Toto

What difference does that make?

Listen up. It's Federalist Society judges, not Federation. And they get appointed, not elected. And if the wall tumbles down, then it's open season on religious dissent. Members of one religious sect are free to attempt to use the power of the state to enforce their own doctrines on other people. You can read the history books about the effect that had in Europe. You can imagine what happens if the Catholic church can get goverments to pass a tax to pay for Catholic schools, or squelch government investigation into their crimes, if blasphemy becomes a crime and your neighbor says that you insulted Jesus . . .

But nooo, it could never happen here.

ybnormal

Rad's second curiosity, intact:
2. How is it a "Christian" church divided, as skeptics say, into a zillion sects, would suddenly take over the country if enough Federation Judges get elected? The Moonies, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Charismatics and LDS will miraculously gang together, stop majority rule (somehow), the minute five more of the wrong judges get elected, the wall will tumble down and all vestages of democracy will diappear off the earth.

How is it a "Christian" church divided, as skeptics say, into a zillion sects, would suddenly take over the country if enough Federation Judges get elected? The Moonies, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Charismatics and LDS will miraculously gang together...

Off the top of my head? As I've said Rad, this is all about politics... even if you haven't what it takes to see it, nor the inclination to admit it, many smarter-than-I American citizens have already made the case that this is exactly what occurred in the last presidential election. Certainly you won't argue that any of the above named groups voted overwhelmingly for Gore.


...stop majority rule (somehow),

There was a massive legal and media war waged by the GOP, aided by Falwell/Robertson lawyers, to stop the vote count, or "stop majority rule"...


...the minute five more of the wrong judges get elected,

...which culminated with the "surprise" intervention by 5 SC Judges, which many legal scholars argue, "selected" the people's second choice candidate... in other words, they did indeed, somehow, stop the majority rule.


...the wall will tumble down

Well, Bush only cracked it the other day with that Faith Based thingy that he dictated on CNN... I reckon it may not tumble until after those 5 above mentioned Judges have their say.


and all vestages of democracy will diappear off the earth.

Don't think I said that... but I don't mind a little flare in your writing... I understand... it went with the flow... I do that too.


This is rational thinking? Or simple paranoia?

Or factually close?


[Toto: I think I'm responsible for the "elected judges" line that Rad responded to... I sorta stand by it, in that Bush clearly and openly ran with the SC appointments platform... so, as an absolutist who can rationalize just about anything when it suits, it suits me to stretch that any Judges Bush appoints, would kinda sorta be there, only thru the grace of that selection election... do I hear groans?]

Jamie_L

Radorth:
I was specifically referring to your comments abuot high shool. High school is a fairly compressed learning environment consisting mostly of survey courses. In a survey course of U.S. history, only the most important things can be hit upon. Considering that most of the debate over the Constitution and the founding of our government did not involve discussions of Jesus and general morals, there isn't really going to be room or need for that in high school history.

Now, if we were talking specifically about an in-depth course looking at the founders lives or the society they lived in (some high schools have a selection of such detailed courses for seniors), then sure, their religious views have a place. However, I did not get the impression you were referring to classes like that in your previous post.

I am not arguing censorship of quotes of the founders. I'm just saying that if you are just trying to give kids what they need to know about the origins of the important points of the U.S. Constitution and our government, you don't need much if any mention of the founders beliefs. Which is not to say it's taboo to mention them. I'm just responding to your claim that you never heard much about whay they thought of Jesus. My response: you didn't need to in order to understand the founding of the country.

Jamie

Butters

If you disagree, maybe you would like to open a thread in MF&P, And tell us obout this objective morality. I hear about it all the time, but no ones ever bothered to explain it to me.
BTW- thanks for answering one line of my last few posts.

What DOES happen when they don't? and really, YOU are the one who is getting your ideals out of thin air. Out of thin air, into your Bible, and out your mouth, with no stops in between.

This, more than anything else shows your true colors. You don't give a crap about Demoracy, of freedom. I fact you are opposed to it. You just want SOMEBODY to take control of the world, and stop all those nasty people from thinking for themselves, doing for themselves, or God forbid, enjoying this life. I know, I know, we should all spend this life under the yoke of SOMEBODY, after all, we are sheep waiting for the return of our sheperd. Why don't you just move to China and preach the word there!

Out of all the crap you have posted, I have not seen one thing that show that 90% of the founders worried about a religion-free, God-free society, in fact all I see them worried about is a society dominated by religion.

Well, "the wall has been in place for over 200 years, and the only thing that has happened is that America has grown into the most successful country in the world.

