hey ATHIESTS, was Hitler right?

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=notself;4003714]Of course you have the right to pray in public. This is a free speech issue and is protected by the the First Amendment.

“*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; **or abridging the freedom of speech, ***or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I totally agree with this statement, however you try to have a prayer meeting at a public school even during free time. You would think they were trying to burn the place down rather than saying a prayer.

As for the Ten Commandments being displayed on government property, which Ten Commandments do you want to display? I am sure you would want to display the Catholic version. Most likely the Jewish version or the Protestant verion which prohibits graven images would be unacceptable to you who belong to a religious tradition which reveres images of Mary and the Saints.

The current Supreme Court has ruled in Van Orden vs Perry that having a monument on government land that displayed the Ten Commandments (Protestant version) was constitutional.

Verbatim:* “Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious — they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument, therefore, has religious significance. According to Judeo-Christian belief, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai. But Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader. And the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning … . Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause … . Texas has treated her Capitol grounds monuments as representing the several strands in the State’s political and legal history. The inclusion of the Ten Commandments monument in this group has a dual significance, partaking of both religion and government. We cannot say that Texas’ display of this monument violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”*

Since the case law clearly supports public display of religion, I suggest that you stop whining about atheists and pay more attention to the Supreme Court decisions.

As for which version ( Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant) for me is does not matter for a far As far I have ever been able to tell the difference in them is in the grouping and numbering not the content. The Ten Commandment that Catholic also believe that you shall have not worship idols. Lets us remember that the ark of the covenant that the tablet of the commandments were place in had the images of angles mounted upon it. That would lead one to believe that it is not forbidden to have a statue. just to worship said statue. since Catholic do not worship any but God ( in the Trinity) we have no graven images.

Also I don’t whine. I the case in Texas does not proved that ever court house in America is now free to display them. Many a town has been ordered to remove them from there public display. At the same time that the Court was making this decision a Judge in Kentucky was ordered to remove them from his court room. It not a cut and dry decision from the court.

Shredderbeam
Quote:

Originally Posted by oneGODoneCHURCH
Could you please explain this. I as a Christian do not hate the atheist. I strongly disagree with them not only on the existence of God, but also that they have a right in the public arena not to be exposed to God or religion. Or that God (and religion) have no place in our public schools. If this is what you are talking about as hatred of atheist then you are are mistaken. For I do have the right to pray in public and if the people of a city what the Ten Commandments on display at the town hall then they have the right to display them. It is what the atheist does that makes believers mad. We care that they don’t believe but would not even try to force them to pray. Yet they want to stop us from believing and prayin

g.

It is not just atheists who don’t want to hear religion (namely Christianity) in public areas, it’s people of all religions - Buddhists, Jews, Muslims - it goes on. Sure, you have every right to be religious in public - but there’s a difference between being religious and using the state to impose a religion.

Not all atheists want you to stop believing/praying.

I don’t know about that list the Buddhist are pretty laid back and don’t normally go about trying to stop anything as it may bring back bad karma. As for the Muslims well theses are the same people that also pray in public and are know demanding that the airports and other public put in special sinks to wash their feet in when they pray. No one is asking the state to impose religion on anyone all Christians are asking for it that ours quite being removed from the public view. As the post** notself** was so kind as to post the First Amendment The part that seem to be over looked is that of no prohibition on the free expression there of.
No were does it given protection form being exposed to. To do so would in fringe on other rights to religion. the only thing the government can do it protect your right not have to participate.

AnAtheist:
And for public praying, of course you force innocent childen into praying if you make in schools. By simple peer pressure. If it would be no problem not to attend those prayer, then it would be ok, but we all know how Christians can shun even little children if they don’t comply to their rituals.

This is the only part of your post that either I have not already address above or not worth a response. As the same thing works the other way A child that chooses to pray is he or she is made to feel as if the are some religious kook. I don’t know of anyone that has ever proposed that anyone be forced to pray. your last sentence I refer you to your open sentence of your post there are idiots everywhere. are for those innocent children just maybe if they were praying they would not be bring guns to the schools to shoot the other innocent children there.

