Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17533)	4/25/2000 12:48:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Religious speech is protected under the 1st amendment. Virtually no school in the country allow religious discussion outside carefully controlled "comparative" religion courses on the grounds of separation of church and state. This inherent conflict is why, in my opinion, government run schools are constitutionally disallowed.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17533)	4/25/2000 1:11:00 PM
From: Constant Reader	Respond to of 769667

An excellent post. I do not think you are anti-religious and I do not believe your arguments reflect such bigotry. BTW, contrary to popular belief, something as seemingly simple as posting the "Ten Commandments" involves the school in the establishment of a preferred religious viewpoint. The school must decide whose ten commandments to use: the Protestant version, the Roman Catholic version, the Jewish version or the Eastern Orthodox version. I understand that there is not universal agreement about the ordering of the commandments. I think it better not to get involved with the establishment of a state-sponsored religion.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17533)	4/25/2000 4:34:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

"no law ...respecting...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The very amendment that guarantees freedom to exercise religion is now interpreted as a law forbidding it. Show me where this separation of church and state requires the government to forbid the posting of any religious commandments. It, in fact, prohibits the state from making any law that would restrict the establishment of religion. I know it is popular to interpret this in the reverse. That is, the government must restrict religion in respect of the non religious or other religious, but that is not what the Amendment states. I would oppose a law that requires the posting of religious documents on school walls but not one that gives the school representatives the right to post religious documents. I would go further, to require the state to voucher my kids so that my taxes can go to a school where the Quran's Suras are posted on the walls. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17533)	4/25/2000 9:33:00 PM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

LRR, Perhaps it is inference. It's a feeling that I got when reading your posts. I am not above mistakes, and regret it when I make them. I might add, that I am as much against any sort of state run religion as you are. I make and issue of the Ten Commandments only because this whole flap banning prayer in church, etc. was promulgated by Madeline Murray O'Hair, a well known Atheist. As it turned out, all she was doing was championing a cause that could gain her wealth, which she converted to gold, and was ultimately murdered for it by one of her own converts. I have stated before, and truly believe, that it is not necessary to post the Ten Commandments because, any Christian, or Jew, should already know them by heart. I do wonder why the congress and supreme court of the U.S. begin their sessions with a prayer, and do not allow it at other public functions. A bit of a contradiction in principle, don't you think? I, most emphatically, am not a member of any evangelical church. I visit different congregations but, do not become a member of any. I have never approached anyone and tried to convert them to Christianity. I have helped those that have expressed, to me, an interest in doing so. I have no truck with those that shout "REPENT" from the street corners, or grab someone's coat sleeve and attempt to badger them into belief. I am, quite often, at odds with evangelicals, and am considered a maverick Christian by some. I respect your right to "stand outside" any value system that you do not agree with. I don't believe I have ever asked anyone on these threads to become a Christian. I have, merely, expressed my own opinions as formed by certain experiences in my life, and readings of the Bible. Even at that, I have some unanswered questions about some of the early parts of the book of Genesis but, my main focus has been the New Testament. When I first began posting, I refused to use the word "religion" because it does not, necessarily, refer to Christianity. A religion is a man made set of rules on how to worship a diety, any conceived diety. A group of people could choose a Coke bottle, call it a diety, devise rituals on how to worship it, and have a religion. I use the word now, because it seems to be generally considered to mean the same as a faith. Don't get me started on most of the TV evangelists, either. My tirade would consume too much internet space. ~H~