for Gaubster

gaubster2 wrote:
Cathy Friedmann wrote:
"gaubster2" wrote in message
oups.com...

Cathy Friedmann wrote:


What kind of harm are you referencing? Property rights?

You think the only way to harm a person is via physical harm?
(Hint:
you
used the word "bodily".)

You still haven't answer my question. Typical.

You don't think there's anything wrong w/ promoting prayer in the
public
schools because it would coincide with *your* personal beliefs.
Nevermind
the fact that it wouldn't coincide with many *other* people's
beliefs. If
it's good enough for you, it's good enough for all? (That's a
rhetorical
question, & the answer is nope.)

I never said that you should PROMOTE prayer in schools. I just don't
think it should be BANNED. We're going in circles here and a number
of
you think you have me pegged and you don't. I don't neccessarily
disagree with you.

It appears that you aren't considering the fact that the public is
extremely
diverse in its beliefs, & their tax dollars are funding the public
schools.
Not only is not everyone religious, but of those who are religious,
not
everyone is Christian (gasp!).

I'll go you one further. I think we should shut down the Dept. of
Education because the government school system is an abject failure.
Then nobody can complain that we're wasting their tax dollars
teaching
kids something that the parents don't believe in.

Nevermind the fact that public schools are secular places, not
religious
ones. If you want prayer in school, & if you prefer that prayer to
be
Christian oriented, then feel free to support private Christian
schools. No
problem there.

You and I don't disagree on that point. However, I don't believe
that
schools should neccessarily be secular. Where's the benefit to that?

I have no
problem with a moment of silence in public school so the kids
can
silently
pray, meditate, collect their thoughts, or do nothing. I
have
a
BIG
problem
with an out-loud prayer or the teacher saying "let's pray".

Yep & yep.

Cathy

Yeah, because that is SOOOOOOOO dangerous! Not.

See above. The public schools are secular. Secular, not
religious.
Separation of Church & State, you know??
Here's where you and others step in it. THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE. I DEFY you or anybody to show me where in the
Constitution it states that. Once again, we have freedom OF
religion,
NOT freedom FROM religion. You can practice your life as paganistic
or
as secularistic as you want. And others can live their lives the way
they want. You don't have the right to NOT be offended. Why is
everybody afraid of God anyway?

The phrase "freedom of religion" is NOT in the constitution either, so
according to your logic, if the phrase itself is not in the
constitution, then the principle is invalid. That logic rules out
freedom of religion, doesn't it? I DEFY you to show me where the phrase
"freedom OF religion" is found in the constitution. I want the exact
phrase, please, just as you stated it above, verbatim. If the phrase is
not in the constitution, then per your logic the principle it states
doesn't exist either. You don't have the right to NOT be offended so if
the secularists predominate the schools, tough. Your own words: YOU
don't have the right NOT to be offended so let's go homosexual
marriages, porn-TV, and all the other little goodies! Anyway, here is
an earlier post...

David
The phrase "freedom of religion=AD" is NOT in the constitution.
There are limits to the practice of religion. For example,
bigamy is outlawed in our country and people who believe in
it are often "persecuted" by the state for practicing it.
Parents who refuse medical treatment for =ADtheir children on
religious grounds are sometimes prosecuted for t=ADheir actions.
In the South, those who wish to handle snakes as a =ADshow of faith
are sometimes singled out for "harrassment" by law enf=ADorcement
officials.

There is no such thing as a completely unfettered freedom of
religion in this country and there is nothing in the constit=ADution
that
even implies there is unfettered freedom of religion. There =ADare those



who believe homosexuals should be killed but the law prohibi=ADts them
from acting out on those beliefs. There are some who believe=AD all
Christians should observe the Saturday Sabbath but they are =ADrendered
powerless by the government from imposing that belief on oth=ADers.
Still
others believe heretics should be killed but there are laws =ADthat keep



them from carrying these penalties out. In short, there is n=ADo such
thing as total unfettered freedom of religion in the constit=ADution and



since the phrase itself doesn't even appear in the constitut=ADion any
inference drawn from that particular phrase is invalid.