See the big difference is Christians ( for the most part) don’t want to force non Christians to join in Christian prayer non Christians would be free to have their prayer or no prayer if that is their choice. We just want the option made available.

 

[AnAtheist]

As the same thing works the other way A child that chooses to pray is he or she is made to feel as if the are some religious kook.

Yes, exactly. Therefore it is better not to pray in school, before court or whereever unless privately (which may very well be in public but not connected to official state business).

Question: If there was some kind of school ceremony involving prayer, should everybody have the right to pray to whoever god they like? What about some Wiccan kids then praying to the Great Goddess? Or Muslims?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=AnAtheist;4004422]Yes, exactly. Therefore it is better not to pray in school, before court or whereever unless privately (which may very well be in public but not connected to official state business).

No you missed what I am saying that Kids that go take the moment for private prayer are now being made to feel this way. By opening a set time for would have to be no more than 10 minutes for either private or group as the individual’s involved choose/ or choose not to be they just take that time to quietly look over their homework or nap it teaches that there are people that hold to different beliefs and that they have the right to show and share those beliefs. and that we must respect them even if we disagree with them. That buy the way work for the believer as well as the non believe as the believer are shown that there are those that do not believe in any God and that they have that right to not pray meditate or what ever. I mean it is school and that is were we are suppose to be teaching the children about the world in which they live.

Question: If there was some kind of school ceremony involving prayer, should everybody have the right to pray to whoever god they like? What about some Wiccan kids then praying to the Great Goddess? Or Muslims?

I have no problem with anyone at say a high School graduation Praying as there religion teaches them to Pray. I say that before The ceremony a week or two a head of time. that those that are involed and I mean the graduates not there families be asked what religion they hold to and that each religion given the same amount for time for a public prayer to what they hold as God. those that do not hold to that view can and should quietly sit and observe, they might even learn something. I am even willing to go as far on compromise that ever Christian denomination would not have to be recognized. But that the Christians could be all lumped together I would not even say it had to be a Catholic priest or a catholic Anyone from any Christian background could lead the pray for the Christians. As a matter of fact I don’t think that there would be any objections from Christian to joining in prayer with those that were Jewish or even if the Prayer was lead by a Jewish Rabbi. The atheist could even be given equal time to recognize thank science and the power of the human mind or what ever it is that they think go them through and will continue to.

The reason for the first 3 of the 10 commandments is not that God does not want you to acknowledge other gods. Is that (and I say this from a Christian and I think Jewish position) there are no other gods. So from that point of view you are giving to thing other than God that which should only be given to God.

Christian have no problem sharing the stage we just have a problem with not being allowed on the stage. Christians are not closed to allowing people to make there own choices in religion we do feel compelled to share our belief, But we are a belief in attraction rather that promotion.

 

[AnAtheist]

Christian have no problem sharing the stage we just have a problem with not being allowed on the stage. Christians are not closed to allowing people to make there own choices in religion we do feel compelled to share our belief, But we are a belief in attraction rather that promotion.

I wish that was true. I have experienced quite different Christians, and you can see alot of them in this very forum. As long as there are religious people, no matter of what faith, who can’t stand the thought of not being alone on the stage (Muslims are rather good in that manner), the laicistic stance is to allow noone on the stage. That should at least stop the fighting on the stage.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I wish that was true. I have experienced quite different Christians, and you can see a lot of them in this very forum. As long as there are religious people, no matter of what faith, who can’t stand the thought of not being alone on the stage (Muslims are rather good in that manner), the laicistic stance is to allow no one on the stage. That should at least stop the fighting on the stage.

