On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 06:39:06 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure. And Trump sells bibles because he's so religious.
Not being American I am continually mystified how American
evangelicals feel about Trump given his marital history which isn't
exactly what they promote. I confess I was disappointed by how quickly
Nikki Haley was swept aside since the GOP have to get past Trump to
move back to center-right where they really do need to be.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 06:39:06 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure. And Trump sells bibles because he's so religious.
Not being American I am continually mystified how American
evangelicals feel about Trump given his marital history which isn't
exactly what they promote. I confess I was disappointed by how quickly >>Nikki Haley was swept aside since the GOP have to get past Trump to
move back to center-right where they really do need to be.
Why? Many Christians want religious doctrine imposed in law and feel
like moviePig about the First Amendment. They want religion established
in their favor and would not allow the free exercise of other religions. >Trump made that political deal with McConnell to get federal judges
appointed who would use religious interpretation of statute and the >constitution.
They don't give a shit about Trump's personal morality. He's a means to
an end.
This is why I object to people like Mike Pence and Nikki Haley who
reject neutrality of civil law with respect to religion. It's a very
serious problem when it comes to certain forms of worship in which
imposing religion upon others is an important part of their religious
belief. Yeah, well, they get to freely exercise religion within their
own homes and congregations but they MUST NOT prevent anyone else from
freely exercising his own religion.
What has caused more war and a greater loss of life than forced
religious conversion? Nothing is more evil.
Fri, 5 Apr 2024 18:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 06:39:06 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
Sure. And Trump sells bibles because he's so religious.
Not being American I am continually mystified how American
evangelicals feel about Trump given his marital history which isn't >>>exactly what they promote. I confess I was disappointed by how quickly >>>Nikki Haley was swept aside since the GOP have to get past Trump to
move back to center-right where they really do need to be.
Why? Many Christians want religious doctrine imposed in law and feel
like moviePig about the First Amendment. They want religion established
in their favor and would not allow the free exercise of other religions. >>Trump made that political deal with McConnell to get federal judges >>appointed who would use religious interpretation of statute and the >>constitution.
They don't give a shit about Trump's personal morality. He's a means to
an end.
This is why I object to people like Mike Pence and Nikki Haley who
reject neutrality of civil law with respect to religion. It's a very >>serious problem when it comes to certain forms of worship in which
imposing religion upon others is an important part of their religious >>belief. Yeah, well, they get to freely exercise religion within their
own homes and congregations but they MUST NOT prevent anyone else from >>freely exercising his own religion.
What has caused more war and a greater loss of life than forced
religious conversion? Nothing is more evil.
I only want to be free to pursue my own - I don't want the state
dictating that anybody else do anything they themselves don't want to
do. Nor the state dictating what I do in the matter of faith.
I'm pretty sure that was the view of both the Founding Fathers and
succeeding legislators to this day.
"We've always led attendees in prayer during ceremonies of the public
high school. Why cannot we continue to offer a prayer at the upcoming graduation?"
It's unconstitutional to do so even though those who want public prayer
are restricted from freely exercising their own religion.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
"We've always led attendees in prayer during ceremonies of the public
high school. Why cannot we continue to offer a prayer at the upcoming >>graduation?"
It's unconstitutional to do so even though those who want public prayer
are restricted from freely exercising their own religion.
But the problem comes when they try and censor the valedictorian from >mentioning her faith and how it helped her achieve her goals. (As
several courts have done over the years.) The Constitution does not
prohibit the mere mention of religion in public spaces.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
"We've always led attendees in prayer during ceremonies of the public >>high school. Why cannot we continue to offer a prayer at the upcoming >>graduation?"
It's unconstitutional to do so even though those who want public prayer >>are restricted from freely exercising their own religion.
But the problem comes when they try and censor the valedictorian from >mentioning her faith and how it helped her achieve her goals. (As
several courts have done over the years.) The Constitution does not >prohibit the mere mention of religion in public spaces.
As long as she doesn't lead the congregation in prayer, I don't see how
a bright line has been crossed about either Establishment or Free
Exercise.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
"We've always led attendees in prayer during ceremonies of the public >>>>high school. Why cannot we continue to offer a prayer at the upcoming >>>>graduation?"
It's unconstitutional to do so even though those who want public prayer >>>>are restricted from freely exercising their own religion.
But the problem comes when they try and censor the valedictorian from >>>mentioning her faith and how it helped her achieve her goals. (As
several courts have done over the years.) The Constitution does not >>>prohibit the mere mention of religion in public spaces.
As long as she doesn't lead the congregation in prayer, I don't see how
a bright line has been crossed about either Establishment or Free
Exercise.
