Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court asked to hear witch case
Richmond Times-Dispatch ^ | 8/9/05

Posted on 08/09/2005 6:45:50 PM PDT by Crackingham

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-322 next last
To: antiRepublicrat
an absolutely Christian government.

I'm certain it was hardly Christian at all.

61 posted on 08/10/2005 8:59:39 AM PDT by Bear_Slayer (Montani semper liberi !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

> Your hatred of God

That is a common cop-out. "If you do not agree with me, it's because you hate my god/country/ethnicity/blah, blah, blah." I'm sure you find it a comforting alternative to actual thought.

Here's a hint: I no more hate God than I hate Spiderman.

> Baptists and Catholics don't consider each others' religions "fake", btw.

You should hang around FR sometimes. You'll see a great many who disagree with that assessment.

> Comparing me to the ACLU is pretty funny.

Well, who here is proposing to limit who can utter religious speech in a public forum?


62 posted on 08/10/2005 9:18:59 AM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
>... Hinduism and other monotheist religions.
63 posted on 08/10/2005 9:19:38 AM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Enchante
ACLU SUES BOY SCOUTS, DEMANDS THEY ALLOW "WARLOCK PEDOPHILES" TO BE SCOUTMASTERS AND LEAD SCOUT TROOPS IN SEXUAL INITIATIONS OF SECRET COVENS"

The boy scouts are a private organization. SCOTUS has already ruled in their favor. The two situations are not analagous.

64 posted on 08/10/2005 9:21:56 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
No. We're a nation whose citizens are majority-Christian. That does not make us a Christian nation any more than the fact that the majority of Americans are white makes us a white nation.
65 posted on 08/10/2005 9:26:47 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Blogworthy
I thank you for the debate, and your calm, reasoned responses. My limited time requires me to withdraw.

Thank you too.

I am not familiar with Charles Taylor, but I will look it up.

Charles Taylor was, until recently, the bloodthirsty tyrant of Liberia. Taylor is a fugitive from justice in the U.S. and wanted for war crimes in Sierra Leone. He staged a bloody military coup in Liberia against his former boss, later becoming president in a questionable election. The following strife claimed over 200,000 lives.

Due to his Christianity, and also money reasons, Pat Robertson is his biggest defender. In response to his habit of murder, Taylor is quoted as having said "Jesus Christ was accused of being a murderer in his time." His piety is extreme and uncompromising, having once dismissed his entire cabinet for missing a prayer service.

Although he has had to pay lip service to friendliness with the minority Muslim population, in general religious freedom was curtailed in his government, and Christians preferred. Liberia was founded from the beginning as a Christian state in the early 1800s by freed American slaves, and has never seen peace or prosperity, nor have the minority religions (who were there first) seen equal treatment.

66 posted on 08/10/2005 9:26:58 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
You're projecting your ideology on the Founding Fathers. They never expressed this typically modern idea.

Haven't read Jefferson or Madison much, have you?

67 posted on 08/10/2005 9:27:59 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Yup. The satanists are up next.

The board should have thought of that before it started allowing prayer to open its meetings.

68 posted on 08/10/2005 9:29:10 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

Witchcraft is my second favorite religion. You can do anything you want and they have the niftiest clothes and accessories.


69 posted on 08/10/2005 9:29:38 AM PDT by biblewonk (A house of cards built on Matt 16:18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Bear_Slayer
I'm certain it was hardly Christian at all.

Hardly Christian according to your view of Christianity. There's no guarantee that the Christian ruler will be as nice as you are, and may even consider you to be a soft, modern "touchy-feelie" Christian in need of re-education.

70 posted on 08/10/2005 9:31:48 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam

I am not allowed to point out that your posts evince a hatred of God?

Whether some small minded virulent members of any religion hate other denominations is not my point. There are always the Fred Phelps and others of that ilk.