Any evidence that the Preaching of "The Cross" will have any effect on them? How about educating them and providing job opportunities instead?

Are you denying that these are Christian groups?
If you support school prayer, would you deny any of these Christian groups their right to preach their beliefs? Is it O.K. for a Catholic teacher to tell your kids they should kneel in front of and pray to a statue of the virgin Mary?

Really try to think about this. WHICH Christianity should the Government support?

Jamie_L

While only a minor, and generally forgiveable incursion in to freedom of religion, this generally has the effect of telling the citizens of a pluralistic society that the government supports and endorses a certain religious view. Taken with numerous other endorsements, it does have the effect of telling me that my atheisim is not valued, and even discouraged by the U.S. Government. Imagine if the President were to announce a day of skepticism in which all Americans were encouraged to question the truth and value of their religious beliefs. Would that be a violation of your freedom of conscience?

To me, this is less a separation issue as a fair employement issue. It's hard for your boss to make such events feel truely voluntary - especially regarding a position as deeply held as his religious feelings. Imagine if Madelyn O'Hair was head of some government agency, and held "voluntary" atheist gatherings in her office. Might you suspect that some of the non-atheist employees would feel uncomfortable pressure?

Again, this goes to my feelings about the national day of prayer, only more-so because the religion presented is more specific. If the government was printing books of atheist philosophy and handing them out, would that be acceptible too?

Jamie

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

Radorth

A perfect example of revisionist history from another thread (extracts) with the assertion that democracy as we know it is history:

As the deluded Jefferson, et al, clearly said 200 years ago

Except they imported thousands of Bibles, hired Protestant chaplains and have long facilitated the preaching of the Gospel, and Washington hoped the spiritually ignorant would learn "above all, the religion of Jesus Christ."

Unfortunately some failed to listen to him when he said "we've lost our moral compass."

LOL!!! The Inquisitions should restart any day now. Not sure who's going to run them- some ecumenical council comprised of a hundred sects.

Criminy.

Rad

Radorth

Yeah. Jesus. Not any human or human group. But you'll be surprised who here supports any anti-Christ who promises "peace and safety" in exchange for a few small sacrifices. It won't be me. (How ironic). Oh and please tell us how democracy would work in China. In Russia all it did was spread graft and corruption. I don't suppose that's because they have no known moral standards.

My missionary friend tells me that democracy in Kyrdistan (where she works) has only increased the gap between rich and poor. You either drive a Mercedes or an oxcart. The people laugh at democracy. One can only imagine the suffering in China.

More proof of what the founders warned us about, that their Constitution by itself was no guarantee of anything, and it is never more obvious than in atheist-democratic countries, is it?

"Those who will not be ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants."

Rad

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Jamie_L

Really? Christianity has a stronger pressence in the U.S. than almost any other developed country. Most of those countries have no such "radically secular" wall. While their governments are nominally not secular, their societies are. It seems to me, at least from the standpoint of allowing religious belief to flourish and guide society, what we've tried has been a great success.

From another standpoint, we as Americans generally have a healthy, and I would argue well-founded, distrust of government institutions. Do we want it getting intermingled with something so important to us as our fundamental beliefs? It's the "wall" that protects religion as much as it protects my rights as a non-believer.

Jamie

Radorth

When adding up all the tax benefits to us "right-wing" Christians, kindly subtract the billions we spend educating our children. That was supposed to be the government's job, but we take upon ourselves a huge portion of it, and we can't even get YOU to pay a part of it. (Another "violation" of the wall). Meanwhile we pay the same taxes everybody else does to support the schools.

In other words, YOUR taxes would be a lot higher but for the double burden carried by Christians. It isn't fair or democratic at all, but who cares?

Rad

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Jamie_L

Okay, now we're getting way off-topic. BUT, I have a response for this I'd like to share, so I'll jump on the tangent with you.

The taxes we all pay for the public schools aren't about paying for your children to go to school. They are about setting up a system of public education that benefits society. A society where no one gets even the barest minimum of education would be a lot worse off than the one we've got now. Whatever you think about public schools, there are plenty of people who get a good-enough education who wouldn't have gotten any education if their parents had been forced to foot the whole bill.

So, in my opinion, no one is "owed" any money because they send their kids to private school any more than people who don't have children are "owed" money for creating no children to send to the schools. Any more than a person who never dries is "owed" money because they don't use the roads their taxes pay for. Any more than a person who pays for private security is "owed" money for putting less burden on the police force.

Every time we interact with people who were educated by the public school system, we are using the public school system.

Jamie