Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

3 points I would like to address.

- First, I completely disagree with the smoking ban. I've been a non-smoker for 2 or 3 years, and have found that it's really unpleasant to be around (full disclosure), but do not think that it is the governments job to go to joe business owner and tell him that he cannot allow a *legal* activity (tobacco use is still legal, right?) in his or her establishment.
- Second, the citizens passed a "no gay marriage" ammendment. That's the way that it works. The issue was put on the ballot, the people voted, and that was the outcome.
- Third, the 'ten commandments rallies' at the courthouses. Like it or not, the United States was founded on Christian principles, many of which were derived from Christian laws / rules / etc., including the ten commandments. We are free to worship as we please (Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Jewish, Animism, Wica, Confucianism, etc.), but there has to be a set of core values. For our Founding Fathers (and, based on recent events, including the unexpected and overwhelming success of 'The Passion of the Christ', the election and re-election of George W. Bush, the fact that 75% of our population still identifies itself as Christian, etc., a majority of Americans today), those core values were and are derived from the Christian faith.

@"- Third, the 'ten commandments rallies' at the courthouses. Like it or not, the United States was founded on Christian principles . . . "

COMPLETE BULLSHIT

The US was NOT founded on Christianity, please read some on the history of the nation before you state what it was "founded on".

Thomas Jefferson, was he a "founding father" as you put it, hows about this
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the
fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Or this ""Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of
Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we
have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of
coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half
hypocrites."

John Adams, was he a "founding father"? - "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

Ok, lets try another, James Madison, known as the "father of the Constitution" - ""In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" [Letter to H. Spafford, 1814]."

On and on and on, the people that wrote the Constitution of the United States were smart and recognized the need for the separation of Church and State (for the benefit of BOTH, but zealots never understand that).

Also Rules and laws that guide morality are ABSOLUTELY NOT derived from Christianity or the ten commandments, they were around long before Christianity and evolved from the nature of group dynamics and reciprocity and such (see Hammurabi, many before that also exist, "dont kill" is not a revelation and NOT A CHRISTIAN invention, rather "thought shall have no other god before me" might be, thats a commandment and what does that teach us about law?).

The point of the ten commandements crack though was not anti Christian, as you obviously have taken it. The point was that supporting the ten commandments, or any religious document, in a courthouse run by the government is a clear affirmation of a particular religion. Its EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF FREEDOM.

And yes, jackasses such as you are the majority (75% Christian, recent elections, etc), at least in Georgia. Yet be advised that that does not make you correct. The profound ignorance over what freedom is was the POINT of the post, you have clearly demonstrated that very ignorance and thus justified and clarified exactly my points. Thanks.

FYI: James Madison was NOT the enemy of religion. In fact it was James Madison who said that society was better off with many religions because the diversity helped people to become tolerant and get along.

FYI: This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects, which pervades America, and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. James Madison

And yes, jackasses such as you are the majority (75% Christian, recent elections, etc),

That is about as intolerant a statement as I have EVER heard anyone say. The left is oh so tolerant of one another but they would gladly put to death anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I never said the "founding fathers" were "anti religion", inlcuding Madison. He was very religious yes, he simply understood the separation, as this "anonymous" poster (from the same IP) does not.

MORE BULLSHIT

@"The supreme court ruled in one case that a cross erected by the KKK on a courthouse lawn could stay along with a disclaimer that the government was not sponsoring it there." EXACTLY - government not involved, a temporary display on their land, and stay with me here, not exactly religion, entirely different than when a county pays for and displays the commandments.

@"There is prayer before sessions of congress and that too has been upheld." Yes, incorrectly upheld by the very same ignorance. The Supreme court has made many mistakes in its history, whenever they support religion in government its a mistake.

@"There are chaplains in the military who are paid by the government. This has been held not to violate the establishment clause and in fact actaully facilitates the free exercise clause because without them the military guys would have no 'pastor' of their own." Finally, a valid argument to discuss, thank you. This is a good point, but its still invalid really. These guys know when the join the military there are lots of things they cant "have on their own". Do we provide every thing as such? And even if we say, ok, in this very specific case, for this very specific reason, the government will provide a religious person. Do we do that for all religions? The wiccans in the military for example which ole Bob Barr went so apeshit over? I think its a good concept to provide the relgious outlet to soldiers (again its not about being anti religious - just not supporting one particular type of religion in government and then saying we have religious freedom - thats bullshit), but its flawed on several levels.

