Sounds Like Bin Laden's Dead

Mr November · 05-01-2011, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

It proved my fears. These, and I think many share your position, is a feeling. It isn't necessarily true. We're secular for a great many reasons. We don't oppress peoples religious views - as many other nations have. We have no national religion - as many other nations have and force you to pay tithes and taxes to.

Don't misconstrue "secular" as anti-religious.

Look. YOU CAN HAVE YOUR RELIGION JUST KEEP IT OUT OF GOVERNMENT.

The USA is secular because they didn't want religion to be used to consolidate or validate power. They didn't want Kings. They didn't want school boreds to censor **** and ban books for no reason. Because schools are supposed to be secular, not ruled over by religious nut cases.

You're just wrong. Your way of thinking is a huge problem.

TheBig3 · 05-01-2011, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanwllCorfe

Agreed!

I'm really surprised at how angry people get by something I completely ignored.

IMO, I think it comes from larger hangups. You dig a little and it almost always comes back to "westboro baptists" or "terry jones" and A has nothing to do with B.

storymilo · 05-01-2011, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

I don't know what you're talking about anymore.

Muslims believe in Allah. Hindus believe in several different gods.

At least I think that's what this exchange was about.

RVCA · 05-01-2011, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Didn't you back the masses when they called me arrogant for not getting into specifics?

I didn't think I would have to quote this for you, but here ya go:

Quote:

The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

Quote:

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.

Quote:

2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.

Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TheBig3 · 05-01-2011, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian E Coleman

Look. YOU CAN HAVE YOUR RELIGION JUST KEEP IT OUT OF GOVERNMENT.

The USA is secular because they didn't want religion to be used to consolidate or validate power. They didn't want Kings. They didn't want school boreds to censor **** and ban books for no reason. Because schools are supposed to be secular, not ruled over by religious nut cases.

You're just wrong. Your way of thinking is a huge problem.

I don't think my way of thinking - which seems to be, in this comparison, to have the facts - is wrong.

You want to wash the nation clean of religion for, I'm almost certain personal reasons, when that has never been our history. ever.

TheBig3 · 05-01-2011, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RVCA

I didn't think I would have to quote this for you, but here ya go:

Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm aware of that. It hasn't been violated. Whats your point?

Mr November · 05-01-2011, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Are you telling me they did not support that phrase? I'm just baffled right now. Is that what you're saying?

Prove to me that they did. And if this is deist language, as it could be since they may not mean under in the sense of being under the control of, then show me how it's still relevant today given its current meaning?

One way or another it doesn't belong, and a deist wouldn't support that phrase.

captaincaptain · 05-01-2011, 11:03 PM

This debate isn't about if our government should be secular (which it should be) or not. It was about Obama's speech having either Christian overtones strings of Christian comments, which there were not.

Mr November · 05-01-2011, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captaincaptain

This debate isn't about if our government should be secular (which it should be) or not. It was about Obama's speech having either Christian overtones strings of Christian comments, which there were not.

Or so you say...

**Janszoon** · 05-01-2011, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

I don't know what you're talking about anymore.

You said Hindus know Allah means "god". I was responding to that statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by captaincaptain

I'm sorry for not having my Thesaurus handy. God whether it's capitalized or not, whether it was in English or Afrikaans, it was meant as a general term. Other words I could've used are: deity, divine being, creator, absolute being.....

God with a capital "G" is the name for the Christian god. Sorry to disappoint you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Are you telling me they did not support that phrase? I'm just baffled right now. Is that what you're saying?

That phrase was created many decade after they lived. So, yes, I think that's exactly what Ian is saying.

05-01-2011, 11:03 PM	#138 (permalink)
captaincaptain I Am Become Death Metal Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stankonia Posts: 695	This debate isn't about if our government should be secular (which it should be) or not. It was about Obama's speech having either Christian overtones strings of Christian comments, which there were not.