|
Post by dolphie on Dec 15, 2009 19:56:42 GMT -5
... seems like a slippery sloap to me. the government should have nothing to do with religion. Even though our country had it interwoven as you state, it should not go any further or else we could be headed like the other countries you described IMO. Government jobs do not recognize easter as a holliday, and there could be a case for the ACLU about christmas. from the history of the world, religion and government is always a recipe for tyrany and war if not kept in check. Im glad to see other religions grow in our country because we are the greatest country on earth by being a melting pot of cultures. I know this is a strong subject and dear to many, Im just keeping it in perspective when it comes to government. There are those in this country that have used religion for bad like the branch dividians, the rest have used it for good, but politics distorts and excludes people when mixed with religion. why is it so hard to keep the two seperate? the question of the ages. Sistersarah, by in large, I agree with much of what you said. The separation between rch and state got a lot of people in trouble over the centuries. The Ottoman Empire, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch trials, the Israeli/middle east conflicts- all due to religion being a driving force in government. There were the Religious Wars in France in the 1500's (Une foi, un loi, un roi), Northern Ireland, the Thirty Years War of the 17th century, Taipei Rebellion, and so on. Out of all the religions, one or another fought the other at least once, and some several times over the centuries and in all cases, the governments waged wars to advance their religious beliefs. The slippery slope thing, well, I may have a problem with that, but, only to a minor point. Having "In God We Trust" does not specify which God, whose God, or from which religion. I see no harm in that. To allow government employees to celebrate in their workplaces, just as can private citizens in theirs, what harm can there be in that? I don't think you advocate changing anything as it is right now. Am I correct? Easter and Christmas were celebrated long before the pilgrims landed on these shores. They both have pagan origins, one of which was to celebrate the winter solstice, since an exact date of the birth of Christ isn't known for certain. That we call that holiday Christmas bugs some people, but, it ought not bug anyone if we celebrate a day in the winter... for whatever reason. Easter, well, that only happens on a Sunday, just as Thanksgiving only happens on a Thursday. Easter was set on a Sunday. One was a holiday to give thanks to God for the blessings our nation was bestowed by God and never had a pagan origin. Shall we repeal what Abraham Lincoln set forth as a national holiday? Of course not. We like our Thanksgiving. Reasonable people can let people believe as they wish. A little allowance never hurt anyone. Is it too much of an indulgence to allow Christian holidays and exclude celebrations for other religions? Well, perhaps. But, do we really want to change things by declaring Christmas and Thanksgiving to be just secular holidays for the heck of it? Or, do we want to simply delete them off the calenders and not celebrate them at all? To what end? To pursue a pure adherence to the Constitution? I guess we could do that. I mean, it would be Constitutional. But, do we really want to do that? I am guessing that you think that we, as a nation, have certain holidays, various mottos that allow for the expression that is particular to one religion, Christianity, but, you don't want it to go any further in such a way that we might end up like so many nations throughout history that went to war over a belief. Sound right? I do not agree with your take. I think if we force those holidays into being secular we are then [Congress shall make no law ..... prohibiting the free exercise thereof ] I do agree that we should allow belief systems to be honored to their fullness - short of hurting others. I think Happy Holidays is an insult to the other belief systems that practice prominent days during the winter months. It minimizes their belief system. If it is Hannukah - say hannukah if it is ramadan ... say ramadan ... if it is Christmas... say Christmas ... if it is winter solstice ... say winter solstice ... ON their specific Days. I also do not think we as individuals should be shunned if we do not get everything exactly correct nor should those who hear the misguided words be offended. It is an attempt to honor the customer/person/employee/etc. It is quite easy to make a correction.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Dec 15, 2009 20:45:23 GMT -5
Well now don't that beat all... seems we have a new Pig Wrestling event with much the same tone as the last ones! ;D
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Dec 15, 2009 21:33:23 GMT -5
Well now don't that beat all... seems we have a new Pig Wrestling event with much the same tone as the last ones! ;D If you don't stop calling debates pig wrestling events when you don't start the debates... you will be sent to the darkest corner with no refreshments and no entertainment!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 23, 2009 5:48:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by johng on Dec 23, 2009 12:44:56 GMT -5
Well now don't that beat all... seems we have a new Pig Wrestling event with much the same tone as the last ones! ;D If you don't stop calling debates pig wrestling events when you don't start the debates... you will be sent to the darkest corner with no refreshments and no entertainment! OH Please don't Threaten me with a Great Time like that
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Dec 29, 2009 14:27:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dj on Jan 1, 2010 14:44:20 GMT -5
