[Certified Drunk]

He said recently on his show, regarding the judges who declared
the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional:

"So, Your Honor, the Pledge is unconstitutional because it says
'Under God'. Guess that means when you were sworn in with
your hand on a Bible, and at the end of your oath repeated,
'So Help Me God' that makes your job unconstitutional,
therefore you HAVE no job, which means your ruling doesn't mean $hit."
NEXT!

 

[amateur]

thats a really good point, but i wouldnt give him credit for it...maybe his writers though.....................

 

[fourgivn1]

Hooray for the writers then, or Dennis Miller, if he really DID think it up. Even if he did it more to be irreverent than to declare support for the Pledge or what have you, it was still dang funny.

 

[Damn True]

Lol, classic!

 

[RideMonkey]

If I went to court I would not swear on the bible.

I would promise to tell the truth but they can't force me to acknowledge a God I don't believe in.

 

[Damn True]

gag

 

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by RideMonkey
If I went to court I would not swear on the bible.

I would promise to tell the truth but they can't force me to acknowledge a God I don't believe in.

You don't have to swear on a bible.

That's only on TV.

 

[The Toninator]

Originally posted by RideMonkey
If I went to court I would not swear on the bible.

I would promise to tell the truth but they can't force me to acknowledge a God I don't believe in.

i'm with you i wont do it eithor.

 

[fourgivn1]

I'd swear on a stack of bibles, and after the proceedings I'd run out and witness to every non-believer I saw in an obnoxious way.

 

[SVEN]

Originally posted by RideMonkey
If I went to court I would not swear on the bible.

I would promise to tell the truth but they can't force me to acknowledge a God I don't believe in.

That sounds like when a bratty teenage girl says "I won't take off this halter top mom, you can't make me do it. All the ladies, independent. Throw your hands up at me. All the mommas, makin' dollas, throw your hands up at me. I'll wear different boots, but you can't make me take off this midrift showing haltertop. im going to the mall, and you can't stop me."

 

[shifty S]

Originally posted by Zonic Man


You don't have to swear on a bible.

That's only on TV.

they do have you swear in and have you swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help [you] god"....buuuut i dont think they actually use bibles in most major courts. they might in some hcktowns tho

 

[RideMonkey]

Originally posted by SVEN



That sounds like when a bratty teenage girl says "I won't take off this halter top mom, you can't make me do it. All the ladies, independent. Throw your hands up at me. All the mommas, makin' dollas, throw your hands up at me. I'll wear different boots, but you can't make me take off this midrift showing haltertop. im going to the mall, and you can't stop me."

And thats why our founding father drafted the constitution and not you.

Edit: I take that back, it was too nice a response.

Separation of church and state are guaranteed in the constitution of this country. There was good reason it was written in. Some of us find this concept important. I would appreciate it if you would not belittle my opinions with your condescending tone and insulting comparisons.

 

[Zonic Man]

Originally posted by RideMonkey

Separation of church and state are guaranteed in the constitution of this country. There was good reason it was written in. Some of us find this concept important. I would appreciate it if you would not belittle my opinions with your condescending tone and insulting comparisons.

Can you point out the amendment or article to the constitution where this is stated?

I thought it was a judicial interpretation of the first amendment.

 

[SVEN]

Originally posted by RideMonkey


And thats why our founding father drafted the constitution and not you.

Edit: I take that back, it was too nice a response.

Separation of church and state are guaranteed in the constitution of this country. There was good reason it was written in. Some of us find this concept important. I would appreciate it if you would not belittle my opinions with your condescending tone and insulting comparisons.

Acyually, i just wanted to see what you would say. Sorry, I'm finished now. I just like to get a rise out of people every now and again, an old favorite pasttime. i find sick pleasure in insults and condescension, which in all honesty I realize I need to get over.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Zonic Man




I thought it was a judicial interpretation of the first amendment.

It is.

The existance of "separation of church and state" as a constitutionally protected issue is a common misconception.

 

[SVEN]

Originally posted by Damn True


It is.

The existance of "separation of church and state" as a constitutionally protected issue is a common misconception.

wow, thats good coffee table trivia. I find that very interesting.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Damn True


It is.

The existance of "separation of church and state" as a constitutionally protected issue is a common misconception.

Exactly. The entire reason this separation of church and state was added in the Constitution in the first place was NOT to KEEP anyone and everyone from doing something remotely related to Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or what have you. The words 'separation,' 'church' and 'state' aren't even IN the Constitution. I did a little looking to back up what I already though, and went here.

