If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|