posted
you might want to note that the majority of those dates started during the McCarthy era when we were trying to set ourselves apart from the" godless red commies"
prior to that you want to quote a few minor mentions
BUT many of the Christian sects in America feuded so badly that they had death penalties for each other....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
religion in government leads to such things as the Salem Witch trials, and this: Mary Barrett Dyer (1611? - June 1, 1660) was an English Quaker who was hanged in Boston, Massachusetts for repeatedly defying a law banning Quakers from the colony. She is considered to be the last religious martyr in North America.
Mary Dyer met Anne Hutchinson in 1637, who preached that God "spoke directly to individuals" rather than only through the clergy. Dyer joined with Hutchinson and became involved in the what was called the "Antinomian heresy," where they worked to organize groups of women and men to study the Bible in contravention of the theocratic law of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
In 1638, Mary Dyer and her husband William were banished along with Hutchinson from the colony. On the advice of Roger Williams the group that included Hutchinson and the Dyers moved to Portsmouth in the colony of Rhode Island. William Dyer signed the Portsmouth Compact along with 18 other men. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Barrett_Dyer
and you never know what religion will "sweep the nation" next..... many have caught the "authorities" off guard in the past....
as far as the title for her of "last religious marytr"? that is a good example of anglocentricism, since almost all of the Native Americans were in fact religious martyrs...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, just because someone that works around the President, does something right, or might do something right, doesn't have anything to do with the President's morals, if he didn't know anything about it in the first place! Like I've said before, we are ALL sinners, and make mistakes! If your child does something right, and you knew nothing about it, though you taught him what was right, should people blame YOU, when they choose to do the right thing? People do, just like you blame the President for everything others might do right around him!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: if you take non-affiliated Presidents, Deists and Unitarians you have over 1/4 of our presidents that did not practice Christianity
Honest Abe Lincoln, whom was quoted as having invoked the name God, never joined a Church and never claimed Christianity....
posted
Oh brother! What does this post title say? Off topic post, non stock talk! Hmmmm! That's what we are doing! That gives everyone in here, the right to post, and respond! Some of you seem to think you are allowed to post, and not expect a response! It isn't up to you to post, and then to say who can answer or not. If that was the case, I sure have felt like telling you not to post a lot of times, "bdgee, because I never agree with you, but in this country, we have free speech! That means, I try to care about what you have to say, even though I don't agree with you! You should give others the same respect!
-------------------- As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!
IP: Logged |
Let's say that my friends and I like the song "I'm Too Sexy For My Shorts," and hate the song "My God Can Beat Up Your God."
Kate and her buddies, On the other hand, actually like the song "My God Can Beat Up Your God," and despise the song "I'm Too Sexy For My Shorts."
Meanwhile, Glassman and his cronies loath all songs and, therefore, don't want to hear any. (Sorry Glass, it's just an example.)
Now... pretend the Constitution says this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of song listening, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The only way to treat Kate, Glass, and me equally and fairly would be to stop any songs from being played in government sponsored institutions. Agreed?
Of course, if Kate wants to blast her song at home, or gather a group together in a privately-owned building to listen to the song, that's her constitutionally-protected right.
posted
Why don't you respond to my argument? Here it is again, de-blasted.
What if, instead of religion, it was music?
For example...
Let's say that my friends and I like the song "I'm Too Sexy For My Shorts," and hate the song "My God Can Beat Up Your God."
Kate and her buddies, On the other hand, actually like the song "My God Can Beat Up Your God," and despise the song "I'm Too Sexy For My Shorts."
Meanwhile, Glassman and his cronies loath all songs and, therefore, don't want to hear any. (Sorry Glass, it's just an example.)
Now... pretend the Constitution says this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of song listening, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The only way to treat Kate, Glass, and me equally and fairly would be to stop any songs from being played in government sponsored institutions. Agreed?
Of course, if Kate wants to play her song at home, or gather a group together in a privately-owned building to listen to the song, that's her constitutionally-protected right.
IP: Logged |
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of song listening, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
There can be no law passed which prohibits an individual from the free exercise of his song listening. Thus his listening to music while working in a government building cannot be stopped. That would be violating the individuals rights.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: In the hypothetical case of:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of song listening, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
There can be no law passed which prohibits an individual from the free exercise of his song listening. Thus his listening to music while working in a government building cannot be stopped. That would be violating the individuals rights.
oh yeah? so say you until its the hare krisna's.... or worse...
by the way? in the heavily christian areas? this was what they did..
Hare Krishna airport solicitations curtailed USA Today/February 22, 1999 Washington -- The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let Hare Krishnas solicit donations or sell religious literature at Miami International Airport.
The court rejected an appeal that argued such restrictions violate free-speech rights.