Yep.. I was just gonna say that.... if the govt only let christians take xmas day off (which I promote constantly), you would have converts all over the place. I do think the feds should stay out of the states business reguarding religious stuff... and the states stay out of the city business and so on, down to the smallest village. Let those people living there decide. Christmas is a national holiday because of the fact that attempting to keep the government open for business on that day would be folly. Nothing runs on Christmas day because 75% of Americans are Christians, and many more than that celebrate the day in both religious and secular ways. If the government were to make any one day a holiday JUST for adherents to a certain religion it would be a clear case of sponsoring a religion. Christmas has been a federal holiday since the late 1800s and the Supreme Court recently (1999) affirmed that the holiday is not a sponsorship of religion, citing the fact that so many people take the day off for both secular and religious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Jan 1, 2010 16:25:22 GMT -5
Yep.. I was just gonna say that.... if the govt only let christians take xmas day off (which I promote constantly), you would have converts all over the place. I do think the feds should stay out of the states business reguarding religious stuff... and the states stay out of the city business and so on, down to the smallest village. Let those people living there decide. Christmas is a national holiday because of the fact that attempting to keep the government open for business on that day would be folly. Nothing runs on Christmas day because 75% of Americans are Christians, and many more than that celebrate the day in both religious and secular ways. If the government were to make any one day a holiday JUST for adherents to a certain religion it would be a clear case of sponsoring a religion. Christmas has been a federal holiday since the late 1800s and the Supreme Court recently (1999) affirmed that the holiday is not a sponsorship of religion, citing the fact that so many people take the day off for both secular and religious reasons. When ARCO was purchased by BP - BP tried to force the UK way of holidays upon the ARCO employees here in the USA. No Christmas, no Easter, no Thanksgiving, etc. Just XX days per year of which many were UK holidays. The employees rebelled - the unions raised cain - needless to say - Christmas prevailed as well as the other USA based days. Sponsoring a religion and honoring a religion are two different things. In this day of i dotting and t crossing - folks forget why that Amendment was created and what the intent of the Amendment is. It is not about our great country becoming aetheistic or secular (which are both religions in and of themselves - no matter how hard the adherers debate the topic). It is about ONE Religion becoming our Government. It is a result of events such as the Spanish Inquisition and the rch of England. As in the Muslim countries - Religion rules the decisions. It does not 'guide' it demands. The one area that has me torn is this: Muslims following the Quran - Shariah Law - maiming/killing people to follow the letter of the law in a book. If the Muslim religion is to be given equal rights to other religions - then it is giving them equal rights to destroy those who do not believe as they do. Shariah law is opposite of many of our equality laws. Yet - should the Christians, Wiccans, Jews, Native Americans all be denied because of a belief system based upon negativity? Should the Aetheists be honored over the other belief systems? What makes them more important than a Wiccan or Native American or ... ? If they find it beneath them- then so be it. Why destroy what is important to another individual - why not be the bigger person and let the others be within their belief system? Secularists - why should they be honored over the other belief systems? What makes them more important than a Wiccan or Native American or ... ? You don't like the symbols displayed - don't look at them. The same with Muslims - What makes them more important than a Wiccan or Native American or ... ? Why should they feel justified in killing others who believe differently? Why should the Laws of OUR Land - be forced to be placed aside for one segment of the population at the expense of many more?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jan 1, 2010 19:22:45 GMT -5
Overlooking the evidence that for almost 2,000 years nations have been conquered in the name of Christ, let's say Islam is an aggressive religion. If so, then they are SOL in America and they can take Sharia law and shove it unless they can get the votes to change our Constitution. If you are breaking the law, I don't care if it's to put cash in your pocket or because Allah said to do it, you're going to jail. Same with aggressive atheism, if there is such a thing. Most atheists I know just want to be left alone by the religious.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jan 1, 2010 19:50:01 GMT -5
Christmas is both Christian and "pagan". The Christmas tree, the yule log, Santa Claus and his elves and reindeer, many of the "Christmas" carols ( i.e. Jingle Bells) have little or nothing to do with the Christian religion. The fact is Christmas has become little more than a giant commercial enterprise for a great many Americans. It's link to religion is very much weakened.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Jan 1, 2010 22:44:41 GMT -5
