Atheists Holy Day

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The argument started over drug laws that interfered with religious rites. Once that was disproven ...

You know why you didn't disprove it ... because the court in the case you cited was a state court but the laws I cited are federal laws. So, when are you going to prove it?

Once the Rastas convince the SC that listening to reggae and smoking ganj is a religious rite. Evidently, they're not concerned enough about it to bring the cases forward past the 9th Circuit.

So, I've disproved the peyote claim, the jury is still out on the marijuana claim and I provided a bonus case in regard to hoasca.

As an FYI:

From Minersville vs. Gobitis (majority opinion):
"The religious liberty which the Constitution protects has never excluded legislation of general scope not directed against doctrinal loyalties of particular sects. Judicial nullification of legislation cannot be justified by attributing to the framers of the Bill of Rights views for which there is no historic warrant. Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs."

I *believe* I may have mentioned that the drug laws were NOT directed against the specific religions, but against drug use as a whole...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

Okay, lets make this simple.
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion......

Since that isn't what the 1st Amendment says, the rest of your post is worthless.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Okay, lets make this simple.
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion......

Since that isn't what the 1st Amendment says, the rest of your post is worthless.

It doesn't say "a small group of people that happen to work for the gov't", either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Okay, lets make this simple.
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion......

Since that isn't what the 1st Amendment says, the rest of your post is worthless.

It doesn't say "a small group of people that happen to work for the gov't", either.

Right, it says "No law." It doesn't say "No law except for ones concerning a small group of people that happen to work for the gov't."

Glad you're onboard with this one Mike. Took you long enough.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Skwrl 56]

The amusing part about his post is that it's also demonstrably wrong about the Bible. There are not, as it states, 10 commandments. There are 613 in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament alone.

The reference to "10" is to the two sets of what are referred to as "Ten Commandments" (Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21 - and they are different from one another.) But that's not all of "The Law".

Christ said there's really only two commandments, by the way, (see Mark 22:34-40: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.").

For what it's also worth, Christ also said that you're not following his message unless you are keeping all 613 laws (Mark 5:18: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.")

So you should be keeping all of the laws of Leviticus, too (like not eating shrimp, see Leviticus 9:11-12, and not wearing cotton/polyester blends, see Leviticus 19:19). And don't try to explain it away by quoting Paul - Paul wasn't Jesus and never even met him.

It's OK, though: I just assumed you weren't really a believer, since Christ said: "These are the signs that will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; even if they drink any deadly poison it will not hurt them; and they will place their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

So I guess you better grab a snake. I won't insist on you drinking poison.

/agnostic (there's no way to know about the "unknowable" by definition), but pretty doubtful.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

Okay, lets make this simple.
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion......

Since that isn't what the 1st Amendment says, the rest of your post is worthless.

Good job....but you obviously didn't notice that I didn't put it in quotations as I was not quoting it word for word but the was simply stating it. If someone says I said I was going to the store should I respond with "I didn't say that I said I am going to go to the supermarket!"
Seriously I figured I had quoted it enough and that people new what it said well enough that I could paraphrase but apparently people don't know what the first ammendment actually says or means and don't have a grasp on how language works.

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Okay, lets make this simple.
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion......

Since that isn't what the 1st Amendment says, the rest of your post is worthless.

Good job....but you obviously didn't notice that I didn't put it in quotations as I was not quoting it word for word but the was simply stating it. If someone says I said I was going to the store should I respond with "I didn't say that I said I am going to go to the supermarket!"
Seriously I figured I had quoted it enough and that people new what it said well enough that I could paraphrase but apparently people don't know what the first ammendment actually says or means and don't have a grasp on how language works.

How language works? You may remember in elementary school being taught that the order in which you put words in a sentance changes the meaning of that sentance. That is how language works.

"Respecting the establishment of a religion" does not mean the same thing as "Respecting an establishment of religion." Since your whole post was devoted to arguing the meaning of the first phrase, your whole post is useless.

There was absolutely no point in 'paraphrasing' that sentance except to dishonestly argue that the amendment is much more limited in scope than it actually is. You lose.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Ion01 2]

Quote

The amusing part about his post is that it's also demonstrably wrong about the Bible. There are not, as it states, 10 commandments. There are 613 in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament alone.

The reference to "10" is to the two sets of what are referred to as "Ten Commandments" (Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21 - and they are different from one another.) But that's not all of "The Law".

Christ said there's really only two commandments, by the way, (see Mark 22:34-40: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.").

For what it's also worth, Christ also said that you're not following his message unless you are keeping all 613 laws (Mark 5:18: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.")

So you should be keeping all of the laws of Leviticus, too (like not eating shrimp, see Leviticus 9:11-12, and not wearing cotton/polyester blends, see Leviticus 19:19). And don't try to explain it away by quoting Paul - Paul wasn't Jesus and never even met him.

It's OK, though: I just assumed you weren't really a believer, since Christ said: "These are the signs that will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; even if they drink any deadly poison it will not hurt them; and they will place their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

So I guess you better grab a snake. I won't insist on you drinking poison.

/agnostic (there's no way to know about the "unknowable" by definition), but pretty doubtful.

