THE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS

[got tonkaed]

ive decided not to quote since after reading a bit of our back and forth i think we can sum up some of the issue and make it a bit more readable.

On some level i dont disagree with you on the notion that not putting anything out there could promote one view. However, i feel this type of understanding would take a more astute observer or someone who is directly aware of their own symbols not being there. To use myself as an example, if i was walking through a courthouse and saw no religious symbols, i would not personally feel our justice system was not advocating anti-religious sentiments. I dont think in general, people would assume something was being opposed by not being displayed. However if i saw different religious images or documents, i suppose i may notice them and perhaps wonder why they were there.

The way legal system currently views religion in public is increasingly becoming standardized. Court cases for the past few decades have been fairly consistent in their stances, i would argue using each other as precedent to do so. When you allow everyone to voice their religious opinions, you invite fundamentalism in the long run. As it is with any issues, religious, political or what have you, the people most vested in something are going to have the most voice. Id argue that the run of the mill christian, much like most other religious practioners, is not going to voice their religious beliefs or values every day on every street corner. However, for the people whose religious beliefs and ideals make up a core sense of their "self" they are going to be much more willing to fight for their religious beliefs at most turns. They will probably speak out more in defense of their way of life, and should this remain unchecked, this would consititute a promotion of a certain way of life over another.

In a perfect world i think i agree with you, everyone should be able to live as they see fit. However, since this isnt a perfect world, we have to enter into the social contracts the way they are written, and i think on the whole, they are written for the benefit of the most people possible the way they are.

[CoffeeCream]

Jay, I found many quotes by some of the members who were at the 1787 Constitutional Convention which seems to back up your points. If I took the time to post them all it would take up quite a bit of space so I won't do so. However, it seems that you're unwilling to recognize that a lot of the founding fathers only believed that Christianity was a good "system". It doesn't necessarily mean they were Christians themselves.

By the way, I have no idea who Susie is?

[jay_a2j]

Jay, I found many quotes by some of the members who were at the 1787 Constitutional Convention which seems to back up your points. If I took the time to post them all it would take up quite a bit of space so I won't do so. However, it seems that you're unwilling to recognize that a lot of the founding fathers only believed that Christianity was a good "system". It doesn't necessarily mean they were Christians themselves.

By the way, I have no idea who Susie is?

I am merely saying that this nation was formed with Judaeo-Christian beliefs in mind. Not that all of founding fathers were actually Christian.

PS Susie AKA "SusieHot1" is a chat friend of mine on IMVU chat. We are members of some of the same political chat groups and she posted that quote in one of them.

[CrazyAnglican]

Ok got tonkaed,

Let's pull it back to my original point. I do get a paycheck from a public school system and if they say not to discuss religion except within certain parameters that is what I'll do. I'm not really concerned about public schools or courthouses but merely used them as examples that things can appear "neutral" while actually being slanted toward one particular viewpoint. That's the strength of a negative stance, silence is actually in your favor. As flashleg8 would say everyone is born an atheist. As a result nobody is saying "let's not talk about religion because my deity forbids it". That is specifically a position of atheists, and is supported, I suspect, by that very belief that your position will gain strength as people stop talking about religion. Of course that is conjecture, it's just my suppostion from points that I have read.

My actual point is against the idea that speaking about religion should be something confined to specific areas outside of the strictly public domain. In this respect, nobody has the right to tell me that I cannot pray in public, proselytize, or practice my religion in any way that I see fit. Yes, your tax dollars pay for public institutions like parks etc., but so do mine, and we have equal rights to them. You may certainly organize a lecture in support of your ideas and I wouldn't desire much less have any right to stop you. There is no more call to be offended by my actions in support of my beliefs than I am by yours, and I assure you that I am not at all offended by them.

The problem comes when a single group tries to move toward curtailing the voice of another group. I am not speaking about freedom of religion here but freedom of speech. Within this context I refute the idea that our country is secular to the point that people should feel self-conscious about discussing anything that is important to them, especially religion.

[got tonkaed]

I think the issue with freedom of speech that you bring up is an interesting one. It almost harkens back to the old 1+1 =2 bit, where medefe apparently asked for the proof. I agree with your sentiments about the potential from a freedom of religion perspective, but i do not agree with your end result.

I guess for me the issue boils down to this. We can probably throw out the majorty of practioners in these cases, since they probably wouldnt do anything that would offend. I wouldnt be offended if i saw someone wearing a religious t shirt or praying in public. Nor would many by other religions. However i would argue, there is an increasing number of people who take up extreme positions in regard to religion, that many or may not be offended by. And in many cases some of the things they say seem to push the limits of what should or should not be allowed.

