Not forcing religion.

[Divinus]

And don't forget the spirit - which is neuter - and the feminine images of God both in the bible and in Christian history.

 

[Mid]

You'll never hear a Christian refer to "God the Father and God the Son". They always refer to "God the Parent and God the Child"

I have never heard of any christian saying god the parent and god the child. THe majority of people (by far) in my life have been refering into the way that I have just mentioned. If this is wrong, why do they do it?

Fragments of dreams. This is something which makes sense to me (no offense, havoc) Since Jesus was male in life, they call him the son even though he does not live mortally now? Am I correct?

 

[Havoc]

Actually Mid, what I posted was satire...

Havoc

 

[Job_38]

Originally posted by Havoc
Warrior

Hmmm all those judges are idiots are they, because YOU say so? Their expertise and experience in matters of constitutional law are public record. Tell me please what education experience and expertise you have in dealing with constitutional law that gives you the credibility to be able to call them idiots? I'd speculate that the idiot is rather closer to your house than are those judges, perhaps as close as your bathroom mirror?

 

 As seeing they are the most overturned jury in the States, I see alot of credibility lost.

 

 

[Job_38]

""A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation under Jesus, a nation 'under Vishnu', a nation 'under Zeus', or a nation 'under no god', because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel. "

That itself is rather absurd and overused. Becasue God can be used for anything, you can substitute whatever you worship/believe in whether it be Allah, Vishnue, Jesus, or even the first single celled organisms that "started all life"

 

[Havoc]

Nice to know you consider yourself to be more expert in Consitutional Law than Judge Alfred T. Goodwin.

Will you be running for president next?

 

[coastie]

Originally posted by Havoc
Nice to know you consider yourself to be more expert in Consitutional Law than Judge Alfred T. Goodwin.

Will you be running for president next?

Tell me... what did this add to the discussion?

Anyway, I'll give you a really really abridged version of my point of view on this. I think that this was a hypertensive decision made at an Ultra-sensative juncture in this nation's history.

But let's face it, the people don't want to US to be under God anymore... as least I think they don't... wait, we didn't get to vote on it! How would anyone know what the majority wants?

Sheesh!

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Job_38
""A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation under Jesus, a nation 'under Vishnu', a nation 'under Zeus', or a nation 'under no god', because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel. "

That itself is rather absurd and overused.

On the contrary. It's quite well-reasoned, and a very balanced view that doesn't give Christianity any special privileges.

Becasue God can be used for anything, you can substitute whatever you worship/believe in whether it be Allah, Vishnue, Jesus, or even the first single celled organisms that "started all life"

Except that:

1.  no one has EVER used the word "God" in such a contrived and flexible way - your idea is silly on the face of it;

2.  it is abundantly obvious that the word "God" in this context is specifically referring to the J-C god (and thus a clear violation of the constitution) and

3.  your position is still a positive affirmation of faith, which would be infringement on a non-theist.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by coastie

Anyway, I'll give you a really really abridged version of my point of view on this. I think that this was a hypertensive decision made at an Ultra-sensative juncture in this nation's history.

I'll give you my view on it.  The Pledge of Allegiance did just fine for decades until 1954.  So did the USA.  In other words,there was no reason to insert the extra phrase "under God" in the first place.

But let's face it, the people don't want to US to be under God anymore... as least I think they don't... wait, we didn't get to vote on it! How would anyone know what the majority wants?

Sheesh!

Huh?  The majority already voted for it, centuries ago, when the states ratified the Constitution - the same Constitution that protects the rights of minorities against tyranny of the (religious) majority.

 

[Brimshack]

En Gaurde Coastie,

OK, I started to rehash some old arguments, but let me back up and just ask two questions:

1) What does it mean for the country to be "under God"?
2) Since this is a question about the Bill of Rights, which is explicitly intended as a set of restraints which prevent congress from enacting certain kinds of legislation, how is the principle of majority rule relevant to this decision?