Overlooking the evidence that for almost 2,000 years nations have been conquered in the name of Christ, let's say Islam is an aggressive religion. If so, then they are SOL in America and they can take Sharia law and shove it unless they can get the votes to change our Constitution. If you are breaking the law, I don't care if it's to put cash in your pocket or because Allah said to do it, you're going to jail. Same with aggressive atheism, if there is such a thing. Most atheists I know just want to be left alone by the religious. If most aetheists want to be left alone - why do they attack religious symbols? re: Aggessive religions The muslims launched crusades before the christians even thought of it.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jan 1, 2010 23:58:56 GMT -5
Overlooking the evidence that for almost 2,000 years nations have been conquered in the name of Christ, let's say Islam is an aggressive religion. If so, then they are SOL in America and they can take Sharia law and shove it unless they can get the votes to change our Constitution. If you are breaking the law, I don't care if it's to put cash in your pocket or because Allah said to do it, you're going to jail. Same with aggressive atheism, if there is such a thing. Most atheists I know just want to be left alone by the religious. If most aetheists want to be left alone - why do they attack religious symbols? re: Aggessive religions The muslims launched crusades before the christians even thought of it. It is undisputed that Islamic aggression was the beginning of 1,500 years of war between Muslim and Christian, so you can say "they started it" and you would be correct. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't work for peace between the two religions. As for those aggressive atheists, I guess they do exist but they are a fringe.
|
|
|
Post by dj on Jan 2, 2010 0:21:34 GMT -5
Wow, Dolphie, sometimes I just don't know where to start with you. You are all over the map on this one because you're making no distinction between government interference in religion and religious free expression of the people. Mixing those two separate issues together as you do just makes no sense. ... Christmas has been a federal holiday since the late 1800s and the Supreme Court recently (1999) affirmed that the holiday is not a sponsorship of religion, citing the fact that so many people take the day off for both secular and religious reasons. When ARCO was purchased by BP - BP tried to force the UK way of holidays upon the ARCO employees here in the USA. No Christmas, no Easter, no Thanksgiving, etc. Just XX days per year of which many were UK holidays. The employees rebelled - the unions raised cain - needless to say - Christmas prevailed as well as the other USA based days. This is irrelevant to the issue of FEDERAL holidays. While I'm sure its a riveting story, how the ARCO employees handled the BP corporate indifference to their American holidays, but frankly none of it has anything to do with government sponsorship of religious expression as we are discussing it here. The U.S. has federal holidays - shutdowns of the government - and the issue of whether or not making Christmas a federal holiday is a sponsorship of religion really has no bearing on what a corporation decides in terms of how its employees must be treated in terms of working on those days. This is true, it is NOT about the country becoming secular. It is about the government being secular. This is what I'm referring to when I say you are mixing the two up. You say "our great country" without recognizing that the Amendment deals with two separate entities - the people and the government. The amendment is about the government performing a secular civil function and allowing the people to freely express themselves and practice their religion in any way they deem proper. That is, in whole, exactly what the establishment and free expression clauses are about. I'm sorry, but until the end of all time, a philosophy of "no religion" is NOT in itself a religion. I believe that in saying that a rejection of religion is somehow a religion, you are putting the act of rejecting god on the same level as the sacred act of believing in God. I think that might insult most believers. Just my opinion, we don't need to tit-tat about it. You're simply wrong. If the Amendment were about not establishing a national rch or making a national religion, that is exactly how it would have been worded. The founding fathers were not simpletons. They used specific language to both restrict the government from even supporting ("respecting") any establishment of religion, AND withhold all authority for the government to restrict the free religious practices of the people. As much as you might dearly wish that the amendment merely disallowed the establishment of a theocracy, the language CLEARLY indicates more complexity than that. And for the following three decades, the authors of that amendment discussed its implications in letters and speeches. And the words of the amendment fit precisely this logic of their explanations They were not unspecific. They said, in contemplative and logical exposition, that the amendment was to separate the functioning of the government from the peoples' free religious practices. They said this was done to PROTECT BOTH from the other. Separation of rch and State is not some newfangled atheistic concept. It came directly from the inkwell and quill of the main author of this country's framework, in addition to the subsequent writings of all the other drafters. It is beyond comprehension how people still try to eviscerate the meaning by suggesting it was just a simple matter of disallowing a national religion. That is so vapid as to make an honest observer dizzy. And thus the implementation of Sharia law is unconstitutional here. I don't get your point. "Denied"?? How? All the constitution has to do with this is that none of those religions are sponsored or supported