Originally posted by: Warbler
Ok JediSage I owe you an apology. The was an actual reported case of a teacher throwing Bibles into the trash. Althought the lawsuit has been dropped and the school district denies that any Bibles were thrown into the trash. So its just a question of who you believe. Again I'm sorry I jumped the gun. Its just I had never heard of the incident and found it difficult that it could have happened without me knowing since I watch the news and read the paper daily. I apologize. However it would seem to be an isolated incident.
No problemo....I probably over-reacted, however it's a very stressful time for me right now.
Now, just how is the Government excluding you by appeasing you? Maybe its a philosophy as any religion as you say, but if it is, does that mean we should drop it and just pick a religion to support and what one should that be and why? Whichever one we pick is going to offend someone. All I am saying is the Government shouldn't be in the position of deciding what religion is right and what religions aren't. It should treat all religions equally and that includes Atheists.
Ok JediSage I owe you an apology. The was an actual reported case of a teacher throwing Bibles into the trash. Althought the lawsuit has been dropped and the school district denies that any Bibles were thrown into the trash. So its just a question of who you believe. Again I'm sorry I jumped the gun. Its just I had never heard of the incident and found it difficult that it could have happened without me knowing since I watch the news and read the paper daily. I apologize. However it would seem to be an isolated incident.
No problemo....I probably over-reacted, however it's a very stressful time for me right now.
Originally posted by: JediSage
I find it odd that we need to oppress freedom in order to attain it, however, I'll bite:
Again no argument, however, the "Supreme" Court has ruled that saying a religion neutral prayer before a football game on school grounds is unconstitutional, somehow construing this to mean that the person saying it is really congress and that this act constituted establishment of a nation-wide religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". A student body is NOT congress.
Originally posted by: JediSage
Keep in mind that appeasing all faiths via a position of no faith is just as much of a philosophy as any religion. By definition it's excluding the people who believe and practice their faiths.
I find it odd that we need to oppress freedom in order to attain it, however, I'll bite:
I never said that. All I meant was that how can someone have true freedom of religion, without having to right to chose no religion at all? without being able to chose not to belief
in God?
No argument. But this is far from your original comment. You originally said you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, which on the surface implies that all semblances of religion in public must be eliminated. Not quite the same as saying that one should have the right to choose none at all.
No, what it means is that they can use/abbuse their position to support their religion
example: A school teacher can't use their position to preacher their religious views to thier students. However, that same school teacher has every right to practice his/her faith, As long as doing so doesn't violate someone else's rights.
in God?
No argument. But this is far from your original comment. You originally said you cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion, which on the surface implies that all semblances of religion in public must be eliminated. Not quite the same as saying that one should have the right to choose none at all.
Originally posted by: JediSage
So, in other words, anyone who assumes public office or works in government automatically abbrogates their right to the free exercise of religion? Must they now take a vow of official atheism prior to taking the position?
So, in other words, anyone who assumes public office or works in government automatically abbrogates their right to the free exercise of religion? Must they now take a vow of official atheism prior to taking the position?
No, what it means is that they can use/abbuse their position to support their religion
example: A school teacher can't use their position to preacher their religious views to thier students. However, that same school teacher has every right to practice his/her faith, As long as doing so doesn't violate someone else's rights.
Again no argument, however, the "Supreme" Court has ruled that saying a religion neutral prayer before a football game on school grounds is unconstitutional, somehow construing this to mean that the person saying it is really congress and that this act constituted establishment of a nation-wide religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". A student body is NOT congress.
Originally posted by: JediSage
Keep in mind that appeasing all faiths via a position of no faith is just as much of a philosophy as any religion. By definition it's excluding the people who believe and practice their faiths.
Now, just how is the Government excluding you by appeasing you? Maybe its a philosophy as any religion as you say, but if it is, does that mean we should drop it and just pick a religion to support and what one should that be and why? Whichever one we pick is going to offend someone. All I am saying is the Government shouldn't be in the position of deciding what religion is right and what religions aren't. It should treat all religions equally and that includes Atheists.
No...the government should not pick a religion to appease anyone. No, government should not pick which religion is right, but I don't think that should mean curtailing religious liberties in any manner...and that IS what is happening. If Aetheists want equality they should respect that there are billions of people on the planet who are not aetheists and who do not appreciate attempts at being erased. It's a two way street.