I guess i agree to disagree with you on the neutrality issue. Because for me taking a negative stance will not get as much publicity as taking a positive stance. Irrospective of how we both feel, and i think we are both in agreement about our distaste for the group, the Westboro baptist church gets more notiority by allowing them to speak their hateful message than any message for secularism gets by posting nothing at all in place. The more you allow for such statements to be made the more the status quo will remain unchanged for the average believer, but for the more timid of those who are afraid to espouse their views, they will feel embolded imo.

Therefore though i agree in many cases the freedom probably should be protected and that many of the things that get fought are quite friviolus, a consistent silent message is better than what would occur if we opend up the flood gates.

[CrazyAnglican]

However i would argue, there is an increasing number of people who take up extreme positions in regard to religion, that many or may not be offended by. And in many cases some of the things they say seem to push the limits of what should or should not be allowed.

This is where we truly differ. I'm not worried about a moron spouting moronic things. My right to freedom of speech and the press to decry him is what the founding fathers had in mind for dealing with that. Relying on the government to silence "dangerous" ideas is in itself risky. Someone may decide that your ideas are "dangerous" one day.

the Westboro baptist church gets more notiority by allowing them to speak their hateful message than any message for secularism gets by posting nothing at all in place. The more you allow for such statements to be made the more the status quo will remain unchanged for the average believer, but for the more timid of those who are afraid to espouse their views, they will feel embolded imo.

I certainly would not back the Westboro Baptist Church people, neither would I move to silence them. Do you really want these folks quitely gathering strength? Look at how extremist groups gain power. It's never from open debate; it's always from silencing their opposition in one way or another.

Therefore though i agree in many cases the freedom probably should be protected and that many of the things that get fought are quite friviolus, a consistent silent message is better than what would occur if we opend up the flood gates.

I say open the flood gates. I'll never fear a shout as much as I would a whisper. Let's see where the extremists are and fulfill our civic duty by letting people know that there are much better options.

[radiojake]

I remember in first grade, when i was 6 or so, and it was Christmas (or Consumer Time, as i like to call it) our teacher made us act out the nativity scene in class. I was one of the sheep, or something.

Didn't think anything of it at the time, as i still believed in Santa, (Who is Christmas, these days atleast) and even though i was never a church goer, i still 'believed' in Jesus and God and such, but purely through the fact that when your 6, you believe whatever your told.

On hindsight, I'm not sure if it was totally cool that the teacher did that, but hell, i still remember her smacking a kid, which I'm sure they cant do now either.

Anyway, my point is that prayer and religion in school isn't a good idea for a public school because there are chances that there would be kids who's parents are of a different faith or agnostic/atheists. Religious studies as a seperate class is fine if kids choose to take it, but not in just a general class sense.

Also, public area's (such as parks etc) should be free for people to worship in (this coming from agnostic who doesn't like the church)

One thing, though, that i feel very strongly against, is DOOR KNOCKING PREACHERS. f*ck OFF, SERIOUSLY.

-end

[DangerBoy]

On hindsight, I'm not sure if it was totally cool that the teacher did that, but hell, i still remember her smacking a kid, which I'm sure they cant do now either.

and it probably didn't help your view of Christians anymore when I went off in the other thread. Sorry about that. Please accept my apologies.

Not to try and justify what I did, but I think we are all somewhat shaped by our past experiences. I've had instances in my past where people tried to tell me to shut up about my beliefs in my own apartment. I guess I had had just about enough of it and then took it out on you guys.

I'm sorry about your experience with that teacher. It's not acceptable.

[radiojake]

On hindsight, I'm not sure if it was totally cool that the teacher did that, but hell, i still remember her smacking a kid, which I'm sure they cant do now either.

and it probably didn't help your view of Christians anymore when I went off in the other thread. Sorry about that. Please accept my apologies.

Not to try and justify what I did, but I think we are all somewhat shaped by our past experiences. I've had instances in my past where people tried to tell me to shut up about my beliefs in my own apartment. I guess I had had just about enough of it and then took it out on you guys.

I'm sorry about your experience with that teacher. It's not acceptable.

Hey apologies accepted. You may (or may not) have noticed that i pretty much dropped out of that previous thread, partly because retaliating on my part wouldn't have been productive either, so i kept out.

Also, Ambrose totally held up the Christian end, I don't put all 'Christians' or theists for that matter, in the same bag. I have Christian friends and don't hold people's faith against them. (UNLESS THEY KNOCK ON MY DOOR. AGHH)

but yeah, I wouldn't worry about the previous thread, stuff was said, a bridge was built. More people should take on the bridge building attitude, it would help settle a lot of anger people have.

[joecoolfrog]

On hindsight, I'm not sure if it was totally cool that the teacher did that, but hell, i still remember her smacking a kid, which I'm sure they cant do now either.

and it probably didn't help your view of Christians anymore when I went off in the other thread. Sorry about that. Please accept my apologies.

