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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (28935)	9/22/2001 1:04:13 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

<I am saying only that humans are physical, and spiritual beings. The attempt to dichotomize that has failed. > False premise. I have seen souls in the eyes of animals. Different souls with different priorities. But maybe you have to turn off the theology long enough to look.

To: Greg or e who wrote (28935)	9/22/2001 1:13:20 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It does not force atheism to be the "state" religion. It makes the state impartial toward religion, which is NOT atheism (the belief that their IS NO GOD)- and the only way to do that is to have the "government" which is not a person, but more of a fictitious entity, abstain from advocating religion, or enter into all religions equally. This is America, there is NO state religion. Just as there is no "STATE" political party. That our "government" does not force us to be democrat, republican, independent, or whatever, does NOT mean our government is against politics. It means each person should look to their own conscience, if they have one.

To: Greg or e who wrote (28935)	9/22/2001 2:04:33 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

No, Greg. What you said was that separation of church and state was "laudable", but that it was impractical as being akin to splitting a child in two. Your anthropomorphic analogy was silly in the extreme and exposed the fact that you are merely spouting meaningless phrases from Christian websites, rather than giving reasonable thought to the question. Now...again...there are myriad religions. If any ONE religion is permitted to participate in the "governing" of the people, then freedom of religion (and thus democracy itself) can not be said to exist. If you were a Christian living in Afghanistan you would bloody well want freedom of religion--wouldn't you?? So why do you argue for a religious dictatorship here in what is supposed to be a democracy?? Why do you, as you glaze your pots, persist in an opinion that is popular only amongst religious fanatics?? The state GOVERNS. Greg McRitchie does not. Firstly, you tried to shroud your hatred of religious freedom by claiming that the idea of separating the elitism of the state from the bias of religion was laudable...BUT...then you say (really slooooooowww) that separating religion from the state FORCES atheism to become a state religion! This is the most inane comment I have ever heard you make...and that is saying a great deal. Pitiful! Since Atheism classically makes a religious truth claim that there is no God... the State therefore, becomes a promoter of a religious truth claim. Don't you get it, Greg. The separation of church and state prevents the state either from promoting OR from demoting the individual expression of religion. Freedom of religion means that the state may NOT have a prejudice against any religion, or for any religion. It means that ALL citizens may worship as they choose to--without ANY bias or threat from the state. In other words: People may not be FORCED to believe in atheism, to believe in Christianity, or to believe in anything else. People may believe in whatever they choose to believe in. They are individuals; they are free; their life belongs to them, and not to another. ANYBODY who does not believe in the separation of church and state is an enemy of freedom, of conscience, of thought, and of existence. Such a person is a thoughtless and dangerous fool. A fool who wishes to control the thoughts of others, and thus to deny their existence as human beings. I have never found an intelligent Christian who did not support the separation of church and state. "We all agree that neither the Government nor political parties ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that religious sects ought not to interfere with the Government or with political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and the cause of religion suffer by all such interference." --Rutherford B. Hayes "To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life." --Theodore Roosevelt "I believe in absolute freedom of conscience for all men and equality of all churches, all sects, and all beliefs before the law as a matter of right and not as a matter of favor. I believe in the absolute separation of church and state and in the strict enforcement of the Constitution that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I believe that no tribunal of any church has any power to make any decree of any force in the law of the land, other than to establish the status of its own communicants within its own church." --Alfred E. Smith

To: Greg or e who wrote (28935)	9/22/2001 2:05:42 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The way separation of Church and State has been applied....forces Atheism to become the State religion...... That just doesn't jibe with my experience. If you want to continue to make that argument, you need to provide some supporting evidence. If you want to substitute agnosticism for atheism, I, for one, wouldn't challenge it. Atheism seems excessive to me. Who is asking for the child to be split? Why it's the Atheists And so does this. I don't see anyone asking for a child to be split, only that the child learn what is appropriate in various situations. You learn that you don't express yourself like a football fan when you're in a library or at a funeral. Or like a sexual being when you're on main street or in a doctor's office. Or like a wretch of a sinner when you're in a business meeting or a voting booth. We're not sliced in half when we make those adjustments to our environment, merely emphasizing the part of us that is relevant to the environment we're in. Karen

To: Greg or e who wrote (28935)	9/22/2001 4:26:56 PM
From: E	Respond to of 82486

I think that if the classics of atheist thought were read aloud by teachers to classes of captive students; were read aloud before meetings of government bodies; were read aloud in all the same places you would like for Christian texts to be read aloud now, were featured as prominently by the mass media, you would get a glimpse into the difference between having government be impartial among its citizens where religion is concerned, and having government "support atheism." Actually, if there were a provision of equal time in public forums for atheist philosophers' and atheist religious historians' views to be presented to the populace, including schoolchildren, i would be mightily tempted to say, okay, bring it on. BTW, just to make it absolutely clear: You are not implying that the Bible identified the 'mother' who wanted the child to be split as an atheist. It was you who made a metaphor comparing a split child to separation of church and state, and did that....