Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Those wacky fundamentalistic atheists

Page 2 of 5 [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

18 Dec 2010, 12:01 am

Quote:
...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

from the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed into law by (IIrc) president Adams.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

18 Dec 2010, 6:09 am

I once heard someone talk about all of this stuff about foundational doctrine or whatever, and I think peripheral comments quoted from one "founding father" or another and often out-of-context only add to the confusion. "Congress shall make no law ..." gives people freedom from government-imposed religion, but it does not establish a religion-free society.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

18 Dec 2010, 7:10 am

leejosepho wrote:
I once heard someone talk about all of this stuff about foundational doctrine or whatever, and I think peripheral comments quoted from one "founding father" or another and often out-of-context only add to the confusion. "Congress shall make no law ..." gives people freedom from government-imposed religion, but it does not establish a religion-free society.


Well said.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Dec 2010, 7:47 am

leejosepho wrote:
I once heard someone talk about all of this stuff about foundational doctrine or whatever, and I think peripheral comments quoted from one "founding father" or another and often out-of-context only add to the confusion. "Congress shall make no law ..." gives people freedom from government-imposed religion, but it does not establish a religion-free society.


And it does not endorse that someone free of religion must conform to religious dictates.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

18 Dec 2010, 7:57 am

Sand wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
I once heard someone talk about all of this stuff about foundational doctrine or whatever, and I think peripheral comments quoted from one "founding father" or another and often out-of-context only add to the confusion. "Congress shall make no law ..." gives people freedom from government-imposed religion, but it does not establish a religion-free society.


And it does not endorse that someone free of religion must conform to religious dictates.

Sure ... and yet if I am understanding you here:

"Congress shall make no law ..." is not a legitimate argument against decisions made by elected, religious officials.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Dec 2010, 8:05 am

leejosepho wrote:
Sand wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
I once heard someone talk about all of this stuff about foundational doctrine or whatever, and I think peripheral comments quoted from one "founding father" or another and often out-of-context only add to the confusion. "Congress shall make no law ..." gives people freedom from government-imposed religion, but it does not establish a religion-free society.


And it does not endorse that someone free of religion must conform to religious dictates.

Sure ... and yet if I am understanding you here:

"Congress shall make no law ..." is not a legitimate argument against decisions made by elected, religious officials.


It is a very legitimate argument against a religious official forcing citizens to conform to religion's regulations.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

18 Dec 2010, 8:27 am

Sand wrote:
It is a very legitimate argument against a religious official forcing citizens to conform to religion's regulations.


You are suggesting an anti-religious stance, this is a violation of the first amendment.

Justice Hugo Black (discussing the matter in a decision, this is a binding precedent): ' No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance'.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8Hy306pGmU[/youtube]


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

18 Dec 2010, 8:29 am

Sand wrote:
It is a very legitimate argument against a religious official forcing citizens to conform to religion's regulations.

I doubt you can give an example of that ever actually happening.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

18 Dec 2010, 9:36 am

"ever" is a long time.

There were reasons Roger Williams left town.

Always best to drive defensively, especially with certain debaters, and curb absolute expressions.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

18 Dec 2010, 9:49 am

Philologos wrote:
"ever" is a long time.

There were reasons Roger Williams left town.

Always best to drive defensively, especially with certain debaters, and curb absolute expressions.

The government's religion is pressed upon people all the time, but the "ever" I am talking about there amounts to what was said ever actually happening "to date". Nevertheless: Caution noted.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Dec 2010, 10:50 am

91 wrote:
Sand wrote:
It is a very legitimate argument against a religious official forcing citizens to conform to religion's regulations.


You are suggesting an anti-religious stance, this is a violation of the first amendment.

Justice Hugo Black (discussing the matter in a decision, this is a binding precedent): ' No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance'.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8Hy306pGmU[/youtube]


You continuously amaze me with your incapability to comprehend a simple statement.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

18 Dec 2010, 10:53 am

Sand wrote:
You continuously amaze me with your incapability to comprehend a simple statement.

Reverting to talking about posters again, eh?!


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

18 Dec 2010, 10:59 am

leejosepho wrote:
Sand wrote:
You continuously amaze me with your incapability to comprehend a simple statement.

Reverting to talking about posters again, eh?!


Are you jealous?



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

18 Dec 2010, 11:28 am

The way I understand it, the phrases contained within the constitution dealing with religious liberty does not necessarily guarantee freedom FROM religion, but rather that the government cannot make or enforce laws regarding exactly how a citizen may worship God. By extension, of course, that means that the government is hands-off should an individual choose not to worship God at all.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

18 Dec 2010, 12:31 pm

AngelRho wrote:
The way I understand it, the phrases contained within the constitution dealing with religious liberty does not necessarily guarantee freedom FROM religion, but rather that the government cannot make or enforce laws regarding exactly how a citizen may worship God. By extension, of course, that means that the government is hands-off should an individual choose not to worship God at all.

Certainly, and the complaint seems to be about the fact there are elected and/or appointed "public servants" who nevertheless are equally free to do their public-duty jobs in ways they might happen to find pleasing to the object, entity or entities of their personal worship ... and therein lies the rub, I believe.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

18 Dec 2010, 3:05 pm

leejosepho wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
The way I understand it, the phrases contained within the constitution dealing with religious liberty does not necessarily guarantee freedom FROM religion, but rather that the government cannot make or enforce laws regarding exactly how a citizen may worship God. By extension, of course, that means that the government is hands-off should an individual choose not to worship God at all.

Certainly, and the complaint seems to be about the fact there are elected and/or appointed "public servants" who nevertheless are equally free to do their public-duty jobs in ways they might happen to find pleasing to the object, entity or entities of their personal worship ... and therein lies the rub, I believe.


Well... And why not? Do politicians/public servants check their religious rights at the door?

Also, what is acceptable to the public? In MOST of America, constituencies that are, for example, predominantly Christian don't have a problem if their city counsels open with prayer. Further, it's not really a good idea for them to hide their religious beliefs/practices. If some religious observance is part of a person's life and work and the rest of America finds that offensive, does it not make sense that we can all get together and elect more "secular" or "ecumenical" candidates? And finally, what do we even care what our elected officials do in office? As long as we are being represented fairly and the official does what he or she is elected to do, does religion even really matter?