Seniors sue over Religious Freedom

[onajourney87]

So called "removing all religion from the state" is impossible. Why? Because that would mean the state is 100% pushing Athiesm(possibly agnosticism too).

osm

 

[Wolseley]

I wouldnt let the aclu help me out of a burning building. I dont throw in with satan.

as for the op, this is disgusting. This country is in shambles and I cant wait to depart it. My citizenship is in Heaven and this country is going down the toilet.

You and I both, brother. I figure I have about 30 years left on this degenerated little planet, and then I will be dead and gone.

I am looking forward to it. I will be absolutely delighted to leave.

As for the Ack-Loo, I wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire.

 

[burrow_owl]

So called "removing all religion from the state" is impossible. Why? Because that would mean the state is 100% pushing Athiesm(possibly agnosticism too).

what a....strange thing to say.

not mentioning god = support of atheism? huh. so when you're watching a movie you're supporting atheism because you're not talking about God?

isn't the more reasonable interpretation just that a movie theatre isn't a proper forum for talking about god? the same would be true of government, many would say - government just isn't the proper forum for talking about god.

to put it differently, your logic is flawed. we would expect that an atheist government wouldn't mention god (actually, one would expect that an atheist gvt. would mention god in order to discredit the idea, but whatever...).

I suppose this is your reasoning:
If it's an atheist gvt., then it won't mention god.

That government doesn't mention god.

Therefore, that government is atheist.

That's invalid reasoning.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You and I both, brother. I figure I have about 30 years left on this degenerated little planet, and then I will be dead and gone.

I am looking forward to it. I will be absolutely delighted to leave.

Nothing to live for? Nothing but death?

How sad....

As for the Ack-Loo, I wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire.

Well then, should they ever catch fire, we'll be sure to contact someone who gives a d*mn

 

[Philosoft]

Noddingdog, would you mind indicating which post(s) your warning is in reference to? I'm not sure I see anything vulgar or blasphemous.

 

[ByGrace]

Nothing to live for? Nothing but death?

How sad....

It is not that this life is not a wonderful gift from God but knowing what lies ahead is such a draw. I have to remind myself to live life and just be ready for what is coming when it comes instead of just waiting for only that. I know that God wants me to enjoy this life and I do just that but I am excited to go Home too. Hope to see you there.

 

[ByGrace]

Noddingdog, would you mind indicating which post(s) your warning is in reference to? I'm not sure I see anything vulgar or blasphemous.

There was a post a while back that was blasphemous toward Jesus. Post #8. It has been edited, Thank you V.

 

[Stormy]

I am with Grandma!

This makes me mad too!!!

 

[onajourney87]

not mentioning god = support of atheism? huh. so when you're watching a movie you're supporting atheism because you're not talking about God?

isn't the more reasonable interpretation just that a movie theatre isn't a proper forum for talking about god? the same would be true of government, many would say - government just isn't the proper forum for talking about god.

Not quite. I'm talking more broadly. According to the article posted, it's considered wrong to have a preacher in a government funded building talking about God. According to many principles at public schools, taking a Bible to school, or praying is wrong(though this is unconstitutional and there are groups out there ready to help students fight such principles). I'm talking about the government that says "no one can say God, talk about Him, etc in a government owned area". In doing so, what is happening? They are banning one religion(Christianity), but not banning another(athiesm). What does that leave us with? The promotion, possibly unintentional, of atheism.

I suppose this is your reasoning:
If it's an atheist gvt., then it won't mention god.

That government doesn't mention god.

Therefore, that government is atheist.

No that's not my reasoning as I tried to make clear above.

osm

 

[Wolseley]

Nothing to live for? Nothing but death?

How sad....

Everything to live for.....just not in this world.

The only purpose for existance in this world is to prepare yourself for the next one.

You're only going to be here for 70, 80 years at average; 100 and some-odd if you're fortunate. Big deal.

But the next one lasts for eternity.

Eternity is a long time.

