrupted by being associated directly with some sovereign or government. But our Founders, or the people they represented, except maybe Paine, never wanted religion to be illegal, banned, or not associated with government, public functions, etc at all. Just no state church.

Right on!  Thanks for the backup! 

[CornyCrow]

I would love to see Christian principles applied to the mindset of politicians. All I see is lip service to constituents and blowjobs to corporations.

I think Jesus was a Socialist. 

[CornyCrow]

Prayer in schools is fine.  Let the muslim pray in his own way.  The Christian pray in his manner, the buddhist in his way.  Prayer should not be banned in schools.  You need to stop drinking at the trough of Madelyn Murray O'Hare.

Prayer in schools is out of place.  If people want that, there are religious schools.  A secular education should only be dealing in facts or belief systems which are open to being lambasted and questioned and disproven.  Prayer assumes that everyone acknowledges some supernatural 'thing' and not everyone does, nor should they be expected to. 

[CornyCrow]

I think the reason one reason that "religion," or more particularly various Christian denominations, have been successful in the USA was because we did not have a "state church"- like so many European countries did/do. So they could be independent, get people of varying political opinions in pews, and not corrupted by being associated directly with some sovereign or government. But our Founders, or the people they represented, except maybe Paine, never wanted religion to be illegal, banned, or not associated with government, public functions, etc at all. Just no state church.

[/b]
That may or may not be true, but nowadays what we call religion may differ from those in our beginnings.  There are many religions in this country and also many atheists.  There is no way you can devise a performance in school or a public forum that will satisfy all of them.  There is no compromise except to omit it entirely. 

[21st Century Man]

Prayer in schools is out of place.  If people want that, there are religious schools.  A secular education should only be dealing in facts or belief systems which are open to being lambasted and questioned and disproven.  Prayer assumes that everyone acknowledges some supernatural 'thing' and not everyone does, nor should they be expected to.

This country has always been about openly expressing our beliefs.  Remember freedom of speech?  If I want to pray before I take a test, I will damn well pray.  If a Muslim wants to pray before they take a test, they should damn well have that right as well.  You strike me as a bit of an authoritarian.  I would not want to live in your world.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

This country has always been about openly expressing our beliefs.  Remember freedom of speech?  If I want to pray before I take a test, I will damn well pray.  If a Muslim wants to pray before they take a test, they should damn well have that right as well.  You strike me as a bit of an authoritarian.

I think I may have misunderstood you. I am pro-Religious freedom, I thought we were talking about something wacky like institutional school prayer. Everyone has the right to pray where they want when they want. I apologize if I confused what you were saying.

[GravitySucks]

[/b]
That may or may not be true, but nowadays what we call religion may differ from those in our beginnings.  There are many religions in this country and also many atheists.  There is no way you can devise a performance in school or a public forum that will satisfy all of them.  There is no compromise except to omit it entirely.

So if I start a religion that is totally against clothing, do we ban clothing so my church members are not offended?  Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion.

Just like freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from speech.

There is nothing in the constitution protecting a person from being offended. Everyone makes a personal choice on what offends them.

I am offended by taxes. I still have to pay them.

[21st Century Man]

I think I may have misunderstood you. I am pro-Religious freedom, I thought we were talking about something wacky like institutional school prayer. Everyone has the right to pray where they want when they want. I apologize if I confused what you were saying.

Thank you and I believe I misunderstood you as well and I apologize.  Hell no, I don't believe in institutional school prayer unless the school is specifically a private religious school.  It wouldn't be polite with all of the various ethnicities feeling marginalized. However, I don't think a moment of silence at the beginning of a school day is out of bounds in public schools.  Students can privately pray or choose not to pray in such circumstances.  Meditate, whatever.

[CornyCrow]

This country has always been about openly expressing our beliefs.  Remember freedom of speech?  If I want to pray before I take a test, I will damn well pray.  If a Muslim wants to pray before they take a test, they should damn well have that right as well.  You strike me as a bit of an authoritarian.  I would not want to live in your world.

