------------------
Tread Marks Ladders

Check your local listings

But don't forget the problem of suing the school board - you'll bring in the communists from the ACLU. You'll also attract all of the clueless moronic lawyers, for free, to defend the school. I've seen it happen in WI. ARGH - everytime I think of the ACLU I get aggitated.

Man! I an instigator today!

Sometimes it's better to know why the first amendment exists, rather then just saying the constitution says it so it must be right.
Why have religious toleration in the first place? If I have the right religion and everyone else doesn't then I must be right and everyone else is going to H@ll anyways and I'll just help them along.

Jet says:
The constitution is an on-going, ever-changing document and is amended whenever it needs to be. It is not set in stone. As our lives change due to computers and other important issues in our culture (for instance, hate crime amendments), then we vote on it or not to change it so it's appropriate to our circumstances. It only makes sense to do it that way.

Even relition changes with the times: nuns taking off their habits in Catholic churches, supporting the birth control pill (not the Catholic church), things of this nature. However, with religion and many who no longer use church as their drug, there seems to be a problem with all the religions believing they are the "only right religion" and all those who practice other religions are heretics and will go to hell. If people would only study all of the religions and see that the basic premises are correct (don't kill, steal, lie, swear, covet they neighbor's wife, goods--which make sense). In my opinion, religion is there to keep people on the straight and narrow, rather than being "decadent and immoral." Unfortunately, due to monetary concerns in each religion, and a falling religious population, they have to believe they are right religion, and convince their flock coming in.

I don't believe we should keep religion out of schools, but that they can let the religious pray over their meals and to say a pray in silence if they want, that fine with me. However, to have their meetings in school is a bit much because they already have their meetings in their churches. Why are they pressing the point about having their meetings at school? I think it's to take task with the Constitution. If they can break the Constitution, then it will be like jolly old England (and the Puritans leaving because of it) with religion being the chief government. However, the Puritans brought their own brand of religion which was a bad as what they left (and included burning witches, or anyone accused of being one, to boot)...just like McCarthy's Red List in the 50's (but this was not religious, but achieved the same thing).

I believe all religions are basically the same and each person has the right to choose how they want to practice that belief, but when they try to push things in a manner that negates others' rights (like having meetings at school when they could have them in their own church just to make issue), that is pushing things way too far. But then, I also believe each person is a "church" (the body is a temple, the Bible says), so no matter where a person is, they're already in their church.

So, what say you all?

I'm beginning to think you're one of those closet America haters. You know the ones. They think that America is the source of evil in the world. They think our society is racist, sexist, homophobic, blah blah blah. All those elements exist world wide, including here. But we are without question the most tolerant, giving nation that has ever existed in the history of the planet. Period. The fact that we have so many short comings anyway is a testament to man's inherently evil nature. The US has done more than anyone to overcome that nature.

Jet says:

There are intolerant people in every culture and in every country, and conversely there are tolerant people there as well. The tolerant people came to our country because they knew it was a tolerant country, that it *was/is* the land of opportunity.

Religion has always been notoriously intolerant of anything different: different religions (Catholics, protestants, et al), different beliefs (Wicca, Pagans, et al), different sexual orientations (anyone other than heterosexual), different gender (women have been "subservient" in most of the major religions since Roman times--though there have always been a few who looked at women as important)or age (children in most religions have to be respectful of their elders, be they parents, pastor/priest, et al, and not always to the childrens' benefit). Most of the wars have been the result of religion and not always for a good reason either...just look at the Crusades: a religious war not based on religion at all. Many of the religious wars were to wipe out other religions/cultures to keep the major religion on top. All one has to do is to read the history books to find examples of all I have mentioned here. Of course, the history books are skewed to whoever wrote it,so you do need to read books. And not just one book, but lots of books, and books from not only our country, but other countries as well, in order to get a full, well-rounded view of what is going on and what happened in the past.

This is a great discussion and I'm glad there is a forum for this on an otherwise game site. Thanks, Coax for having this one no matter what part of the forum it's on.

arguing about religion is s big bad thing to get into

avoid at all costs!

Jet says:

It's not to be avoided, but to be discussed, which is what is happening here. Some of us prayed for Sage, not all of us believe in prayer or religion. My husband is a born-again Agnostic (his joke, not mine) and his parents are Buddhist, and I am a born-again Christian (though I don't preach about it or promote it). More than anything, my husband and I are spiritual people who want to live a good life with morals and ethics.

Actually, isn't what what religion is supposed to be about anyway? Morals and ethics? Isn't that what the Constitution is about?

The only places not to discuss relition and politics is at a dinner party where you want discussions to not get too hot, but mailing lists and forums are great places for this, but Coax is correct in that the TM area was not the right area for a discussion about religion or politcs and this has been both.

Jet asks:

I'm not sure I understand about the "don't ask, don't tell policy" in this context. I understand it in terms of the military with regards to anyone who is "different," but not in religion. Can you help me understand this?

Jet says:
OJ got off because there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. It was all circumstantial and has to be proven without a doubt. If there is ANY doubt, ethically, there won't be a guilty verdict. Obviously, some of those people had doubts so they couldn't convict him based on lack of evidence.

The deceased wife's parents had money also, just like OJ, and they still didn't convict him.

A public school building is routinely used by all sorts of groups that have nothing to do with educating the little ones. So if you let one group use a public school for teaching karate then you must allow a religious group to meet there as well. If you let a civil rights group have meetings in a public school then you must allow a religious group to meet there as well. Did you get that? A CHRISTIAN GROUP HAS AS MUCH RIGHT TO USE A PUBLIC FACILITY TO STUDY THE BIBLE AS A SO CALLED CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP HAS TO FOMENT HATRED FOR WHITE PEOPLE IN THAT SAME FACILITY. IT'S CALLED FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION. To take your logic to its ultimate end then you'd have to ban public prayers in a park or on the highway. They are both funded by the government just as a public school is. To suggest they should go to their own building: I got news for you. Many small groups are not affiliated with a church. Even if they were, that does not reduce any other rights they have.

And as far as the great lie goes:
I looked at my Constitution just now. I counted exactly 26 amendments, the last having been ratified in 1971. So in over two centuries of existence we have had 26 changes to The Constitution - the last having occurred over 3 decades ago. And you call that flexible?!?!?!?!?! It seems pretty damned rigid to me. What was intended to be flexible are the states and what they do. The Constitution lays the basic foundation. A shifting foundation will bring us down. It is the states that are suppose to build on that foundation in ways that they see fit - though the foundation itself almost never changes. That isn't exactly a hard concept to understand and it's incontrovertible.

And practicing religion in a public place is inhibiting the rights of others???!!! So are those having Tupperware parties inhibiting my right to eat donuts??? That made about as much sense. The only difference is Tupperware doesn't offend as many people. So I suppose you're suggesting we have rights as long as it doesn't offend anyone else. When that becomes true then we'll have no rights at all. One person practicing their God given and Constitution affirmed right does NOT inhibit anyone else's right. Where do you get this stuff?

As far as your analysis of war goes: The vast majority of all wars are waged over one thing: money and power. ALL great empires conquered for resource. Rome, Napoleon, Atilla and the list goes on, period. Even a good percentage of so called religious wars have as much to do with wealth and power as anything else. Truly religious wars of any great importance are the exception.

Not enough evidence to convict OJ? I hate to even dignify that with a response. DNA does count. The defense was successful in installing a racially motivated jury and turned the trial of OJ into a trial of a supposedly racist police department. That's what happened, at least here on Earth.

And finally, DO NOT even try to suggest I'm trying to ram my religion down anyone's throat. Do not suggest I think all other religions are wrong. You have not done so directly. But it was brought up as a subtle way to associate my argument with the problems of religion. We were NOT having an argument about religion. We were arguing about the free practice of it. They are separate issues. The ONLY thing you will see here is my upholding the right to freely practice religion. I have not suggested anyone else's religion is wrong. I have not suggested anyone else's rights should suffer. It is YOU who are promoting taking away the rights of others.

Let me tell you what I believe. God created us and everything; he "is" the ruler of all. If you do or don't believe in him-that’s your problem. What that person did was wrong, regardless of her intentions/beliefs.
You all keep saying the same thing, the government this-the first amendment that. I asked you to do one simple thing, pray. I didn’t ask for a lesson in social studies. If I did, I would have asked my SS Teacher.

To address your 1st "coax comment". Thankyou for agreeing with me. If you didn't mean to, you did a good job of doing it. Religions always beleived they were "the right faith" ever since the "Reformation" which created all the different Christian religions. So, I wouldn't act to surprised if every one thought theirs were the right religion.

To address your 2nd "coax comment". My point is, I don't think individuals should flaunt their religion in other peoples faces. There is no law that prevents an individual from acting like a !@#$(use imaginiation) and their is no law to prevent people from practising religion publicly, although I wouldn't do either unless for a very-very good reason, because although they are both legal I do consider both to be confrontational. This is a personal opinion so it's hard to argue, it's just strange coax logic.

Back to Ras. Although there are 26 amendments, there has also been other ratifications and line deletions from the constitution itself. Most wars have been fought because of religion, economic reasons are usually the sugar on top and not the other way around unfortunately(pre-industrial times of course). I would recommend we stay far-far-far away from OJ. But, as a Chemist I find it very strange that OJ simpson's blood contained EDTA. Unless he enjoys injesting EDTA? So was it his blood at the crime scene, I think the test said something like a 1 in a billion chance it was someone elses. Was there police tampering with the discovery of EDTA in his blood and other discripancies, probally. As religious people would say, "God will judge."

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders

Sage, I think you could learn more about what the constitution is and means and gurantees to all people from this discussion, then you could from an SS teacher's in my humble opinion.

Like Ras said this thread has been hijacked, don't take it personally. If Ras wants to start a "Poorly Educated Chemist - Handyman Debate Hour" thread I would welcome it.

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders

------------------
Tread Marks Ladders

------------------

code:

---

         | ||\    | |    | | \\       //                                 
         | |  \\  | |\\  | |  \\     //                             
         | |   |  | | \\ | |   \\   //
=======  | |  //  | |  \\| |    \\ //   ======                                                                
         | ||/    | |    | |     \ /                                      
                                 / \
=======  *IT'S IN THE FRAG*     // \\   ======
                               //   \\     
                              //     \\               
                             //       \\          
                                  

---

All of your "threads" are belong to us!!!