Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Community Discussion > The Lounge > Politics & Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-15-2007, 06:29 PM   #1
DETMURDS
Detroit Native!
 
DETMURDS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: God's Green Earth
Posts: 1,703
DETMURDS has a little shameless behavior in the past
Default Church And State

This is an issue that I think has EVERYTHING to do with what we base our opinions on in relation to our government.

Example, people want to ban the "Pledge of Allegience" from public schools, but are willing to pass out condoms to school children at the same time. This sickens me, if a child has good morals, parent(s), and (their) God in life, they should not need condoms because it would not be an issue, as well as many other problems today with American children.

This country is based on the right to freedom of religion more than anything, so how can left wing liberals think they are allowed to destroy this freedom?

Today is Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day,....a U.S. Government Holiday for a religious man!
DETMURDS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 06:33 PM   #2
catman
Humble MLB Moderator
 
catman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 9,325
catman will become famous soon enough
Default

I believe the honor was bestowed (by Ronald Regan, mind you), due to Rev King's work for civil rights. He was a staunch believer in self-reliance and would not look fondly at the current state of civil rights.
As George Will said in Ken Burns' "Baseball", Martin Luther King was the most important Black man in the history of the country -- followed by Jackie Robinson (another staunch believer in self-reliance).
This said, I agree with your position on religion in schools.
__________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans...." John Lennon

Catman
Rest in Peace, Buck. You were truly a giant among men.
catman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 07:24 PM   #3
IntheNet
Hall of Famer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 1,198
IntheNet is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DETMURDS View Post
This is an issue that I think has EVERYTHING to do with what we base our opinions on in relation to our government.

Example, people want to ban the "Pledge of Allegience" from public schools, but are willing to pass out condoms to school children at the same time. This sickens me, if a child has good morals, parent(s), and (their) God in life, they should not need condoms because it would not be an issue, as well as many other problems today with American children.
The secular progressive agenda, chapter 1, calls for the destruction of morals and the banning of religious freedom!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DETMURDS View Post
This This country is based on the right to freedom of religion more than anything, so how can left wing liberals think they are allowed to destroy this freedom?

Today is Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day,....a U.S. Government Holiday for a religious man!
Most of the secular hoist MLK's civil rights record and ignore his religious status...
__________________
no vivzig pimps
IntheNet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 08:17 PM   #4
Montrovant
Hatecarver
 
Montrovant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tampa
Posts: 685
Montrovant is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm sorry, when did being moral start requiring religious belief?

Do those who have/claim religious belief never do anything immoral?

Does religious freedom mean having religion as a part of government-run institutions?

Do you think children raised in a religious environment never have sex?

How should god be involved in school, without putting one religion's god above any other? (which doesn't even take into account any religions with more than one god).

How should god be involved in school, without saying there is a god to those who don't believe in one?

Would you be ok with the Pledge of Allegiance being changed to say 'One nation, under Allah?'

Would you be ok with each child being allowed to name whatever god/gods they want at that point in the Pledge, or skipping it if they want?

Are you the arbiter of what is or is not 'good morals'?

Who knows, maybe one of you will be able to answer all these questions in a manner I understand and agree with.
Montrovant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 09:11 PM   #5
catman
Humble MLB Moderator
 
catman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 9,325
catman will become famous soon enough
Default

Morals do not require religion, but a truly religious person will be a very "moral" one.
You will frequently hear of "religious" people that commit heinous crimes -- BTK, pedophile priests, etal. These people are criminals, nothing more, nothing less. They will receive their due in the after-life.
Religious freedom does not mean having religion as part of Government institutions, but if you'll notice, there is a Chaplin assigned to the Congress, and Chaplins in each branch of the military. Also, Congress is frequently brought into session with a prayer.
Children brought up in a religious environment, with loving, caring parents who are not afraid to actually take time to answer their children's questions are less likely to have pre-marital sex than those without those sorts of parents.
The Judeo/Christian God should not be mentioned more than any other of the Gods in the world, nor should He be mentioned any less. If one sort of God is mentioned, all should be.
Do not fool yourself. Gods are mentioned in schools all the time. How many times have you heard someone pray before a test?
If the national vote was to change the Pledge to "One nation, under Allah", I would have no problem with it. Put it to a vote.
I would have no problem with a child skipping that line in the Pledge, it is the right to religious freedom.
No.
Is this acceptible to you?
__________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans...." John Lennon