Sure, you can do anything in the silence of your own mind.  It would be different, though, if you started muttering out loud. 

[CornyCrow]

So if I start a religion that is totally against clothing, do we ban clothing so my church members are not offended?  Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion.

Just like freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from speech.

There is nothing in the constitution protecting a person from being offended. Everyone makes a personal choice on what offends them.

I am offended by taxes. I still have to pay them.

That's just silly.   We have civil laws and a civil standard of decorum.  Religions, or the precepts of any one religion, should not be recognized by the civil government.  Religions should be taxed.  You are free to assemble or do as you please, just as long as you do not impose your religion on others or expect that others will pay for your share of the taxes.  When religions break the law they should not get a pass.  They should not be given the time to allow offenders to be shipped to other countries.  Then, they are acting as a criminal organization, a conspiratorial group. 

[CornyCrow]

Thank you and I believe I misunderstood you as well and I apologize.  Hell no, I don't believe in institutional school prayer unless the school is specifically a private religious school.  It wouldn't be polite with all of the various ethnicities feeling marginalized. However, I don't think a moment of silence at the beginning of a school day is out of bounds in public schools.  Students can privately pray or choose not to pray in such circumstances.  Meditate, whatever.

I also thought you were promoting prayer in schools. 

[GravitySucks]

That's just silly.   We have civil laws and a civil standard of decorum.  Religions, or the precepts of any one religion, should not be recognized by the civil government.  Religions should be taxed.  You are free to assemble or do as you please, just as long as you do not impose your religion on others or expect that others will pay for your share of the taxes.  When religions break the law they should not get a pass.  They should not be given the time to allow offenders to be shipped to other countries.  Then, they are acting as a criminal organization, a conspiratorial group.

I will remind you of your words, which I was responding to:

[/b]
That may or may not be true, but nowadays what we call religion may differ from those in our beginnings.  There are many religions in this country and also many atheists.  There is no way you can devise a performance in school or a public forum that will satisfy all of them.  There is no compromise except to omit it entirely.

The portion in bold is what I was responding to. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

Maybe you meant something else, or maybe you didn't really mean that we should omit all public displays of religion. But that is the way I read it.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Thank you and I believe I misunderstood you as well and I apologize.  Hell no, I don't believe in institutional school prayer unless the school is specifically a private religious school.  It wouldn't be polite with all of the various ethnicities feeling marginalized. However, I don't think a moment of silence at the beginning of a school day is out of bounds in public schools.  Students can privately pray or choose not to pray in such circumstances.  Meditate, whatever.

Dude, we're totally on the same page. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[CornyCrow]

I will remind you of your words, which I was responding to:

The portion in bold is what I was responding to. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

Maybe you meant something else, or maybe you didn't really mean that we should omit all public displays of religion. But that is the way I read it.

Yep.  You got it right.  If a student wishes to pray in his mind, fine, but in a civil arena there should be no formal acknowledgment of religion.  Freedom from religion implies, to me, a public persecution, but freedom of religion means you are free to worship as long as you don't tread on others who may feel differently.  So, if your kid wants to take time from his test to ask for God's help, that's fine.

[GravitySucks]

Yep.  You got it right.  If a student wishes to pray in his mind, fine, but in a civil arena there should be no formal acknowledgment of religion.  Freedom from religion implies, to me, a public persecution, but freedom of religion means you are free to worship as long as you don't tread on others who may feel differently.  So, if your kid wants to take time from his test to ask for God's help, that's fine.

I am discussing, so please don't take this as any kind of attack or trolling.

I have no problem with things like student led prayer at sporting events, or at commencement speeches, or if NASCAR wants to have a preacher give an invocation before a race. These occur in a civil arena, and I believe they have a right to do that. I believe people have a right to display their religious symbols without fear of reprisals.  I don't think the government should mandate it, and I don't think the government should try to disallow it.

