Posted on 01/23/2005 8:58:36 AM PST by Lindykim
No, but sticking words in the nouth of folks who disagree with you demonstrates intellectual dishonesty.
"If people only knew just HOW many, they'd be shocked."
No doubt, and some would probably want them killed. Oh, well...there are some clear heads here.
" Having a religious belief in magic, psychic power or mysticism is not religion."
What comitteee would you appoint to decide what is and is not a religion? What criteria should they use?
What new wording of the first Amendment would we be using, as it would obviously need to be changed to allow this
As of 2001, I found this information:
Springfield township is an unincorporated area on the northern edge of Akron Ohio. It is a lower SES settlement, many of them of appalachian origin.
Scuzzy part of town. Just the kind of place one might expect this to happen.
What I posted was exactly what they were advocating. It is also intellectual dishonesty to ignore such things as "the government has a right to...outlaw Satanism..."
However, you obviously agree with it, so you do not find such things objectionable. Sad, that you find your Constitutional rights so worthless.
I'm well aware there are many Muslim chaplains, since a fair number of U.S. military personnel are blacks who've adopted Islam.
IMO, blacks who've adopted Islam as their religion have done so in order so to completely reject "Western" values -- included that of the West's moral "guidebook" -- the Bible.
Personally I find the allegiance of Islamic military personnel in the U.S. Armed Services highly suspect.
How does one define "religion"?
Is the basis a "belief in higher power"?
Even if that "higher power" is considered "man"? Or the antithesis of "good," evil?
Could Nazism be considered a "reigion?"
How stupid do we want to get about sanctioning "religion"?
"Personally I find the allegiance of Islamic military personnel in the U.S. Armed Services highly suspect.
"
Interesting. Your personal misgivings, however, are irrelevant. Muslim military personnel serve in all branches of our military, with the same honor as followers of other religions.
I served, and I'm an atheist. I served honorably and well. My dad, also an atheist, flew B-17s during WWII on combat missions over Germany. I consider him a hero, as did our government in giving him several decorations.
Religion is not something you can equate with patriotism. One may be a patriot and be a follower of any religion. Isn't America great!?
I see. So the premise is that if a nickle is spent on religious expression by the government the government has, in fact, "established" a religion.
Does this rule apply to politicians who derive their livelyhood from the people? You know, people like Jesse Jackson, Bush, the Reverend Al Sharpton? Hillary?
"Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
Amen.
I'm curious. What does this mean?
I'm sure you mean "enlightened"
"The Enlightened take things lightly"
Most of the domesticated primates of Terra do not know they are primates. They think they are something apart from and "superior" to the rest of the planet....
"All religions and/or belief systems are the same and therefore equally deserving of respect, sensitivity, inclusion, and tolerance," say multiculturalists. And because of this fairytale screed, radical Islam, Wicca, Budhism, {Satanism?}, Gaia worship, and all other pantheist beliefs have been made equal to our traditional Christian worldview. Of course, if these other belief systems truly were equal, then each of them would have been able to found a nation like the US, at least one time during the history of mankind. But truth shows otherwise. None of them have ever been able to do anything other than to keep mankind in bondage to the whims and fancies of whoever happened to be most powerful. So the multiculturalists are nothing but liars, and these pantheistic beliefs are nothing but the playthings of whoever dwells at the top of the heap.
This is a rather bizarre first response to a story about some obvious whackjobs to committed a horrendous act. Agenda-bias-driven perspective is just that. I am Christian, but please do not think for a second that this act represents any commonly held rituals of even Pagan Wiccan types any more than the religious but delusional Christian man who killed his whole family including his children so that they would be innocently guaranteed a spot in heaven.
Of course, if these other belief systems truly were equal, then each of them would have been able to found a nation like the US, at least one time during the history of mankind. But truth shows otherwise.
I'll concede that though successful for longer than the United States, China is rather oppressive. But Japan seems to be rather successful.
The Catholic faith, for example, will not be banned no matter how many corrupt dioceses or pederast preists are found.
My point was that the government, being financed by everyone's tax dollars, is establishing a religion if it proclaims one religion or even having a religion as somehow "better" than all other belief systems. It is simply wrong and unConstitutional to ask people to support a religion that is not theirs with their money in that fashion. It is also extremely divisive to create a circumstance where a person might doubt his equal treatment under the law due to his not being a member of the "official" religion.
glad I didn't major in that stuff.
Case in point, the Makah Indian Nation on Washington States Olympic Peninsula killing eastern Pacific or California gray whales using ties to "culture & religion" for justification.
And though my personal misgivings about Muslims serving may be "irrelevant," the opinions of troops who were blown to smithereens by the Islamist GI with the grenade are not.
There are enough other "incidents" that have gone un-reported as well...
All Americans owe you and especially your dad a great debt of gratitute for serving. I assume both he and you loved your country and abided by and appreciated it's principled virtues -- which are largely grounded in the Judeo-Christian bible.
"Religion is not something you can equate with patriotism. One may be a patriot and be a follower of any religion. Isn't America great!?"
Yeah -- America is "great." But becoming less so as it tumbles into an abyss of moral relativism and diluted common sense in the name "tolerance."
Btw, just where does an Atheist derive their moral compass of what's "right" and "wrong"?
Is it an inate quality or is learned from observation?
Depends upon whom you get to decide what is and is not a "religion". They you'll REALLY see stupidity.
As an alternative, why not simply allow people to worship as they choose, or not, so long as they do no harm to the rights of another person? They can establish churches and whatnot as they will, subject as always to fraud laws and tax laws as appropriate. The government, other than taking care to enforce the laws regarding fraud and murder (among others), does not elevate ANY religion over any other in preference or law, and simply stays away from it altogether.
Oh, wait...that's how it's SUPPOSED to be anyway!
You've still not responded to the question I asked you in post #44.
So how about it?
"Your reasoning is flawed. It implies the possibility that our gov't can function as a morals neutral entity. If so, then tell me what guides the reasoning of this morally 'neutral' entity?"
Tell us the source of the 'morality' our morals neutral gov't should use. Or are you one of those who believe it's possible to make morals-neutral judgements? And if so, then give me an example of this by telling me what your reasoning is in regards to abortion.
The Constitution, plus common sense and reasoned thought?
We once again come to that old discussion of "morals". Whose? When? Based on what?
I assert that the government has no business making people's morals for them. The government has the responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, defend them from external attack, and otherwise "ensure the blessings of Liberty". Laws, therefore based on common sense (murder, stopping at a stop sign) and the idea of protection of those rights are entirely appropriate. Those seeking to regulate what a person does to HIMSELF (or to his "soul") are not, if he is doing nothing to harm another. In fact, they come uncomfortably close to tyranny.
As for abortion, leave it for another thread. With someone else playing me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.