Catman
Rest in Peace, Buck. You were truly a giant among men.
catman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 09:16 PM   #6
catman
Humble MLB Moderator
 
catman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 9,325
catman will become famous soon enough
Default

I will say that I want to see exactly where in the Constitution it says that a Nativity Scene on a Courthouse Lawn in South Dakota establishes a national religion. The first ammendment says: Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.
How does the afore mentioned situation violate that?
__________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans...." John Lennon

Catman
Rest in Peace, Buck. You were truly a giant among men.
catman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 09:20 PM   #7
DETMURDS
Detroit Native!
 
DETMURDS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: God's Green Earth
Posts: 1,703
DETMURDS has a little shameless behavior in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrovant View Post
I'm sorry, when did being moral start requiring religious belief?

Do those who have/claim religious belief never do anything immoral?

No, but one who truly practices a religion does,...keep in mind,..I said one who practices.

Does religious freedom mean having religion as a part of government-run institutions?

Isn't that part of the reason why many left Europe? Restricting a display of religion is not freedom of religion, just walk DC Capital area and you will see religious display on almost every single federal building! That is FREEDOM!

Do you think children raised in a religious environment never have sex?

Not if they are practicing religion!

How should god be involved in school, without putting one religion's god above any other? (which doesn't even take into account any religions with more than one god).

Restricting religion is the violation of freedom of religion.

How should god be involved in school, without saying there is a god to those who don't believe in one?

Not saying that it should be, but nobody should ever be told that they cannot involve god in any part of ones daily life!

Would you be ok with the Pledge of Allegiance being changed to say 'One nation, under Allah?'

Now, that is not the "Pledge of Allegiance" then is it? Matter of fact, some schools are teaching the Koran, but are afraid to mention the bible.

Would you be ok with each child being allowed to name whatever god/gods they want at that point in the Pledge, or skipping it if they want?

You know what, when I had my Navy boot camp back in 1984, when the chaplain did the ceremonial prayer (yes, at a federal government event!), we were instructed that if you don't like or beleive in God, then just look at your shoes and check for a good shoe shine." Otherwise, if you beleived in Allah, that prayer was meant for you as well.

Are you the arbiter of what is or is not 'good morals'?

No, ....good is simply good, and bad is bad. It kills me how liberals see no connection between values, education, the moral health of our nation, and America's security and prosperity. When our lives are over, what you did in life is who one is. no longer can one blame his or her race, religion, economic status, and/or geographic location. We make our own decisions in the life we live.

Who knows, maybe one of you will be able to answer all these questions in a manner I understand and agree with.
Who knows, I think I just did.
DETMURDS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 11:32 PM   #8
HibachiDG
Sports Virtuoso
 
HibachiDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,258
HibachiDG is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
I will say that I want to see exactly where in the Constitution it says that a Nativity Scene on a Courthouse Lawn in South Dakota establishes a national religion. The first ammendment says: Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.
How does the afore mentioned situation violate that?
Because if someone does not adhere to a religion that is on display in a courthouse lawn, they may believe, wrongfully or not, that they will have their beliefs held against them. A nativity scene on a courthouse lawn endorses particularized religious practices.
HibachiDG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 11:44 PM   #9
catman
Humble MLB Moderator
 
catman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 9,325
catman will become famous soon enough
Default

If the majority in the area approve of the display, is it not discrimination against them to not have it? Is this a case where minority rules?
I do appreciate the answer, and expected nothing less from you than a straight-forward response.
__________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans...." John Lennon

Catman
Rest in Peace, Buck. You were truly a giant among men.
catman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2007, 11:59 PM   #10
HibachiDG
Sports Virtuoso
 
HibachiDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,258
HibachiDG is on a distinguished road
Default

