|
|
|
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:08:15 -0500
PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
October 22, 2004
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
www.au.org
'AMERICA FOR JESUS' RALLY PUSHES RELIGIOUS RIGHT AGENDA, SAYS AMERICANS
UNITED
Rally Organizers Want Government To Establish Fundamentalist 'Christian
Nation,' Watchdog Groups Asserts
A collection of Religious Right groups is hosting an "America For Jesus
Rally" in the nation's capital today to advance a radical agenda and attack
church-state separation, says Americans United for Separation of Church and
State.
The rally, a project of Virginia pastor John Gimenez and far-right group
called American Veterans in Domestic Defense, has been portrayed as merely
an opportunity to pray for the nation.
There's much more behind the event, Americans United says. The group notes
that rally organizer Gimenez is a Religious Right stalwart and opponent of
church-state separation.
"Far from promoting 'pro-family' values, these groups are rallying for an
officially Christian nation, a theocracy," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn,
Americans United executive director. "They have contempt for our First
Amendment and separation of church and state and seek a government that
will promote their rigid theological views."
Gimenez, a longtime associate of TV preacher Pat Robertson, leads a
mega-church in Virginia Beach called The Rock Church. He promoted the rally
at the Christian Coalition's "Road To Victory" conference in Washington,
D.C., last month, proclaiming that "the righteous" must defeat their
enemies for America to survive.
"It is right in your face now on the internet, on the e-mails, everywhere
you go," he declared. "You see it in the judicial systems, everywhere. The
Old Testament, it tells us in the Book of Numbers that we are to drive out
the enemies, not sit down and negotiate."
The rally will also feature a display of the two-and-a-half ton Ten
Commandments monument that former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy
Moore had installed in the rotunda of the state's Judicial Building. A
federal court in 2003 ordered that the monument be removed from public
display, citing separation of church and state.
Jim Cabaniss, director of the veterans' group, got Moore's blessing earlier
this year to put the monument on a flatbed truck and tour the country. In a
press release announcing the tour, Cabaniss griped that "federal
authorities" had angered Americans by ordering the monument's removal.
The website of Cabaniss' group contains a "domestic enemies" list, which
includes the "Biased Liberal, Socialist News Media," "The Failed Judicial
System," "Socialist Members of Congress" and "The Unsafe, Undisciplined
Education System."
"The organizers of this event are standing up for religious and political
extremism, not American values," Lynn said.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious liberty
watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization
educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in the
safeguarding religious freedom.
www.au.org
|
| |
| |
He's dead.
|
| |
| |
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote in
news:2ibln012g557l08cj8u50tqabh7l38b149@4ax.com:
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:08:15 -0500
PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE ** PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
October 22, 2004
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
www.au.org
'AMERICA FOR JESUS' RALLY PUSHES RELIGIOUS RIGHT AGENDA, SAYS
AMERICANS UNITED
Rally Organizers Want Government To Establish Fundamentalist
'Christian Nation,' Watchdog Groups Asserts
[snip]
I've never understood why merely uttering the phrase "Christian
America" is not considered to be a declaration of treason against the
TRUE United States of America. The U.S. was largely founded on the
principal of freedom of religion. In a "Christian America" there would
be no freedom of religion. IMO, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Pat
Buchannan, and every other "Christian America" touting religiot is a
traitor against the TRUE United States of America!
Does freedom of religion mean that someone is allowed to badger me with
their religious ideals day-in, day-out, every single day of my life from
the day I was born? Is that what freedom of religion means? It's not
like one can walk more than 100 yards in this country without stubbing a
toe on a church steeple. I've seen the churches and their cutesy
billboards, and I've heard religiots spew their rhetoric my entire life.
You'd think the religiots would have come to understand that if I
haven't accepted their message by now, I'm not going to accept it ever.
Welcome to "Christian American"...we have ways to MAKE you pray!
Ensure your status as a citizen of the Holy American Empire; join a
religious cult today! (But you better damn well choose your cult
wisely!)
--
FeverDog
feverdog@noxnetone.org
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:22:59 GMT, "Idiot spotter" <abuse@physics.net>
wrote:
He's dead.
