| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"The Fool" |
| Date: |
15 Dec 2005 04:44:49 PM |
| Object: |
Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
A Federal Disctrict Court has made a decision that makes it illegal for
a chaplain to say the name of Jesus in their prayers in the government
building in Indiana. Both Democrats and Republicans oppose the ruling.
However, the ACLU is connected to this case and is suing, yet again,
to censor the free speech of the religious in government.
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22290
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.
|
|
| User: "Zadok" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
15 Dec 2005 06:06:56 PM |
|
|
"The Fool" <> wrote in message ...
A Federal Disctrict Court has made a decision that makes it illegal for
a chaplain to say the name of Jesus in their prayers in the government
building in Indiana.
You didn't all the story.
The court said that it was legal to mention Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny
and the Tooth Fairy in the prayers..
Seems the wanted to give equal time to other imaginary beings.
It's an equality thing, nothing against religionists!!
LOL.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
16 Dec 2005 08:52:31 AM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22290
I suggest reading the opinion, and not some news article about it.
http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/1-05-cv-0813%20Opinion.pdf
<II. The Establishment Clause Claim
<A. Prayers as Government Speech
<Turning to the merits of the Establishment Clause issue, the parties
< agree that the prayers offered from the podium of the House of
< Representatives are government speech. See Pl. Br. at 20-22; Hearing
< Tr. at 23-24. The Speaker controls access to the podium. The prayers
< may not be offered without the Speaker’s permission. The Speaker also
< has not tried to create any sort of public forum that would be
< available to private speakers to exercise their own First Amendment
< rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. In fact, the
< Speaker has expressly denied any intention to establish any sort of
< public forum. Hearing Tr. at 23-24.10 Under the First Amendment, the
< fact that the prayers are government speech is pivotal. There is “a
< crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion,
< which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing
< religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”
< Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302
< (2000), quoting Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250
< (1990) (opinion of O’Connor, J.) (emphasis in original).
By the defendant agreeing that the prayers from the podium are
government speech and not private speech, the decision became obvious.
By the way, although the Indiana branch of the ACLU represented the
plaintiffs, the actual plaintiffs themselves were a Quaker, a retired
Methodist minister, and two Roman Catholics, all Indiana taxpayers.
This wasn't an "atheist" thing or even a "anti-Christian" thing.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
16 Dec 2005 09:10:49 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22290
I suggest reading the opinion, and not some news article about it.
http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/1-05-cv-0813%20Opinion.pdf
<II. The Establishment Clause Claim
<A. Prayers as Government Speech
<Turning to the merits of the Establishment Clause issue, the parties
< agree that the prayers offered from the podium of the House of
< Representatives are government speech. See Pl. Br. at 20-22; Hearing
< Tr. at 23-24. The Speaker controls access to the podium. The prayers
< may not be offered without the Speaker's permission. The Speaker also
< has not tried to create any sort of public forum that would be
< available to private speakers to exercise their own First Amendment
< rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. In fact, the
< Speaker has expressly denied any intention to establish any sort of
< public forum. Hearing Tr. at 23-24.10 Under the First Amendment, the
< fact that the prayers are government speech is pivotal. There is "a
< crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion,
< which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing
< religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."
< Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302
< (2000), quoting Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250
< (1990) (opinion of O'Connor, J.) (emphasis in original).
That goes even further in saying that no prayers could be offered in
that building without the Speaker's permission.
By the defendant agreeing that the prayers from the podium are
government speech and not private speech, the decision became obvious.
By the way, although the Indiana branch of the ACLU represented the
plaintiffs, the actual plaintiffs themselves were a Quaker, a retired
Methodist minister, and two Roman Catholics, all Indiana taxpayers.
This wasn't an "atheist" thing or even a "anti-Christian" thing.
lojbab
It doesn't have to be by an atheist to have that effect.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
16 Dec 2005 03:46:40 PM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22290
I suggest reading the opinion, and not some news article about it.
http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/1-05-cv-0813%20Opinion.pdf
<II. The Establishment Clause Claim
<A. Prayers as Government Speech
<Turning to the merits of the Establishment Clause issue, the parties
< agree that the prayers offered from the podium of the House of
< Representatives are government speech. See Pl. Br. at 20-22; Hearing
< Tr. at 23-24. The Speaker controls access to the podium. The prayers
< may not be offered without the Speaker's permission. The Speaker also
< has not tried to create any sort of public forum that would be
< available to private speakers to exercise their own First Amendment
< rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. In fact, the
< Speaker has expressly denied any intention to establish any sort of
< public forum. Hearing Tr. at 23-24.10 Under the First Amendment, the
< fact that the prayers are government speech is pivotal. There is "a
< crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion,
< which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing
< religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."
< Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302
< (2000), quoting Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250
< (1990) (opinion of O'Connor, J.) (emphasis in original).
That goes even further in saying that no prayers could be offered in
that building without the Speaker's permission.
No statements of ANY kind could be offered *from the podium* without
the permission of the Speaker. That is a statement of fact, not of
law: the Speaker has to power to determine who has access to the
podium. The podium is not a public forum.
There is no statement about prayer or anything else "in the building".
By the way, although the Indiana branch of the ACLU represented the
plaintiffs, the actual plaintiffs themselves were a Quaker, a retired
Methodist minister, and two Roman Catholics, all Indiana taxpayers.
This wasn't an "atheist" thing or even a "anti-Christian" thing.
It doesn't have to be by an atheist to have that effect.
Obviously there are devout Christians that feel that prayer in formal
state proceedings should be non-sectarian. Thus opposition to
mentioning religious beliefs specific to some sects is not
"atheistic".
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
16 Dec 2005 11:54:29 AM |
|
|
In article <1134745849.724542.193390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22290
I suggest reading the opinion, and not some news article about it.
http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/1-05-cv-0813%20Opinion.pdf
<II. The Establishment Clause Claim
<A. Prayers as Government Speech
<Turning to the merits of the Establishment Clause issue, the parties
< agree that the prayers offered from the podium of the House of
< Representatives are government speech. See Pl. Br. at 20-22; Hearing
< Tr. at 23-24. The Speaker controls access to the podium. The prayers
< may not be offered without the Speaker's permission. The Speaker also
< has not tried to create any sort of public forum that would be
< available to private speakers to exercise their own First Amendment
< rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. In fact, the
< Speaker has expressly denied any intention to establish any sort of
< public forum. Hearing Tr. at 23-24.10 Under the First Amendment, the
< fact that the prayers are government speech is pivotal. There is "a
< crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion,
< which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing
< religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."
< Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302
< (2000), quoting Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250
< (1990) (opinion of O'Connor, J.) (emphasis in original).
That goes even further in saying that no prayers could be offered in
that building without the Speaker's permission.
By the defendant agreeing that the prayers from the podium are
government speech and not private speech, the decision became obvious.
By the way, although the Indiana branch of the ACLU represented the
plaintiffs, the actual plaintiffs themselves were a Quaker, a retired
Methodist minister, and two Roman Catholics, all Indiana taxpayers.
This wasn't an "atheist" thing or even a "anti-Christian" thing.
lojbab
It doesn't have to be by an atheist to have that effect.
But it does highlight the problems with your idea that
it's the anti-religious in this country who are behind
this "attack on religion" you seem to perceive.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fool" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
16 Dec 2005 12:11:17 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1134745849.724542.193390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22290
I suggest reading the opinion, and not some news article about it.
http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/1-05-cv-0813%20Opinion.pdf
<II. The Establishment Clause Claim
<A. Prayers as Government Speech
<Turning to the merits of the Establishment Clause issue, the parties
< agree that the prayers offered from the podium of the House of
< Representatives are government speech. See Pl. Br. at 20-22; Hearing
< Tr. at 23-24. The Speaker controls access to the podium. The prayers
< may not be offered without the Speaker's permission. The Speaker also
< has not tried to create any sort of public forum that would be
< available to private speakers to exercise their own First Amendment
< rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. In fact, the
< Speaker has expressly denied any intention to establish any sort of
< public forum. Hearing Tr. at 23-24.10 Under the First Amendment, the
< fact that the prayers are government speech is pivotal. There is "a
< crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion,
< which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing
< religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."
< Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302
< (2000), quoting Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250
< (1990) (opinion of O'Connor, J.) (emphasis in original).
That goes even further in saying that no prayers could be offered in
that building without the Speaker's permission.
By the defendant agreeing that the prayers from the podium are
government speech and not private speech, the decision became obvious.
By the way, although the Indiana branch of the ACLU represented the
plaintiffs, the actual plaintiffs themselves were a Quaker, a retired
Methodist minister, and two Roman Catholics, all Indiana taxpayers.
This wasn't an "atheist" thing or even a "anti-Christian" thing.
lojbab
It doesn't have to be by an atheist to have that effect.
But it does highlight the problems with your idea that
it's the anti-religious in this country who are behind
this "attack on religion" you seem to perceive.
-- cary
You misunderstood. You can be a religious person and be
anti-religious. It's not mutually exclusive. If you are opposed to
your religion's own goals, you are anti (means opposed) religious.
There are many conservatives, such as myself, that have problems with
conservatism but are still conservatives. There are liberals that are
opposed to liberalism. There are women opposed to extreme feminism.