There was also the case of the kid who liked to sit quietly and read his >bible during lunch hour. The rabid separation-of-church-and-staters
running his school had a fit and prohibited him from even possessing his >bible on school grounds. They were given an expensive education by a
federal court on how blinkered their view of the law was.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
"We've always led attendees in prayer during ceremonies of the public >>>>high school. Why cannot we continue to offer a prayer at the upcoming >>>>graduation?"
It's unconstitutional to do so even though those who want public prayer >>>>are restricted from freely exercising their own religion.
But the problem comes when they try and censor the valedictorian from >>>mentioning her faith and how it helped her achieve her goals. (As >>>several courts have done over the years.) The Constitution does not >>>prohibit the mere mention of religion in public spaces.
As long as she doesn't lead the congregation in prayer, I don't see how
a bright line has been crossed about either Establishment or Free >>Exercise.
There was also the case of the kid who liked to sit quietly and read his >bible during lunch hour. The rabid separation-of-church-and-staters
running his school had a fit and prohibited him from even possessing his >bible on school grounds. They were given an expensive education by a >federal court on how blinkered their view of the law was.
I've given an example from my own life. I once took a bible study class
from Board of Jewish Education at my high school. They kept supplies in
a large closet that didn't have their name on it. It was taught in a classroom after school. It wasn't the public high school imposing
religion, but there was religion taking place in a public building as a private activity.
In school choir and orchestra, we played religious music. Christian, of course.
None of this is related to what I was talking about, like opening the graduation ceremony or football game or homeroom with a prayer. That's
what some Christians want, the ability to impose religion upon the
public that hasn't got a choice but to sit through it.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
"We've always led attendees in prayer during ceremonies of the public >>>>>>high school. Why cannot we continue to offer a prayer at the upcoming >>>>>>graduation?"
It's unconstitutional to do so even though those who want public prayer >>>>>>are restricted from freely exercising their own religion.
But the problem comes when they try and censor the valedictorian from >>>>>mentioning her faith and how it helped her achieve her goals. (As >>>>>several courts have done over the years.) The Constitution does not >>>>>prohibit the mere mention of religion in public spaces.
As long as she doesn't lead the congregation in prayer, I don't see how >>>>a bright line has been crossed about either Establishment or Free >>>>Exercise.
There was also the case of the kid who liked to sit quietly and read his >>>bible during lunch hour. The rabid separation-of-church-and-staters >>>running his school had a fit and prohibited him from even possessing his >>>bible on school grounds. They were given an expensive education by a >>>federal court on how blinkered their view of the law was.
I've given an example from my own life. I once took a bible study class >>from Board of Jewish Education at my high school. They kept supplies in
a large closet that didn't have their name on it. It was taught in a >>classroom after school. It wasn't the public high school imposing
religion, but there was religion taking place in a public building as a >>private activity.
In school choir and orchestra, we played religious music. Christian, of >>course.
Mozart' Requiem is 'religious music'. So is Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus"
and John Williams' "The Holy Grail" from LAST CRUSADE and his "Star of >Bethlehem" from HOME ALONE. As long as the music is not played as part
of a religious ceremony, there's nothing unconstitutional about a high
school orchestra playing those pieces.
None of this is related to what I was talking about, like opening the >>graduation ceremony or football game or homeroom with a prayer. That's
what some Christians want, the ability to impose religion upon the
public that hasn't got a choice but to sit through it.
In article <uusjjb$2b8ao$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
"We've always led attendees in prayer during ceremonies of the public >>>>>> high school. Why cannot we continue to offer a prayer at the upcoming >>>>>> graduation?"
It's unconstitutional to do so even though those who want public prayer >>>>>> are restricted from freely exercising their own religion.
But the problem comes when they try and censor the valedictorian from >>>>> mentioning her faith and how it helped her achieve her goals. (As
several courts have done over the years.) The Constitution does not
prohibit the mere mention of religion in public spaces.
As long as she doesn't lead the congregation in prayer, I don't see how >>>> a bright line has been crossed about either Establishment or Free
Exercise.
There was also the case of the kid who liked to sit quietly and read his >>> bible during lunch hour. The rabid separation-of-church-and-staters
running his school had a fit and prohibited him from even possessing his >>> bible on school grounds. They were given an expensive education by a
federal court on how blinkered their view of the law was.
I've given an example from my own life. I once took a bible study class
from Board of Jewish Education at my high school. They kept supplies in
a large closet that didn't have their name on it. It was taught in a
classroom after school. It wasn't the public high school imposing
religion, but there was religion taking place in a public building as a
private activity.
In school choir and orchestra, we played religious music. Christian, of
course.
Mozart' Requiem is 'religious music'. So is Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus"
and John Williams' "The Holy Grail" from LAST CRUSADE and his "Star of Bethlehem" from HOME ALONE. As long as the music is not played as part
of a religious ceremony, there's nothing unconstitutional about a high
school orchestra playing those pieces.