Didn't exist in the first place. Too bad people refuse to get out of
the bronze age.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
And Duty Imp and Rapscallion
|
| |
| |
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:08:15 -0500
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
www.au.org
There's much more behind the event, Americans United says. The group notes
that rally organizer Gimenez is a Religious Right stalwart and opponent of
church-state separation.
"Far from promoting 'pro-family' values, these groups are rallying for an
officially Christian nation, a theocracy," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn,
Americans United executive director. "They have contempt for our First
Amendment and separation of church and state and seek a government that
will promote their rigid theological views."
Just another bunch of lies of paranoid anti-Christians. We Christians
want the separation of church and state rigidly enforced. The state "will
make no law" (see constitution) impinging upon any and ALL religions.
Whether religion is taught in a schools is not for the government to decide
but for parents of the children attending that school. Government should not
even decide what religion is, or is not, nor where it starts and stops. It's
none of their business. Government should be religion-blind and be only
concerned with actions, not beliefs.
Pastor Frank
THE ROYAL LAW OF CHRIST
**Jesus in Mk 12:30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength: this is the first commandment.
**31: And the second is alike, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
**Jesus in Mat 22:40 "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
commandments."
THE GOLDEN RULE OF CHRIST
Jesus in Matt. 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them...."
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Pastor Frank wrote:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
www.au.org
There's much more behind the event, Americans United says. The group notes
that rally organizer Gimenez is a Religious Right stalwart and opponent of
church-state separation.
"Far from promoting 'pro-family' values, these groups are rallying for an
officially Christian nation, a theocracy," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn,
Americans United executive director. "They have contempt for our First
Amendment and separation of church and state and seek a government that
will promote their rigid theological views."
Just another bunch of lies of paranoid anti-Christians. We Christians
want the separation of church and state rigidly enforced. The state "will
make no law" (see constitution) impinging upon any and ALL religions.
Whether religion is taught in a schools is not for the government to decide
but for parents of the children attending that school. Government should not
even decide what religion is, or is not, nor where it starts and stops. It's
none of their business. Government should be religion-blind and be only
concerned with actions, not beliefs.
How can you maintain separation from church & state if "[g]overment should
be religion-blind", & "[g]overnment should not even decide what religion
is"? You undoubtedly want a theocracy.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:12:27 -0700, amoeba wrote:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Pastor Frank wrote:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State www.au.org
There's much more behind the event, Americans United says. The group
notes that rally organizer Gimenez is a Religious Right stalwart and
opponent of church-state separation.
"Far from promoting 'pro-family' values, these groups are rallying for
an officially Christian nation, a theocracy," said the Rev. Barry W.
Lynn, Americans United executive director. "They have contempt for our
First Amendment and separation of church and state and seek a
government that will promote their rigid theological views."
How can you maintain separation from church & state if "[g]overment should
be religion-blind", & "[g]overnment should not even decide what religion
is"? You undoubtedly want a theocracy.
What *I want to know is why he keeps yapping about *our Constitution.
Shouldn't he on about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms *instead?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
Just another bunch of lies of paranoid anti-Christians. We Christians
want the separation of church and state rigidly enforced. The state "will
make no law" (see constitution) impinging upon any and ALL religions.
Whether religion is taught in a schools is not for the government to
decide
but for parents of the children attending that school. Government should
not
even decide what religion is, or is not, nor where it starts and stops.
It's
none of their business. Government should be religion-blind and be only
concerned with actions, not beliefs.
Pastor Frank
As a matter of fact, traditional constiutional jurisprudence holds exactly
what you've said at the end ouf your post: the government is not concerned
with beliefs, only actions, and will only regulate actions. Examples of
this include upholding drug laws, even when the drug in question is peyote
employed in Native American religious ceremonies.
However, you are completely wrong about teaching religion in schools. The
First Amendment not only guarantees freedom of religion, it also precludes
government participation in religion (the so-called "Establishment Clause.")
The 1st Amendment has been selectively incorporated through the 14th
Amendment, so it operates as a restriction on state and municipal government
as well. Accordingly, it is unconstitutional (as it should be) for ANY
branch of government to sponsor religious activities, i.e. state- and
municipal-run schools can not offer religious instruction (though, of
course, they can teach religion as an academic subjective, e.g. "comparative
religion," etc.