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

And yes, it's a 'Christian' page. This doesn't invalidate the research the people have done; I get that a lot. The phrase 'separation of church and state' came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, to ease their fears concerning a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was to become the national religion. They didn't want a repeat of the Church of England. They didn't want freedom FROM religion; they wanted freedom OF it. If anything, the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to PROTECT Christianity, not to banish it, and the freedom to not only pursue it, but disseminate Biblical values and teaching - even in *gasp* schools and stuff.

For the record, I don't think that Christianity - or Judaism or Islam or ANY religion, should EVER be the 'national' religion. I just get really tired when people misconstrue what the Constitution says, and twist it until they can somehow get it to say what they want.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by SVEN


wow, thats good coffee table trivia. I find that very interesting.

Hey, uh, Sven, about your 'sig.' It says: (emphasis mine)

No sig for me, thanks though. I'm trying to cut back. You know how it is, first one sig, then another, pretty soon your wife is pissed and your FIENDS have long since gone.

Personally, I would WANT my fiends to get lost. It's my FRIENDS I'd want to stick around.

 

[SVEN]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


Hey, uh, Sven, about your 'sig.' It says: (emphasis mine)

No sig for me, thanks though. I'm trying to cut back. You know how it is, first one sig, then another, pretty soon your wife is pissed and your FIENDS have long since gone.

Personally, I would WANT my fiends to get lost. It's my FRIENDS I'd want to stick around.

yeah, it was a misprint, but then I started to like it. A song popped into my head immediately by the Misfits called Fiend Club, I like that song. Unfortunately, i don't know what a fiend is, i must look it up.

 

[SVEN]

Oh wow, so thats what a fiend is! I think I need to change it! Thanks for bringing it to my attention in a different light. Wellm actually it still kinda makes sense, at least I'm saying the fiends have gone, it just sounds like I didn't want them to leave.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


Exactly. The entire reason this separation of church and state was added in the Constitution in the first place was NOT to KEEP anyone and everyone from doing something remotely related to Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or what have you.

C'mon now forgivn, no one (with any common sense) has EVER said that the purpose of seperation of church and state was to PREVENT everyone from practicing any religion. It is to prevent the government from endorsing any one religion. It is also to do the exact opposite of what you say above, and ALLOW everyone to do anything they want related to "Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or what have you." It is protecting you Christians just as much as it is protecting any other religion or belief system.

It is perfectly okay for a devout Christian congressman to vote for/enact laws according to his Christian moral code (i.e. thou shalt not kill, covet, worship false idols, etc...), but it is NOT okay for that same congressman to vote for/enact laws requiring the PRACTICE of his religion. I don't understand where the problem with the above lies. Is it that Christians have held control of the laws for so long (through their majority) that they're upset about losing that control? What's being eliminated from our laws right now is not Christianity; Christianity is too embedded in our social norms for that to happen. What's being eliminated is the small amount of forced practice of Christianity that leaked into our laws through 200 years of self-interested lawmaking.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by ohio


C'mon now forgivn, no one (with any common sense) has EVER said that the purpose of seperation of church and state was to PREVENT everyone from practicing any religion. It is to prevent the government from endorsing any one religion. It is also to do the exact opposite of what you say above, and ALLOW everyone to do anything they want related to "Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or what have you." It is protecting you Christians just as much as it is protecting any other religion or belief system.

It is perfectly okay for a devout Christian congressman to vote for/enact laws according to his Christian moral code (i.e. thou shalt not kill, covet, worship false idols, etc...), but it is NOT okay for that same congressman to vote for/enact laws requiring the PRACTICE of his religion. I don't understand where the problem with the above lies. Is it that Christians have held control of the laws for so long (through their majority) that they're upset about losing that control? What's being eliminated from our laws right now is not Christianity; Christianity is too embedded in our social norms for that to happen. What's being eliminated is the small amount of forced practice of Christianity that leaked into our laws through 200 years of self-interested lawmaking.

While you are correct in saying that the intent is to protect the populace from a MANDATORY religion or the outlawing of certain religions the actual use of the idea is different. The ACLU types are trying to use it to insulate the populace from exposure to ANY religion.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
They didn't want freedom FROM religion; they wanted freedom OF it. If anything, the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to PROTECT Christianity, not to banish it, and the freedom to not only pursue it, but disseminate Biblical values and teaching - even in *gasp* schools and stuff.

Exactly. And the best way to ensure freedom OF religion is to ensure that the governement does not force practice of ANY religion. Just like the Danbury Baptists were afraid the Congregationalists would make their church the National church, so do Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and Hindus (among others) fear that Christianity could become the national religion.

