Atheists Holy Day

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Quote

Quote

My summary is fine - your question was inadequate. If you wanted to discuss the ENTIRE gamut, you should have framed your question in that light.

Question? What question? You talk of imaginary things, sir.

I beg your pardon - Butters' question.

What does Butters have to do with it? Your reply was to tkhayes.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Open your eyes ... Christianity is the national religion (and this is the reason individuals are fighting to be free from religion).

Then you should have no problem showing me the law proclaiming such, now should you?

Blah, blah, blah ...

Quote

Quote

PS: Are Rastafarians allowed to practice their religion freely?

Sure they are - show me the law that states that the practice of Rastafarianism (damn, that's a mouthful) is illegal.

And yes, I know where you're going with that - the Indians are fighting the same battle in regards to peyote. They don't let the Mormons (legally) have multiple wives, either.

So we don't have freedom of religion. We have freedom of some religions (and the government has given the most freedom to ... Christianity).

Translation - you can't PROVE it, but you feel that it is. That's fine, just don't confuse your feelings with legal reality.

Just because the government doesn't (and can't) have a law stating Christianity is the religion doesn't mean the government doesn't have laws (and practices) that imply Christianity is the religion. You have yet to give me an answer to any of my questions ... Why does the government have national holidays based on the Christian religion (and not all other religions)? Why does the government have laws preventing the practices of religions?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Just because the government doesn't (and can't) have a law stating Christianity is the religion doesn't mean the government doesn't have laws (and practices) that imply Christianity is the religion. You have yet to give me an answer to any of my questions ... Why does the government have national holidays based on the Christian religion (and not all other religions)? Why does the government have laws preventing the practices of religions?

Show me the laws that prevent the religions from being practiced. Implication != fact.

As for holidays, are you saying that Jewish people don't get to celebrate Hannukah or Rosh Hashanah?

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

[Butters 0]

Quote

Show me the laws that prevent the religions from being practiced. Implication != fact.

TITLE 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER 13 - DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

Quote

As for holidays, are you saying that Jewish people don't get to celebrate Hannukah or Rosh Hashanah?

Are Hannukah and Rosh Hashanah national holidays?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 3,070]

>Show me the laws that prevent the religions from being practiced.

There are federal drug laws that would result in the normal practice of the Native American Church being outlawed.

Now, if those laws were applied to all religions across the board, then you could argue that there was no discrimination, and all religions enjoy the same (limited) rights. However, during Prohibition, there was an exemption to the law for the Christian sects who used wine during communion - so the federal government has clearly not treated all religions equally when it comes to drug bans.

Many states have a local exemption that allow the use of peyote during religious rituals. But as in the California medicinal-marijuana cases, the federal government feels it can override local laws in such cases. Fix that and the problem goes away.

[mnealtx 0]

I understand the points you both are making, and even agree with you in a sense.

Do the drug laws AFFECT the religious sacraments of those two religions? Yes, but the laws were written in response to drug abuse by the public and not due to use by the religions.

IIRC, the Indians have been successful in getting use of peyote on tribal land.

This is no different than laws against shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre in regards to the 'free speech' clause.

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

[billvon 3,070]

>Do the drug laws AFFECT the religious sacraments of those two religions?
>Yes, but the laws were written in response to drug abuse by the public and not
>due to use by the religions.

While I agree it was not due to that initially, it didn't take long for the christian sects to realize the loophole could work for them. From a talk by Christian Michel:

"To begin this conference, I would like to recount a true story. From January 1919, American Catholic priests were required to obtain authorisation from the Federal administration to buy Communion wine. Prohibition had begun. During 12 long years, the production, trade and consumption of alcoholic drinks was totally prohibited in the United States. Very soon, there mushroomed numerous, ostensibly Christian, sects for the purpose of celebrating, with administrative dispensation, the Holy Communion in both kinds. Observers noted the remarkable zeal which the faithful showed in taking consecrated wine. . . . "

They tried clamping down on this, of course, but in the end the idea of tangling with Christianity in such a basic way doomed the effort to failure.