over any of the others by the government of the united states. Same response. "Honored" how?? How is it that the act of not allowing the government to "honor" any religions come to mean to you that it is "honoring" the irreligious? Yes, why not let the others be within their belief system. I agree. Who wants to "destroy" what is important to others?? More importantly, what is it about keeping the governments hands off everything that makes you feel someone is "destroying" a religion or a belief? Again... "Honored"? I take from this paragraph that you are saying that for instance the fight to remove the cross from Soledad is "honoring" secularists and taking from Christians. Let me know if I'm wrong. Because you say if "secularists" don't like the symbols just don't look at them. This seems like a Mt Soledad issue, so I'll answer in those terms. The issue isn't a dislike of the cross, and/or having to "look at it". The issue is the GOVERNMENT having it on government land. The "secularists" don't hate the cross. In fact, many of those whom you are calling "secularists" are devout Christians. What they hate is the government so disrespecting the constitution as to render its protective powers moot. It's the PRINCIPLE. It is allowing one religion to leverage the power of the government to advance its symbol with what appears to be the eager and unwavering assistance of the very government which explicitly enjoined from assisting! If that 40 foot cross were on private land, RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the city owned park, it would not be an issue. Crosses on private land all over the state and country are NEVER attacked or disparaged for being displayed prominently and proudly. That's because it's not the display of the cross that is the issue with constitutionalists. It's the display BY THE GOVERNMENT under GOVERNMENT AUSPICES that is the problem. ARE the laws of our land forced to be placed aside?? No, of course not. Are you suggesting its legal for Muslims to kill others here? First, "religions" don't have rights. So right off, there is a problem with your logic there. The idea of the Muslim religion having "equal rights" to others doesn't actually mean anything. But to your point of respecting Muslims' rights to practice their religion, and I infer from your words you mean something like enforcing Sharia law here or killing infidels and so on... the only answer I can give you is that NO religious practices can break the law. This is precisely the point of the government NOT respecting any one religion over another. The law prevails. Doesn't matter if you're Christian or Muslim or Hindu, you can't break the law. Otherwise you are free to believe what you believe, or not believe. This is the perfect implementation of a civil secular government of the people, by the people, for the people. Under the constitution the government's only powers are related to making and keeping the law as prescribed by us the people.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Jan 2, 2010 14:18:45 GMT -5
Wow, Dolphie, sometimes I just don't know where to start with you. You are all over the map on this one because you're making no distinction between government interference in religion and religious free expression of the people. Mixing those two separate issues together as you do just makes no sense. When ARCO was purchased by BP - BP tried to force the UK way of holidays upon the ARCO employees here in the USA. No Christmas, no Easter, no Thanksgiving, etc. Just XX days per year of which many were UK holidays. The employees rebelled - the unions raised cain - needless to say - Christmas prevailed as well as the other USA based days. This is irrelevant to the issue of FEDERAL holidays. While I'm sure its a riveting story, how the ARCO employees handled the BP corporate indifference to their American holidays, but frankly none of it has anything to do with government sponsorship of religious expression as we are discussing it here. The U.S. has federal holidays - shutdowns of the government - and the issue of whether or not making Christmas a federal holiday is a sponsorship of religion really has no bearing on what a corporation decides in terms of how its employees must be treated in terms of working on those days. This is true, it is NOT about the country becoming secular. It is about the government being secular. This is what I'm referring to when I say you are mixing the two up. You say "our great country" without recognizing that the Amendment deals with two separate entities - the people and the government. The amendment is about the government performing a secular civil function and allowing the people to freely express themselves and practice their religion in any way they deem proper. That is, in whole, exactly what the establishment and free expression clauses are about. I'm sorry, but until the end of all time, a philosophy of "no religion" is NOT in itself a religion. I believe that in saying that a rejection of religion is somehow a religion, you are putting the act of rejecting god on the same level as the sacred act of believing in God. I think that might insult most believers. Just my opinion, we don't need to tit-tat about it. You're simply wrong. If the Amendment were about not establishing a national rch or making a national religion, that is exactly how it would have been worded. The founding fathers were not simpletons. They used specific language to both restrict the government from even supporting ("respecting") any establishment of religion, AND withhold all authority for the government to restrict the free religious practices of the people. As much as you might dearly wish that the amendment merely disallowed the establishment of a theocracy, the language CLEARLY indicates more