No clemency for cross! War Memorial Cross must go!

nope.

when it is a legal issue, the judges must decide. That's how the USA works.

did you happen to notice that there was no referendum or ballot initiative on whether OJ or MJ was guilty?

our system of government is not designed to let the majority rule on everything.

Love it or leave it (as the neo-cons love to say)

Originally posted by junglejake
It's like the gay pride parades. Cities have gay pride parades, but won't allow hetero-pride parades.

No it isn't. Homosexuality is not a religion. The Constitution is explicit about the government representing a specific religion. If you put up a cross, then others must be allowed to put up a star of David or Pentagram.

I think not being allowed to have a 'straight pride' parade is wrong, by the way. Why don't you get right on that?

The issue is that if a majority want a cross then fine, if they want a giant turnip then fine.

In now way should a statue of a giant treehugger godess be put up to satisfy then few, BUT that doesnt mean that they can not worship the treehugger godess at all, just doesnt mean taxpayers have to put up with crap is all.

If the people of San Diego want it, then it should stay......

none of my business whether they want it or not and it doesn't actually bother me, anyway but, it's important to note that a referendum on the issue won't settle it if somebody decides to pursue the issue.

Even a vote of 100%, absolutely unanimous for legislation that violates any federal regulation or our constitution is invalid. So, majority cannot rule in every case and that's the good ol' (love it or leave it) You-Ess-of-Aye!

God bless America.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The Constitution is explicit about the government representing a specific religion.

(This goes to Al, too.) That's not true. The Constitution states that the government will have no jurisdiction over religion, not that religion would have no part of the government. This whole wall of seporation arguement is not based on the constitution, it is based on a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Southern Baptist church, when they asked to make their denomination the national religion. To that, Thomas Jefferson said absloutly not. It is only recently that his letter has been misconstrewed, that statement taken out of context, and a movement by groups like the ACLU began to try to not grant us freedom of religion. They advocate freedom from religion. Due to poor supreme court decisions, taking Jefferson's letter as more telling of our laws than the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

As to the OJ or MJ comment, no there wasn't a vote because a random sampling of American citizens had already been made and they decided the fate.

I think not being allowed to have a 'straight pride' parade is wrong, by the way. Why don't you get right on that?

On it

Originally posted by edsinger
The issue is that if a majority want a cross then fine, if they want a giant turnip then fine.

In now way should a statue of a giant treehugger godess be put up to satisfy then few, BUT that doesnt mean that they can not worship the treehugger godess at all, just doesnt mean taxpayers have to put up with crap is all.

If the people of San Diego want it, then it should stay......

Regardless of what the Constitution says?? You just want to disregard that little piece of paper in favor of what YOU think the law should be? And you call yourself a patriot?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Regardless of what the Constitution says?? You just want to disregard that little piece of paper in favor of what YOU think the law should be? And you call yourself a patriot?

It would be different if it wasn't Christianity that is under assault, it is a slap in the face to the majority of Americans.

Freedom of religion as long as it is not Christian right?

SCOTUS just heard 2 cases on this very kind of thing - each went a different way but in neither case did the will of the majority or the flavor of the religion have any bearing on the decision.

Hey! You can't agree that SCOTUS gets to decide who is POTUS and then turn around and say they can't decide the other stuff.

I don't think anybody is confusing a letter from anybody with the Constitution - that's never been the basis for those decisions you don't like. Separation of Church and State is not explicitly written in the Constitution - we all know that. It's the widely accepted and traditional (you like tradition, right?) interpretation that keeps that wall in there and we are a better and stronger nation for it!

Besides, even Christians can't seem to agree on who is and what is the "real" Christianity. Some think Catholics aren't real Christians...and on and on it goes. You really want SCOTUS to decide that it's only the snake handlers that are the real Christians? I can envision the entire state of Utah seceeding from the Union.

Look the SCOTUS decided that Bush won becuase he did even with the suppresed military vote. YOu liberals just can let go of that one can you.

BUSH WON!

and he won fair and square.....and what makes it even more enjoyable was that he won in 2004 by MORE votes.

hate him all you want, but once again I will remind you that HE WON!


PS in 2000, the founding fathers were vindicated with the electoral college....

[edit on 15-8-2005 by edsinger]

I don't want SCOTUS deciding anything about religion. We are supposed to be free to practice our religion. A fundamental part of mine, Christianity, is evangelism, yet the government limits me on when, where and how I can practice my religion. They let Native Americans take something expressly illegal in their vision quests because their religion dictates they must, but little ol' me can't?

Where did the phrase "wall of seporation" come from? The one that is now spouted as gospel truth by those who don't believe in the Gospel?

Originally posted by edsinger
It would be different if it wasn't Christianity that is under assault, it is a slap in the face to the majority of Americans.

Freedom of religion as long as it is not Christian right?

Ed... buddy... you need to take a class or something and find out what the Constitution says and means and not just throw around phrases like 'freedom of religion' without knowing what they mean.

Freedom of religion means you can practice your religion freely, as long as it doesn't impose on anyone, just like most other rights. You, as a citizen, can pray, read the bible, go to church, hold prayer meetings, etc.

But the government cannot legally sanction or represent any one religion over another. It doesn't matter HOW many Christians there are in the US. Organized religious ritual, events, symbols and dogma of any religion are not actually allowed to be sponsored on public grounds (like schools and War memorials) because those are run by the government and that would mean that the government was respecting one religion over another.

Now a person can pray or read their bible or wear their cross in school. No problem there, but a public school cannot organize a prayer meeting or a bible study or plant a cross on their front lawn.