In addition, it is worthwhile noting that the temperance movement was a primarily religious one. At first the Prohibition Party, then the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, then finally the Anti-Saloon League fought hard to ban alcohol everywhere. (In an interesting parallel, they felt that "getting to the children" was the way to inculcate their values at an early age, and indeed that probably had a lot of effect when prohibition was finally enacted 40 years later.)

The primary drivers behind these groups were Protestants, specifically Methodists, Northern Baptists, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Disciples, Congregationalists, Quakers, and Scandinavian Lutherans. They portrayed drinking as "the devil's work" unless it was during their own religious rites. (Neat, huh?) In the decade before Prohibition, drinking in the US was actually dropping rather quickly, since many states had passed their own dry laws. So I don't think you can say that the law was passed in response to drug abuse, but rather the _perception_ of drug abuse by some very vocal religious factions - factions who wanted to be sure that alcohol was outlawed everywhere but in their own churches.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

..but to discuss the underlying truths of how dumb atheists are

Let's see, you think a snake talked to a woman, a 900 year old man built a boat with all the land animals on it and survived a flood that didn't happen, a guy live three days inside of a fish/whale, and that a dead guy on a stick is the saviour of the world, and yet atheists are the stupid ones?

ROFLMAO. Thanks. I needed one.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

No re-direction needed. I certainly did not post this as fact, but to discuss the underlying truths of how dumb atheists are.

I know! I barely passed the second grade. This whole not believing in god thing makes my brain hurt too much to use it for much else!

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - care to show where it defines that separation you're mentioning?

Only the part where the author himself (Jefferson ) defined it as such. This is confirmed in both official letters, like the one to the Bey of Tripoli where he states:As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ..." and in unofficial letters like the one where he coins the phrase "wall of separation" as in "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State..." See http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html and http://www.auok.org/tripoli_treaty.htm for the full text. Also this has been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS. It was defined for purposes of case law in the "Lemon test" in 1971, which reads: ""First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion (citation omitted); finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." [The "Lemon Test", from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971]"


So, my question to is: Aren't you guys tired of being wrong? Not only wrong, but the kind of wrong that is embarrassing. The kind of wrong that only exposes an unmistakeable combination of both bias and stupidity. Doesn't that get old after a while?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Tink1717 2]

I did. It was the most convincing argument for atheism I've ever seen.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

... don't know why I keep expecting educated or logical responses when I have yet to get one.

Because you don't present anything that hasn't been thoroughly been destroyed before. Repeating dead arguments doesn't make them true.

Quote

I can present facts, logical arguements, and even references

OK, let's hear them. Oh, right, you don't have any.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

you guys are so much more alike than different

Except when it comes to things like blowing up clinics, killing doctors, crashing airplanes into buildings, rounding up innocents and torturing them and removing the civil rights of others. Then I am proud to be different from them.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[caress 0]

I got this joke also in my e mail which is where it should have stayed. It is mean to say such things about people who are walking around without belief in God, or Jesus Christ.
In the Bible it clearly states in Ephesians 4:29 thu 32 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion that it may impart grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderharted , forgiving one another as God in Christ forgave you.

To whom posted this-please stop coming at other people this way-You are destroying the path of the Lord into these peoples' lives by your deeds. For anyone who cares to know-I am a christian, and I personally would have never in a million years posted this to push in your faces so disrespectfully. -Caress

I've learned.... That being kind is more important than being
right.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - care to show where it defines that separation you're mentioning?

Only the part where the author himself (Jefferson ) defined it as such. This is confirmed in both official letters, like the one to the Bey of Tripoli where he states:As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ..." and in unofficial letters like the one where he coins the phrase "wall of separation" as in "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State..." See http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html and http://www.auok.org/tripoli_treaty.htm for the full text. Also this has been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS. It was defined for purposes of case law in the "Lemon test" in 1971, which reads: ""First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion (citation omitted); finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." [The "Lemon Test", from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971]"


So, my question to is: Aren't you guys tired of being wrong? Not only wrong, but the kind of wrong that is embarrassing. The kind of wrong that only exposes an unmistakeable combination of both bias and stupidity. Doesn't that get old after a while?

You tell me - you seem to specialize in it. In case you hadn't noticed - Jefferson's letters are NOT part of the amendment.

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

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

In case you hadn't noticed - Jefferson's letters are NOT part of the amendment.

