Religious Liberty Isn't Christian

[Seeker1961]

Why should prayer be allowed in PUBLIC schools?? Why should ANY religion have their emblems on public property??

Where do Christians get off thinking that they and they alone should have the right to display their emblems using property paid for by everyone? If prayer is so all fired important for your child’s school day, then make the sacrifice to send them to a religious school or homeschool them.

How come all this talk about religious liberty only applies to the “right” religion?

 

[BobCatholic]

Why should prayer be allowed in PUBLIC schools?? Why should ANY religion have their emblems on public property??

Its called freedom of speech. Unless you say that speech on government property should be censored?

Congress shall make a law restricting freedom of speech…doesn’t sound familiar…

Where do Christians get off thinking that they and they alone

It is not “they alone” - the government is supposed to be NEUTRAL - not “No religions allowed except for Atheism”

How come all this talk about religious liberty only applies to the “right” religion?

That’s how it stands now. Atheism is the only religion that is allowed on government property.

 

[OU812]

Yay, Thomas Jefferson! (right?)

“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

“You know, my friend, the benevolent plan we were pursuing here for the happiness of the aboriginal inhabitants in our vicinities. We spared nothing to keep them at peace with one another. To teach them agriculture and the rudiments of the most necessary arts, and to encourage industry by establishing among them separate property. In this way they would have been enabled to subsist and multiply on a moderate scale of landed possession. They would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us within no distant period of time. On the commencement of our present war, we pressed on them the observance of peace and neutrality, but the interested and unprincipled policy of England has defeated all our labors for the salvation of these unfortunate people. They have seduced the greater part of the tribes within our neighborhood, to take up the hatchet against us, and the cruel massacres they have committed on the women and children of our frontiers taken by surprise, will oblige us now to pursue them to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach.”

Trail of Tears, Manifest Destiny, you can thank Jefferson for laying down the blueprint. Haiti being in dire straights, you can thank him for the embargo that he enacted and the cold stance the U.S. has had ever since.

 

[Seeker1961]

Its called freedom of speech. Unless you say that speech on government property should be censored?

Congress shall make a law restricting freedom of speech…doesn’t sound familiar…

It is not “they alone” - the government is supposed to be NEUTRAL - not “No religions allowed except for Atheism”

That’s how it stands now. Atheism is the only religion that is allowed on government property.

It most certainly is “they alone”. As soon as any display other than a Christian one…and maybe a Menorah-gets put up or tries to get put up in a public place, the whining begins from the Christians. “How DARE they! This is OUR holiday!! NO HAPPY HOLIDAYS SIGNS ALLOWED!!! ONLY MERRY CHRISTMAS WILL BE TOLERATED!!”

And as for the public school…you ready for your kids to pray three times a day to Mecca, recite the Shema or dance around the Maypole on Spring Solstice as a part of their school day?? That’s religious liberty my friend, ALL religions will have the same rights to bring their “free speech” into your child’s public school. And get ready for your child’s evangelical teacher to teach your child from their Bible and their theology. Having to incorporate all that is certainly going to cut back on time for math, reading and science but as long as the religion gets in there that’s all that matters, right?

Free speech is doing what my goddaughter did at her school-the kids met at the flagpole in the morning before classes and said a prayer together. There was also an after school Bible club, but she didn’t go to that more than a couple of times because it was run by evangelicals and it contradicted what she was learning in Confirmation.

Parents with kids in public school need to really educate themselves on the law, because some districts do go WAY overboard in trying to keep the place neutral on religion. The Aquinas law center, and yes (GASP) the ACLU have fine explanations and assistance available to make sure your school is doing what the law REALLY says, and not bowing to extremists on either side.

Promoting “nothing” in public during the holidays, is because of the extremists on this issue who have acted like spoiled children. Since nobody could share, all the toys got taken away.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Believe what you wish then, don’t let the actual events get in the way.

 

[Stephen168]

It is instead an example of the court stopping such encroachment.

People “want” a lot of things.

Yes it does. But just because the Constitution protects against government interference in religion doesn’t mean the Obama Administration doesn’t want to interfere with religion.

Believe what you wish then, don’t let the actual events get in the way.

Yes, the people who were stopped was not the Obama administration, it was the EEOC. Which is part of the Executive Branch appointed by the President. Ok, It was the Obama administration.

 

[Stephen168]

Where do Christians get off thinking that they and they alone should have the right to display their emblems using property paid for by everyone?

I’ve never observed a “they alone”

It most certainly is “they alone”. As soon as any display other than a Christian one…and maybe a Menorah-gets put up or tries to get put up in a public place, the whining begins from the Christians. “How DARE they! This is OUR holiday!! NO HAPPY HOLIDAYS SIGNS ALLOWED!!! ONLY MERRY CHRISTMAS WILL BE TOLERATED!!”

Even in this case I’ve only observed, “Why They and not us.” Or in some cases when someone goes after the cross, “Why us and not they.”