I've snipped your prostelytizing sig line because it is off-topic and
particularly inappropriate in the misc.legal newsgroup where I am reading
this thread.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:12:27 -0700, amoeba wrote:
What *I want to know is why he keeps yapping about *our Constitution.
Shouldn't he on about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms *instead?
I see you both think, that in a "theocracy" [g]overnment doesn't know,
nor define the religion it represents. No wonder you guys are atheists. You
haven't a clue yourself what the word "religion" means. Now were you only
admit to that, you could be an adequate rep of a "religion blind"
[g]government.
Pastor Frank
You've been reading those narrow minded, intolerant, judgemental, and
bigoted anti-Christ atheist mythologies again, haven't you?
--Anon--
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <1099037332.n0/Dx78rMLxm+2HspvP6kg@teranews>, Pastor
Frank lept out of the bushes shouting:
I see you both think, that in a "theocracy" [g]overnment doesn't know,
nor define the religion it represents. No wonder you guys are atheists.
You haven't a clue yourself what the word "religion" means. Now were you
only admit to that, you could be an adequate rep of a "religion blind"
[g]government.
What *I want to know is why you keep yapping about *our Constitution
instead of talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
You may commence tossing red herrings, slander, and lies...
(You always do)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
decide
not
It's
As a matter of fact, traditional constiutional jurisprudence holds exactly
what you've said at the end ouf your post: the government is not concerned
with beliefs, only actions, and will only regulate actions. Examples of
this include upholding drug laws, even when the drug in question is peyote
employed in Native American religious ceremonies.
However, you are completely wrong about teaching religion in schools. The
First Amendment not only guarantees freedom of religion, it also precludes
government participation in religion (the so-called "Establishment
Clause.")
The 1st Amendment has been selectively incorporated through the 14th
Amendment, so it operates as a restriction on state and municipal
government
as well. Accordingly, it is unconstitutional (as it should be) for ANY
branch of government to sponsor religious activities, i.e. state- and
municipal-run schools can not offer religious instruction (though, of
course, they can teach religion as an academic subjective, e.g.
"comparative
religion," etc.
In order to know what government is not to "sponsor", requires that
government defines what religion is, and also what religious activities are.
Should deciding what is or what is not religion and religious activities be
a government responsibility? Has government the suitable qualifications to
decide this? What about Wicca, Voodoo, astrology etc. etc. or even political
persuasions resting on faith instead of fact, are they religions? What about
religions without a God, such as Buddhism, are they a religion?
Also since the practice of religion is constitutionally guaranteed,
should government restrict its practice geographically? I.e. Russian atheist
Communists respected the freedom of religion as per constitution, but
restricted its practice to church and home, making any mention of religion
elsewhere a criminal offence. Therefore, though proselytizing for converts
is a practice of one's religion, it is geographically restricted, in
communist Russia as well as democratic America. We see the beginnings of
this in government prohibiting religious practices on government property.
Should therefore Communism as well as Capitalism, which much like religions,
are belief systems resting on faith, be prescribed and/or censored?
Pastor Frank
PROSELYTIZATION
Jesus in Mat 5:14-16: Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set
on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a
bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the
house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good
works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Jesus in Mat 28:19-20: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
|
| |
| |
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> writes:
I see you both think, that in a "theocracy" [g]overnment doesn't know,
nor define the religion it represents. No wonder you guys are atheists. You
haven't a clue yourself what the word "religion" means. Now were you only
admit to that, you could be an adequate rep of a "religion blind"
[g]government.
Frank, given that you are documented as a liar, why should we believe
anything that you say?
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
|
| |
| |
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> writes:
Clause.")
government
"comparative
In order to know what government is not to "sponsor", requires that
government defines what religion is, and also what religious activities are.
Should deciding what is or what is not religion and religious activities be
a government responsibility? Has government the suitable qualifications to
decide this? What about Wicca, Voodoo, astrology etc. etc. or even political
persuasions resting on faith instead of fact, are they religions? What about
religions without a God, such as Buddhism, are they a religion?
Also since the practice of religion is constitutionally guaranteed,
should government restrict its practice geographically? I.e. Russian atheist
Communists respected the freedom of religion as per constitution, but
restricted its practice to church and home, making any mention of religion
elsewhere a criminal offence. Therefore, though proselytizing for converts
is a practice of one's religion, it is geographically restricted, in
communist Russia as well as democratic America. We see the beginnings of
this in government prohibiting religious practices on government property.