complexity than that. And for the following three decades, the authors of that amendment discussed its implications in letters and speeches. And the words of the amendment fit precisely this logic of their explanations They were not unspecific. They said, in contemplative and logical exposition, that the amendment was to separate the functioning of the government from the peoples' free religious practices. They said this was done to PROTECT BOTH from the other. Separation of rch and State is not some newfangled atheistic concept. It came directly from the inkwell and quill of the main author of this country's framework, in addition to the subsequent writings of all the other drafters. It is beyond comprehension how people still try to eviscerate the meaning by suggesting it was just a simple matter of disallowing a national religion. That is so vapid as to make an honest observer dizzy. And thus the implementation of Sharia law is unconstitutional here. I don't get your point. "Denied"?? How? All the constitution has to do with this is that none of those religions are sponsored or supported over any of the others by the government of the united states. Same response. "Honored" how?? How is it that the act of not allowing the government to "honor" any religions come to mean to you that it is "honoring" the irreligious? Yes, why not let the others be within their belief system. I agree. Who wants to "destroy" what is important to others?? More importantly, what is it about keeping the governments hands off everything that makes you feel someone is "destroying" a religion or a belief? Again... "Honored"? I take from this paragraph that you are saying that for instance the fight to remove the cross from Soledad is "honoring" secularists and taking from Christians. Let me know if I'm wrong. Because you say if "secularists" don't like the symbols just don't look at them. This seems like a Mt Soledad issue, so I'll answer in those terms. The issue isn't a dislike of the cross, and/or having to "look at it". The issue is the GOVERNMENT having it on government land. The "secularists" don't hate the cross. In fact, many of those whom you are calling "secularists" are devout Christians. What they hate is the government so disrespecting the constitution as to render its protective powers moot. It's the PRINCIPLE. It is allowing one religion to leverage the power of the government to advance its symbol with what appears to be the eager and unwavering assistance of the very government which explicitly enjoined from assisting! If that 40 foot cross were on private land, RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the city owned park, it would not be an issue. Crosses on private land all over the state and country are NEVER attacked or disparaged for being displayed prominently and proudly. That's because it's not the display of the cross that is the issue with constitutionalists. It's the display BY THE GOVERNMENT under GOVERNMENT AUSPICES that is the problem. ARE the laws of our land forced to be placed aside?? No, of course not. Are you suggesting its legal for Muslims to kill others here? First, "religions" don't have rights. So right off, there is a problem with your logic there. The idea of the Muslim religion having "equal rights" to others doesn't actually mean anything. But to your point of respecting Muslims' rights to practice their religion, and I infer from your words you mean something like enforcing Sharia law here or killing infidels and so on... the only answer I can give you is that NO religious practices can break the law. This is precisely the point of the government NOT respecting any one religion over another. The law prevails. Doesn't matter if you're Christian or Muslim or Hindu, you can't break the law. Otherwise you are free to believe what you believe, or not believe. This is the perfect implementation of a civil secular government of the people, by the people, for the people. Under the constitution the government's only powers are related to making and keeping the law as prescribed by us the people. dj, 1) Drop the condescension. 2) I am not some 'pet project' to be corrected 3) to be addressed in following posts I posed different points - addressing different posts. Not all were subquoted.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Jan 2, 2010 14:23:42 GMT -5
Wow, Dolphie, sometimes I just don't know where to start with you. You are all over the map on this one because you're making no distinction between government interference in religion and religious free expression of the people. Mixing those two separate issues together as you do just makes no sense. When ARCO was purchased by BP - BP tried to force the UK way of holidays upon the ARCO employees here in the USA. No Christmas, no Easter, no Thanksgiving, etc. Just XX days per year of which many were UK holidays. The employees rebelled - the unions raised cain - needless to say - Christmas prevailed as well as the other USA based days. This is irrelevant to the issue of FEDERAL holidays. While I'm sure its a riveting story, how the ARCO employees handled the BP corporate indifference to their American holidays, but frankly none of it has anything to do with government sponsorship of religious expression as we are discussing it here. The U.S. has federal holidays - shutdowns of the government - and the issue of whether or not making Christmas a federal holiday is a sponsorship of religion really has no bearing on what a corporation decides in terms of how its employees must be treated in terms of working on those days. This is true, it is NOT about the country becoming secular. It is about the government being secular. This is what I'm referring to when I say you are mixing the two up. You say "our great country" without