We adapt our laws to changing times and changing needs, but the concept is still there. How is Seperation of Church and State for the benefit of 10 different Christian groups any different than Seperation for the benefit of 10 different religions? I'll tell you how it's different: the Christian majority in this country can more easily relate to those 10 Christian groups than they can to 10 entirely different belief systems, and have a difficult time understanding practice of religion in any way other than their own. That's not intended as an insult. ANY one of those groups (including Atheists) would, as a whole, have a difficult time understanding the others practices, and would feel like the country was going to the dogs, if their control on the morality of the country was waning.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True


The ACLU types are trying to use it to insulate the populace from exposure to ANY religion.

I disagree. The ACLU types are trying to use it to insulate the populace from goverment sanctioned/endorsed exposure to ANY religion.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by ohio


Exactly. And the best way to ensure freedom OF religion is to ensure that the governement does not force practice of ANY religion. Just like the Danbury Baptists were afraid the Congregationalists would make their church the National church, so do Jews, Muslims, Atheists, and Hindus (among others) fear that Christianity could become the national religion.

That's just my point. I agree with you wholeheartedly....the best way to ensure freedom of religion IS to ensure that the government doesn't force practice of any religion.

So how is presenting the fact that 'some' people (the word 'some' being the supposed Christian majority) believe in creation, vice evolution (on a macro scale..we've been through this before *L*) in a school textbook forcing Christian beliefs on anyone? I have NO problem with the government not forcing us to hold to a particular religion. I would not cry big huge baby tears if they take the words 'under God' out of the Pledge, even though I'm Christian. The problem I HAVE is the fact that they're not using this separation of church and state issue to ensure the government does not force a national religion. They're using it to ensure that nothing at ALL concerning ANY religion is taught. When you consider the fact that the textbooks in schools today have quite a lot of errors in them, and that they teach ONLY evolution, which in itself requires some 'faith' and assumptions, I have a problem with our beliefs being forced out.

I think when I said 'if anything, the original intent of the Founding Fathers was to protect Christianity......" I came off as trying to wave the Christian banner too much. That's not the case. My last paragraph said this:

"For the record, I don't think that Christianity - or Judaism or Islam or ANY religion, should EVER be the 'national' religion. I just get really tired when people misconstrue what the Constitution says, and twist it until they can somehow get it to say what they want."

And I do hold to that - about believing that having one national religion would alienate others and it would be unconstitutional. But suppressing any and all expression of religious faith/beliefs is just as unconstitutional.

One last note....one of your replies, ohio, said

"What's being eliminated is the small amount of forced practice of Christianity that leaked into our laws through 200 years of self-interested lawmaking."

I think we can both agree on that statement. I don't think it's right to FORCE people to practice Christianity. The problem I have is not that we're eliminating forced practice....we're eliminating ANY practice of it at all. Putting an alternate view of the beginning of the universe in a history book, and supporting it with facts (notice I did NOT say 100% proof, because there's not - and there's not for evolution either) is NOT forcing practice of Christianity.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by ohio


I disagree. The ACLU types are trying to use it to insulate the populace from goverment sanctioned/endorsed exposure to ANY religion.

Allowing alternate views in textbooks of the beginning of the universe, for instance, is NOT government sanction/endorsement of that view. And if it IS, then this also means that evolution is governmentally sanctioned/endorsed, which I would have a problem with, because holding to that view requires faith as well.

I personally have a problem with ONLY the theory of evolution being presented in schools, and NO other alternate views.
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It doesn't say include any clauses about where you CAN'T freely exercise those religious beliefs, but the problem is (for me, and for pretty much all other Christians) that it seems nowadays that UNLESS you are in a church, you can't do anything at all that is religiously motivated, lest someone be offended.

This is just one example but you get my drift. I'm not on a crusade to force God into schools. I just want equal exposure, and I do not want 'prohibition of the free exercise thereof.'

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by fourgivn1


So how is presenting the fact that 'some' people (the word 'some' being the supposed Christian majority) believe in creation, vice evolution (on a macro scale..we've been through this before *L*) in a school textbook forcing Christian beliefs on anyone?

I'll agree with you there, to an extent. If I were a highschool Bio teacher, I would try to incorporate, within the limited timeframe, some discussion of creation theories (I would have to include mention of non-Judeo-Christian creation beliefs as well). However, while Evolution is the accepted theory in modern science, THAT is what I would teach in a science class. Until that changes, the other theories belong in a religion class. While I'm on that subject, I believe that a religion class SHOULD be part of a required curriculum, both to give religious theory it's due respect, and to educate our very often sheltered youth about the practice of other religions. But I have a feeling the same parents that are up in arms about their kids being taught evolution would be up in arms about their kids being taught about Hindu beliefs (along with others, obviously including Christianity) as part of a required curriculum.

