The Fight Is At Your Doorstep: Who're You Standing For?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brother Christman

Constitution Party->11.04
Jun 26, 2003
744
4
53
TX, USA
Visit site
✟15,914.00
Faith
Baptist
Mechanical Bliss said:
The opening post is nothing but paranoid and delusional blather full of hatred and bigotry advocating that homosexuals be denied equal treatment under the law whereas Christians be given special treatment by the law to use the government to force their religion to be used as an oppressive force against a group of people.
Interesting spin, comrade. ;)

In all seriousness, I believe it's those who most hate Christianity - perhaps because of a conviction's nagging within their own consciences - that work hardest to slander the faithful as "full of hatred and bigotry". It's irritating to be reminded or right and wrong when you've spent ages in darkness, I'd guess. That obligates all the more to shine our lights, though.

Here's a shocker for those who'd rather believe mine is a God of hate: While homosexuality is wrong, I know that He loves homosexuals along with liars, thieves, philanderers... you-name-it. As I've said, though (and I believe we concur), there's a great deal of difference between those who arrogantly adopt immorality as a "lifestyle" (while persecuting those who don't buy it) and those who're truly repentent. Only the latter will be saved.

Godzman: I don't believe it's bigotted and neither was it intended to be (thanks for the benefit of the doubt, bro).

I have no desire to offend, but Christ came both to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. I'm not about to shrink back from declaring the truth.
 
Upvote 0

Godzman

Peace
Sep 8, 2003
2,543
63
39
Central Bible College
✟10,549.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sociopath4Jesus said:
it doesn't matter if it is in a public place and wont disrupt the peace and cause harm it should be allowed.

Freedom of speech goes both ways.


For the umpteenth time, Santa Fe was an establishment clause case, and has nothing to do with free speech. Read a case or two before you start commenting on them.
I have a problem with the idea that, the establishment clause is even in the constitution, who was establishing a religion, the government clearly wasn't
 
Upvote 0

Godzman

Peace
Sep 8, 2003
2,543
63
39
Central Bible College
✟10,549.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sociopath4Jesus said:
I also think that the freedom of religion establishment clause is not neccesarily a bad things but is poorly defended by the first amendment.

What the?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.htmlBill of Rights

Amendment I



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, there was no law involved, and the free exercise seem to have been prohibitted.
 
Upvote 0
Godzman, this isn't 1791 anymore. We have a little thing called the 14th Amendment now, which incorporates the 1st Amendment against the states and municipalities, and by extension all their representatives in their official capacities. And government actors, in their official capacities, do not enjoy "free exercise" privileges.
 
Upvote 0

Godzman

Peace
Sep 8, 2003
2,543
63
39
Central Bible College
✟10,549.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sociopath4Jesus said:
It doesn't say establishing a religion, it says "respecting an establishment of religion."

I take back what I said about reading the cases. Try reading the Constitution first.
what does the establishement clause say
 
Upvote 0

draper

Perspicacious Poster
Jul 5, 2003
4,323
219
34
Toronto, Canada
✟20,634.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
CA-Others
Godzman said:
it doesn't matter if it is in a public place and wont disrupt the peace and cause harm it should be allowed.

Freedom of speech goes both ways.
I'm not saying someone can't pray at a football game. But having a prayer on the PA system & expecting everyone to join in is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Brother Christman

Constitution Party->11.04
Jun 26, 2003
744
4
53
TX, USA
Visit site
✟15,914.00
Faith
Baptist
Sociopath4Jesus said:
I take back what I said about reading the cases. Try reading the Constitution first.
A common theme among responses on this and other issues where Judeo-Christianity's concerned today: If you're refuted by the faithful, assert that they don't understand the Constitution as well as you do. Disagreement, it's presumed, means you're a potato with mouse-clicking skills. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

Godzman

Peace
Sep 8, 2003
2,543
63
39
Central Bible College
✟10,549.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sociopath4Jesus said:
Godzman, this isn't 1791 anymore. We have a little thing called the 14th Amendment now, which incorporates the 1st Amendment against the states and municipalities, and by extension all their representatives in their official capacities. And government actors, in their official capacities, do not enjoy "free exercise" privileges.
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment



Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

Amendment Text | Annotations



[size=+1]Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[/size]
 
Upvote 0

Godzman

Peace
Sep 8, 2003
2,543
63
39
Central Bible College
✟10,549.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
draper said:
I'm not saying someone can't pray at a football game. But having a prayer on the PA system & expecting everyone to join in is wrong.
I never expected anyone to join, and if someone can use the PA system for other forms of speech that people disagree with what about a prayer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
A common theme among responses on this and other issues where Judeo-Christianity's concerned today: If you're refuted by the faithful, assert that they don't understand the Constitution as well as you do.