And, yes, there are atheists that are opposed to the actions of atheist
organizations.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
16 Dec 2005 12:39:12 PM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com>
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1134745849.724542.193390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22290
I suggest reading the opinion, and not some news article about it.
http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/1-05-cv-0813%20Opinion.pdf
<II. The Establishment Clause Claim
<A. Prayers as Government Speech
<Turning to the merits of the Establishment Clause issue, the parties
< agree that the prayers offered from the podium of the House of
< Representatives are government speech. See Pl. Br. at 20-22; Hearing
< Tr. at 23-24. The Speaker controls access to the podium. The prayers
< may not be offered without the Speaker's permission. The Speaker also
< has not tried to create any sort of public forum that would be
< available to private speakers to exercise their own First Amendment
< rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. In fact, the
< Speaker has expressly denied any intention to establish any sort of
< public forum. Hearing Tr. at 23-24.10 Under the First Amendment, the
< fact that the prayers are government speech is pivotal. There is "a
< crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion,
< which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing
< religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect."
< Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302
< (2000), quoting Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250
< (1990) (opinion of O'Connor, J.) (emphasis in original).
That goes even further in saying that no prayers could be offered in
that building without the Speaker's permission.
By the defendant agreeing that the prayers from the podium are
government speech and not private speech, the decision became obvious.
By the way, although the Indiana branch of the ACLU represented the
plaintiffs, the actual plaintiffs themselves were a Quaker, a retired
Methodist minister, and two Roman Catholics, all Indiana taxpayers.
This wasn't an "atheist" thing or even a "anti-Christian" thing.
lojbab
It doesn't have to be by an atheist to have that effect.
But it does highlight the problems with your idea that
it's the anti-religious in this country who are behind
this "attack on religion" you seem to perceive.
-- cary
You misunderstood. You can be a religious person and be
anti-religious. It's not mutually exclusive. If you are opposed to
your religion's own goals, you are anti (means opposed) religious.
There are many conservatives, such as myself, that have problems with
conservatism but are still conservatives. There are liberals that are
opposed to liberalism. There are women opposed to extreme feminism.
And, yes, there are atheists that are opposed to the actions of atheist
organizations.
All right. Fair enough -- except that I think you might want to
consider the idea that a religious person who does not agree
with your own views on government involvement in religion may not
automatically be "anti-religious". Historically, many who opposed
any co-mingling of government and religion were religious
people who were only too aware of the stifling effect
government involvement in religion has often had on religious
freedom.
The Quakers being a prime example.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
16 Dec 2005 03:54:24 PM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You misunderstood. You can be a religious person and be anti-religious.
Not if you are sane.
It's not mutually exclusive. If you are opposed to
your religion's own goals, you are anti (means opposed) religious.
No. You are simply "ridiculous" to be opposed to the goals of your
own religion.
On the other hand, one can be a Christian and disagree with the goals
of the right-wingnut fundamentalists, because their goals are NOT the
goals of the "Christian religion", but merely the goals of their
particular sects.
There are many conservatives, such as myself, that have problems with
conservatism but are still conservatives.
"Have problems with" is not the same as "anti".
But I would contend that to the extent that you oppose whatever
constitutes "conservatism" in your what-passes-for-a-mind, you are NOT
a "conservative".
There are liberals that are opposed to liberalism.
Then they aren't liberals.
There are women opposed to extreme feminism.
They aren't "extreme feminists" then.
And, yes, there are atheists that are opposed to the actions of atheist
organizations.
They probably shouldn't be members of those organizations then. But
one need not be a member of any organization, or to have any
particular belief, in order to be an atheist, since atheism is defined
by what atheists do NOT believe, and not by what they do believe.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Revere" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
16 Dec 2005 09:53:12 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:54:24 -0800, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in article <ved6q15c4ifh3c1kft6508d1nf4n794rf7@4ax.com>):
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You misunderstood. You can be a religious person and be anti-religious.
Not if you are sane.
It's not mutually exclusive. If you are opposed to
your religion's own goals, you are anti (means opposed) religious.
No. You are simply "ridiculous" to be opposed to the goals of your
own religion.
On the other hand, one can be a Christian and disagree with the goals
of the right-wingnut fundamentalists, because their goals are NOT the
goals of the "Christian religion", but merely the goals of their
particular sects.
There are many conservatives, such as myself, that have problems with
conservatism but are still conservatives.
"Have problems with" is not the same as "anti".
But I would contend that to the extent that you oppose whatever
constitutes "conservatism" in your what-passes-for-a-mind, you are NOT
a "conservative".
There are liberals that are opposed to liberalism.
Then they aren't liberals.
There are women opposed to extreme feminism.