 

[Damn True]

I think that type of thing would do far more for developing kids understanding of each other than insulating them from it.

 

[SK6]

Someone mentioned not one religion. Well OK then, one CHRISTIAN religion. Proof you might ask? All of our founding fathers acknowlege(sp?) God, not ONE specific religion.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by sirknight6
Someone mentioned not one religion. Well OK then, one CHRISTIAN religion. Proof you might ask? All of our founding fathers acknowlege(sp?) God, not ONE specific religion.

I'm not exactly certain what you're argument is... but I will say this again: the fact that all of the founding fathers were Christian (or at least of Christian upbringing) does NOT mean that they intended this to be a Christian nation, anymore than I wish this to be a Jewish nation because I was brought up Jewish. The wisdom they applied to a pool of different Christian sects is just as a easily (and wisely) applied to a pool of entirely different religions. And while I truly believe that this is what they would have wanted, it doesn't matter one way or the other. All that matters is what is best for our society today; which is exactly why the founding fathers created a living constitution. They never intended to impose their beliefs on citizens hundreds of years down the line. They intended to create framework so that the people would be able to govern themselves and prosper indefinitely, despite changing conditions.

 

[SK6]

Originally posted by ohio


I'm not exactly certain what you're argument is... but I will say this again: the fact that all of the founding fathers were Christian (or at least of Christian upbringing) does NOT mean that they intended this to be a Christian nation, anymore than I wish this to be a Jewish nation because I was brought up Jewish. The wisdom they applied to a pool of different Christian sects is just as a easily (and wisely) applied to a pool of entirely different religions. And while I truly believe that this is what they would have wanted, it doesn't matter one way or the other. All that matters is what is best for our society today; which is exactly why the founding fathers created a living constitution. They never intended to impose their beliefs on citizens hundreds of years down the line. They intended to create framework so that the people would be able to govern themselves and prosper indefinitely, despite changing conditions.

ahhhh....................Denomination is a VERY BIG KEY IN THIS DISCUSSION.....................................!!!!


But then again, so is beer.............

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by ohio


I'll agree with you there, to an extent. If I were a highschool Bio teacher, I would try to incorporate, within the limited timeframe, some discussion of creation theories (I would have to include mention of non-Judeo-Christian creation beliefs as well). However, while Evolution is the accepted theory in modern science, THAT is what I would teach in a science class. Until that changes, the other theories belong in a religion class. While I'm on that subject, I believe that a religion class SHOULD be part of a required curriculum, both to give religious theory it's due respect, and to educate our very often sheltered youth about the practice of other religions. But I have a feeling the same parents that are up in arms about their kids being taught evolution would be up in arms about their kids being taught about Hindu beliefs (along with others, obviously including Christianity) as part of a required curriculum.

Ditto to pretty much everything that you said here....and that's really all I want - 'equal time' for all points of view. I never meant to imply that I think creation only should be taught...just that I think all points of view - and this DOES mean all points, as in other religions' views - should be represented.

Although I will point out one area I disagree with, to a certain extent. It's been stated before (not sure if it was in this thread, or another) that the majority of the people in the US believe in God/Christ/etc. to a certain degree, whether in a specific way, or whether they just think there's a 'God' out there, and it stops at that. In any event, I think we can agree that for the most part, the majority of the people in the US believe in the Christian God.

I think that we can also agree that the majority of the citizens in the US are NOT scientists.

What am I getting at? Simply this....scientists are determining the course of teaching for ALL students (notwithstanding those in private Christian - or other religious - schools). It is this reason that I think the different views of creation should be given some face time in a science class. This may sound odd or unfair, but on the other hand, if there WAS a religion class in our schools (fat chance of that), there would be a HUGE outcry if Christianity was given the majority of face time in that class....even though people who lean toward the Christian religion are in the MAJORITY, and not the MINORITY. (I'm not saying that ALL citizens of the US are...I'm saying that if you put all the religiously-oriented groups of citizens together, the Christian-oriented group would be the largest, I'm betting.)

 

[fourgivn1]

An update on a statement made above...I surfed to www.religioustolerance.org, and according to them, even though it has slipped a LOT, about 76.5% identify themselves with the Christian religion. That, to me, is why I don't like the fact that creation is not taught to some extent (to ANY extent) in the school systems.

 

[Skookum]

I hope classes will keep teachin about dinosaurs even though they go against the theory of creation. I like the triceratops myself, that's my favorite.