None of this is related to what I was talking about, like opening the
graduation ceremony or football game or homeroom with a prayer. That's
what some Christians want, the ability to impose religion upon the
public that hasn't got a choice but to sit through it.
There was also the case of the kid who liked to sit quietly and read his >bible during lunch hour. The rabid separation-of-church-and-staters
running his school had a fit and prohibited him from even possessing his >bible on school grounds. They were given an expensive education by a
federal court on how blinkered their view of the law was.
You're missing my point. The people who want to impose religion upon
civil life want to do so through legislation and the courts, and they
have failed at times, succeeded at other times.
Under such circumstances, in order for the state to remain neutral on >religion, it must prevent such people from imposing religious doctrine
upon others. Those who are so restrict are not freely exercising
religion given that they do not believe that other people are free to
have their own creed.
"We've always led attendees in prayer during ceremonies of the public
high school. Why cannot we continue to offer a prayer at the upcoming >graduation?"
It's unconstitutional to do so even though those who want public prayer
are restricted from freely exercising their own religion.
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:17:16 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
You're missing my point. The people who want to impose religion upon
civil life want to do so through legislation and the courts, and they
have failed at times, succeeded at other times.
As well they should have. As opposed to the kid reading his Bible in
the cafeteria at lunch silently and alone.
Under such circumstances, in order for the state to remain neutral on
religion, it must prevent such people from imposing religious doctrine
upon others. Those who are so restrict are not freely exercising
religion given that they do not believe that other people are free to
have their own creed.
Agreed. I have my own beliefs and while I'd be delighted to see more
folks adopt them the public square is not the place to encourage them
to do so.
"We've always led attendees in prayer during ceremonies of the public
high school. Why cannot we continue to offer a prayer at the upcoming
graduation?"
It's unconstitutional to do so even though those who want public prayer
are restricted from freely exercising their own religion.
While Christianity by its nature is expansionist (Jesus' last words
are said to have been 'go forth and make disciples of all nations')
there are definitely places where it's appropriate and others where
its not. Part of being a mature human being is understanding what's appropriate and what's not in all sorts of situations in life. And to
know there are situations where you have to work out the solutions on
general principles.
That's why my dog's collar includes a role of small plastic bags and
why I am grateful to reach a 'bear bin' on the course of his walk.
Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:17:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
You're missing my point. The people who want to impose religion upon
civil life want to do so through legislation and the courts, and they
have failed at times, succeeded at other times.
As well they should have.
As opposed to the kid reading his Bible in the cafeteria at lunch
silently and alone.
Under such circumstances, in order for the state to remain neutral on >>religion, it must prevent such people from imposing religious doctrine
upon others. Those who are so restrict are not freely exercising
religion given that they do not believe that other people are free to
have their own creed.
Agreed. I have my own beliefs and while I'd be delighted to see more
folks adopt them the public square is not the place to encourage them
to do so.
"We've always led attendees in prayer during ceremonies of the public
high school. Why cannot we continue to offer a prayer at the upcoming >>graduation?"
It's unconstitutional to do so even though those who want public prayer
are restricted from freely exercising their own religion.
While Christianity by its nature is expansionist (Jesus' last words
are said to have been 'go forth and make disciples of all nations')
there are definitely places where it's appropriate and others where
its not. Part of being a mature human being is understanding what's >appropriate and what's not in all sorts of situations in life. And to
know there are situations where you have to work out the solutions on
general principles.
That's why my dog's collar includes a role of small plastic bags and
why I am grateful to reach a 'bear bin' on the course of his walk.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:17:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
You're missing my point. The people who want to impose religion upon
civil life want to do so through legislation and the courts, and they
have failed at times, succeeded at other times.
As well they should have.
Laws restricting or making abortion illegal are an example of success in imposing religion in civil life.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:17:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
You're missing my point. The people who want to impose religion upon >>>>civil life want to do so through legislation and the courts, and they >>>>have failed at times, succeeded at other times.
As well they should have.
Laws restricting or making abortion illegal are an example of success in >>imposing religion in civil life.
Only if you believe it's impossible to believe abortion is murder unless
you also believe in religion/god/supernatural etc.
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:17:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
You're missing my point. The people who want to impose religion upon >>>>> civil life want to do so through legislation and the courts, and they >>>>> have failed at times, succeeded at other times.
As well they should have.
Laws restricting or making abortion illegal are an example of success in >>> imposing religion in civil life.
Only if you believe it's impossible to believe abortion is murder unless
you also believe in religion/god/supernatural etc.