They aren't "extreme feminists" then.
And, yes, there are atheists that are opposed to the actions of atheist
organizations.
They probably shouldn't be members of those organizations then. But
one need not be a member of any organization, or to have any
particular belief, in order to be an atheist, since atheism is defined
by what atheists do NOT believe, and not by what they do believe.
lojbab
Almost true.
An agnostic does NOT BELIEVE in God, an atheist BELIEVES there is NO God.
There is a difference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ManMadeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
17 Dec 2005 02:09:15 PM |
|
|
"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BFC8CBA80005C2F2F02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:54:24 -0800, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in article <ved6q15c4ifh3c1kft6508d1nf4n794rf7@4ax.com>):
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You misunderstood. You can be a religious person and be anti-religious.
Not if you are sane.
It's not mutually exclusive. If you are opposed to
your religion's own goals, you are anti (means opposed) religious.
No. You are simply "ridiculous" to be opposed to the goals of your
own religion.
On the other hand, one can be a Christian and disagree with the goals
of the right-wingnut fundamentalists, because their goals are NOT the
goals of the "Christian religion", but merely the goals of their
particular sects.
There are many conservatives, such as myself, that have problems with
conservatism but are still conservatives.
"Have problems with" is not the same as "anti".
But I would contend that to the extent that you oppose whatever
constitutes "conservatism" in your what-passes-for-a-mind, you are NOT
a "conservative".
There are liberals that are opposed to liberalism.
Then they aren't liberals.
There are women opposed to extreme feminism.
They aren't "extreme feminists" then.
And, yes, there are atheists that are opposed to the actions of atheist
organizations.
They probably shouldn't be members of those organizations then. But
one need not be a member of any organization, or to have any
particular belief, in order to be an atheist, since atheism is defined
by what atheists do NOT believe, and not by what they do believe.
lojbab
Almost true.
An agnostic does NOT BELIEVE in God, an atheist BELIEVES there is NO God.
I consider myself atheist, however, I don't "believe" there is no god(s), I
know this for a fact.
No beliefs involved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Revere" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
17 Dec 2005 07:09:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:09:15 -0800, ManMadeGod wrote
(in article <qf_of.40629$ih5.12779@dukeread11>):
"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BFC8CBA80005C2F2F02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:54:24 -0800, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in article <ved6q15c4ifh3c1kft6508d1nf4n794rf7@4ax.com>):
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You misunderstood. You can be a religious person and be anti-religious.
Not if you are sane.
It's not mutually exclusive. If you are opposed to
your religion's own goals, you are anti (means opposed) religious.
No. You are simply "ridiculous" to be opposed to the goals of your
own religion.
On the other hand, one can be a Christian and disagree with the goals
of the right-wingnut fundamentalists, because their goals are NOT the
goals of the "Christian religion", but merely the goals of their
particular sects.
There are many conservatives, such as myself, that have problems with
conservatism but are still conservatives.
"Have problems with" is not the same as "anti".
But I would contend that to the extent that you oppose whatever
constitutes "conservatism" in your what-passes-for-a-mind, you are NOT
a "conservative".
There are liberals that are opposed to liberalism.
Then they aren't liberals.
There are women opposed to extreme feminism.
They aren't "extreme feminists" then.
And, yes, there are atheists that are opposed to the actions of atheist
organizations.
They probably shouldn't be members of those organizations then. But
one need not be a member of any organization, or to have any
particular belief, in order to be an atheist, since atheism is defined
by what atheists do NOT believe, and not by what they do believe.
lojbab
Almost true.
An agnostic does NOT BELIEVE in God, an atheist BELIEVES there is NO God.
I consider myself atheist, however, I don't "believe" there is no god(s), I
know this for a fact.
No beliefs involved.
There is a difference between a "fact" and a "belief".
A fact can be proven, a belief must be accepted without proof.
What is your proof that no gods exist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ManMadeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
18 Dec 2005 07:40:55 PM |
|
|
"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BFC9F6DF000415D8F02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:09:15 -0800, ManMadeGod wrote
(in article <qf_of.40629$ih5.12779@dukeread11>):
"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BFC8CBA80005C2F2F02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:54:24 -0800, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in article <ved6q15c4ifh3c1kft6508d1nf4n794rf7@4ax.com>):
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You misunderstood. You can be a religious person and be
anti-religious.
Not if you are sane.
It's not mutually exclusive. If you are opposed to
your religion's own goals, you are anti (means opposed) religious.
No. You are simply "ridiculous" to be opposed to the goals of your
own religion.
On the other hand, one can be a Christian and disagree with the goals
of the right-wingnut fundamentalists, because their goals are NOT the
goals of the "Christian religion", but merely the goals of their
particular sects.