Should therefore Communism as well as Capitalism, which much like religions,
are belief systems resting on faith, be prescribed and/or censored?
Everyone, read the information at the site referenced in my .signature
file to see Pastor Frank's documented lies and acts of hypocracy before
you decide to believe a word that he says.
And if you disagree with what I say about Pastor Frank, feel free to offer
a refutation to my documentation. Thus far, no one has managed to refute
my comments about the known liar. This hasn't stopped Frank from
asserting that my statements about him are lies, but do consider that he
also admits that he hasn't even read the statements that he "knows" are
lies.
--
See the documented lies of Pastor Frank: http://tinyurl.com/6009
http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
|
| |
| |
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> wrote in message news:<1099073929.KpQukJ+2OJv8bqrOceToXA@teranews>...
Clause.")
government
"comparative
In order to know what government is not to "sponsor", requires that
government defines what religion is, and also what religious activities are.
I'm not quite sure what you point is. The government doesn't go
around sponsoring everything and, then, making an ex post facto
determination as to whether the thing that it has sponsored is a
religion or not.
Should deciding what is or what is not religion and religious activities be
a government responsibility?
It is to this extent: the courts, who evaluate whether specific
government action violates the Constitution, are charged with that
responsibility.
Has government the suitable qualifications to
decide this?
Given the adversarial nature of the US judicial process, it is
unnecessary for the government to have that expertise -- the
plaintiff's lawyer and the US attorney general will designate experts
who will provide guidance to the court in the course of testing the
constitutionality of the law.
What about Wicca, Voodoo, astrology etc. etc. or even political
persuasions resting on faith instead of fact, are they religions? What about
religions without a God, such as Buddhism, are they a religion?
Budhists believe in a "god" -- just not in the same context that you
do.
Also since the practice of religion is constitutionally guaranteed,
should government restrict its practice geographically? I.e. Russian atheist
Communists respected the freedom of religion as per constitution, but
restricted its practice to church and home, making any mention of religion
elsewhere a criminal offence.
You have a strange understanding of the 1st Amendment. No one,
including you, is prohibited from mentioning religion, or anything
else, anywhere.
Therefore, though proselytizing for converts
is a practice of one's religion, it is geographically restricted, in
communist Russia as well as democratic America.
That's utter nonsense. You can proselytize to your hearts content,
and as have you've done again in your signature. The government,
however, cannot proselytize, nor fund proselytization.
We see the beginnings of
this in government prohibiting religious practices on government property.
Again, utter nonsense. Religious groups are free to, for example,
rent the Central Park bandshell and have a revival meeting.
Should therefore Communism as well as Capitalism, which much like religions,
are belief systems resting on faith, be prescribed and/or censored?
Pastor Frank
PROSELYTIZATION
Jesus in Mat 5:14-16: Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set
on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a
bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the
house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good
works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Jesus in Mat 28:19-20: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
|
| |
| |
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> writes:
Frank, given that you are documented as a liar, why should we believe
anything that you say?
Considering that you are a "documented", if not also a demented atheist
Troll in our pristine Christian NGs, nobody expects you to believe anything
anyone says.
|
| |
| |
decide
not
It's
As a matter of fact, traditional constiutional jurisprudence holds exactly
what you've said at the end ouf your post: the government is not concerned
with beliefs, only actions, and will only regulate actions. Examples of
this include upholding drug laws, even when the drug in question is peyote
employed in Native American religious ceremonies.
However, you are completely wrong about teaching religion in schools. The
First Amendment not only guarantees freedom of religion, it also precludes
government participation in religion (the so-called "Establishment
Clause.")
The 1st Amendment has been selectively incorporated through the 14th
Amendment, so it operates as a restriction on state and municipal
government
as well. Accordingly, it is unconstitutional (as it should be) for ANY
branch of government to sponsor religious activities, i.e. state- and
municipal-run schools can not offer religious instruction (though, of
course, they can teach religion as an academic subjective, e.g.
"comparative
religion," etc.
Likewise Government should not be required to judge what is, nor what is
not a "religion". Hence we see Christianity outlawed, but atheism, Buddhism,
Wicca, Voodoo and Satanism etc. etc. exempted, because these belief systems
are non-theistic and are considered mere "cultural expressions".