I have studied the Vedic scriptures for many years, the source books of what is generally called Hinduism. It is monotheist. There are many demigods, whose worship is actually condemned in the Bhagavad Gita. Demigods are like governemnt bureaucrats - they are appointed to manage the universe, but to worship them separately is like trying to bribe the Police Commissioner.

I am not saying the witch should not be able to have her say, but it should be on her own time. She should be able to rent a hall, give her speech, whatever. But if the Board of Supervisors don't want her to pray in their meeting, there is no constitutional reason why they should be forced to listen to her.

Free speech or free expression of religion doesn't mean others should be forced to listen or participate.


71 posted on 08/10/2005 9:31:49 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

You will be surprised to learn Congress gave lots of money in the 1800's for only Christian missionaries to go convert Indians....and even gave money for Indian land churches....and only churches.


72 posted on 08/10/2005 9:34:50 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

The Constitution prohibits a govt.-established religion, not a preferred one.


73 posted on 08/10/2005 9:35:22 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Have you read up on Gardiner, the inventor of Wicca?

Yes, he's the inventor of the name, and a reason for revival, but the basic premises of the religion go far back. Consider it a pagan denomination. I also know many Wiccans, and none of them even care about Gardiner or ascribe to him any authority.

BTW, I am a longtime student of the Vedas.

Sorry, I assumed Christianity, as is common on this board.

74 posted on 08/10/2005 9:35:59 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
I am not saying the witch should not be able to have her say, but it should be on her own time. She should be able to rent a hall, give her speech, whatever. But if the Board of Supervisors don't want her to pray in their meeting, there is no constitutional reason why they should be forced to listen to her.

Free speech or free expression of religion doesn't mean others should be forced to listen or participate.


Exactly, if the majority wanted her to speak she should be able to speak. The preferences of the people attending should determine who says the prayer, not how loud and whiny they are.
75 posted on 08/10/2005 9:37:05 AM PDT by DarkSavant (I touch myself at thoughts of flames)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

> I am not allowed to point out that your posts evince a hatred of God?

Strawman. You have no such evidence, anymore than you have evidnece that I hate The Joker.

>But if the Board of Supervisors don't want her to pray in their meeting, there is no constitutional reason why they should be forced to listen to her.

But if the Board of Supervisors want to pray in their meeting, there is no constitutional reason why they should be force her to listen. Nor should they be paid to do so. If they choose to rent the town hall for however many minutes it takes them to do their little ritual, then, fine. Otherwise... why are they wasting the taxpayers dollars on their own egos? Don't we have enough of that *already*?


76 posted on 08/10/2005 9:37:49 AM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Free speech or free expression of religion doesn't mean others should be forced to listen or participate.

Following that reasoning, so long as one person complains about any prayers in the board meeting, that practice should be discontinued.

77 posted on 08/10/2005 9:39:33 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

You will have to explain to me how Jefferson and Madison were being religion-neutral when they pushed a bill in Virginia to punish those who broke the Christian Sabbath. Oh, and they pushed for this bill on the same day they pushed for the bill establishing religious freedom, btw.

This was before they got to the national level and before the First Amendment, but it in no way supports your contention they believed in govt. being religiously-neutral.

Also, Jefferson wrote in numerous letters that he believed the right to more forcefully indoctrinate citizens into a religion was the right of individual states.

And, according to the Annals of Congress, available online, Madison explained the meaning of the First Amendment when he introduced it to only prohibit a nationally established, forced religion.

Again, not exactly going so far as to demand religious neutrality.


78 posted on 08/10/2005 9:40:07 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

In fact, during the debate on the First Amendment, Congress specifically rejected amendment changes that would have specifically demanded neutrality on religion.

Those objecting to it during the debates said they thought it went too far, and that view carried the day.


79 posted on 08/10/2005 9:42:22 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

Absolutely.


80 posted on 08/10/2005 10:04:53 AM PDT by Lord_Baltar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 321-322 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson