What does freedom of religion mean to you?

[rear naked]

Cflat, I just don't care to continue this with you. It really is a waste of breath (in this case, typing). Claim victory all you want.

Ran out of red herrings?

Find one.

You: our laws are based on the ten commandments. The ten commandments are integral to our sense of justice

Cflat: No they aren't. Most of the commandments have nothing to do with our laws.

You: Moses was a lawgiver. The 10 commandments and the bible have historical meaning. Many founding fathers were Christian.




Taken from a link you posted: Astronomy was borne out of astrology. Is astrology the basis of astronomy, or integral to astronomy in any way?

In other words, who gives a shit about any of your points?

[Cflat]

Cflat, I just don't care to continue this with you. It really is a waste of breath (in this case, typing). Claim victory all you want.

I'm not winning anything. None of the facts I've presented are owned by me. It's not about victory. It's about you being able to back up your baseless claims, or not. Clearly not. So maybe you should reconsider them. That's what reasonable people do in those cases.
And you're not fooling anyone with your "I don't care" routine. Funny how that comes out when someone starts making too much sense for you.

How can someone speak with you when you truly believe that the Constitution was created in a vacuum, outside of all influence of the day? You are the one that claims that the Declaration of Independence is essentially unrelated to the Constitution.

Whatever I bring to the discussion will be refuted as irrelevant because of me being involved in the discussion in the first place. So what is the point? I could supply a list of 230 some odd founding fathers who are indeed Christian and you will say, "What is a Christian?" or "They weren't Christians in the same way as Christians today." Or you will bring up quotes that supposedly prove that a founding father isn't a Christian and then I will have to go and bring context of the conversation into the light just to have it ignored in the same way that the Constitution has to be viewed in isolation, outside of the Declaration of Independence or the founders to influenced both documents.

Next you will say that I am bringing in a Strawman argument because I am saying what you are going to say, etc. But I have been there before with people and this is inevitably where all conversations of this nature go with the players at hand. A universal claim is made outside of context, I go dig around to provide context, then get accused of changing the subject. When the truth of the matter is that outlandish maxims are implemented without any regard for the context in the first place. It is simply impossible to discuss anything in this way. It would be one thing entirely if I claimed that what happened in the 1920s China directly influenced the founding fathers creation of the constitution.

All this started because I said that I claimed most people typically do not have a problem with the ten commandments because either they are generally agreed upon as good things to adhere to and/or the specific-to-Judeo-Christian ones are just disregarded by a reasonable person in the first place while accepting that murder is bad, adultery is bad, covetousness is bad, and so on. Then later on, I bring on the historical significance of the ten commandments and the bible with it's influence on law as a whole and it gets disregarded as well as red herrings. I have been focusing on the same issue at hand, you reject everything so I try to bolster my case, just to have you accuse me of not talking about the subject at hand.

Worse yet, your responses to the ten commandments were a simple show of irreverence and contempt towards the document in the first place. In acknowledging that, I am accused of not taking your comments seriously. And why would I? Are you REALLY interested in an honest discussion or just engaging in ridicule over something you disagree with? Me thinks the latter, so I am made to be a coward for not taking your baited reply. Fine, so be it. A coward I am.

Lol. More strawmen, backpedaling, red herrings, playing the victim, changing the subject, etc. And now you're saying that because I don't believe in your magical book, your feelings are hurt and you won't respond to me. Lol.

What did I say about your 10 commandments that isn't true? After you are done answering that, please explain how our laws are based on them. Thanks.

[draelyc]

Your feelings and my feelings regarding the ten commandments in courtrooms are just that; feelings. There is zero legal reason not to have them in the courtroom except where Chris tried to go with it (again, another feeling, but one worth discussing) which initiated my response. His feeling is that it was uninclusive of all faiths to which I merely responded that I felt that most of the 10 commandments, especially in respect to our laws, are pretty universal and have a historical relevance.

So tell me why I should respond to your inflammatory post again? You weren't really wanting discourse were you? Most people don't go around pissing in people's Wheaties and expect nice responses in return.

I realize this "conversation" has long since moved beyond my little post, but I have to jump back in to clarify & correct something. My stance on that issue is not, my friend, a mere "feeling." And there is EVERY legal ~ and CONSTITUTIONAL ~ reason NOT to have the divine commandments of ANY particular religion displayed publicly in a SECULAR court of law in this country. For the secular government to show legal favoritism towards ANY particular faith, or towards faith in general, is inherently discriminatory and has no place in our pluralistic, secular, e pluribus unam society. The Constitution outlaws it; therefore, it is illegal. Beyond being merely illegal, though, it is also unethical and immoral. We ALL have to play in this sandbox; therefore, we must have rules that apply impartially to ALL of us. How can someone not of the Judeo-Christian faith tradition hope to be treated impartially in a court of law emblazoned with Judeo-Christian Scripture?

To borrow from my favorite stand-up comedian, imagine you're a lobster. You walk into Red Lobster for dinner, and you notice that all the other patrons are wearing bibs with YOUR PICTURE on the front! Can you reasonably expect to be treated like everyone else there? Lol!!!

Now, if you want to talk about the underlying ethics that inform the Ten Commandments, then we can talk about universal values. But as soon as you focus specifically on the Ten Commandments in any form, you give up all pretense of inclusivity. Again, that's not a feeling; it's definitional.

Okay, glad we got that cleared up. Now, back to your regularly scheduled ... "debate."