There are many conservatives, such as myself, that have problems with
conservatism but are still conservatives.
"Have problems with" is not the same as "anti".
But I would contend that to the extent that you oppose whatever
constitutes "conservatism" in your what-passes-for-a-mind, you are NOT
a "conservative".
There are liberals that are opposed to liberalism.
Then they aren't liberals.
There are women opposed to extreme feminism.
They aren't "extreme feminists" then.
And, yes, there are atheists that are opposed to the actions of
atheist
organizations.
They probably shouldn't be members of those organizations then. But
one need not be a member of any organization, or to have any
particular belief, in order to be an atheist, since atheism is defined
by what atheists do NOT believe, and not by what they do believe.
lojbab
Almost true.
An agnostic does NOT BELIEVE in God, an atheist BELIEVES there is NO
God.
I consider myself atheist, however, I don't "believe" there is no god(s),
I
know this for a fact.
No beliefs involved.
There is a difference between a "fact" and a "belief".
A fact can be proven, a belief must be accepted without proof.
What is your proof that no gods exist?
No proof has ever been shown that any god(s) do exist. No proof has ever
been shown that deer can fly either, so until I see deer fly, I know that
they can't fly.
See how easy logic is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Revere" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
18 Dec 2005 11:08:55 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:40:55 -0800, ManMadeGod wrote
(in article <ocopf.41155$ih5.31679@dukeread11>):
"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BFC9F6DF000415D8F02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:09:15 -0800, ManMadeGod wrote
(in article <qf_of.40629$ih5.12779@dukeread11>):
"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BFC8CBA80005C2F2F02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:54:24 -0800, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in article <ved6q15c4ifh3c1kft6508d1nf4n794rf7@4ax.com>):
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You misunderstood. You can be a religious person and be
anti-religious.
Not if you are sane.
It's not mutually exclusive. If you are opposed to
your religion's own goals, you are anti (means opposed) religious.
No. You are simply "ridiculous" to be opposed to the goals of your
own religion.
On the other hand, one can be a Christian and disagree with the goals
of the right-wingnut fundamentalists, because their goals are NOT the
goals of the "Christian religion", but merely the goals of their
particular sects.
There are many conservatives, such as myself, that have problems with
conservatism but are still conservatives.
"Have problems with" is not the same as "anti".
But I would contend that to the extent that you oppose whatever
constitutes "conservatism" in your what-passes-for-a-mind, you are NOT
a "conservative".
There are liberals that are opposed to liberalism.
Then they aren't liberals.
There are women opposed to extreme feminism.
They aren't "extreme feminists" then.
And, yes, there are atheists that are opposed to the actions of
atheist
organizations.
They probably shouldn't be members of those organizations then. But
one need not be a member of any organization, or to have any
particular belief, in order to be an atheist, since atheism is defined
by what atheists do NOT believe, and not by what they do believe.
lojbab
Almost true.
An agnostic does NOT BELIEVE in God, an atheist BELIEVES there is NO
God.
I consider myself atheist, however, I don't "believe" there is no god(s),
I
know this for a fact.
No beliefs involved.
There is a difference between a "fact" and a "belief".
A fact can be proven, a belief must be accepted without proof.
What is your proof that no gods exist?
No proof has ever been shown that any god(s) do exist. No proof has ever
been shown that deer can fly either, so until I see deer fly, I know that
they can't fly.
No, you BELIEVE they can't fly.
Lack of proof is NOT proof.
It is not possible to prove that ANYTHING does NOT exist, therefore to state
that something does not exist can only be stating a belief.
See how easy logic is.
No proof has been shown that you would recognize logic if it bit you on the
*****, but that doesn't make it correct to state you wouldn't.
Stating you "know" something to be true because you haven't seen proof to the
contrary is moronic not logic.
Until you see PROOF that no god(s) exist you can only BELIEVE that to be the
case.
You "know" there is no god(s) just like religious people "know" there is a
God.
You "know" there is no god(s) because no proof exists that there is.
Religious people "know" there is a God because no proof exists that there is
not.
You are both wrong.
Both of you merely BELIEVE your position to be true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ManMadeGod" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
19 Dec 2005 02:38:18 PM |
|
|
"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BFCB80670010250CF02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:40:55 -0800, ManMadeGod wrote
(in article <ocopf.41155$ih5.31679@dukeread11>):
You "know" there is no god(s) just like religious people "know" there is a
God.