Got that?

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by junglejake
A fundamental part of mine, Christianity, is evangelism, yet the government limits me on when, where and how I can practice my religion.

How's that, jake? How does the government limit you?

And by the way, I have never used either phrase "wall of spearation" or "separation of church and state"

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Got that?

No I dont, becuase by the goivernment dictating HOW I can worship my religion is in violation of that very clause.

Manger scenes....used to be common until the liberals started pecking away at it, first it was free love, then homosexuality is ok, God is bad - take Him out of all public life...


when what you are getting is that the MAJORITY is tired of it....and the votes are starting to show it.

If the SCOTUS was a conservative court we wouldn't be having the argument, the liberals have done enough damage....time for change as Clinton used to say while someone was under his desk while he was making a mockery of this nation.

Originally posted by edsinger
No I dont, becuase by the goivernment dictating HOW I can worship my religion is in violation of that very clause.

Manger scenes....used to be common until the liberals started pecking away at it, first it was free love, then homosexuality is ok, God is bad - take Him out of all public life...

You can have a manger scene. In your home, in your church, in your yard. How many do you need?

How specifically does the gov't limit you in practicing your religion? You and Jake. Really. Let me have it!

When my Child can not read a Bible in class for any reason, yet someone can wear a headscarf for an example.

See it not a 2 way street, its only bad if its Christian in these peoples eyes.

The pledge...I said it and I learned to respect my country for it. I would not have been offended if someone chose not to say it, but by not allowing me to say it then you are infringing on MY right. What ever happened to the Freedom of Speech crap you liberals are always whining about?

It free to do as long as the words Jesus Christ are not included.

Originally posted by edsinger
When my Child can not read a Bible in class for any reason, yet someone can wear a headscarf for an example.

Your child cannot read the bible on his own time in school? If that's the case, you need to go to the school and talk to them. Your child should be allowed to carry a bible and read it during lunch or other free time. If that's happening, I'll go to your school and talk to them! That's not right. Don't settle for it! Go do something.

[edit on 15-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How's that, jake? How does the government limit you?

Five Georgia residents and the ACLU have sued the government of Cobb County for using the word ‘Jesus’ in pre-meeting convocations, reports the Atlanta Constitution, alleging that the prayers are overtly Christian and offensive.

A city council in Minnesota turned down a local church's request to use the city pool for baptism ceremonies, according to the Winona Daily News, saying that to do so would violate the separation of church and state.

Three high schools in Maryland have bowed to pressure from a handful of parents and will stop using local churches as venues for graduation ceremonies because the ubiquitous Christian symbols make them uncomfortable.

The ACLU is objecting to plans by Harris County officials in Texas to name a new park after the late John Paul II, according to the Houston Chronicle, claiming that to do so would be insensitive to other faiths.

An eight-year-old girl who wanted to sing a song that mentioned God at her elementary school talent show was told the content was too religious for a school function and denied that right, according to the Associated Press.

A weekly newspaper in Richmond, Va. has come across what it calls a “blooming violation” of the clause requiring separation of and state – a bed of azalea bushes in the shape of a cross on public property.

These are just the tip of the iceberg of similar stories. If you'd like, I can get back the sources, links to the articles, and innumerous amounts of others just like them.

What, you may ask, does that have to do with me being able to share my faith? If you reread those stories, all happening from May 17th to today, there is one pervasive trend: keep it to yourself. The law has been deciding that, public schools have been deciding that, and the press has been deciding that. It's an unsettling and growing trend: we don't care what religion you practice, as long as we don't know about it. Kind of like the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in the Navy.

Will it continue along this trend? I have no reason not to suspect so. Many Christians have wakened to the fight for their religion just now, and I'm sure you've seen all the press explaining that these radical Christians want their morality shoved down everyone's throat. We suddenly became active politically in such force because we are being attacked. Being told to keep quiet, God is for church, secular lives for outside of church. We're being told by the schools and the media that we have no right to raise our children with Christian values, the local government and some producer will decide how best to raise our children. We didn't start this fight, but I pray that we will finish it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Your child cannot read the bible on his own time in school? If that's the case, you need to go to the school and talk to them. Your child should be allowed to carry a bible and read it during lunch or other free time. If that's happening, I'll go to your school and talk to them! That's not right. Don't settle for it! Go do something.

I did, I got them out of the public schools in California. In Indiana we didnt have this problem, and believe it or not there was Muslim child that was able to read her Koran to the class, in which I had not a problem with.

See they can read Darwin there but not the Bible.......

Actually, Ed, that is a common misconception by schools that is not backed by law. Thanks to the press and other things such as those I mentioned in my earlier post, schools just assume God and anything to do with God must stay out of the building. The ACLJ has done great things in correcting this mentality, but it is still prevelant.

Originally posted by junglejake
Actually, Ed, that is a common misconception by schools that is not backed by law. Thanks to the press and other things such as those I mentioned in my earlier post, schools just assume God and anything to do with God must stay out of the building. The ACLJ has done great things in correcting this mentality, but it is still prevelant.

Not everywhere, but those are mostly RED states I guess.......


They will not win, sooner or later the American people will have had enough.

Heck the company I work for just passed a domestic same sex partner benifits package all the while raising our rates. But not if you are an unmarried couple of hetrosexual nature, sorry your not married!

99% of those I talked with were flat against it and I am in California!

[edit on 15-8-2005 by edsinger]

[edit on 15-8-2005 by edsinger]