you've got to be kidding.by mennonite (no login)
> To begin, the entire concept and the fact that we put that into our constitution is crap.
er, in what way? in that "the entire concept" was never established? or that it was not established sincerely? i'm pretty sure the wording that guarantees this is cut and dried enough to remove a lot of Room for interpretation. it's not like scripture, where codes, images and parables are used. (those who think the bible can be literally translated, nevermind what i just said. we simply disagree.)
> When the first settlers coming over for "religious freedom" settled in America, do you think their neighbor was a witch, an atheist, buddhist, satanist? NO! Look at the Salem Witch Trials, it's so bad they taught about it in schools!
this is irrelevent. plainly and utterly. a. witches ARE protected by the first ammendment. b. the first amendment came after the "first settlers."
> Did they want this grand idea of "No religion is wrong, and everyone just has their own ideas." HELL NO! They burned something like 100 people just 'cause they thought they might be a witch!
saying that the first amendment is irrelevent because some people burned witches is like saying all christians are nazis because the upper authorities of the catholic church supported hitler, or saying that all muslims are homocidal extremists.
> How did this law sneak in?
firstly, it's not a law. it's a Right. the way Rights work is that laws that infringe them are forbidden and null from the outset. then when you prove that the right is infringed, the supreme court can say it no longer exists. that's the simplified description of the process, i wish it was more reliable these days. but separation of church and state is much bigger than a law, it is a foundation that laws must fit.
the right, or speculation about it, it was written about by the founding fathers in various correspondances that supported the idea, not to mention that it was pretty hard-coded into the bill of rights. the same bill of rights that provides the entire foundation for the NRA's stances and michael's right to hunt animals with anything more sophisticated than a bow and arrow... so if you're going to make this argument against religious freedom do also extend it to the other 10 amendments... the right to arms came Second. i'm sure your manifesto against the nra would be interesting. don't let Them see it or you'll be harrassed or sued for months.
> People, I'm sorry-mostly protestants, considering they were mostly the ones settling for religious freedom (running from Catholic oppresion),
you're forgetting deists. many of the founding fathers were deists and freemasons.
> wanted the religious freedom to Worship God The Way They Believed In Him, not to worship satan or Budda or some wiccan God.
yeah, everybody wants to be right. this is irrelevent, too.
> Again, how did separation of church and state occur?
officially, it goes like this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
but as i mentioned, it was written about beforehand. it didn't pop up out of nowhere, or "sneak in" as you put it.
> And why are a bunch of aetheists and agnostics arguing about this anyway?! None of you believe in God EXCEPT Michael? At least you don't sound like it!
because it is more a political matter than a religious one: lots of people who do not have a Religion (including atheists) have beliefs they hold valuable, mandated religion disallows these beliefs (or rather the practice or expression of them) and some of us (who think about this with greater care) also hope that those of you who ARE religious to maintain your own rights. as you pointed out, even if christianity were mandated in the u.s., MOST christians would not be free to decide how they interpret the teachings of christ, and would in effect, be robbed of their christianity by being forced to be a different kind of christian, per the demands of the State. that would be a horrible future for pretty much everyone, and those of us with ample foresight don't wish anyone to be that oppressed.
it's disturbing that you think this is an issue for only the religious.
i would also suggest that if you managed to miss all these points that you never make yourself arbiter of what people believe in, based on how they "sound." geez, guy. i mean i'd be insulted, if i bothered. i certainly don't want other people deciding for me what i have to believe in. i think the issue is everybody's business, for this, if not for that fact that as i said, it's more a political issue than anything else. and no small one, at that. the country making everyone become a christian isn't any cooler than the country making everyone convert to islam. and i think most americans would be pretty horrified at the idea of america becoming a muslim theocracy. i know i would. don't you see it's the same thing? separation of church and state prevents it.
Return to Index
|Response Title||Author and Date|
|Oh I'm not kidding...||The PhyloGenesis on Jun 21|
Newbies usually go to www.qbasic.com and click on
The QBasic Forum
Forum regulars have their own ways, which include The QBasic Community Forums