 

[BobCatholic]

It most certainly is “they alone”. As soon as any display other than a Christian one…and maybe a Menorah-gets put up or tries to get put up in a public place, the whining begins from the Christians. “How DARE they! This is OUR holiday!! NO HAPPY HOLIDAYS SIGNS ALLOWED!!! ONLY MERRY CHRISTMAS WILL BE TOLERATED!!”

Not really. It is the Atheists who scream bloody murder and hire 50 lawyers if anyone decides to have an opinion that is even remotely religious on government property.

And as for the public school…you ready for your kids to pray three times a day to Mecca,

Yes, they already do.

patriotupdate.com/articles/aclu-okay-with-prayer-in-public-schools-muslim-prayer-that-is

fiveboxes.com/more.php/2008/04/09/public-schools-teaching-reading-writing-and-the-koran/

foxnews.com/us/2012/02/15/colorado-student-reportedly-quits-choir-over-islamic-song/

I could go on, but Islam is permitted while Christianity is not. Right now we have Atheists vs Muslims fighting to take over the public schools. Atheists are winning but Muslims are making a strong second.

But they will never let Christians pray.

Promoting “nothing” in public during the holidays, is because of the extremists on this issue who have acted like spoiled children.

Just one side, the one with the 50 lawyers screaming that someone dared to say “Merry Christmas” and suing to shut down any presence of Christianity on government property.

SOCAS means government is to be neutral. But we don’t have that. We have a government HOSTILE to Christianity in particular. That’s because Atheism is the official state religion.

Just ask the guy who is facing jail time for a Bible study
radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/man-facing-jail-for-hosting-home-bible-study.html

Freedom of religion? NO.
Freedom of assembly? NO.
Freedom to hurt Christians? YES.

 

[Faithdancer]

Yes BobCatholic and in Santa Monica, for 60 years Christmas displays and later, Hanukkah displays had been set up along the boardwalk- displays which denigrated no one and insulted no one. These displays gave joy to many people over the years, but they have now been banned. Why? Because a local atheist group decided to erect displays that rudely and offensively mocked Christianity. The atheist displays were vandalized- not saying that’s right, but they were mockingly cruel in their content, certainly intended to be provocative. Of course, this content is typical- since “life is meaningless” and “we believe in nothing” aren’t exactly positive messages, whenever atheists put up displays, signs and billboards the content generally seems to be sarcastic, mean-spirited and derogatory, if not downright hateful.

So now there are no more displays in Santa Monica. All because some local militant atheists couldn’t stand to see people deriving peace and happiness from their faith.

 

[sw85]

Here’s the presentation by the late Michael Davies. A couple of the papal encyclicals cited are:

• Vehementer Nos by Pope St. Pius X

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.​

• Quas Primas by Pope Pius XI

What do y’all think? How does this square with the founding principles of America?

The passage you cite condemns opposition to establishment, not religious liberty, so I don’t see the conflict. Religious liberty is not the same thing as opposition to establishment, and Dignitatis Humanae openly says it doesn’t overturn the duty of states to order themselves to Christ through the Church.

Nor do I see a conflict in Quas Primas.

Re: the Founders, I think they were a bunch of deist, Freemason traitors.

 

[BobCatholic]

Yes BobCatholic and in Santa Monica, for 60 years Christmas displays and later, Hanukkah displays had been set up along the boardwalk- displays which denigrated no one and insulted no one. These displays gave joy to many people over the years, but they have now been banned. Why? Because a local atheist group decided to erect displays that rudely and offensively mocked Christianity. The atheist displays were vandalized- not saying that’s right, but they were mockingly cruel in their content, certainly intended to be provocative. Of course, this content is typical- since “life is meaningless” and “we believe in nothing” aren’t exactly positive messages, whenever atheists put up displays, signs and billboards the content generally seems to be sarcastic, mean-spirited and derogatory, if not downright hateful.

So now there are no more displays in Santa Monica. All because some local militant atheists couldn’t stand to see people deriving peace and happiness from their faith.

Yup. More proof that Atheism is the official state religion.

And freedom of religion and expression is reduced as a result.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Here’s the presentation by the late Michael Davies. A couple of the papal encyclicals cited are:

• Vehementer Nos by Pope St. Pius X

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.​

• Quas Primas by Pope Pius XI

What do y’all think? How does this square with the founding principles of America?

Well, the Catholic Church does support religious freedom, as did Jesus to a large extent. He never forced anyone to follow Him under duress or by using the force of government.

The Pope here, like Jesus did in His time, is saying this as a guideline, that separation of Church and State should be an excuse to throw out moral values and that people should be free to worship in pubic.

That’s what I get out of it, but it was a different time then.

In our country, a lot of issues are left to the states. It would be permissible, for instance, for an individual state to establish a state religion, but not for Congress to do so.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Not really. It is the Atheists who scream bloody murder and hire 50 lawyers if anyone decides to have an opinion that is even remotely religious on government property.