Monday's action, taken without comment, is not a decision and sets no national precedent. But the denial of review lets stand a ruling that applies to all airports in three Southern states - Florida, Alabama and Georgia.
Lawyers for the International Society of Krishna Consciousness had urged the justices to use the Miami case to end such restrictions at airports that these days closely resemble shopping malls.
of course that is another NON-decision..... similar to the "under god" case... which way do you want it?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Selling literature or seeking donations is what is prohibited, they are free to distribute literature.
They did hear a similar case in 1992 and ruled on it then, no need to hear is a second time.
Hare Krishna airport solicitations curtailed USA Today/February 22, 1999
Washington -- The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let Hare Krishnas solicit donations or sell religious literature at Miami International Airport. The court rejected an appeal that argued such restrictions violate free-speech rights.
Monday's action, taken without comment, is not a decision and sets no national precedent. But the denial of review lets stand a ruling that applies to all airports in three Southern states - Florida, Alabama and Georgia.
Lawyers for the International Society of Krishna Consciousness had urged the justices to use the Miami case to end such restrictions at airports that these days closely resemble shopping malls.
The nation's highest court ruled in 1992 that airports nationwide may prohibit groups from soliciting donations in terminals but must allow distribution of free literature. That ruling was sparked by a challenge to restrictions imposed on Hare Krishnas at New York City's three major airports.
The 1992 ruling, reached by a 5-4 vote, said an airport terminal is not a traditional ''public forum'' as is a city street or park where free-speech rights enjoy enhanced protection.
The appeal acted on Monday asked the justices to reconsider the 1992 decision ''in light of recent significant developments in the airport industry involving the increased commercialization of airport terminals.''
The appeal said Miami's airport has been transformed ''into a prominent shopping center'' where, according to the airport's own statistics, half of all visitors stay at least two hours.
A federal judge and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Miami airport's restrictions.
The appeals court noted that the 1992 Supreme Court decision did not specifically address restrictions on the sale of literature, but said, ''The same problems that justify a governmental restriction on solicitation in a nonpublic forum may render a similar prohibition on the sale of literature reasonable.''
Writing for the court in 1992, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said solicitation can be disruptive for airline passengers who must slow down to avoid or respond to a solicitor.
The 1992 ruling did not discuss soliciting and selling literature on the sidewalks or in the parking lots outside airport terminals, but Miami International Airport bars such activities in those areas as well. The case is ISKCON Miami vs. Metropolitan Dade County, 98-874.
IP: Logged |
posted
Art, since I don't spend my life on this board, you will have to wait for me to answer! If the thread said, no religion, then I wouldn't post it, but it DOESN'T! Obsenities offend me, and talking about other people, insulting others, lying, among other things, offends me, but if we took those out of this forum, no one would talk!!
IP: Logged |
posted
i wasn't short-changing the story---- it's right there...
the point i was getting at that you seem to want to ignore that i keep trying to tell you is that Christianity is a minority religion, that the protections you are afforded are just that: protections for you to practice YOUR religion...
about 75% of America is Christian, but only 7% is Methodist for instance...Pentecostal is growing very fast...and one of their "practices", that of handling poisonaous snakes is pretty much outlawed in most states.....( i used to get a buck for a rattler and TWO for copperheads nobody wants a cottonmouth tho,,,those are some mean critters)
25% is Catholic.....and i think that doesn't count the 11 million illegals that i ASSUME are predomanintly Catholic since Mexico is...
posted
Hey, Glass..., some of us have decided to have all night Monopoly games in Aragorn243's bedroom on the nights of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 21st, 22nd, and 30th of next month and we want you there to play......onopoly is legal!
There will be a collection beforehand, of course, to buy plenty of grog, heh heh, and we are considering hiring some cute scantily clad servers too HEH HEH HEH.
If anyone tells you we can't, they are wrong. The Constitution says we are free to assemble and it doesn't leave out any place to do it, so we have the right to do it anywhere we want.
I know Aragorn243's may want to sleep then, but what the hey! He knows that his freedom of religion and our freeding of assembly are basic rights from the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Just like he has the right to have religious ceremonies and symbols on the courthouse lawn or any other place he chooses because stopping him would violate his freedom of religion, stopping us from having a party all night on the 15th, 16th, 17th, 21st, 22nd, and 30th of next month violates our freedom of assembly.
IP: Logged |
Yes, our Constitution protects my rights to practice my religion, just as they protect your rights to practice yours.
If Alito is confirmed it will make 5 Catholics, 2 Jews and 2 Protestants. As religion cannot be a test for government office and each individual is free to practice his or her religion, I do not see what difference that makes. I have no problem with any of the Justices due to their religion.
bdgee,
The Constitution protects the individual from the government. Thus you may assmemble on government or public property. It does not give you the right to assemble on private property against the owners wishes, nor allow the government to force you to allow it on private property.