Schools in European countries solved that problem by setting aside a
number of periods per week, where representatives of belief systems
advocating morality are invited to teach children their beliefs. These
classes are run by qualified volunteers. Classes are compulsory, requiring
tests and grades, and those students and their legal guardian failing to
make a choice would be relegated to atheist secular humanism class.
Popagation of systematic morality is in the interest of the state, since the
survival of civilization depends on it.
Pastor Frank
SCRIPTURE
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness
|
| |
| |
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> wrote in message
news:<1099073929.KpQukJ+2OJv8bqrOceToXA@teranews>...
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:08:15 -0500
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
www.au.org
There's much more behind the event, Americans United says. The
group
notes
that rally organizer Gimenez is a Religious Right stalwart and
opponent
of
church-state separation.
"Far from promoting 'pro-family' values, these groups are rallying
for
an
officially Christian nation, a theocracy," said the Rev. Barry W.
Lynn,
Americans United executive director. "They have contempt for our
First
Amendment and separation of church and state and seek a government
that
will promote their rigid theological views."
Just another bunch of lies of paranoid anti-Christians. We
Christians
want the separation of church and state rigidly enforced. The state
"will
make no law" (see constitution) impinging upon any and ALL
religions.
Whether religion is taught in a schools is not for the government to
decide
but for parents of the children attending that school. Government
should
not
even decide what religion is, or is not, nor where it starts and
stops.
It's
none of their business. Government should be religion-blind and be
only
concerned with actions, not beliefs.
As a matter of fact, traditional constiutional jurisprudence holds
exactly
what you've said at the end ouf your post: the government is not
concerned
with beliefs, only actions, and will only regulate actions. Examples
of
this include upholding drug laws, even when the drug in question is
peyote
employed in Native American religious ceremonies.
However, you are completely wrong about teaching religion in schools.
The
First Amendment not only guarantees freedom of religion, it also
precludes
government participation in religion (the so-called "Establishment
Clause.")
The 1st Amendment has been selectively incorporated through the 14th
Amendment, so it operates as a restriction on state and municipal
government
as well. Accordingly, it is unconstitutional (as it should be) for
ANY
branch of government to sponsor religious activities, i.e. state- and
municipal-run schools can not offer religious instruction (though, of
course, they can teach religion as an academic subjective, e.g.
"comparative
religion," etc.
In order to know what government is not to "sponsor", requires that
government defines what religion is, and also what religious activities
are.
I'm not quite sure what you point is. The government doesn't go
around sponsoring everything and, then, making an ex post facto
determination as to whether the thing that it has sponsored is a
religion or not.
What you are advocating is, that secular humanist courts, government
officials and "experts" are to determine impartially, what is or what is not
a religion. That's an impossibility, as you clearly prove by positing, that
Buddhism is a theistic religion, which it definitely is not.
In the mean time a teacher can talk about and inculcate her atheist
disbeliefs, or her Wicca, Voodoo, and occult beliefs and practices ad
nauseam, but dare not mention Christ. That's a travesty.
Pastor Frank
SCRIPTURE
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
in righteousness
|
| |
| |
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> wrote
What you are advocating is, that secular humanist courts, government
officials and "experts" are to determine impartially, what is or what is
not
a religion. That's an impossibility, as you clearly prove by positing,
that
Buddhism is a theistic religion, which it definitely is not.
It also allows, if not demands, the legitimizing of any 'immorality' as if
it were the imposition of religious tenets on a secular society.
In the mean time a teacher can talk about and inculcate her atheist
disbeliefs, or her Wicca, Voodoo, and occult beliefs and practices ad
nauseam, but dare not mention Christ. That's a travesty.
And then they wonder why they're rearing a generation of amoral sociopaths.
Chas
|
| |
| |
Clause.")
government
"comparative
Likewise Government should not be required to judge what is, nor what
is
not a "religion".
Well, it actually does this to this extent: the IRS will make a
determination whether a church is "legitimate" in the context of tax free
status. I agree that the government should not be making this
determination, and also believe that there is no justification for tax-free
status on this basis.
Hence we see Christianity outlawed,
Christianity isn't outlawed. Where did you get that idea?
but atheism, Buddhism,
Wicca, Voodoo and Satanism etc. etc. exempted, because these belief
systems
are non-theistic and are considered mere "cultural expressions".