An atheist may claim they are offended. What I was trying to say was that there is no guarantee in the constitution protecting someone from being offended. There is no harm in an atheist seeing a religious symbol. Therefore, they should have no standing in any legal action.

If you disagree with this, I beg for you to be careful in that which you wish for. If an atheist can have every religious symbol from being displayed in a civil arena because they are offended,  it is is a very short leap until all women must be covered in hijabs in order to keep from offending a Muslim.  Another example would be not allowing a mosque to do the call to prayer because it offends someone in the neighborhood. These are slippery slopes, and our justice system does not have a very good record lately of strict interpretation of the constitution.

I hope that makes sense.  I don't expect to change anyone's mind about religion. Just the dangers involved with trying to treat the constitution as a living document and reinterpreting it every couple of years based on political appointments to the bench.   

[CornyCrow]

I am discussing, so please don't take this as any kind of attack or trolling.

I have no problem with things like student led prayer at sporting events, or at commencement speeches, or if NASCAR wants to have a preacher give an invocation before a race. These occur in a civil arena, and I believe they have a right to do that. I believe people have a right to display their religious symbols without fear of reprisals.  I don't think the government should mandate it, and I don't think the government should try to disallow it.

An atheist may claim they are offended. What I was trying to say was that there is no guarantee in the constitution protecting someone from being offended. There is no harm in an atheist seeing a religious symbol. Therefore, they should have no standing in any legal action.

If you disagree with this, I beg for you to be careful in that which you wish for. If an atheist can have every religious symbol from being displayed in a civil arena because they are offended,  it is is a very short leap until all women must be covered in hijabs in order to keep from offending a Muslim.  Another example would be not allowing a mosque to do the call to prayer because it offends someone in the neighborhood. These are slippery slopes, and our justice system does not have a very good record lately of strict interpretation of the constitution.

I hope that makes sense.  I don't expect to change anyone's mind about religion. Just the dangers involved with trying to treat the constitution as a living document and reinterpreting it every couple of years based on political appointments to the bench.

Actually, atheism is not a form of a religion, but the absence of religion.  Religion in civil platforms should not be allowed because we deem it not to be proper, not because we are atheist.  If one religion is represented, then it is favored.  The only solution is to have none.  Yes, on New York streets it is illegal to wear masks, so wearing the veil is technically not legal.  Men have worn hajibs and smuggled arms into hotels and shot people up.  Yes, and if I lived in a place where I could hear a call to prayer, I would object to that, as well.  Religion should be a private, personal thing.  The bible even says that. 

[GravitySucks]

Actually, atheism is not a form of a religion, but the absence of religion.  Religion in civil platforms should not be allowed because we deem it not to be proper, not because we are atheist.  If one religion is represented, then it is favored.  The only solution is to have none.  Yes, on New York streets it is illegal to wear masks, so wearing the veil is technically not legal.  Men have worn hajibs and smuggled arms into hotels and shot people up.  Yes, and if I lived in a place where I could hear a call to prayer, I would object to that, as well.  Religion should be a private, personal thing.  The bible even says that.

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. I understand where you are coming from a little better.  I don't agree, but that is ok.  Saying something like "we deem it not to be proper" implies that there is some arbiter of what is proper and what is not. It also means that the definition of what is "proper" is ever evolving (or devolving).

I don't think either of us will be able to change each other's minds, but is good that we can have the discussion. I respect your right to hold that opinion. I find it harder to believe in nothing than to believe in something. I can't say I was ever an atheist, but I was a very skeptical agnostic for most of my life. But even then, I held very similar views to our constitutional rights as I do now.

[Value Of Pi]

Prayer in schools is out of place.  If people want that, there are religious schools.  A secular education should only be dealing in facts or belief systems which are open to being lambasted and questioned and disproven.  Prayer assumes that everyone acknowledges some supernatural 'thing' and not everyone does, nor should they be expected to.