recognizing that the Amendment deals with two separate entities - the people and the government. The amendment is about the government performing a secular civil function and allowing the people to freely express themselves and practice their religion in any way they deem proper. That is, in whole, exactly what the establishment and free expression clauses are about. I'm sorry, but until the end of all time, a philosophy of "no religion" is NOT in itself a religion. I believe that in saying that a rejection of religion is somehow a religion, you are putting the act of rejecting god on the same level as the sacred act of believing in God. I think that might insult most believers. Just my opinion, we don't need to tit-tat about it. You're simply wrong. If the Amendment were about not establishing a national rch or making a national religion, that is exactly how it would have been worded. The founding fathers were not simpletons. They used specific language to both restrict the government from even supporting ("respecting") any establishment of religion, AND withhold all authority for the government to restrict the free religious practices of the people. As much as you might dearly wish that the amendment merely disallowed the establishment of a theocracy, the language CLEARLY indicates more complexity than that. And for the following three decades, the authors of that amendment discussed its implications in letters and speeches. And the words of the amendment fit precisely this logic of their explanations They were not unspecific. They said, in contemplative and logical exposition, that the amendment was to separate the functioning of the government from the peoples' free religious practices. They said this was done to PROTECT BOTH from the other. Separation of rch and State is not some newfangled atheistic concept. It came directly from the inkwell and quill of the main author of this country's framework, in addition to the subsequent writings of all the other drafters. It is beyond comprehension how people still try to eviscerate the meaning by suggesting it was just a simple matter of disallowing a national religion. That is so vapid as to make an honest observer dizzy. And thus the implementation of Sharia law is unconstitutional here. I don't get your point. "Denied"?? How? All the constitution has to do with this is that none of those religions are sponsored or supported over any of the others by the government of the united states. Same response. "Honored" how?? How is it that the act of not allowing the government to "honor" any religions come to mean to you that it is "honoring" the irreligious? Yes, why not let the others be within their belief system. I agree. Who wants to "destroy" what is important to others?? More importantly, what is it about keeping the governments hands off everything that makes you feel someone is "destroying" a religion or a belief? Again... "Honored"? I take from this paragraph that you are saying that for instance the fight to remove the cross from Soledad is "honoring" secularists and taking from Christians. Let me know if I'm wrong. Because you say if "secularists" don't like the symbols just don't look at them. This seems like a Mt Soledad issue, so I'll answer in those terms. The issue isn't a dislike of the cross, and/or having to "look at it". The issue is the GOVERNMENT having it on government land. The "secularists" don't hate the cross. In fact, many of those whom you are calling "secularists" are devout Christians. What they hate is the government so disrespecting the constitution as to render its protective powers moot. It's the PRINCIPLE. It is allowing one religion to leverage the power of the government to advance its symbol with what appears to be the eager and unwavering assistance of the very government which explicitly enjoined from assisting! If that 40 foot cross were on private land, RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the city owned park, it would not be an issue. Crosses on private land all over the state and country are NEVER attacked or disparaged for being displayed prominently and proudly. That's because it's not the display of the cross that is the issue with constitutionalists. It's the display BY THE GOVERNMENT under GOVERNMENT AUSPICES that is the problem. ARE the laws of our land forced to be placed aside?? No, of course not. Are you suggesting its legal for Muslims to kill others here? First, "religions" don't have rights. So right off, there is a problem with your logic there. The idea of the Muslim religion having "equal rights" to others doesn't actually mean anything. But to your point of respecting Muslims' rights to practice their religion, and I infer from your words you mean something like enforcing Sharia law here or killing infidels and so on... the only answer I can give you is that NO religious practices can break the law. This is precisely the point of the government NOT respecting any one religion over another. The law prevails. Doesn't matter if you're Christian or Muslim or Hindu, you can't break the law. Otherwise you are free to believe what you believe, or not believe. This is the perfect implementation of a civil secular government of the people, by the people, for the people. Under the constitution the government's only powers are related to making and keeping the law as prescribed by us the people. Not that I owe you anything in the way of commentary: Re: the ARCO-BP story - it was addressing a previous post about taking away holidays that originated as religious holidays and have now become mainstream. It was addressing the UK vs USA's treatment of holidays. It was also interesting as the topic had come up over the break with former ARCO/BP employees. You don't like the story - don't read it and buzz off.
|
|