The phrase itself is an inference, and is in the same catego=ADry as
freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Freedom of the pr=ADess and
speech are not unfettered either, as there are laws that pro=ADhibit
certain kinds of speech in certain circumstances. Certainly =AD"freedom
of
the press" (an inference from the constitution) doesn't mean=AD we are
NOT
free from the press, no more than "freedom of speech" means =ADwe are
NOT
free from speech. We certainly have freedom FROM speech if w=ADe so
desire
and are not required to submit to any speech nor to have to =ADlisten to



any speech we deem offensive.


Just as freedom of speech has its limits (imagine if no one =ADwas
guaranteed freedom ~from~ speech, then atheists would be all=ADowed to
enter churches and speak out during the services without leg=ADal
liability) so does any supposed freedom of religion. Since =ADthe
phrase
is not found in the constitution we must rely on inferences =ADand there



is absolutely nothing in the constitution that demands we MU=ADST have a



religion.


Moreover, there is nothing in the constitution that denies
us the freedom FROM religion. True freedom of religion canno=ADt be had
if
we must choose a religion, even one that denies our basic b=ADeliefs or



principles. Those who infer the principle of freedom of reli=ADgion from



the constitution are wrong when they claim the principle of =ADfreedom
of
religon denies us the freedom from religion. Such a belief i=ADs
mean-spirited and dangerous and must be opposed. Naturally t=ADhose who
don't care about the feelings of others will complain if the=ADy are
opposed and will call such opposition "persecution" but that=AD is okay.



It has always been a tradition of some Christians to scream
"persecution" at every opportunity. We get used to it.


The principles found in the constitution do not prohibit one=AD from
seeking out the religion of their choice, as long as any law=ADs of the
land are not broken, but the priniple is clear that we all h=ADave the
freedom to refuse religion as well. There is no true freedom=AD of
religion when you have no freedom to refuse one. Just as fre=ADedom to
choose good includes the freedom to refuse good (free-will i=ADs a basic



tenent of Christianity) so the freedom of religion inferred =ADfrom the
constitution grants us the freedom to choose no religion.


The phrase "freedom of religion but not freedom from religio=ADn" has
become sort of a mantra among evangelicals but it so obvious=ADly wrong
and mean-spirited that it is not meant to speak truth but to=AD destroy
the real freedom that Christianity was built on. That freedo=ADm -
freewill and the freedom to choose or not to choose a religi=ADon is
inherent within Christianity itself. The founding fathers we=ADre well
acquanted with this Christian principle of free will and the=ADre is
absolutely nothing in the Constitution that denies us the ri=ADght to
practice free will, even if that free will leads us to refus=ADe
religion.
Lastly, there is nothing in the Constitution that claims we =ADare not
free from religion. Our freedoms are not freedoms at all if =ADwe do not



have the basic human right to choose according to our consci=ADence.
Even
pure Christianity gives you that much.


In summary:
Don't let the soi-disant Christians that inhabit the fringe bully
you into silence. These fools think that the Constitution
guarantees only people who believe in God rights. They believe the
constitution guarantees ~only~ freedom OF religion but since the phrase

"freedom of religion" isn't even in the constitution, any inference
drawn from the phrase itself is useless for determing what isn't or
what is allowed.


Just because the constitution doesn't specifically spell out in
excruciating detail that we are allowed certain things doesn't mean we
do not have the right to those things or the freedom from choosing
certain things.


Fallacious Argument A: If the constitution doesn't specifically say we
have freedom FROM X (where X can be anything of importance) than we
don't have freedom FROM X.

Examples..
The constitution doesn't guarantee us freedom FROM porn, therefore we
don't have freedom FROM porn.

The constitution doesn't gurantee us freedom FROM speech so we don't
have freedom FROM speech (athiests could enter churches and exercise
their free speech rights without fear of legal penalties).