[draelyc]

Don't be so intollerant guys. Just let him fill government buildings/documents/money with allusions to the particular religion he practices.

Don't be so tolerant guys. Just let him remove items from government buildings/documents/money that contain references to the religion that all the people who founded this country universally acknowledged as the origin of freedom.

Uh, that's not historically accurate.

[rear naked]

[draelyc]

The founders weren't Christian for the most part. That's a load of crap which is easily disproved in their own writings as well as church history of the time.

Yawp.

[draelyc]

More babble, backpedaling, and red herrings. Now you've moved on from claiming that the ten commandments are an integral part of our laws (even though only two seem to match in any way) to the appeal to authority fallacy (posting links to what other "authorities" think) and that the bible has historical meaning. Yes. The bible has historical meaning. If you had said that or that it was integral to modern literature or art, I would agree. But you didn't say that. You said our laws are based on those tenets. I went through each of the ten commandments in my previous post and pointed out how they are not. Please stop trying to change the subject and respond directly to that.

And of course you are wrong about me. I'm not surprised. No, I don't reject the bible as a whole. It really exists. And I don't mind seeing it anywhere. Except in the case of the government, because we have laws for that sort of thing. Laws I believe in. It doesn't make it OK just because it's been going on for a while. It's like someone who gets caught stealing complaining that he's been doing it for years.

And where did I say that I want god removed from every facet of public life? Another attempt at trying to backpedal and change the subject? It doesn't have a place in a secular government. Read that again, as many times as needed. And law isn't derived from an intangible being. They are derived from society. Do you really need more examples of this?

So please, can you get back on topic and explain to me how our laws are based on the tenets of the ten commandments? Thanks.

The problem with trying to prove our nation's Christian heritage to you is that you simply deny it. So why bother? I could provide you with 250 or so founding fathers who were ordained pastors, preachers and otherwise Christian holy men and you would deny it. I could provide you with direct quotes from these men showing their belief in this nation being created out of reverence for God and how the bible is an integral part of any moral man. Heck, the Declaration of Independence specifically states that God is the origin of our rights and no man has a right to take them away, yet you will deny it. So why bother?

You are parsing words when you say you don't reject the bible. You know damn well what the meaning of the phrase "reject the bible" means. Acknowledging the existence of the bible does not mean you give a rip about what is in it.

How many times in your above post do you say that you don't have a problem with the bible, except when it comes in contact with our government? Yet you claim you don't want "god removed from every facet of public life?" You even bolded "It doesn't have a place in secular government." So how can it be both ways?

I just explained to you above how the ten commandments, and what they mean as a whole, means to the concept of law. The law is supposed to be immovable, a constant and something to navigate life in reference to. The ten commandments are God's laws to His people; issued by God and held accountable by the judges of Israel. Heck, the whole concept of a judicial system is contained in the bible. Here is some good reading you will ignore: http://www.lawandliberty.org/justice.htm.

I quite realize that in public internet forums such as this one, mob rules. So I lose this whole discussion and I am fine with it. Just don't present your mockery as indicated clearly in this thread and in the other thread regarding the church sign as anything more valuable than a kid making fun of another kid for being fat. It is just stupid playground antics.

You're misreading the Declaration by taking its references to "Nature and Nature's God" out of the context of 18th century Enlightenment rhetoric. Trust me ~ I teach this stuff for a living.

[draelyc]

Looking past the bickering occurring here, to me it means the government just stays the hell out of people's religion. For positive OR negative affect. From establishing any official religion, and from restricting any religion.

Just as a point of reference, this means I oppose some recent decisions I've read about that extracurricular clubs can't have any religious theme. If students want to pray to Jesus, fine. If they want to pray to Allah, fine. If they want to pray to Satan, fine. If they want to pray to the maimed, five-legged insect somebody found outside, fine. And as long as it's not part of the curriculum and required to pass, I really don't see the issue if it's led by a faculty member. It's not required, the student walked in of their own accord and they can walk back out all the same. The government shouldn't be restricting those people, regardless of their position, if it's not part of their official duty. Now, some teacher wants to try to bully kids into joining? Sure, give that teacher the smack down.

<snip>

So yeah, just in general. Means government stays out of it.

Right on ~ excellent post.

[draelyc]

LOL!

[rear naked]

Most of the founders WERE christian as far as I know...just not the major ones, yes?

[draelyc]

Most of the founders WERE christian as far as I know...just not the major ones, yes?

Even the ones that self-identified as "Christian" were rarely Christian in the modern American sense of the term. Deism was extremely popular amongst the founders ~ and that theology, of God having completely removed Himself from any dealings with His creation after bringing things into existence ~ is pretty much diametrically opposed to most mainline Christian theologies, back then as well as today.

Here's a line from my Education for Ministry textbook from Year Three of the program: "Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were typical of many southern Anglicans, nominally members of the established church but Deists at heart. They tolerated the ritualism of The Book of Common Prayer for the sake of its beneficial effects on public morality--but Locke, not Cranmer, spoke their minds." (EfM Year 3, Ch. 34 "American Independence," p. 519).

[Meelosh]

There are riots going on in Turkey due to some heavy-handed policing vs protesters. People were protesting because of some planned construction on a park but this was more of a spark for something larger. Turkey is (supposed to be) a secular republic; this is a crucial aspect of being part of the modern world. Lately, the government is run by a more religious, conservative group (there are still a lot of backwards religious types that vote). Many people are pissed off because it goes against what the country is founded on. Not sure what's gonna happen there.