It's painfully obvious he doesn't. Furthermore he's criticizing a case he's never read. And so were you, incidentally, with your reference to Lemon v. Kurtzman, and your nonsensical take on Lawrence v. Texas. I highly doubt you've read any of those cases. You're free to prove me wrong however.
 
Upvote 0

draper

Perspicacious Poster
Jul 5, 2003
4,323
219
34
Toronto, Canada
✟20,634.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
CA-Others
Godzman said:
I never expected anyone to join, and if someone can use the PA system for other forms of speech that people disagree with what about a prayer.
What forms of speech?

"pass complete to number 64, second down and 4" ?

At worst they do advertisements for companies. There's a difference between advertising a product and endorsing a movement on the PA system.

If praying is so important to you, just go and say it independently.
 
Upvote 0

Godzman

Peace
Sep 8, 2003
2,543
63
39
Central Bible College
✟10,549.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Sociopath4Jesus said:
A common theme among responses on this and other issues where Judeo-Christianity's concerned today: If you're refuted by the faithful, assert that they don't understand the Constitution as well as you do.

It's painfully obvious he doesn't. Furthermore he's criticizing a case he's never read. And so were you, incidentally, with your reference to Lemon v. Kurtzman, and your nonsensical take on Lawrence v. Texas. I highly doubt you've read any of those cases. You're free to prove me wrong however.
I never even mentioned the case, I was just showing the double standard that has been set.

I think it is unfair for prayer to be disallowed in the public, while other controversial speech allowed
 
Upvote 0

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
Brother Christman said:
Interesting spin, comrade. ;)
No spin was involved. That's exactly what you are advocating.

In all seriousness, I believe it's those who most hate Christianity
I don't hate Christianity; I hate irrational bigotry.

- perhaps because of a conviction's nagging within their own consciences -
Nope. There simply is no reason to believe that Christianity is true or is any more valid than, say, Islam, or any other religion. There is no evidence to suggest any god exists in the first place. It has nothing to do with my conscience.

that work hardest to slander the faithful as "full of hatred and bigotry".
It's not slander. You want homosexuals to be treated unequally under the law because your religion says so. Sorry, but the right isn't yours to actually do so.

It's irritating to be reminded or right and wrong when you've spent ages in darkness, I'd guess.
Obviously I'm not the one living in the dark ages when I believe in equality for all citizens so long as their rights do not infringe on the rights of others. Homosexuals' rights would not in any way infringe upon your rights. You want to infringe on their rights.

It's up to you to believe homosexuality is wrong even though there really is no reason why. It's not up to you to use the government to promote your religion and discriminate against a group of people you hate.
 
Upvote 0

Brother Christman

Constitution Party->11.04
Jun 26, 2003
744
4
53
TX, USA
Visit site
✟15,914.00
Faith
Baptist
We're getting way off-topic, but...

Godzman said:
I never expected anyone to join, and if someone can use the PA system for other forms of speech that people disagree with what about a prayer.
Instead of allowing alien minorities to bully the people of the United States through federal legislation, we should apply real democracy: Let parents vote (i.e. by permission slip or at a PTA meeting) on the matter. If a majority want a prayer, let the rest arrive a few minutes later.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Godzman

Peace
Sep 8, 2003
2,543
63
39
Central Bible College
✟10,549.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
draper said:
What forms of speech?

"pass complete to number 64, second down and 4" ?

At worst they do advertisements for companies. There's a difference between advertising a product and endorsing a movement on the PA system.

If praying is so important to you, just go and say it independently.
not that I wouldn't, but people endorse things all the time. People are ok until religion is being endorsed, not by the school but by the individual, they have disclaimers on everything else they can have a disclaimer for that.
 
Upvote 0
I never even mentioned the case ...

You didn't need to. All you had to say was prayer in a football stadium. I know which case you're referring to, albeit fifth hand.

.. I was just showing the double standard that has been set.

And you have been told now several times that the establishment clause is a separate issue from free speech. Yet you don't seem to want to pay attention to that fact. Because here you are again, referring to some "double standard" that, by definition, cannot exist.

I think it is unfair for prayer to be disallowed in the public, while other controversial speech allowed

That's because you don't understand what's going on here. Prayer in public is not disallowed per se, government-sponsored and government-endorsed prayer is violative of the establishment clause. Do you understand this?
 
Upvote 0

draper

Perspicacious Poster
Jul 5, 2003
4,323
219
34
Toronto, Canada
✟20,634.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
CA-Others
Godzman said:
not that I wouldn't, but people endorse things all the time. People are ok until religion is being endorsed, not by the school but by the individual, they have disclaimers on everything else they can have a disclaimer for that.
There's a BIG difference between endorsing a minor football league, or endorsing a new type of cleaning product, and a religion.

Face it, religion offends some people and is considered a waste of time to some people, and it also disrupts some people's experiences. So, it's not acceptable for a secual event. If it were a Christian football league, sure.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.