BTY, what about those scientific proofs of the Red Sea crossing and the
burning bush?

David Grossmann wrote:

gaubster2 wrote:

Cathy Friedmann wrote:

"gaubster2" wrote in message
egroups.com...

Cathy Friedmann wrote:


What kind of harm are you referencing? Property rights?

You think the only way to harm a person is via physical harm?

(Hint:

you

used the word "bodily".)

You still haven't answer my question. Typical.

You don't think there's anything wrong w/ promoting prayer in the

public

schools because it would coincide with *your* personal beliefs.

Nevermind

the fact that it wouldn't coincide with many *other* people's

beliefs. If

it's good enough for you, it's good enough for all? (That's a

rhetorical

question, & the answer is nope.)

I never said that you should PROMOTE prayer in schools. I just don't
think it should be BANNED. We're going in circles here and a number

of

you think you have me pegged and you don't. I don't neccessarily
disagree with you.

It appears that you aren't considering the fact that the public is

extremely

diverse in its beliefs, & their tax dollars are funding the public

schools.

Not only is not everyone religious, but of those who are religious,

not

everyone is Christian (gasp!).

I'll go you one further. I think we should shut down the Dept. of
Education because the government school system is an abject failure.
Then nobody can complain that we're wasting their tax dollars

teaching

kids something that the parents don't believe in.

Nevermind the fact that public schools are secular places, not

religious

ones. If you want prayer in school, & if you prefer that prayer to

be

Christian oriented, then feel free to support private Christian

schools. No

problem there.

You and I don't disagree on that point. However, I don't believe

that

schools should neccessarily be secular. Where's the benefit to that?

I have no

problem with a moment of silence in public school so the kids

can

silently

pray, meditate, collect their thoughts, or do nothing. I

have

a

BIG

problem

with an out-loud prayer or the teacher saying "let's pray".

Yep & yep.

Cathy

Yeah, because that is SOOOOOOOO dangerous! Not.

See above. The public schools are secular. Secular, not

religious.

Separation of Church & State, you know??

Here's where you and others step in it. THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE. I DEFY you or anybody to show me where in the
Constitution it states that. Once again, we have freedom OF

religion,

NOT freedom FROM religion. You can practice your life as paganistic

or

as secularistic as you want. And others can live their lives the way
they want. You don't have the right to NOT be offended. Why is
everybody afraid of God anyway?


The phrase "freedom of religion" is NOT in the constitution either, so
according to your logic, if the phrase itself is not in the
constitution, then the principle is invalid. That logic rules out
freedom of religion, doesn't it? I DEFY you to show me where the phrase
"freedom OF religion" is found in the constitution. I want the exact
phrase, please, just as you stated it above, verbatim. If the phrase is
not in the constitution, then per your logic the principle it states
doesn't exist either. You don't have the right to NOT be offended so if
the secularists predominate the schools, tough. Your own words: YOU
don't have the right NOT to be offended so let's go homosexual
marriages, porn-TV, and all the other little goodies! Anyway, here is
an earlier post...

David
The phrase "freedom of religion*" is NOT in the constitution.
There are limits to the practice of religion. For example,
bigamy is outlawed in our country and people who believe in
it are often "persecuted" by the state for practicing it.
Parents who refuse medical treatment for *their children on
religious grounds are sometimes prosecuted for t*heir actions.
In the South, those who wish to handle snakes as a *show of faith
are sometimes singled out for "harrassment" by law enf*orcement
officials.

There is no such thing as a completely unfettered freedom of
religion in this country and there is nothing in the constit*ution
that
even implies there is unfettered freedom of religion. There *are those



who believe homosexuals should be killed but the law prohibi*ts them
from acting out on those beliefs. There are some who believe* all
Christians should observe the Saturday Sabbath but they are *rendered
powerless by the government from imposing that belief on oth*ers.
Still
others believe heretics should be killed but there are laws *that keep



them from carrying these penalties out. In short, there is n*o such
thing as total unfettered freedom of religion in the constit*ution and



since the phrase itself doesn't even appear in the constitut*ion any
inference drawn from that particular phrase is invalid.