Are you serious? Wow!

I was not aware anyone said there were only ten commandments in the old testament.
Also, read hebrew 9. With christ's death came the establishment of a new will or testament. Also, look it up, christ said he came to fulfill the old. If the old has been fulfill it no longer has "power" or effect.

As for signs, according to the bible the apostles did sign and could bestow the same abilities to others, however, those who had recieved these gift from the apostles could not give them to anyone else meaning once they died off there were no more miracles.

While speaking of the miraculous event of the mount of transfiguration peter speaks of Scripture as a "more sure word of prophecy" (II Peter 1:16-21). the point is that signs were to confirm the validity of the teachers however since we have the writings of these people signs are no longer needed.

Miracles were also among the "signs of an apostle" (I Corinthians 12:12); they were apostolic credentials. The apostle Paul's ministry was verified by "signs and wonders" (Romans 15:19).
"We walk by faith, not by sight" (II Corinthians 5:7) or signs.

Paul warns that false teachers (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; Acts 20:29-30) and men claiming to be inspired will come (2 Cor. 11:12-15). He also writes that the Scriptures are inspired and can assist us in dealing with "evil men and imposters" (2 Tim. 3:13, 16). Thus, it is our individual responsibility to search the Scriptures and determine whether what is being taught or preached is true (Acts 17:11). If we must do this for ourselves, of what value is modern day inspiration if it cannot alter what is written (Gal. 1:8-10; Rev. 22:18-19)?
Jude 1:3contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
If we have God’s inspired word in the Bible, and it is complete, then we do not need catechisms, disciplines, creed books, or further revelations. If these books say more than the Bible, then the say too much (Gal. 1:8-10). If they say less than the Bible, then they say too little (Rev. 22:18-19). If they say what the Bible says, then we do not need them because we have the Bible.

Basically there is on one left to give gift of miracle and they are not needed since the gospel has been delivered.

And I am the one with the poor understandin of the bible while you, on the other hand, don't even understand what a testament is or the purpose of the old and new. You take things out of context such as you did with Mark 16:17 in which christ was speaking to his apostles telling them to preach to all the world and telling them that these signs will follow them should they believe. If you read the verses comming up this 17 you find he just finished rebuking them for not believing so if they will believe they will have these signs to accompany them. Its not saying that if I beleive I will have these signs as the purpose as, as stated earlier was to confirm thier validity. Also, Paul was accepted by the other apostles. We find this though the fact that paul made several trips to jerusalem to meet with apostles and in one case peter who he ends up rebuking in galatians.Maybe this will help: http://www.biblestudyworkshop.com/data/Lesson330.pdf

[billvon 2,991]

Your one warning.

[Ion01 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Okay, lets make this simple.
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion......

Since that isn't what the 1st Amendment says, the rest of your post is worthless.

Good job....but you obviously didn't notice that I didn't put it in quotations as I was not quoting it word for word but the was simply stating it. If someone says I said I was going to the store should I respond with "I didn't say that I said I am going to go to the supermarket!"
Seriously I figured I had quoted it enough and that people new what it said well enough that I could paraphrase but apparently people don't know what the first ammendment actually says or means and don't have a grasp on how language works.

How language works? You may remember in elementary school being taught that the order in which you put words in a sentance changes the meaning of that sentance. That is how language works.

"Respecting the establishment of a religion" does not mean the same thing as "Respecting an establishment of religion." Since your whole post was devoted to arguing the meaning of the first phrase, your whole post is useless.

There was absolutely no point in 'paraphrasing' that sentance except to dishonestly argue that the amendment is much more limited in scope than it actually is. You lose.

Seriously, read my post in reference to first amendment. It doesn't change the meaning of the two words which I defined and is therefore directly applicable to the first amendment. If it is applicable then explain why.

[Skwrl 56]

No. I fully realize and understand your argument and the way that the relationship between the New Testament and Hebrew Bible now have (but didn't always have) in many (but not all) Christian denominations.

A few thoughts.

You make the assertion that the Bible is effectively complete. Do you know how the books in the Bible were chosen to be there? Largely, they were selected by a man - not God - named Athanasius. Did you know that some books weren't included (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas) whilst other books (e.g., Revelation) were the subject of much debate at the time as to whether they should be "canon"? To say "the Bible is complete" is to ascribe God like powers to certain people other than Jesus. Think carefully about that.

I have long before heard the explanation of Mark 16, I just think that you are inferring additional words (you are saying that Christ meant "you apostles and you alone have this power"). You're adding words to the Bible. I thought you said it was complete.

Anyway, I'm fully versed with many of the arguments that you link to.

Not all Christians interpret the Bible similarly, however. Which presents one of the great reasons why the separation of Church and State adopted by the Founding Fathers was a pretty nifty idea.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Okay, lets make this simple.
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion......

Since that isn't what the 1st Amendment says, the rest of your post is worthless.

It doesn't say "a small group of people that happen to work for the gov't", either.

Right, it says "No law." It doesn't say "No law except for ones concerning a small group of people that happen to work for the gov't."

Glad you're onboard with this one Mike. Took you long enough.