No, they do not know there is a god. If they did, they could provide proof
of this silly fairy tale.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus & Dagon |
19 Dec 2005 12:11:32 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 23:08:55 -0600, Paul Revere wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:40:55 -0800, ManMadeGod wrote
(in article <ocopf.41155$ih5.31679@dukeread11>):
"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BFC9F6DF000415D8F02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:09:15 -0800, ManMadeGod wrote
(in article <qf_of.40629$ih5.12779@dukeread11>):
"Paul Revere" <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BFC8CBA80005C2F2F02845B0@news.west.cox.net...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:54:24 -0800, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in article <ved6q15c4ifh3c1kft6508d1nf4n794rf7@4ax.com>):
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You misunderstood. You can be a religious person and be
anti-religious.
Not if you are sane.
It's not mutually exclusive. If you are opposed to
your religion's own goals, you are anti (means opposed) religious.
No. You are simply "ridiculous" to be opposed to the goals of your
own religion.
On the other hand, one can be a Christian and disagree with the goals
of the right-wingnut fundamentalists, because their goals are NOT the
goals of the "Christian religion", but merely the goals of their
particular sects.
There are many conservatives, such as myself, that have problems with
conservatism but are still conservatives.
"Have problems with" is not the same as "anti".
But I would contend that to the extent that you oppose whatever
constitutes "conservatism" in your what-passes-for-a-mind, you are NOT
a "conservative".
There are liberals that are opposed to liberalism.
Then they aren't liberals.
There are women opposed to extreme feminism.
They aren't "extreme feminists" then.
And, yes, there are atheists that are opposed to the actions of
atheist
organizations.
They probably shouldn't be members of those organizations then. But
one need not be a member of any organization, or to have any
particular belief, in order to be an atheist, since atheism is defined
by what atheists do NOT believe, and not by what they do believe.
lojbab
Almost true.
An agnostic does NOT BELIEVE in God, an atheist BELIEVES there is NO
God.
I consider myself atheist, however, I don't "believe" there is no god(s),
I
know this for a fact.
No beliefs involved.
There is a difference between a "fact" and a "belief".
A fact can be proven, a belief must be accepted without proof.
What is your proof that no gods exist?
No proof has ever been shown that any god(s) do exist. No proof has ever
been shown that deer can fly either, so until I see deer fly, I know that
they can't fly.
No, you BELIEVE they can't fly.
Lack of proof is NOT proof.
It is not possible to prove that ANYTHING does NOT exist, therefore to state
that something does not exist can only be stating a belief.
See how easy logic is.
No proof has been shown that you would recognize logic if it bit you on the
*****, but that doesn't make it correct to state you wouldn't.
Stating you "know" something to be true because you haven't seen proof to the
contrary is moronic not logic.
Until you see PROOF that no god(s) exist you can only BELIEVE that to be the
case.
You "know" there is no god(s) just like religious people "know" there is a
God.
You "know" there is no god(s) because no proof exists that there is.
Religious people "know" there is a God because no proof exists that there is
not.
You are both wrong.
Both of you merely BELIEVE your position to be true.
Easiest of all is to simply judge whether a particular god exists
by observing that alleged god's (gods') followers.
If their behavior is significantly more moral and more just than
the "average" (or whatever one wishes to call "it") "person on the
street", then investigation of that particular god/gods is in
order.
Admittedly, this certainly doesn't have anything to do with whether
a god/gods exist but simply gives an indication to whether this
particular god/gods is/are an ***** or not.
For instance, the God of Judaism and Islam and one of the gods of
Christianity - reading the books called "The Old Testament" by most
of the cults of Christianity - does not portray a god to which I
would want my grandchildren to be exposed.
That particular god fails the "***** Test".
That's only one of the reasons I support the
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu.
With Cthulhu, remember: the best surprise is
just another of the Elder Gods.
Gray Shockley
--------------------
Everlasting torment in hell?
You wish, my child, you wish!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
16 Dec 2005 10:48:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:53:12 -0600, Paul Revere wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:54:24 -0800, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in article <ved6q15c4ifh3c1kft6508d1nf4n794rf7@4ax.com>):
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
You misunderstood. You can be a religious person and be anti-religious.
Not if you are sane.
It's not mutually exclusive. If you are opposed to
your religion's own goals, you are anti (means opposed) religious.
No. You are simply "ridiculous" to be opposed to the goals of your
own religion.
On the other hand, one can be a Christian and disagree with the goals
of the right-wingnut fundamentalists, because their goals are NOT the
goals of the "Christian religion", but merely the goals of their
particular sects.
There are many conservatives, such as myself, that have problems with
conservatism but are still conservatives.
"Have problems with" is not the same as "anti".
But I would contend that to the extent that you oppose whatever
constitutes "conservatism" in your what-passes-for-a-mind, you are NOT
a "conservative".
There are liberals that are opposed to liberalism.
Then they aren't liberals.
There are women opposed to extreme feminism.
They aren't "extreme feminists" then.