Maybe out of place, maybe not, depending on how, what, where, when, etc. The Pledge of Allegiance, which may still be said in some schools, is a kind of prayer itself -- "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Although, they seem to have added God or ditched Him from it at various points.

My problem with the way religion has been handled in many public school systems has nothing to do with prayer. It's the way any discussion of God and religion has been, in my experience, ignored or buried in the context of learning about history, civilization, society, civics, ethics and questions of right and wrong.

Whether a student or their family is religious or not, it is still important to understand the role that religion and God have played in making the world what it is. Whether God is real or just superstition makes no difference here. What matters is that so many other people do believe in God and have believed throughout history. Or they have simply followed one religion or another.

That makes God and religion worth discussing and learning about, with all due discretion and sensitivity, even in a publicly funded, secular setting. In fact, you should not have to attend a religious school to learn something about religion. A public school could and should give students a much more rounded understanding of all world religions, and their impact on the world, than any private religious school.

[albrecht]

The only solution is to have none.  Yes, on New York streets it is illegal to wear masks, so wearing the veil is technically not legal. even says that.

Several States and areas have bans on masks (memory of the KKK and the like) though, like with many things there is a thing called common-sense and judgement (what? arrest all the kids on Halloween or ignore the bank-robbers and Muslim terrorists?) The derivative logic of "only solution to have none" is on par with common thinking popular now that 'everything is relative', 'who are we to cast aspersions upon others', 'it is their culture so' etc- but is wrong. Ignore the rape, abuse of women, even terrorism is, in handwringing, somehow our fault- no doubt due to racism, colonialism, capitalism, the Crusades, etc. I don't see anything wrong with saying that a certain religion, politics, or belief is wrong, or that one is better. By this crazy logic of cultural and moral relativism means we must accept the backwards thinking or even promote it. We have enough problems of our own- the solution is to import more? I have no problem saying that not only has Islam and its Sharia not had a fundamental basis in our country (except fighting against it with the Marines etc song or, the connection with slavery, and so on) but such a religion has no place in our country. If they must flee here, since those grand Islamic areas are so great that people wish to flee and come to our great evil 'Western' countries, then they should abandon it and conform to our rules, ideas, and laws. And the ones that we, stupidly allow, should be profiled, tracked, and even harassed. The burden should be on them, not us, to prove their worth and ability to maintain modern standards and decorum. Despite Obama (and Bush) entreaties and frequent pontificating Islam has no place in the USA, except as a virus and way to further divide, Balkanize, and fracture the country, which, after all, might be his intent in general?

[Value Of Pi]

Actually, atheism is not a form of a religion, but the absence of religion.  Religion in civil platforms should not be allowed because we deem it not to be proper, not because we are atheist.  If one religion is represented, then it is favored. The only solution is to have none.   Yes, on New York streets it is illegal to wear masks, so wearing the veil is technically not legal.  Men have worn hajibs and smuggled arms into hotels and shot people up.  Yes, and if I lived in a place where I could hear a call to prayer, I would object to that, as well.  Religion should be a private, personal thing.  The bible even says that.

Unless the powers that be (some governmental body) are somehow excluding one religion in favor of another as a matter of policy, there is nothing unfair or otherwise wrong with only one religion (or two, or three) being represented at any given time or place. Nothing says that all religions need to be represented at all times. You are therefore positing a fairly drastic solution (no religion in a civil setting) to a problem that isn't a problem.

Another position you have also, as someone said, lends itself to being a slippery slope: no verbal form of religious expression in a public school setting. With the French, this has naturally led to a ban on the wearing and the display of all religious symbols by all students in public schools. Not just no hijabs, but no crucifixes, crosses or Stars of David. They can be confiscated on sight -- or even if it is suspected that a student is concealing such an object. This is just plain scary for a number of reasons. Be glad you are an American.