 

[burrow_owl]

"They are banning one religion(Christianity), but not banning another(athiesm). "

the only area in which you can make that case is the teaching of evolution in school, which even if one accepts the premise that atheism is just another religion, is an incredibly small portion of public life.

 

[Philosoft]

According to the article posted, it's considered wrong to have a preacher in a government funded building talking about God.

Without giving equal time to all other religions.

According to many principles at public schools, taking a Bible to school, or praying is wrong(though this is unconstitutional and there are groups out there ready to help students fight such principles).

So if these principals are acting individually as renegade religio-phobes, why is this an issue?

I'm talking about the government that says "no one can say God, talk about Him, etc in a government owned area".

Obviously, the government does not say this. I can walk into the local courthouse and have a conversation about the Noachian Flood with a court reporter. Only those whose speech might reasonably be construed as official policy are limited in their ability to evangelize.

In doing so, what is happening? They are banning one religion(Christianity), but not banning another(athiesm). What does that leave us with? The promotion, possibly unintentional, of atheism.

So not talking about Christianity is equal to promoting atheism? In what bizarre logic universe? Is my Zoology professor promoting atheism by not mentioning God in lecture?

 

[Brimshack]

I'm curious as to why those of you on the conservative side would squander a reasonable argument in which sympathy for your case is bound to be very strong on a series of petty attacks. What is more important to you, calling liberals commies and expressing hatred for the ACLU or making a point about the proper place of religion in public discourse? Whether or not this particular action is a reasonable application of anti-establishment principles ought to be the issue in this thread. It occupies less than half of the discussion.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Everything to live for.....just not in this world.

The only purpose for existance in this world is to prepare yourself for the next one.

And how exactly are we "preparing" for the next world?

Perfecting ourselves for heaven? The doctrine of Original Sin states that it is our very existence in this world which taints us.

If we are born into sin, and our purpose is to expel that sin, why be born in the first place?

Think of a soul like a set of fine silverware: If it's purpose is to have a perfect shine in its display case, then who in their right mind is going to use it to serve sloppy Joes?

You're only going to be here for 70, 80 years at average; 100 and some-odd if you're fortunate. Big deal.

But the next one lasts for eternity.

Makes this little pit stop on the road to eternity sound that much more pointless...

 

[onajourney87]

Oops! I meant to say in the last part of the post that that was not my reasoning.

osm

 

[Wolseley]

And how exactly are we "preparing" for the next world?

For Christians, it consists of following the commands that Christ gave us.

Perfecting ourselves for heaven?

We can't perfect ourselves for anything. That's why we need a Savior.

The doctrine of Original Sin states that it is our very existence in this world which taints us.

I quite agree. That's why we need a Savior.

If we are born into sin, and our purpose is to expel that sin, why be born in the first place?

Our purpose here is not to expel sin. Our purpose here is to know, love and serve God.

Makes this little pit stop on the road to eternity sound that much more pointless...

It certainly does. We are only here to prepare for the next world. Whatever we do here for the benefit of man, acting in the charity of God, will count for something. Everything else that happens here is meaningless.

 

[Lillithspeak]

Don't get your panties all in a twist, if they want to dance to gospel music, I'm sure they can, despite your howlings.

If they want to hear a preacher, they can go to church, that's why it's there. I don't go to the car repair shop to hear philosophy 203 taught and I don't expect anyone else does either. Everything in it's proper context. Sheesh, take a deep breath.

 

[ThePhoenix]

You and I both, brother. I figure I have about 30 years left on this degenerated little planet, and then I will be dead and gone.

I am looking forward to it. I will be absolutely delighted to leave.

As for the Ack-Loo, I wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire.

As has been often noted, the christian love here is overwhelming. Your comment is honestly painful to me, and I would like you to know that it is comments like that and people like you that made me question (and for a while reject) my faith.

 

[Lillithspeak]

It is not that this life is not a wonderful gift from God but knowing what lies ahead is such a draw. I have to remind myself to live life and just be ready for what is coming when it comes instead of just waiting for only that. I know that God wants me to enjoy this life and I do just that but I am excited to go Home too. Hope to see you there.

Well, hey, don't let us hold you back.