If by 'onboard' you mean 'stating that the group mentioned above does NOT comprise a 'religion'', I agree.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Ion01 2]

Actually it was a group of men at the Council of Nicaea in around 375 A.D.

[Ion01 2]

Quote

I have long before heard the explanation of Mark 16, I just think that you are inferring additional words (you are saying that Christ meant "you apostles and you alone have this power"). You're adding words to the Bible. I thought you said it was complete.

I was not adding words but giving the context.

[Skwrl 56]

I thought Nicea dealt with the Arian and Meletius issues and setting dates for Pesach/Easter.

Council of Carthage?

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[Ion01 2]

The council or carthage did provide their own canon but it was slightly different that the Council of Nicaea one which is what we use today.

Also, to say that all has been reveal or that there is no new revelation does not put the responsibility on these people but on each individual to "prove all things" (thes 5:21) and "search the scriptures daily" (acts 17:11)

Also, one does not have to beleive or agree with the bible to understand the concepts and what is taught.

[Skwrl 56]

And you're right that he rebuked the 11, but I still think that's not a complete answer. For those at all interested, this is right after the stone has been rolled away, the tomb is empty, and Jesus has been appearing to various folks:

Quote

14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

In context, he is saying, "Go out and convert people. People who convert will be saved, those who aren't, won't. You'll know if people have been converted if they do those four things..."

My point is not to quibble about this passage, or even to argue over Biblical Inerrancy arguments (though see Bart Ehrman's great book Misquoting Jesus http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170 for a great historical analysis of how the Bible developed).

My point is that not even all Christians believe the same things you do. Since different denominations and sects believe different things. Extrapolate that to the discussion about other faiths, atheists and non-theists, and I keep coming back to the argument that the separation of Church and State was a really, really, cool idea.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

Also, one does not have to beleive or agree with the bible to understand the concepts and what is taught.

Well, we agree on this part.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

Also, to say that all has been reveal or that there is no new revelation does not put the responsibility on these people but on each individual to "prove all things" (thes 5:21) and "search the scriptures daily" (acts 17:11)

See, here's where I historically would have argued with you. While I don't have any personal faith, I was raised in a family that accepted the Gospels as the word of Christ, but didn't accept the non-Gospel NT. (Not written by Christ, not Christ's words, etc.). If you've ever heard of a Jeffersonian Bible, you get the concept.

So, to them, quoting from Acts would be meaningless - or at least non-authoritative.

Again, back to my point - not all Christians believe the same thing, so it's awfully good we don't have a faith imposed on us, directly or indirectly, by the State.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Okay, lets make this simple.
Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion......

Since that isn't what the 1st Amendment says, the rest of your post is worthless.

It doesn't say "a small group of people that happen to work for the gov't", either.

Right, it says "No law." It doesn't say "No law except for ones concerning a small group of people that happen to work for the gov't."

Glad you're onboard with this one Mike. Took you long enough.

If by 'onboard' you mean 'stating that the group mentioned above does NOT comprise a 'religion'', I agree.

Stop playing the fool, Mike. The law respects and prefers a religion, Christianity. It is irrelevant that the law only directly affects people who work for the Federal government, because the constitution does not contain an exemption to that effect.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,490]

Quote

Seriously, read my post in reference to first amendment.

I've read it. It's irrelevant, because you've reworded the amendment to make your argument fit.

Quote

It doesn't change the meaning of the two words which I defined and is therefore directly applicable to the first amendment.

It changes the meaning of the entire sentence. The way that you have worded it would limit the scope of the prohibition far more than the correct wording actually does.

Quote

If it is applicable then explain why.

Your post is not applicable to the actual constitution.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,991]

Your one warning.

[Skwrl 56]

You can't JUST read the First Amendment (or any other amendment, for what it's worth) to understand it. (Well, you can, but you'll come to some wacky conclusions.)

You need to read the cases (particularly the Supreme Court cases) that have interpreted it.

There's a decent (though by no means complete) list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_church-state_separation_case_law

Laws that are religious (like holidays) are not unconstitutional if they have a secular purpose. The folks who established the holidays would probably argue that the purpose would be to allow the largest percentage of workers to be available on non-holidays (i.e., if they had to work Christmas, people would have to take it off).

I'm not saying the logic is great, I'm just saying that's been the explanation in the past.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[Ion01 2]

I didn't re-word it to fit anything. If you look at the definitions of the words used in the first amendment and apply them you get what I said in my post...period. there is no way around it.
Also, if the amendments and constituation is in english, no "interpretation" is needed. Are people really so incapable of understanding a sentance or two that we need it interpreted for us. This is the ultimate problem with the way the constituation and ammendments have been apply. They are not taken for what they say but "interpreted" to mean whatever the person "interpreting" it wants it to say. If a long explanation or interpretation was needed they would have included that with it but they didn't because it is simple english. If we allow "interpretation" like we do then all you end up with is people applying thier person beliefs and opinions in place of the constitution and ammendents.

[billvon 2,991]

>Congress shall make no law RESPECTING the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion......

Incorrect. The applicable text is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

That means that Congress is prohibited from passing laws that pertain to a particular type/sect of religion. It's one of the clearer amendments, actually.