Are you really that stupid?!?!?!? Jefferson's letter explains and defines what the establishment clause means. In the case of most arguments made in the Constitution we are left to interpret the meaning from the wording of the document itself, but in the case of the establishment clause, we have the words from the author explaining what he means. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

You guys DON'T get to establish an x-tian taliban. Not as long as there is a Constitution. Period.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

In case you hadn't noticed - Jefferson's letters are NOT part of the amendment.

Are you really that stupid?!?!?!? Jefferson's letter explains and defines what the establishment clause means. In the case of most arguments made in the Constitution we are left to interpret the meaning from the wording of the document itself, but in the case of the establishment clause, we have the words from the author explaining what he means. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Nice PA, bub.

Now, to get to the body of your screed...Jefferson's letters ALSO explain and define the second, yet there are laws that constrain it, just as there are laws that prevent you from yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

Now - if you have proof of Jefferson's writings being used as the BASIS of a Supreme Court case, and not as explanatory filler, trot 'em out.

Show me where the laws were written in response to use by religious groups - since you're such an expert, it should be easy for you to find.

Quote

You guys DON'T get to establish an x-tian taliban. Not as long as there is a Constitution. Period.

Dude - turn down the paranoia filter a bit - nobody is anywhere NEAR suggesting that, although the 'anti-Christian Taliban' seems to be quite well represented by yourself and others.

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

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Are you really that stupid?!?!?!? Jefferson's letter explains and defines what the establishment clause means.

Let's see if Supreme Court Justice Jefferson can explain your way out of this one....

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[billvon 3,070]

Your one warning.

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

Now - if you have proof of Jefferson's writings being used as the BASIS of a Supreme Court case, and not as explanatory filler, trot 'em out.

Let's see....( in no particular order)

1. School District of Abington TP. PA. v. Schempp/Murray v. Curlett, 1963
2. Lee v. Weisman 1992
3. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 1947
4. Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987
5. Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985
6.Boerne v. Flores, 1997

That ought to keep you busy for a while. What with all that reading and stuff.

Quote

..nobody is anywhere NEAR suggesting that, although the 'anti-Christian Taliban' seems to be quite well represented by yourself and others.

You, obviously, haven't been listening to what the whack jobs on the right have been saying. As for the "anti-christian taliban", I am a PROUD member.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[mnealtx 0]

School District of Abington v. Schempp/Murray -

Quote

Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15, the Court said that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

Lee v. Weisman 1992 -

Quote

The District Court enjoined petitioners from continuing the practice at issue on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

I'll look at the rest on Sunday when I'm back at work, but so far you're 0 for 2. Jefferson's letters != Establishment clause of the First Amendment.

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

[Butters 0]

Quote

School District of Abington v. Schempp/Murray -

Quote

Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15, the Court said that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

But the government has passed laws which aid one religion and which create a preference for one religion over another (which I've already given references too). So, while the government hasn't directly endorsed a national religion they have indirectly endorsed a national religion ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

you guys are so much more alike than different

Except when it comes to things like blowing up clinics, killing doctors, crashing airplanes into buildings, rounding up innocents and torturing them and removing the civil rights of others. Then I am proud to be different from them.

I'm proud to not be part of the extreme fringe of any group, in addition to religious groups, as well. You non-sequitor is interesting, but pointless.

please note I wrote "extreme" not "eXtReMe" - I like Mt. Dew

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

As for the "anti-christian taliban", I am a PROUD member.

is that Anti "christian-taliban"
or "Anti-christian" taliban

because I've met people from both

I'm sure more mainline christian would join the first one too. No one likes extremists defining their own group.

The second group - antichristian fanatics - seems a goofy choice to make, but you see them, too - they have an almost "religious" fanaticism.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

School District of Abington v. Schempp/Murray -

Quote

Second, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15, the Court said that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

But the government has passed laws which aid one religion and which create a preference for one religion over another (which I've already given references too). So, while the government hasn't directly endorsed a national religion they have indirectly endorsed a national religion ...

FYI - the Indians have successfully fought those laws in court, so the law obviously was not crafted to affect the religion.

Question - do you also think that the gov't is infringing on free speech with laws prohibiting shouting 'fire' in crowded venues?

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