Unless some state finally got a law passed defining human life beginning
at conception, then no homicide has taken place. If it's not homicide,
then it's not murder.
Apr 7, 2024 at 11:53:47 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:17:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
You're missing my point. The people who want to impose religion upon >>>>>>civil life want to do so through legislation and the courts, and they >>>>>>have failed at times, succeeded at other times.
As well they should have.
Laws restricting or making abortion illegal are an example of success in >>>>imposing religion in civil life.
Only if you believe it's impossible to believe abortion is murder unless >>>you also believe in religion/god/supernatural etc.
Unless some state finally got a law passed defining human life beginning
at conception, then no homicide has taken place. If it's not homicide,
then it's not murder.
The point is, it doesn't take a belief in a supernatural sky-tyrant for a >state to make the determination that life begins at conception.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 7, 2024 at 11:53:47 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:17:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
You're missing my point. The people who want to impose religion upon >>>>>>> civil life want to do so through legislation and the courts, and they >>>>>>> have failed at times, succeeded at other times.
As well they should have.
Laws restricting or making abortion illegal are an example of success in >>>>> imposing religion in civil life.
Only if you believe it's impossible to believe abortion is murder unless >>>> you also believe in religion/god/supernatural etc.
Unless some state finally got a law passed defining human life beginning >>> at conception, then no homicide has taken place. If it's not homicide,
then it's not murder.
The point is, it doesn't take a belief in a supernatural sky-tyrant for a
state to make the determination that life begins at conception.
HUMAN life
Since common law, an unborn child cannot inherit, and only a child born
alive inherits. No one recognized that human life began at conception.
It was never the law.
On Apr 7, 2024 at 4:34:36 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 7, 2024 at 11:53:47 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>>>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:17:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
You're missing my point. The people who want to impose religion upon >>>>>>>>civil life want to do so through legislation and the courts, and they >>>>>>>>have failed at times, succeeded at other times.
As well they should have.
Laws restricting or making abortion illegal are an example of success in >>>>>>imposing religion in civil life.
Only if you believe it's impossible to believe abortion is murder unless >>>>>you also believe in religion/god/supernatural etc.
Unless some state finally got a law passed defining human life beginning >>>>at conception, then no homicide has taken place. If it's not homicide, >>>>then it's not murder.
The point is, it doesn't take a belief in a supernatural sky-tyrant for a >>>state to make the determination that life begins at conception.
HUMAN life
Doesn't change anything. No belief in supernatural ghosts is required for a >legislature to make that determination.
Since common law, an unborn child cannot inherit, and only a child born >>alive inherits. No one recognized that human life began at conception.
It was never the law.
That doesn't mean the law can't change absent a belief in Quetzalcoatl.
HUMAN life
Since common law, an unborn child cannot inherit, and only a child born
alive inherits. No one recognized that human life began at conception.
It was never the law.
I'd be more impressed with an argument like that if it came from someone
who rejects religion. But of course it's coming only from those who
demand to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us.
On Apr 7, 2024 at 11:53:47 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:17:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
You're missing my point. The people who want to impose religion upon >>>>>> civil life want to do so through legislation and the courts, and they >>>>>> have failed at times, succeeded at other times.
As well they should have.
Laws restricting or making abortion illegal are an example of success in >>>> imposing religion in civil life.
Only if you believe it's impossible to believe abortion is murder unless >>> you also believe in religion/god/supernatural etc.
Unless some state finally got a law passed defining human life beginning
at conception, then no homicide has taken place. If it's not homicide,
then it's not murder.
The point is, it doesn't take a belief in a supernatural sky-tyrant for a state to make the determination that life begins at conception.
On Apr 7, 2024 at 4:34:36 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 7, 2024 at 11:53:47 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Sat, 6 Apr 2024 16:17:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>
You're missing my point. The people who want to impose religion upon >>>>>>>> civil life want to do so through legislation and the courts, and they >>>>>>>> have failed at times, succeeded at other times.
As well they should have.
Laws restricting or making abortion illegal are an example of success in >>>>>> imposing religion in civil life.
Only if you believe it's impossible to believe abortion is murder unless >>>>> you also believe in religion/god/supernatural etc.
Unless some state finally got a law passed defining human life beginning >>>> at conception, then no homicide has taken place. If it's not homicide, >>>> then it's not murder.
The point is, it doesn't take a belief in a supernatural sky-tyrant for a >>> state to make the determination that life begins at conception.
HUMAN life
Doesn't change anything. No belief in supernatural ghosts is required for a legislature to make that determination.
Since common law, an unborn child cannot inherit, and only a child born
alive inherits. No one recognized that human life began at conception.
It was never the law.
That doesn't mean the law can't change absent a belief in Quetzalcoatl.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 67:49:06 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,356,426 |