Not to try and justify what I did, but I think we are all somewhat shaped by our past experiences. I've had instances in my past where people tried to tell me to shut up about my beliefs in my own apartment. I guess I had had just about enough of it and then took it out on you guys.

I'm sorry about your experience with that teacher. It's not acceptable.

Dangerboy

My opinion of you just went up about 1000% , please also accept my apologies if I have said anything offensive - it is never my intention to be so but we all react badly on occasions.

[Snorri1234]

My actual point is against the idea that speaking about religion should be something confined to specific areas outside of the strictly public domain. In this respect, nobody has the right to tell me that I cannot pray in public, proselytize, or practice my religion in any way that I see fit. Yes, your tax dollars pay for public institutions like parks etc., but so do mine, and we have equal rights to them. You may certainly organize a lecture in support of your ideas and I wouldn't desire much less have any right to stop you. There is no more call to be offended by my actions in support of my beliefs than I am by yours, and I assure you that I am not at all offended by them.

But aren't you allowed to say anything in public then? I mean, the difference is that a park is actually public, while a courthouse isn't the same form of public. I don't have a problem with doing anything in such a public place (except for walking around naked and stuff, which is forbidden anyways), but I do have problems showing such things in a governmental public place.
I think the difference is that courthouses and public libraries represent the government, and parks and streetcorners and other such things don't. As tonkead said, when the government doesn't show one religion over another it doesn't mean they promote atheism, they might give of the message that they do, but I think that is far less worse than actually promoting one religion over another. (I mean, even if you hung up several religious symbols, there are always more religions then there is place for the symbols.) The government actually isn't slanted to one viewpoint, because most of the people working for it are religious.

The problem comes when a single group tries to move toward curtailing the voice of another group. I am not speaking about freedom of religion here but freedom of speech. Within this context I refute the idea that our country is secular to the point that people should feel self-conscious about discussing anything that is important to them, especially religion.

Everyone should be able to discuss whatever they want, but only in specific places. The courthouse and a public school (before college-age that is) aren't the right places for that.

Also, I agree with joecoolfrog.
Dangerboy, you completely turned my view on you around in a positive way.

[mr. incrediball]

Jay, I found many quotes by some of the members who were at the 1787 Constitutional Convention which seems to back up your points. If I took the time to post them all it would take up quite a bit of space so I won't do so. However, it seems that you're unwilling to recognize that a lot of the founding fathers only believed that Christianity was a good "system". It doesn't necessarily mean they were Christians themselves.

By the way, I have no idea who Susie is?

I am merely saying that this nation was formed with Judaeo-Christian beliefs in mind. Not that all of founding fathers were actually Christian.

PS Susie AKA "SusieHot1" is a chat friend of mine on IMVU chat. We are members of some of the same political chat groups and she posted that quote in one of them.

so... making a thread entitled "the faith of our fathers" isn't trying to hint anything?

[jay_a2j]

Jay, I found many quotes by some of the members who were at the 1787 Constitutional Convention which seems to back up your points. If I took the time to post them all it would take up quite a bit of space so I won't do so. However, it seems that you're unwilling to recognize that a lot of the founding fathers only believed that Christianity was a good "system". It doesn't necessarily mean they were Christians themselves.

By the way, I have no idea who Susie is?

I am merely saying that this nation was formed with Judaeo-Christian beliefs in mind. Not that all of founding fathers were actually Christian.

PS Susie AKA "SusieHot1" is a chat friend of mine on IMVU chat. We are members of some of the same political chat groups and she posted that quote in one of them.

so... making a thread entitled "the faith of our fathers" isn't trying to hint anything?

Its obvious some of our Founding Fathers were Christian. I'm so sick of hearing that they were not...like the nation was founded on atheism or something. You're in England right?

[comic boy]

Jay, I found many quotes by some of the members who were at the 1787 Constitutional Convention which seems to back up your points. If I took the time to post them all it would take up quite a bit of space so I won't do so. However, it seems that you're unwilling to recognize that a lot of the founding fathers only believed that Christianity was a good "system". It doesn't necessarily mean they were Christians themselves.

By the way, I have no idea who Susie is?

I am merely saying that this nation was formed with Judaeo-Christian beliefs in mind. Not that all of founding fathers were actually Christian.

PS Susie AKA "SusieHot1" is a chat friend of mine on IMVU chat. We are members of some of the same political chat groups and she posted that quote in one of them.

so... making a thread entitled "the faith of our fathers" isn't trying to hint anything?

Its obvious some of our Founding Fathers were Christian. I'm so sick of hearing that they were not...like the nation was founded on atheism or something. You're in England right?

Well 35 of them were Lawyers - does that mean the nation was founded on bullshit. Its obvious you would love a Fundamentalist Christian run USA but suck it up coz it aint gonna happen, and it was never meant to . Its funny how you infer that by being in England some of us might not understand the USA or its history, I do appologise for failing to have the type of global awareness that your countrymen are so renowned for

[unriggable]

Jay, Ron Paul is more liberal than conservative, so your avatar + sig is contradictory.