And, yes, there are atheists that are opposed to the actions of atheist
organizations.
They probably shouldn't be members of those organizations then. But
one need not be a member of any organization, or to have any
particular belief, in order to be an atheist, since atheism is defined
by what atheists do NOT believe, and not by what they do believe.
lojbab
Almost true.
An agnostic does NOT BELIEVE in God,
In 1863 he [Thomas Henry Huxley] published a work of his own
entitled Zoological Evidences as to Man's Place in Nature which was
the first work to make the yet more controversial assertion that
mankind should be viewed as being a product of evolutionary
processes. He also wrote essays on theology and philosophy from an
"agnostic" viewpoint. He had himself coined the term agnostic to
refer to those who believed that nothing is likely to be known of
God or anything but material phenomena.
Thomas Henry Huxley died on June 29, 1895.
<http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/thhuxley.html>
An agnostic also does not not believe in (g)God(s).
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Now my own suspicion is that the
Universe is not only queerer than
we suppose, but queerer than
we *can* suppose.
- J B S Haldane
an atheist BELIEVES there is NO God.
There is a difference.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
17 Dec 2005 04:44:17 AM |
|
|
Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:
They aren't "extreme feminists" then.
And, yes, there are atheists that are opposed to the actions of atheist
organizations.
They probably shouldn't be members of those organizations then. But
one need not be a member of any organization, or to have any
particular belief, in order to be an atheist, since atheism is defined
by what atheists do NOT believe, and not by what they do believe.
lojbab
Almost true.
That is the definition of atheism used by most who call themselves
atheists. Words mean what people use them to mean.
An agnostic does NOT BELIEVE in God, an atheist BELIEVES there is NO God.
There is a difference.
I don't accept those definitions. An agnostic *doesn't know* what
they believe; an atheist simply doesn't believe. Personally, I don't
find a lot of difference - they seem like different philosophical
reactions to the state of not believing. But neither is itself a
belief.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Revere" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
17 Dec 2005 07:02:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:44:17 -0800, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in article <slq7q1hgfc17f29nj32quia4jed8r0hdv3@4ax.com>):
Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:
They aren't "extreme feminists" then.
And, yes, there are atheists that are opposed to the actions of atheist
organizations.
They probably shouldn't be members of those organizations then. But
one need not be a member of any organization, or to have any
particular belief, in order to be an atheist, since atheism is defined
by what atheists do NOT believe, and not by what they do believe.
lojbab
Almost true.
That is the definition of atheism used by most who call themselves
atheists. Words mean what people use them to mean.
An agnostic does NOT BELIEVE in God, an atheist BELIEVES there is NO God.
There is a difference.
I don't accept those definitions.
You claim "words mean what people use them to mean".
You then state, " I don't accept those definitions."
Well, I used those words to say what I mean, so my definitions are correct by
your own statement.
An agnostic *doesn't know* what
they believe; an atheist simply doesn't believe. Personally, I don't
find a lot of difference - they seem like different philosophical
reactions to the state of not believing. But neither is itself a
belief.
lojbab
An agnostic knows exactly what he believes.
An agnostic does not "believe in" a god or gods because an agnostic believes
that the existence or lack thereof of a god or gods is unknowable.
An agnostic acknowledges that there is no proof of the existence or lack of
existence of a god or gods.
An atheist does not believe that whether or not there is a god or god is
unknowable. An atheist "believes" there is NO god or gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
17 Dec 2005 11:19:00 PM |
|
|
Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:
An agnostic does NOT BELIEVE in God, an atheist BELIEVES there is NO God.
There is a difference.
I don't accept those definitions.
You claim "words mean what people use them to mean".
You then state, " I don't accept those definitions."
Well, I used those words to say what I mean, so my definitions are correct by
your own statement.
Nobody cares what you used the words to mean.
An agnostic *doesn't know* what
they believe; an atheist simply doesn't believe. Personally, I don't
find a lot of difference - they seem like different philosophical
reactions to the state of not believing. But neither is itself a
belief.
An agnostic knows exactly what he believes.
In your ignorant opinion. I know plenty of agnostics who know that
they do NOT know what they believe, and indeed define themselves as
agnostics by their refusal to decide what they believe.
An agnostic does not "believe in" a god or gods because an agnostic believes
that the existence or lack thereof of a god or gods is unknowable.
That is one kind of agnosticism, but not the only one.
An atheist does not believe that whether or not there is a god or god is
unknowable.
An atheist simply doesn't believe in any gods. An atheist may or may
not have an opinion as to whether such is "knowable".
An atheist "believes" there is NO god or gods.
That is not what most atheists mean by their self-labeling, so your
statement means only that most atheists aren't really "atheists" in
your opinion. And since no one gives a damn about your opinion except
you, your statement is meaningless.