But to allow none on the stage violate the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the USA in that there shall be no law to prohibit the free expression of Religion. So the stage must be opened to all, or have no stage at all. As to your experience with others or that of some on this forum. It could be their response to you or those that share your opinion in trying to keep them silent in public or removing or thing that have to do with God from the tradition gong back to the binging of this country. Maybe if you showed more tolerance of Religion people would be more tolerant of your lack.

 

[AnAtheist]

But to allow none on the stage violate the 1st amendment of the Constitution of the USA in that there shall be no law to prohibit the free expression of Religion. So the stage must be opened to all, or have no stage at all.

Ok, that was badly phrased. Proper wording is: The state must not provide the stage. If everybody brings his own stage then it is up to them who may play on it.
That *should *make everybody happy, except of those of course who want to have (their) religion connected to the state and/or politics. Where the latter leads to you can observe in islamic countries or in ancient Rome, which had positive religious freedom but not negative.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Ok, that was badly phrased. Proper wording is: The state must not provide the stage. If everybody brings his own stage then it is up to them who may play on it.
That *should *make everybody happy, except of those of course who want to have (their) religion connected to the state and/or politics. Where the latter leads to you can observe in islamic countries or in ancient Rome, which had positive religious freedom but not negative.

You still don’t get it we the people both believer and non of what ever faith that may be are the state. Therefore we (thus the state) bring the stage and must make therefore make sure that all are free to appear and speak upon it. It is not about establishing a state religion it is about guaranteeing that all beliefs have a voice and allowed to be heard. As an American, I as a Christian must fight for the right of those that do not believe as I to be free to voice that and to practice there religion side by side with me. that includes those with no religion.

Now do I think that the state ( that is everyone as a whole) should bow to the needs I have As a member of a certain religion? No I need to make sure those needs are met. As a Catholic Holy water if need be or kneelers for prayer. Just as the Muslim would be responsible for providing for them self a way to was their feet for prayer, etc… I am no more protected from religions that I disagree with the anyone else.

 

[Shredderbeam]

oneGODoneCHURCH:

I don’t know about that list the Buddhist are pretty laid back and don’t normally go about trying to stop anything as it may bring back bad karma. As for the Muslims well theses are the same people that also pray in public and are know demanding that the airports and other public put in special sinks to wash their feet in when they pray. No one is asking the state to impose religion on anyone all Christians are asking for it that ours quite being removed from the public view. As the post** notself** was so kind as to post the First Amendment The part that seem to be over looked is that of no prohibition on the free expression there of.
No were does it given protection form being exposed to. To do so would in fringe on other rights to religion. the only thing the government can do it protect your right not have to participate.

A lot of Buddhists that I know don’t care, but then again, a lot do.

Not all Muslims are demanding public prayer places, or public sinks.

You’re free to promote your religion all you like on private property - but not on public. Otherwise, why not just string up propaganda from all belief systems?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=Shredderbeam;4006916]A lot of Buddhists that I know don’t care, but then again, a lot do.

Just making the observations that the belief that bad karma may come back on them would prevent many if not most Buddhist from care.

Not all Muslims are demanding public prayer places, or public sinks.

But yet there is considerable thought going into giving into this demand from the very vocal few. makes you wonder why:shrug: Yet that is a out cry heard round the world if you call a decorated tree in a public school or public property in December a Christmas tree in stead of a Holiday tree.

You’re free to promote your religion all you like on private property - but not on public. Otherwise, why not just string up propaganda from all belief systems?

I have no problem at all with those of different faiths and religions placing there articles of faith right next to any and all those Jewish and Christian. As well the atheist is free to place a document right along side saying it all a bunch of bunk. And you are wrong, The Constitution gives and guarantees me the right to do so on public property as well. Now that is not to say that I can just go around placing Crosses or Stars of David or what ever were ever I wish when ever I wish as an individual, but as a community yes we can decide to place them on the lawn for the court house if we choose to. The people of the city town state have every right to say " hey we want to place a display on the court house lawn and vote on whether or not to do so and what and what not should be included.