Yes, they already do.

patriotupdate.com/articles/aclu-okay-with-prayer-in-public-schools-muslim-prayer-that-is

fiveboxes.com/more.php/2008/04/09/public-schools-teaching-reading-writing-and-the-koran/

foxnews.com/us/2012/02/15/colorado-student-reportedly-quits-choir-over-islamic-song/

I could go on, but Islam is permitted while Christianity is not. Right now we have Atheists vs Muslims fighting to take over the public schools. Atheists are winning but Muslims are making a strong second.

But they will never let Christians pray.

Just one side, the one with the 50 lawyers screaming that someone dared to say “Merry Christmas” and suing to shut down any presence of Christianity on government property.

SOCAS means government is to be neutral. But we don’t have that. We have a government HOSTILE to Christianity in particular. That’s because Atheism is the official state religion.

Just ask the guy who is facing jail time for a Bible study
radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/man-facing-jail-for-hosting-home-bible-study.html

Freedom of religion? NO.
Freedom of assembly? NO.
Freedom to hurt Christians? YES.

Atheism vs Islam?

Atheism wouldn’t stand a chance.

Muslims have children, many atheists do not for one, a lot of leftist atheists are too afraid to confront Islam.

Just look at Western Europe. Feminism and the gay rights come to a screeching halt when conservative Muslim men object.

 

[Faithdancer]

Atheism vs Islam?

Atheism wouldn’t stand a chance.
Muslims have children, many atheists do not for one, a lot of leftist atheists are too afraid to confront Islam.
Just look at Western Europe. Feminism and the gay rights come to a screeching halt when conservative Muslim men object.

There are still plenty of Christians in this country, and whole lot of them claim Catholicism, even if they have a skewed notion of what being Catholic means. Sooner or later the ACLU is going to cross the line on their suppression of Christianity, and people will start realizing what an atheist, socialist bunch of legal thugs the ACLU really is.

 

[BobCatholic]

Atheism vs Islam?

Atheism wouldn’t stand a chance.

Muslims have children, many atheists do not for one, a lot of leftist atheists are too afraid to confront Islam.

Just look at Western Europe. Feminism and the gay rights come to a screeching halt when conservative Muslim men object.

Yup.

But when it comes to Atheism vs all religions except Islam, they will do a lot of damage, do a great job of eliminating all other religions out of the public square - So the only two religions left in a society will be atheism and Islam.

Just make it a one on one Atheism vs Islam duel to the death bonanza (can you imagine Hulk Hogan in the commercial? ) In such a scenario, Islam will take over and win.

Then MAYBE the Atheists would realize how good that Christianity did as they pretend to do their five prayers a day since they converted under the sword.

 

[247cath]

I think they wanted seperate governing bodies. The Church does not run the government, and the government cannot run the church or decree that every one must belong to a certain religion. This was to protect Churches from being taken over by rulers. NOT TO KICK GOD OUT OF PUBLIC LIFE!

I might suggest that the amount of open public debate about the government taking away open public debate, speaks for itself.

 

[catholictiger]

The Church has developed into supporting the idea of religious freedom. In DIGNITATIS HUMANAE the Catholic Church during the second vatican council clearly states that Human beings have a RIGHT to religious freedom. It also discusses some things about the role of the state. You must keep in mind and I believe this is very important for catholics today the church is a dynamic body it changes it develops it grows it becomes more intelligent. When dealing with Things like this you must be VERY careful when using documents that well are starting to get alittle dated. Something that was said in the 13th century doesn’t apply well to what is being said today. Even what is said in the early 20th century may or may not be applicable today. Always try to stick with the most recent church documents on things. We must listen to the magestirum of TODAY not tomorrow and not yesterday. TODAY.

so again the Church ahs come out very clearly in the last 50 years about religious freedom.

it is all explained in this document (which I haven’t really read)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

 

[masuwerte]

The Church has developed into supporting the idea of religious freedom. In DIGNITATIS HUMANAE the Catholic Church during the second vatican council clearly states that Human beings have a RIGHT to religious freedom.

And yet, the Catholic Church teaches that no one may leave Catholicism. In fact, they’ve recently removed the process of formal defecton. Once Catholic, always Catholic. One man, one vote, one time.

 

[catholictiger]

And yet, the Catholic Church teaches that no one may leave Catholicism. In fact, they’ve recently removed the process of formal defecton. Once Catholic, always Catholic. One man, one vote, one time.

you are talking about something different. The church wants its faithful to stay in the church but they also don’t want government forcing laws on religious groups.

 

[masuwerte]

you are talking about something different. The church wants its faithful to stay in the church but they also don’t want government forcing laws on religious groups.

I’m sure I don’t understand this. Not to derail the thread, but could you refer me to a source, or PM me please?