There are probably very few people who meet your qualification for
being an atheist. I don't know any.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Revere" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
17 Dec 2005 11:25:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 21:19:00 -0800, Bob LeChevalier wrote
(in article <prr9q1p20ba51gr7dtbapg7e58ud7nkq58@4ax.com>):
Paul Revere <Zero@nowhere.com> wrote:
An agnostic does NOT BELIEVE in God, an atheist BELIEVES there is NO God.
There is a difference.
I don't accept those definitions.
You claim "words mean what people use them to mean".
You then state, " I don't accept those definitions."
Well, I used those words to say what I mean, so my definitions are correct
by
your own statement.
Nobody cares what you used the words to mean.
An agnostic *doesn't know* what
they believe; an atheist simply doesn't believe. Personally, I don't
find a lot of difference - they seem like different philosophical
reactions to the state of not believing. But neither is itself a
belief.
An agnostic knows exactly what he believes.
In your ignorant opinion. I know plenty of agnostics who know that
they do NOT know what they believe, and indeed define themselves as
agnostics by their refusal to decide what they believe.
An agnostic does not "believe in" a god or gods because an agnostic
believes
that the existence or lack thereof of a god or gods is unknowable.
That is one kind of agnosticism, but not the only one.
An atheist does not believe that whether or not there is a god or god is
unknowable.
An atheist simply doesn't believe in any gods. An atheist may or may
not have an opinion as to whether such is "knowable".
An atheist "believes" there is NO god or gods.
That is not what most atheists mean by their self-labeling, so your
statement means only that most atheists aren't really "atheists" in
your opinion. And since no one gives a damn about your opinion except
you, your statement is meaningless.
There are probably very few people who meet your qualification for
being an atheist. I don't know any.
lojbab
There's a lot of things you "don't know", you ignorant *****.
Drop dead.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
16 Dec 2005 05:40:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:52:31 -0600, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22290
I suggest reading the opinion, and not some news article about it.
http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/1-05-cv-0813%20Opinion.pdf
<II. The Establishment Clause Claim
<A. Prayers as Government Speech
<Turning to the merits of the Establishment Clause issue, the parties
< agree that the prayers offered from the podium of the House of
< Representatives are government speech. See Pl. Br. at 20-22; Hearing
< Tr. at 23-24. The Speaker controls access to the podium. The prayers
< may not be offered without the Speaker’s permission. The Speaker also
< has not tried to create any sort of public forum that would be
< available to private speakers to exercise their own First Amendment
< rights of free speech and free exercise of religion. In fact, the
< Speaker has expressly denied any intention to establish any sort of
< public forum. Hearing Tr. at 23-24.10 Under the First Amendment, the
< fact that the prayers are government speech is pivotal. There is “a
< crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion,
< which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing
< religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect.”
< Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 302
< (2000), quoting Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250
< (1990) (opinion of O’Connor, J.) (emphasis in original).
By the defendant agreeing that the prayers from the podium are
government speech and not private speech, the decision became obvious.
By the way, although the Indiana branch of the ACLU represented the
plaintiffs, the actual plaintiffs themselves were a Quaker, a retired
Methodist minister, and two Roman Catholics, all Indiana taxpayers.
This wasn't an "atheist" thing or even a "anti-Christian" thing.
lojbab
As mentioned before, the last major court case here in Mississippi
was a Lutheran family whose children were being taught Southern
Baptist Convention's beliefs.
There seem to be families - here and there - who don't particularly
care to be educated in religious doctrine and dogma, especially -
but not limited to - cultic beliefs they do not share.
Of course, it can be argued that the majority of the students were
of Southern Baptist bloodlines and ethnic group and that the rule
of the majority cannot be questioned.
You know, like in Iran and Talabama.
Does anyone remember old Ben Franklin saying,
"A democracy, if you can keep it"?
Gray
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Federal Court Bans Name of Jesus |
17 Dec 2005 03:09:18 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com>
Date written: 15 Dec 2005 14:44:49 -0800
MsgID:<1134686689.333042.100370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
A Federal Disctrict Court has made a decision that makes it illegal for
a chaplain to say the name of Jesus in their prayers in the government
building in Indiana. Both Democrats and Republicans oppose the ruling.
What do non-Christians say about this issue -- or do you even care what other
religions have to say?
However, the ACLU is connected to this case and is suing, yet again,
to censor the free speech of the religious in government.
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=22290
The ACLU is connected to this case, yet again, to defend the minority from being
oppressed by the majority. That is what America is really all about.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Careful when you cast your devil out of you lest you cast
out the best thing in you." -Nietzsche
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
