1st AMENDMENT Rights

[gail]

The Fisrt Amendment is to protect our rights - NOT REGULATE THEM. The government has been making law AGAINST religion and the free exercise thereof.

Take a look at these web sites:

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html


http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/article.php?id=422

[Eric]

Sigh...

No one is preventing you from exercising your religion.

However, taxpayers such as myself have zero interest in subsidizing your religion or the proselytizing thereof.

A public school is supported byt he tax dollars of thegeneral community; prayer, sermonizing, "creation science" and so on has no place there.

Etc.

Why can't you keep your bible and holy golden tablets to yourself? Read them all you like - at your own expense, in your own home - but keep them out of the commons, when the commons is financed by everyone (including those who are not interested in either the bible, golden tablets, the koran or any other "holy" book or relic) or involves an arm of the state.

This is just what I was writing about previously. You people can't just liv and let live; you can't just practice your beliefs among yourselves. You seem compelled to trumpet them to everyone else - even those who want nothing to do with them. And to seek their imposition on society and culture, too.

[gail]

Sigh...

No one is preventing you from exercising your religion.

However, taxpayers such as myself have zero interest in subsidizing your religion or the proselytizing thereof.

A public school is supported by he tax dollars of thegeneral community; prayer, sermonizing, "creation science" and so on has no place there.

Etc.

Why can't you keep your bible and holy golden tablets to yourself? Read them all you like - at your own expense, in your own home - but keep them out of the commons, when the commons is financed by everyone (including those who are not interested in either the bible, golden tablets, the Koran or any other "holy" book or relic) or involves an arm of the state.

This is just what I was writing about previously. You people can't just live and let live; you can't just practice your beliefs among yourselves. You seem compelled to trumpet them to everyone else - even those who want nothing to do with them. And to seek their imposition on society and culture, too.

I could ask the very same questions about evolution, humanism, atheism, environmentalism, etc. Who decides what is politically correct and who/what I have to accept , and why I'm not allowed to boycott a store that wants to fund activities that I don't want.

I can also ask you what harm do Christians do to you? You are in fact telling me that I'm not allowed to be myself. you feel that I MUST accept gais, while you trash Christians - you tell me, what is the difference in intolerance between you and me ???

Your logic is just like the PC people who insist that I must accept minorities, and the minorities can have their exclusive clubs, schools, groups etc., but I can't exclude them from my clubs, schools, etc. PC people don't allow me freedom of speech either. If I say certain words I could go to jail.

Your ilk are the same as those who tell me if I don't like (add whatever you'd like; TV, radio, signs, etc.) that I find offensive. You would tell me that there is an off knob or I don't have to look. It is the general consenses that I'm not allowed to be offended at hearing my Lord's name taken in vain everywhere I go, or a constant stream of F this and F that - because it is their right to say whatever they want to say. But if I say "Jesus loves you." I'm offensive.

I am sick to death of vulgarity and disrespect and vileness everywhere I go, except church. If I had children who were school age, I would home school them rather than sending them to the Godless welfare State Schoold of heresy.

What I am 24/7 is a Christian. One of the qualities that impressed Congressional member about me, is that I am sincere and genuine. It was often said to me that I am kind and polite. This is because I am a Christian and I report to a Higher Power, and I desire to be deemed worthy. But more and more I am finding myself becoming a recluse to protect myself.

[DonTom]

you feel that I MUST accept gais, while you trash Christians - you tell me, what is the difference in intolerance between you and me Huh

The difference is that Eric doesn't try to get laws passed based on superstitious beliefs. It's not so much the religious nonsense if people would keep their nonsense to themselves. Like I mentioned before, I have no real complaints about the anti-gai JW's. They are as anti-gay as they come, but they will not vote against stuff such as gai marriage. They know that their silly, childish, superstitious beliefs does not belong in politics. Now if only the Mormons, Catholics and others could do the same.

So-called chruch "morality" should not leave their own church membership.

There's enough nonsense in government without bringing in superstitious nonsense.