The no religion in a courtroom (or in congress, which is asinine, or on our money, etc) is not an ANTI RELIGIOUS tact, its a SMART tact to separate religion from government because that benefits both institutions greatly (I wont get into the reasons here, they are clear, well known, and apparently beyond the level of this discussion anyway).

Here is the deal, when the government pays for something, a building, a military, a school, a whatever, it should have no endorsement of any religion at all (or alternatively an endorsement of ALL RELIGIONS, which of course does not mean Baptist AND Methodist, which I clearly have to explain to you, and is clearly stupid because its impractical).

Also NO RELIGION, ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, etc are perfectly constitutional and protected. Freedom FROM relgion was expressly remarked about by Jefferson et al. Those that say its not are flat out wrong and just spouting their own zealotous ideaology (and I might add very insecure - if your god is so great, and the correct way to truth and salvation and such - why do you give a fuck what my god, or lack thereof, says?).

You can have separation of church and state and its not even that difficult. you just have to not be a hypocrite when you have a consitution that says no law respecting an establishment of religion and a country which calls itself free and a beacon of religious tolerance and freedom.

No the United States is NOT that country, it proclaims itself to be but it is not. That was the entire point of the post (on all the levels, not just religion). What we should do to be honest and non hypocritical and non specious is simply change the consitution to call this an Abrahamic religious nation, because thats what it is and religion does pervade government even though it should not.

Religion pervades government in the states because of the ignorance of people like these anon posters that do not understand liberty, or freedom or the very tenets of the nation to which they proclaim to support religon for. It does not pervade government in the states because that is the correct way to do things, or because thats what the constitution states, etc, it pervades because of the ignorance.

Also NO RELIGION, ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, etc are perfectly constitutional and protected.

Yes, they are protected. But what you advocate is the government favoring them over Christianity. That is NOT constitutional.

And FYI: prayer in before congress was started as the constitution was being written and it was upheld not as a religious practice, but as a tradidion of this country. If you ban the name of God, which is was you really want, then you would have to change everything down to the coins in your pocket.

" If you ban the name of God, which is was you really want, then you would have to change everything down to the coins in your pocket."

Exactly, YES, HALLELUJAH! Yes we would have to change those things, money, courts, etc (all mentioned above, even the clever "money in my pocket") but only then would we actually have said separation and said "freedom".

And the word "God" should be banned from government activities. God is not a neutrality of religion, its clearly monotheistic and believe it or not there are many popular religions that are not monotheistic. The use of the term "God" to try to indicate "religion in general but not a specific God" is wrong. It indicates "monotheistic religion in general". Where government wants to use a neutral term for spirituality or religion, it should use "religion" or "spirituality". If we say "God", then we have to say "God or Gods or no God", if we are really trying to be nuetral. Of course thats stupid and impractical, the correct course is just not to say it (within government).

If we want to keep the "word God" in our government then we should declare this an Abrahamic nation and move on, as I stated above. Its not a religiously tolerant or free place, its an Abrahamically religiously tolerant and free place.

Try to set aside your ideology and zealotry,

Proof of your prejudice. You call someone you don't even know and have never met a zealot. What YOU cannot seem to grasp is that the Constitution does not allow favoring non religion over religion. And like it or not the founding fathers were religious. And that religion has become some of the traditions of this country. The people who believe have as much right to speak about it as you have not to hear it. If you do not wish to hear it in a public forum then you have the right to leave.

@"No you would not. You would only have a preference for non religion over religion which is against the establishment clause."

BULLSHIT, its not a PREFERENCE, as I said a preference would be to say something about NON RELIGION. The lack of saying something about religion is not equal to saying something about non religion. Say nothing about either.

@"Try to set aside your ideology and zealotry, Proof of your prejudice. You call someone you don't even know and have never met a zealot. What YOU cannot seem to grasp is that the Constitution does not allow favoring non religion over religion. And like it or not the founding fathers were religious. And that religion has become some of the traditions of this country. The people who believe have as much right to speak about it as you have not to hear it. If you do not wish to hear it in a public forum then you have the right to leave."

Have I never met a zealot but yet I am a zealot? And is that "prrof" of your prejudice (I think your standard for "proof" is pretty low, but thats not surprising.) I know you are but what am I.