No court, anywhere, has ever issued a ruling remotely close to what you've
described. The government is precluded from supporting non-Judeo/Christian
religions, just as it is precluded from support so-called "established"
religions.
Schools in European countries solved that problem by setting aside a
number of periods per week, where representatives of belief systems
advocating morality are invited to teach children their beliefs.
Schools in the US can and do teach comparative religion, which is
constitutional and, in my opinion, a fine idea. Schools in the US may not,
however, advocate religion-based morality, even if they approach it on an
ecumenical basis.
These
classes are run by qualified volunteers. Classes are compulsory, requiring
tests and grades, and those students and their legal guardian failing to
make a choice would be relegated to atheist secular humanism class.
Popagation of systematic morality is in the interest of the state, since
the
survival of civilization depends on it.
Why is propagation of morality in the interest of the state? The problem
with the term "morality" is that, often, it is confused with religious
dogma, i.e. "this is the right thing to do because God wants you to."
That's not morality, that's religion.
Pastor Frank
|
| |
| |
"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
What you are advocating is, that secular humanist courts,
I don't know what you mean by "secular humanist courts." "Secular humanism"
is a term coined by religionists to label people who don't share their
beliefs. Those to whom the label is applied do not refer to,or think of,
themselves as "secular humanists." The only courts that have any legal
validity in the US, per the Constitution, are courts of law.
government
officials and "experts" are to determine impartially, what is or what is
not
a religion.
Except for the "secular humanist" part, yes, you are correct, though context
is critical: the question only arises when someone has challenged the
constitutionality of a law on the grounds that it violates the 1st
Amendment. Thus, it is the government which is being challenged, not
religion or any particular religious belief.
That's an impossibility, as you clearly prove by positing, that
Buddhism is a theistic religion, which it definitely is not.
I disagree, but that's not the point. The 1st Amendment precludes
government sponsorship of any religion, theistic or otherwise.
In the mean time a teacher can talk about and inculcate her atheist
disbeliefs, or her Wicca, Voodoo, and occult beliefs and practices ad
nauseam, but dare not mention Christ. That's a travesty.
It would be a travesty if it were true. However, it is not. A teacher may
_not_ inculcate her atheist, Wicca, Voodoo or occult beliefs into here
students -- doing so is violative of the 1st Amendment. And a teacher may
mention Christ, provided it's not in the context of a religious observance
or proselytization, e.g. if teaching comparative religion (or even western
history), a teacher could explain that Christianity departed from earlier
Judaism because of its belief that Jesus Christ was the messiah prophesized
in the Tanakh. Such a statement is not only perfectly permissible from a
constitutional perspective, but completely appropriate. What a teacher may
not do is propose that the class give thanks to Jesus as lord. She may also
not propose that the children worship Satan, ask for intervention from
Buddha, solicit the assistance of Shinto ancesters, celebrate a black mass,
etc. She also may not hold out atheism as a virtue. In short, as a "state
actor" within the meaning of the Constitution, she may not endorse a
religion or set of beliefs without running afoul of the Establishment
Clause.
I don't know where you're getting your idea that teachers can't mention
Christ but can proselytize for non-theistic religions, but you're simply
wrong. They cannot, and I'm certainly not aware of any who are trying to do
so.
Pastor Frank
|
| |
| |
"Pastor Frank" <PF@christfirst.com> wrote
It also allows, if not demands, the legitimizing of any 'immorality' as if
it were the imposition of religious tenets on a secular society.
And then they wonder why they're rearing a generation of amoral
sociopaths.
Chas
Thanks Chas. Yes. Civilizations tend to destroy themselves from within.
Every blessing the Lord gives us can be a curse, as in the ancient: "Him
whom the gods like to see destroyed, they give him what he wants."
Pastor Frank
Phil:4:8: Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, honest and
just, and whatsoever things are pure, lovely, and of good report; if there
be any virtue, praise and thanksgiving, think on these things.
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <1099667915.oLtPeqQp6510VMumeFgFVw@teranews>, Pastor
Frank lept out of the bushes shouting:
Hence we see Christianity outlawed
LIAR.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <2v1uuaF2g3p70U1@uni-berlin.de>, PTravel lept out of
the bushes shouting:
is
Well, it actually does this to this extent: the IRS will make a
determination whether a church is "legitimate" in the context of tax free
status. I agree that the government should not be making this
determination, and also believe that there is no justification for
tax-free status on this basis.