-Don-

[Eric]

You can ask those questions, but the difference is that evolution is science, subject to evidence and proof. Intelligent Design/creation "science" is just religious gibberish. (Can you cite, for example, a single peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal in support of ID?)

And who suggests that "atheism" be taught in public schools? Not I. I do, however, insist that whatever is taught in school have a basis in objective fact and not merely be someone's religious beliefs or other hokum.


As far as vulgarity, profanity, sexual perversion, random cruelty, violence, etc. - you need look no further than your own holy books. The bible is chock full of such garbage, often gleefully and gratuitously so.

[Eric]

Right you are, sir!

And further,when Gail writes:

"MUST accept gais, while you trash Christians - you tell me, what is the difference in intolerance between you and me Huh"


It is akin to a slave owner arguing that his "rights" are being impeded by the 14th Amendment!

Denying civil rights to homosexuals (or anyone else) is simply wrong; the fact that some musty old piece of superstitious religious nonsense says otherwise is meaningless insofar as the respectability of attempting to argue otherwise is concerned!

[mrblanche]

Well, I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't see any problem with ANYONE trying to get their nation to live according to standards they hold dear. That said, I HAVE mentioned I grew up in a church that opposed political action by any religious group, seeing it as a slippery slope to religious persecution. They would fight a law setting aside a "Day of Rest," no matter what day was proposed. They had no official stand on abortion. And this is a church that the Mormons envy for their healthy lifestyle.

If you have a strong belief, try to get others to agree with you, and try to make your country as you wish it to be. But remember that democracy is not an absolute rule by the majority, but a system in which it is safe to be in the minority.

[DonTom]

Gail,

"but I can't exclude them from my clubs, schools, etc. PC people don't allow me freedom of speech either. If I say certain words I could go to jail."

You don't understand hate crimes, do you? There is no way you can go to jail by giving your opinion about anybody, not even when direct to their face in front of thousands of witnesses.

With crimes such as murder, the reason for the murder has always made a difference in the punishment. That's why we have murder in the first, second and third degree. The person killed is just as dead either way, but the punishment for murder one is more severe than for murder two or three. The difference here is only what the perpetrator was thinking, such as how to plan it (for murder one).

Hate crimes work much the same way. You can legally call anybody any names you wish without being arrested (that doesn't mean your employer has to allow it while on the job). But if you kill somebody just because you hate their race (or religion!) that's a hate crime. Don't do the crime (such as murder or other felony) and then there is no hate crime regardless of what you say to anybody.

And any private club can exclude anybody they wish. The KKK excludes Jewish, blacks & gais from their club. Perfectly legal. The BSA may exclude gais, perfectly legal. BTW, I wonder if you know the entire story about James Dale and the legal battle that made the BSA a private club? If not, I will be glad to explain it. Seems most people don't have a clue about what really happened and many are saying gais are trying to be scout masters and all that nonsense without knowing what made the issue in the first place. Your Mormon Church can exclude Tom & me for being gai, or even Tom for being Chinese, if they wish to, perfectly legal. If the KKK can do it, so can your church! In fact, the KKK are Christians. They are the "White Christians". If you don't believe that they are real true Christians, just ask them!

BTW, I forgot to ask. Do you use "Preview" before you post? My message here went blank when I just tried to post, because somebody else just posted a message in this thread, just before I hit "post". All I had to do to get my message back was to hit "Preview" again. As you can see, my message is still here!

-Don-.

[Eric]

"Well, I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't see any problem with ANYONE trying to get their nation to live according to standards they hold dear. "

Are you sure about that?

Then do you have a problem with Islamist fundamentalists seeking to establish theocratic states ruled by Islamic Law?

[mrblanche]

"Well, I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't see any problem with ANYONE trying to get their nation to live according to standards they hold dear. "

Are you sure about that?

Then do you have a problem with Islamist fundamentalists seeking to establish theocratic states ruled by Islamic Law?

So long as they do it by the means I specified, no. But they have to rule by reason as well, and most can't seem to make that leap.

[Eric]

I'd say that Islamic Law (which mandates, among other things, death for the "crime" of heresy) is inherently unreasonable!