Well, to me it depends on the situation. I'm not going to blanket-oppose any displays, mentions of religion. For your specific answer, the thing that makes me lean towards a minority rules on it is if there is a chance that someone on trial in the courthouse believes that they won't be given a fair trial because they believe that the court is endorsing a particular religion over their religion. Others may come away feeling as if in some other areas of their life their religion will be looked down upon because of this endorsement of religion. For instance, if someone is handing out materials on their religion that differs from the one endorsed on the courthouse lawn, say a police officer cites them a ticket for this activity. They now have to go to this courthouse and they may have the belief that they will be held to a different standard.

Now, I don't really believe that the courthouses placing the ten commandments or nativity scenes outside are going to hold them to a different standard of judgment. But, to me, it's about possible perception that people may take away. A lot of what we do in our legal system we do because of that.
HibachiDG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 12:19 AM   #11
catman
Humble MLB Moderator
 
catman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 9,325
catman will become famous soon enough
Default

I'll take your statement about a person feeling s/he would not get a fair trial and break it down a bit, if you don't mind. What is to stop that defendant from requesting a change of venue if they feel that way? I think it would be granted if they feel that strongly about it.
Also, how about the Goddess holding the scales in the Supreme Court building? Is that not a violation of this seperation?
__________________
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans...." John Lennon

Catman
Rest in Peace, Buck. You were truly a giant among men.
catman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 12:24 AM   #12
Montrovant
Hatecarver
 
Montrovant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tampa
Posts: 685
Montrovant is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
If the majority in the area approve of the display, is it not discrimination against them to not have it? Is this a case where minority rules?
I do appreciate the answer, and expected nothing less from you than a straight-forward response.
You might see it as such, and I understand that. However, to look at it another way, if anyone opposes the display, would it not be discriminating against them to have it there? By removing as much religion as possible from government, but very specifically not denying anything religious (so as not to support atheism over any religion) you get the least discriminatory policy.

Put religious displays on your private property all you wish. Fine by me, and protected under our laws. The problem with government buildings or institutions showing religious displays is the perception that they are espousing one religion over any others. We are not a country based purely on majority rules, and I'm thankful for that. We try to protect the minority, be it gender, religion, race, whatever.

Now there are certainly cases where this can be taken too far. I'm against supressing private religious belief as much as I am against supporting it in government. The problem is it seems to be a tricky balance to find.

Oh, and I don't think simply looking at the constitution is enough. Since we have interpreted that document many times over the years, and there are laws all over not specifically defined in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DETMURDS View Post
Do those who have/claim religious belief never do anything immoral?

No, but one who truly practices a religion does,...keep in mind,..I said one who practices.

Does religious freedom mean having religion as a part of government-run institutions?

Isn't that part of the reason why many left Europe? Restricting a display of religion is not freedom of religion, just walk DC Capital area and you will see religious display on almost every single federal building! That is FREEDOM!

Do you think children raised in a religious environment never have sex?

Not if they are practicing religion!

How should god be involved in school, without putting one religion's god above any other? (which doesn't even take into account any religions with more than one god).

Restricting religion is the violation of freedom of religion.

How should god be involved in school, without saying there is a god to those who don't believe in one?

Not saying that it should be, but nobody should ever be told that they cannot involve god in any part of ones daily life!

Would you be ok with the Pledge of Allegiance being changed to say 'One nation, under Allah?'

Now, that is not the "Pledge of Allegiance" then is it? Matter of fact, some schools are teaching the Koran, but are afraid to mention the bible.

Would you be ok with each child being allowed to name whatever god/gods they want at that point in the Pledge, or skipping it if they want?

You know what, when I had my Navy boot camp back in 1984, when the chaplain did the ceremonial prayer (yes, at a federal government event!), we were instructed that if you don't like or beleive in God, then just look at your shoes and check for a good shoe shine." Otherwise, if you beleived in Allah, that prayer was meant for you as well.

Are you the arbiter of what is or is not 'good morals'?

