SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Lane3 who wrote (80216)1/19/2004 11:14:48 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Oh well, I established a practice of prayer and meditation in my bedroom. I guess you better send the troops out.

You are wrong. The laws were passed because the vast majority of the people who supported them were religious and did want to establish religion in their lives. They did not want the govt. to pass laws regarding the establishment of religion because they wanted freedom to believe and practice according to their faith. A governmental "LAW" about how to establish religion removes the option of seeking God in my own way. It is equally important that the govt. not pass laws (about the establishment of religion) prohibiting me from seeking God in my own way; and this was clearly and obviously the focus at the time. 'establishment' was never meant to connote anti-religious sentiment. Its FREEDOM of Religion. Of religion. of religion. of religion, NOT AGAINST RELIGION....



To: Lane3 who wrote (80216)1/19/2004 11:22:18 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
I don't know why you bother.



To: Lane3 who wrote (80216)1/19/2004 11:59:33 AM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
But not establishing a religion, and hostility to religion, are two very different things. Many people ask government to be actively hostile to religion. That's not what the Constitutions says, or means.