 

[Gerry]

Ahhhhh Brim! Thanks! That is a question LOOOOOOONG overdue. A question it is high time we asked and answered. This is a question I will not care to debate in this forum, but it is a question I will be bringing up in "Christian Circles" all over this nation in the very near future.

Indeed, what does it mean for this nation be be "under God"?

 

[Job_38]

In reality, we are all under God. But in this case, I think it means what is said in the Declaration of Independence,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

But we see something else, that is not to force a religion upon someone. I don't see this as that, yet others will disagree. Because if we are to force Christianity upon people, the goverment force it, then there is none to say that in the future another may be forced upon us.

Hey Havoc, thanks for bringing up in the other thread of my bigotry, yet not rasism, because I blinded myself to the fact.

 

[Havoc]

Originally posted by Job_38
In reality, we are all under God.

Correction:

It is your belief that we are all under God. Reality may or may not be significantly different. Since no one, Christianity included, has any way to prove what the reality that answers that question is, we shall have to be content with what each of us believes the reality is.

Havoc

 

[Athlon4all]

I didnt vote in this poll because its set up. If I said that I thought forcing Christianity in schools is wrong, which I do, you would say I thought that saying under God in the pledge was wrong. Which its NOT! It does not in any way force christianity. The pledge says under GOD, not CHRIST. Islam believes in God, Rastafarian believes in God, Jews believe in God, even Pagans/Wiccans believe in Gods with one supreme God. It works out for everybody. You have to believe in Christ and God to be a christian. Oops, I almos forgot the atheists, you dont believe inn God. Well im awfuly sorry freind, but wether you like it or not the rest of the world DOES believe in God. Even we do say it, your entire argument immediatly crashes to the ground with a few simple words. You dont have to. In school, no one is forced to say the pledge. It is optional.

Well, I have this to say to you. Evolution and Humanism is forced in Public schools too. No matter what you think, the public school system is not religionless as people think it is. It just promotes in these days Humanism which is Anti-God (and I think Evolution is too, but thats another topic).

Originally posted by Havoc


Correction:

It is your belief that we are all under God. Reality may or may not be significantly different. Since no one, Christianity included, has any way to prove what the reality that answers that question is, we shall have to be content with what each of us believes the reality is.

Havoc

No, Job had it right the first time No, Christianity does have a way to prove it, the Word of God.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
Well, I have this to say to you. Evolution and Humanism is forced in Public schools too. No matter what you think, the public school system is not religionless as people think it is. It just promotes in these days Humanism which is Anti-God (and I think Evolution is too, but thats another topic).

Any public school that promotes that there is no god is as wrong and unlawful as one that promotes that there is a god. But I suspect that that is not what you are refering to. Most Christians making such a comment are acutally refering to the modern practice of not promoting Christianity or anyother faith or non-faith as promoting anti-christianity. Of course such conclusions are ludacris and tend to indicate that the believer does not think the faith is strong enough to stand on its own.

No, Job had it right the first time No, Christianity does have a way to prove it, the Word of God.

Which Word of God? The Christian, the Muslim, the Jewish, the Hindu, the Pagan, etc. Even in Christianity, there is more than one "Word of God." Which one is The Word of God (TM)? How do you know?

 

[Job_38]

Should we find the Declaration of Independence to be unconstituional and not allot it to be taught in schools?

 

[Mid]

Since when is evolution a religion?

(Scratches head confused)

 

[Job_38]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness


Yep, that sounds like evolution to me

 

[Brimshack]

Job:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17682&perpage=10&pagenumber=1

We turned to the Declaration on about post # 10.You can read it or ignore it is you like, I just don't feel like starting from scratch again.

 

[Havoc]

Originally posted by Athlon4all
No, Christianity does have a way to prove it, the Word of God.

Except that you don't have the word of God, you have a book which you believe is the word of God. Until you prove that the Bible is actually God's word you cannot use the Bible to prove anything about God.

Havoc