No, ....good is simply good, and bad is bad. It kills me how liberals see no connection between values, education, the moral health of our nation, and America's security and prosperity. When our lives are over, what you did in life is who one is. no longer can one blame his or her race, religion, economic status, and/or geographic location. We make our own decisions in the life we live.
I would say that even those who truly practice any religion do immoral things. We're all only human, we all make mistakes.

A Christian display on a federal building is freedom? Can't exactly agree with that. Or maybe it's more a matter of freedom for some but not all.

Not all religions have the same beliefs regarding sexual conduct. Maybe a practicing CHRISTIAN won't have sex before getting married, but the same cannot neccessarily be said for someone practicing another religion.

If schools put any one religion above others, then they are restricting all those other religions and restricting disbelief as well. At least, that seems to be the interpretation our judicial system has made. I think the question still stands.

I agree, you should be allowed to incorporate your religion in your daily life. So long as it is not pushed on anyone else, that is certainly each person's right.

If schools are willing to teach about the Koran and not that Bible, that's wrong, I agree.

Good is good and bad is bad.....but what defines good and bad are different for each individual. Certainly, there are things that society defines as good and bad that all must live by. That is why we have laws. And many of those laws are echoed by (or perhaps taken from) many religions. I'm not claiming religion is all bad, I just find the idea that religion makes you a better person to be an arrogant and false one. Especially when that statement is usually made with one particular religion in mind (not accusing anyone here of that, it's simply been my experience that is the case).

I am anti-religious. I don't like organized religion, or even most private religion. My reasons behind that are long and not really relevant to this discussion, because I still believe whole-heartedly in freedom of religion. I also believe freedom from religion can be an aspect of that. I believe our government should be as neutral as possible where religion is concerned. I don't like the incorporation of god in our schools, in congress, on our money, any of it. I realize that for the most part it's pretty harmless, and it certainly doesn't keep me up nights But I see it as a willingness to forego the seperation of church and state in the name of tradition, or expedience.

I think the biggest problem I have with many of the religion in government arguments that pop up is this: whatever display is being argued over can be seen as promoting a certain religion. A lack of display does not promote anything. Isn't that preferable, in the interest of fairness to all?

Detmurds and catman, I'd also like to thank you both for your reasonable and civil discussion about this. After re-reading my post I thought I came off as a bit aggressive or insulting, and apologize if it was taken at all that way.
Montrovant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 01:04 AM   #13
HibachiDG
Sports Virtuoso
 
HibachiDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,258
HibachiDG is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by catman View Post
I'll take your statement about a person feeling s/he would not get a fair trial and break it down a bit, if you don't mind. What is to stop that defendant from requesting a change of venue if they feel that way? I think it would be granted if they feel that strongly about it.
Also, how about the Goddess holding the scales in the Supreme Court building? Is that not a violation of this seperation?
For the first point, I don't think requesting a change of venue is so simple...as well, I don't like the idea of telling someone that if they don't like something that they should just get out.

As for the scales of justice...Like I said last time, to me it comes down to a situational basis and there are several different things to analyze. I certainly would not consider myself anti-religion and because of that I think there are possible situations where imagery of religions connotation/connection can be read or displayed. To me, I want to see some of the reasoning for why it was decided to place the display into a certain location. With the scales of justice Goddess, there is a non-religious set of reasoning attached to the display of the scales of justice. I think it is possible to do the same for a nativity scene, I just think the burden would be on the state to present it.

EDIT...not sure if that explains it, I gotta get going...lol, have Constitutional Law class 9am tomorrow...
HibachiDG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 01:22 AM   #14
DETMURDS
Detroit Native!
 
DETMURDS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: God's Green Earth
Posts: 1,703
DETMURDS has a little shameless behavior in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrovant View Post
You might see it as such, and I understand that. However, to look at it another way, if anyone opposes the display, would it not be discriminating against them to have it there? By removing as much religion as possible from government, but very specifically not denying anything religious (so as not to support atheism over any religion) you get the least discriminatory policy.