Actually, they don't judge "religion" at all. In that churches are tax
exempt, they have some (surprisingly) basic and simple rules you have to
follow. You have to have a few officers (like any non-profit kind of
organization) but as I recall it's about three. And you have to have *some
kind of actual meetings. You can't just up and say "I'm a religion now!"
and get the exemption. There has to be something that resembles a *church.
If you and six "congregants" want to dance naked in the woods and
worship jello pudding, you'll fit the criteria and you'll get the
exemption.
Aside from whether the status should exist at all, I don't see how they
could be more fair about it. There's no "doctrine check" or anything.
Hence we see Christianity outlawed,
Christianity isn't outlawed. Where did you get that idea?
He's a liar. And he's insane.
(No, I'm serious)
but atheism, Buddhism,
Wicca, Voodoo and Satanism etc. etc. exempted, because these belief
systems
No court, anywhere, has ever issued a ruling remotely close to what you've
described. The government is precluded from supporting
non-Judeo/Christian religions, just as it is precluded from support
so-called "established" religions.
Flake doesn't know a damn thing about the issue, he just makes #@($ up as
he goes.
Not to mention, I've never seen him explain his hard on for US law when
he's had CANADIAN ISPs more often than not.
Schools in European countries solved that problem by setting aside a
number of periods per week, where representatives of belief systems
advocating morality are invited to teach children their beliefs.
Schools in the US can and do teach comparative religion, which is
constitutional and, in my opinion, a fine idea. Schools in the US may
not, however, advocate religion-based morality, even if they approach it
on an ecumenical basis.
the
Why is propagation of morality in the interest of the state? The problem
with the term "morality" is that, often, it is confused with religious
dogma, i.e. "this is the right thing to do because God wants you to."
That's not morality, that's religion.
Flake wants his personal beliefs imposed on the population by the schools.
Not actual Christianity, his beliefs are so far off mainstream Christian
thought, Christians regular go after him. HIS beliefs.
Flake found his god in his mirror...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <1099667838.5lHV1/j+9t8vWxAgLg+P+g@teranews>, Pastor
Frank lept out of the bushes shouting:
Considering that you are a "documented", if not also a demented
atheist
Troll in our pristine Christian NGs, nobody expects you to believe
anything anyone says.
Says the man who trolled alt.atheism for *YEARS.*
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <1099667924.fhsAMowu0JbGIrtQD2W9IQ@teranews>, Pastor
Frank lept out of the bushes shouting:
In the mean time a teacher can talk about and inculcate her atheist
disbeliefs, or her Wicca, Voodoo, and occult beliefs and practices ad
nauseam, but dare not mention Christ. That's a travesty.
Liar.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <2v2094F2gjngqU1@uni-berlin.de>, PTravel lept out of
the bushes shouting:
It would be a travesty if it were true. However, it is not.
Flake sees all kinds of "travesties" that don't actually exist...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
In our last episode <1099699567.6PHP09LnZQVTNuwBi4eoog@teranews>, Pastor
Frank lept out of the bushes shouting:
sociopaths.
Thanks Chas. Yes. Civilizations tend to destroy themselves from
within.
Every blessing the Lord gives us can be a curse, as in the ancient: "Him
whom the gods like to see destroyed, they give him what he wants."
He must have given you everything you ever wanted...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
|
| |
| |
Well, it actually does this to this extent: the IRS will make a
determination whether a church is "legitimate" in the context of tax free
status. I agree that the government should not be making this
determination, and also believe that there is no justification for
tax-free
status on this basis.
Christianity isn't outlawed. Where did you get that idea?
Had judge Moore posted any other religious sentiments than those of the
Bible in his court room, no one would have objected. Laws resting on the
separation of church and state is specifically anti-Christian. It's time
that all laws regulating religions should be repealed. A religion is no
different than a political party in that it merely represents a point of
view. If religions are proscribed and censored geographically, then s should
be politics.
but atheism, Buddhism,
Wicca, Voodoo and Satanism etc. etc. exempted, because these belief
systems are non-theistic and are considered mere "cultural expressions".
| | |