There are many laws regulating private property, many which have been ruled upon by the courts including the Supreme Court. You will have to have your party in your bedroom.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i wasn't short-changing the story---- it's right there...
the point i was getting at that you seem to want to ignore that i keep trying to tell you is that Christianity is a minority religion, that the protections you are afforded are just that: protections for you to practice YOUR religion...
about 75% of America is Christian, but only 7% is Methodist for instance...Pentecostal is growing very fast...and one of their "practices", that of handling poisonaous snakes is pretty much outlawed in most states.....( i used to get a buck for a rattler and TWO for copperheads nobody wants a cottonmouth tho,,,those are some mean critters)
25% is Catholic.....and i think that doesn't count the 11 million illegals that i ASSUME are predomanintly Catholic since Mexico is...
and if Alito is confirmed? over 50% of the US Supreme Court will be Catholic...
Methodist and Pentecostal should be inclusive in the "Christian" Percentage. Not sure if you called these two out specifically for any reason or if they are actually included in the 75%.
IP: Logged |
Why would I look at Moslem countries to see how religion in the government works?
My concern is with THIS country, the United States and the Constitution of this country.
The Constitution protects the individuals rights to freely practice their religion. That right does not end when they enter government office, government buildings or public areas. As every other right in the 1st Amendment has been declared that said right is specific for public/government areas, why would religion be any different.
IP: Logged |
posted
Accordoing to Aragorn243, on several occasions, the rights granted to the people in the First Amendment are absolutely unrestriced and may not be limited by any right of another person.
Oh, indeed, the right to assembly does exist on private property. You need to look up a Court ruling (from pre-WWII, I think) that involved Gulf States Paper using Pinkertons to attack a gathering on Gulf States owned and controlled property.
The limitations to the various rights granted in the Constitution have nothing to do with who owns or doesn't the property. They are based on enfringment of the rights of others. Whenever you claim a constitutional right, if that claim would push aside any part of my rights, then you have lost the right you claim and may not exercise that right.
You have a lot to learn about a lot of things!
IP: Logged |
Of course I have a lot to learn about things. I generally learn something new everyday. You unfortunately are not teaching me anything.
Nice try but I never claimed that the rights granted to the people in the First Amendment are absolutely unrestricted or may not be limited by any right of another person.
You simply do not understand what your rights are. You have argued freedom from when it is freedom of.
I can assemble on my private property. I can invite people to assemble on my private property. I have no right to assemble on your private property. You have no right to assemble on my private property.
I do have the right to assemble on public property. I also have the right to speak on public property. I also have the right to practice my religion on public property.
IP: Logged |
Methodist and Pentecostal should be inclusive in the "Christian" Percentage. Not sure if you called these two out specifically for any reason or if they are actually included in the 75%.
yes, they fall under the overall 75%
i'm trying to point out to other Christians that calling yourself a Christian doesn't mean you follow the same doctrines...
many bloody wars have been fought between Christian sects using their religion as a tool to instigate the "masses"....
Bush has been a Methodist recently and even the Methodist Church is making anti-war noises....
what i am trying very hard to tell you guys is that protection under the constitution is important and if you try to abuse those protective rights to infringe on others? you will eventually find the table turned.... sooner or later it always happens... Catholics may not outnumber protestantsd, but when you break down the protestants? the Catholics do outnumber EACH group.... it's very dangerous stuff to start co-mingling religion into politics.. Reagan did it, and it baklashed on Bush and Dole, the GOP told Pat Robertson to step back from the front of the stage.... i followed that closely, i once lived very nearby to Robertson... Clinton did it too..and look what happened there when he sinned? Bush may very well have damaged the evangelicals badly now too..only time will tell....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
"Nice try but I never claimed that the rights granted to the people in the First Amendment are absolutely unrestricted or may not be limited by any right of another person."
Oh yes you did! You claimed that freedom of religion cannot be limited by the rights of others.
I quote you from October 16, this thread:
"If you try to seperate man from his religion in ANY way as a governmental agency, you are in direct violation of Amendment I of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States."
I'm not going to chase down any of the others, but there are at least a dozen statements you have made claiming that no law and no right of another can restrict your religious freedom or where or how or when you choose to practice it.
Oh, by the way, here is one of the most ignorant statements ever made by someone believing he understands the Constitution:
"Yelling fire in a theater has nothing to do with your constitutional rights. It is a matter of criminal law."
It was a question of a "criminal law" that the Supreme Court ruled on in the case, "Schenck v United States (1919"). Indeed, almost the entirety of cases that ever considered Constitutional rights are matters of criminal law.
You don't bother to learn when you are provided with fact to replace your prejudice.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