The phrase itself is an inference, and is in the same catego*ry as
freedom of speech or freedom of the press. Freedom of the pr*ess and
speech are not unfettered either, as there are laws that pro*hibit
certain kinds of speech in certain circumstances. Certainly *"freedom
of
the press" (an inference from the constitution) doesn't mean* we are
NOT
free from the press, no more than "freedom of speech" means *we are
NOT
free from speech. We certainly have freedom FROM speech if w*e so
desire
and are not required to submit to any speech nor to have to *listen to



any speech we deem offensive.


Just as freedom of speech has its limits (imagine if no one *was
guaranteed freedom ~from~ speech, then atheists would be all*owed to
enter churches and speak out during the services without leg*al
liability) so does any supposed freedom of religion. Since *the
phrase
is not found in the constitution we must rely on inferences *and there



is absolutely nothing in the constitution that demands we MU*ST have a



religion.


Moreover, there is nothing in the constitution that denies
us the freedom FROM religion. True freedom of religion canno*t be had
if
we must choose a religion, even one that denies our basic b*eliefs or



principles. Those who infer the principle of freedom of reli*gion from



the constitution are wrong when they claim the principle of *freedom
of
religon denies us the freedom from religion. Such a belief i*s
mean-spirited and dangerous and must be opposed. Naturally t*hose who
don't care about the feelings of others will complain if the*y are
opposed and will call such opposition "persecution" but that* is okay.



It has always been a tradition of some Christians to scream
"persecution" at every opportunity. We get used to it.


The principles found in the constitution do not prohibit one* from
seeking out the religion of their choice, as long as any law*s of the
land are not broken, but the priniple is clear that we all h*ave the
freedom to refuse religion as well. There is no true freedom* of
religion when you have no freedom to refuse one. Just as fre*edom to
choose good includes the freedom to refuse good (free-will i*s a basic



tenent of Christianity) so the freedom of religion inferred *from the
constitution grants us the freedom to choose no religion.


The phrase "freedom of religion but not freedom from religio*n" has
become sort of a mantra among evangelicals but it so obvious*ly wrong
and mean-spirited that it is not meant to speak truth but to* destroy
the real freedom that Christianity was built on. That freedo*m -
freewill and the freedom to choose or not to choose a religi*on is
inherent within Christianity itself. The founding fathers we*re well
acquanted with this Christian principle of free will and the*re is
absolutely nothing in the Constitution that denies us the ri*ght to
practice free will, even if that free will leads us to refus*e
religion.
Lastly, there is nothing in the Constitution that claims we *are not
free from religion. Our freedoms are not freedoms at all if *we do not



have the basic human right to choose according to our consci*ence.
Even
pure Christianity gives you that much.


In summary:
Don't let the soi-disant Christians that inhabit the fringe bully
you into silence. These fools think that the Constitution
guarantees only people who believe in God rights. They believe the
constitution guarantees ~only~ freedom OF religion but since the phrase

"freedom of religion" isn't even in the constitution, any inference
drawn from the phrase itself is useless for determing what isn't or
what is allowed.


Just because the constitution doesn't specifically spell out in
excruciating detail that we are allowed certain things doesn't mean we
do not have the right to those things or the freedom from choosing
certain things.


Fallacious Argument A: If the constitution doesn't specifically say we
have freedom FROM X (where X can be anything of importance) than we
don't have freedom FROM X.

Examples..
The constitution doesn't guarantee us freedom FROM porn, therefore we
don't have freedom FROM porn.

The constitution doesn't gurantee us freedom FROM speech so we don't
have freedom FROM speech (athiests could enter churches and exercise
their free speech rights without fear of legal penalties).


BTY, what about those scientific proofs of the Red Sea crossing and the
burning bush?


Go somewhere else to discuss these issues. Please.