Put religious displays on your private property all you wish. Fine by me, and protected under our laws. The problem with government buildings or institutions showing religious displays is the perception that they are espousing one religion over any others. We are not a country based purely on majority rules, and I'm thankful for that. We try to protect the minority, be it gender, religion, race, whatever.

Now there are certainly cases where this can be taken too far. I'm against supressing private religious belief as much as I am against supporting it in government. The problem is it seems to be a tricky balance to find.

Oh, and I don't think simply looking at the constitution is enough. Since we have interpreted that document many times over the years, and there are laws all over not specifically defined in it.



I would say that even those who truly practice any religion do immoral things. We're all only human, we all make mistakes.

A Christian display on a federal building is freedom? Can't exactly agree with that. Or maybe it's more a matter of freedom for some but not all.

Not all religions have the same beliefs regarding sexual conduct. Maybe a practicing CHRISTIAN won't have sex before getting married, but the same cannot neccessarily be said for someone practicing another religion.

If schools put any one religion above others, then they are restricting all those other religions and restricting disbelief as well. At least, that seems to be the interpretation our judicial system has made. I think the question still stands.

I agree, you should be allowed to incorporate your religion in your daily life. So long as it is not pushed on anyone else, that is certainly each person's right.

If schools are willing to teach about the Koran and not that Bible, that's wrong, I agree.

Good is good and bad is bad.....but what defines good and bad are different for each individual. Certainly, there are things that society defines as good and bad that all must live by. That is why we have laws. And many of those laws are echoed by (or perhaps taken from) many religions. I'm not claiming religion is all bad, I just find the idea that religion makes you a better person to be an arrogant and false one. Especially when that statement is usually made with one particular religion in mind (not accusing anyone here of that, it's simply been my experience that is the case).

I am anti-religious. I don't like organized religion, or even most private religion. My reasons behind that are long and not really relevant to this discussion, because I still believe whole-heartedly in freedom of religion. I also believe freedom from religion can be an aspect of that. I believe our government should be as neutral as possible where religion is concerned. I don't like the incorporation of god in our schools, in congress, on our money, any of it. I realize that for the most part it's pretty harmless, and it certainly doesn't keep me up nights But I see it as a willingness to forego the seperation of church and state in the name of tradition, or expedience.

I think the biggest problem I have with many of the religion in government arguments that pop up is this: whatever display is being argued over can be seen as promoting a certain religion. A lack of display does not promote anything. Isn't that preferable, in the interest of fairness to all?

Detmurds and catman, I'd also like to thank you both for your reasonable and civil discussion about this. After re-reading my post I thought I came off as a bit aggressive or insulting, and apologize if it was taken at all that way.
So what is to keep one from getting offended by a church of a certain religion in one's neighborhood? Where is the line drawn? Next thing we know,...religion is illegal?

What I meant by my Wash DC comment is, it is a showing of freedom of religion,..as well as the recent politician who was sworn into office with the Koran vice the bible. Why must they be sworn in using a religious artifact I ask? Here is why, it is all hand in hand here in the USA, to display one's religion is a symbol of our right for Freedom Of Religion.

When we are no longer allowed to have a Christmas tree displayed in public, I call that a show of communism, or us going back to the old England Monarchy days. Remember, the state, and King was the religion.
DETMURDS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2007, 01:25 AM   #15
DETMURDS
Detroit Native!
 
DETMURDS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: God's Green Earth
Posts: 1,703
DETMURDS has a little shameless behavior in the past
Default

Also, I hope nobody is offended by the Mormons in Salt Lake City? Imagine if that was to become an issue? That city is all about religion.
DETMURDS is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Whats in your Mix CD(s)/MP3 player/Ipod, etc. Clipps The Lounge 17 11-25-2008 07:37 PM
Christian at Christmas Time IntheNet The Lounge 330 12-27-2006 12:10 AM
Your Favorite Top 10 College Football Players All-Time bama4256 College Football 55 08-22-2006 03:25 PM
Who Needs the 10 Commandments? bama4256 The Lounge 30 10-25-2003 11:03 AM
If You Could be President! bama4256 The Lounge 22 10-20-2003 07:33 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:34 PM.