Some of the founding fathers were religious, some werent, either way its irrelevant and I addressed someone else bringing it up, I did not bring it up. What these "founding" people understood (most of them, not all), and you dont, is the separation part.

Sure individual people have a right to speak, who said they dont? Jesus people , its not that hard, individuals are not the same as the GOVERNMENT as an entity speaking or requiring said speech. If the ten commandments are recited by some religious person in a courtroom thats fine, if they feel like saying a hail mary before they testify, whatever. This person being a private individual not being paid by the government. But the GOVERNMENT should not say a hail mary or require that person to say a hail mary. Its not really that difficult of a distinction is it? Yeah people have a right to speak about it, again the GOVERNMENT DOES NOT. Its third grade logic here and you, like many other zealots that cant understand rational thinking because they cant get past their own ideology, just dont get it.

"And you are a zealot for non religion. No difference".

Ummm, yeah, no difference.

My version of "inflict" being NO RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT IN A GOVERNMENT BUILDING. Note that even though this wont do any good I will say it again, thats not the same thing as an endorsement of non religion. Hello, McFly.

An analogous situation for my "ideology" and "zealotry" would be an athiest manifesto on the wall. Thats clearly NOT what I am advocating.

I am a "zealot" for true religious freedom, sure enough.

You are a zealot for Christianity.

Thats the difference.

And I just noticed this dumbass comment:

"The courthouse is considered a public forum. That means that anyone can say anything they want to say there unless the words are fighting words which bring about a clear and present danger to the safety of others. You gonna not be likin' it a loooooooooong time."

Anyone can say anything they want, again, who said they could not? You people read about as well as you comprehend. The state cant do anything it wants, but people can say anything, even "fightin words".

As to I will be liking it a long time. I will be, I am liking it, loving it even. The ACLU consistenly fights the cases all over the southeast and in every case has WON and the document has been removed or the county or municipality has appealed and wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars and the bullshit, and will later lose the appeal. Seems like the courts agree with me in every case of the commandments, thankfully.

Judge Roy Moore can tell you about the "constitutionality" of commandments crap.

Now often the courts dont agree with my views, the courts are sometimes inconsistent, just so happens in these "you gonna be loving it" cases they concur with me, the commandments dont fucking belong there, even if the dumbass governor goes to the support rally as a political stunt that many clowns fawn all over.

Its a forced recognition and endorsement of one religion.

Nope. Not by a long shot. Not as long as there is a disclaimer on it.

@Its a forced recognition and endorsement of one religion.

Nope. Not by a long shot. Not as long as there is a disclaimer on it."

Thats a NEW argument. That is saying its not a religious thing, thats the ole bait and switch, "nah its not religious, its historical" argument (or at least thats what I think you mean by its not and endorsement and its got a "disclaimer" - interestingly all religious texts should come with a "disclaimer" regardless of context ;)).

Others in this thread arent trying the "its not religion" argument, they are trying the "religion in govt is just fine" argument (with various reasons why its fine, its what this nation was "founded on", etc). Big difference.

That last "anonymous" post is nonsense.

"The purpose" is wrong, the "Seperation"[sic] is wrong, and the "distinction" between "CHURCH" and "RELIGION" is completely specious.

This is a new argument though - "There is no mention of the executive or judicial branches in that statement so many of these cries against prayers said by the courts or the president are unfounded." Its nonsense, its an argument oft uttered by Anne Coulter, but its at least new to this thread.

The phrase uses the word "congress", why? Because the intentions of our founding fathers were that ONE branch of government have a separation of church and state and the other TWO should NOT?

Ludicrous.

It says congress BECAUSE CONGRESS MAKES LAWS. Its that simple (and congress even makes laws about the judiciary, amendments to the constitution start there, etc, its the logical starting point to say "hey - separation" and be comprehensive).

Now as the people expressing their own religions views, thats bullshit, thats NOT THE POINT. Of course a judge or courthouse worker can have their own views and OWN copy of the ten commandments in their PRIVATE office, etc. Or utter it aloud if they want (not in an official capacity). The problem, and its simple but many still seem to miss it, is when the STATE endorses a religion and takes a position either way.

STATE NO RELIGION, STATE NO CHURCH, not EITHER. (As if there is a real distinction for the purposes of this discussion.)

"Anonymous" and Anne Coulter are both wrong, the phrase CONGRESS does not mean other branches of government can go willy nilly with religious bullshit.