[Snorri1234]

Jay, Ron Paul is more liberal than conservative, so your avatar + sig is contradictory.

You would think that, but Jay has a special dictionary which explains the TRUE meaning of those terms.

[unriggable]

Jay, Ron Paul is more liberal than conservative, so your avatar + sig is contradictory.

You would think that, but Jay has a special dictionary which explains the TRUE meaning of those terms.

Disclaimer true and any synonyms are open to interpretation from the writing side. Dramatization. Do not read.

[jay_a2j]

Jay, Ron Paul is more liberal than conservative, so your avatar + sig is contradictory.

No, Ron Paul is far more conservative than liberal. Check out his website.

[MeDeFe]

As long as you people over there don't elect an outright idiot like the last two times I don't mind.

[DangerBoy]

Dangerboy

My opinion of you just went up about 1000% , please also accept my apologies if I have said anything offensive - it is never my intention to be so but we all react badly on occasions.

Thanks. I got it all out of my system. I should be defused & sane for at least 24 hours!

I'll post some thoughts on this thread later when I have more time.

[jay_a2j]

As long as you people over there don't elect an outright idiot like the last two times I don't mind.

Last 4 times

[mr. incrediball]

it's funny that the UK, with an established church that makes up part of the government, is one of the least devout countries in the world. While America, a nation founded on secularism (whether the founding fathers themselves were christian is irrelevant) is one of the most.

I'm not really arguing or anything, i just thought it was an interesting thought...

[Backglass]

Does this mean you also get offended by:

1) People wearing "Anti-God" T-shits?

Nope. I could care less what your t-shirt says. Go nuts.

2) Pro-Life/Pro-Choice bumperstickers? (which may or may not be religiously inspired)

If you wish to ruin your car's paint job and look like an idiot, go for it. I could care less about bumper stickers pro or con. Bumper stickers in general are for morons.

3)Christmas carolers?

Chrismas carolers knocking on my door? No. Christmas pageant, preacher and choir in public, taxpayer funded school/park/courthouse steps? YES.

Basically what you want is a reduction of religious freedom. You want to confine it to "the bedroom". I think you're living in the wrong country. Opps, there goes "Freedom of expression"! The problem with freedom is that you get everyone wanting the freedoms that makes them happy and the desire to limit freedoms of others, that you don't agree with.

This has to be at least the 9th time I have said this, yet you read only what you want to read.

I am not confining or eliminating ANYTHING. <begin broken record> You can practice whatever religion you wish. At home, at church, in your car. You can pray on your front lawn. You can pray at the airport. Your kids can pray before they eat their lunchables. You can pray on the bus. You can pray at work. You can pray while shopping at Food Lion. You can pray while in line at Starbucks. You can pray before you smoke another cancer stick outside in the rain. THAT is not the issue.

YOU want to force ALL children to have a designated prayer time in school. Why. Can your child not pray on his own on the bus, during recess, at lunch, etc? Why stop everything for prayer? Tell your kid to get to school five minutes early and pray at his desk before class starts.

YOU want to force everyone to view/read your religious artifacts at the county courthouse. Here is a great idea. Why not erect them in your yard if you are so worried about your freedoms? Please post a picture when you do. We would all like to see it. After all a true christian wouldn't be ashamed to have an eight foot plywood 10 commandments in their yard!

YOU want to force everyone to pray before the high school kickoff. Why. You can pray all through the game if you want. No one will stop you. Why must you FORCE everyone else to play along with your games?

Oh...and regarding your other post "creator" does not equal "the god of your bible". Many, many religions speak of a creator so to say that the USA is a bible thumping christian nature because of this is a big stretch.

If I can't wear my "Jesus Saves" shirt to the park, YOU can't wear your "There is no God" shirt there either.

Well first off, I have no such t-shirt. I also have no "There are no leprechauns" t-shirts or "There is no Loch Ness Monster" shirts.

I could care less what you wear jay, I NEVER SAID YOU COULD NOT. This is more of your paranoid ranting and inventions. I have another idea. Please wear your shirt to work at the prison. I am sure they wouldn't mind. If they do, it sounds like your workplace is restricting your religious freedoms and you should probably quit. Please be sure to have your co-workers snap a picture of you at work in your Jesus Saves shirt. We would all love to see you stick it to the man for holding you down.

[unriggable]

As long as you people over there don't elect an outright idiot like the last two times I don't mind.

Last 4 times

Last two times. We had a surplus. (had)

[jay_a2j]

As long as you people over there don't elect an outright idiot like the last two times I don't mind.

Last 4 times

Last two times. We had a surplus. (had)

And a Republican Congress/Senate.