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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: exdaytrader76 who wrote (20899)	7/5/2005 2:12:29 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28931

The child-sacrifice argument is a blatant red herring - and by blatant, I mean a ripe, smelly one. Our laws protect children because they, like everyone else, have rights - including to life - that can not be abridged for the sake of someone else's religious, or any other form of, liberty. Re 'that "separation of church and state" have become nothing more than political buzzwords', I agree to an extent. It is used by some to attack religion, rather than simply to keep government out of it. But there are also MANY religious people in this country who firmly believe that it is a principle that is crucial to the maintenance of our religious freedom. Many also firmly believe that it is everyone's right to be "angry at God" as you suggest Solon is, to simply not believe, or to not believe and speak out against religion. Only when they infringe upon the religious rights of others, or start passing laws to do the same, do they violate the principles of our Constitution. And that goes for the religious as well as the anti-religious.

To: exdaytrader76 who wrote (20899)	7/5/2005 3:03:03 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

A colonial Minister, Roger Williams wrote: "It is the will and command of God, that...a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish (Islam), or Antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men, in all nations...," he wrote in The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for Cause of Conscience (1644). Most of those writing in support of religious freedom had similar remarks. Thomas Paine 'Age of Reason':"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." Thomas Paine may have been the strongest influence on the Religious Freedom movement in America.

To: exdaytrader76 who wrote (20899)	7/5/2005 5:49:30 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 28931

The 14th amendment changed that understanding, but not until 1866. In the minds of the framers, they saw the religion debate as mostly Catholic v Protestant. I believe that they would be shocked at the extent to which we have taken a simple directive. Not true ...

To: exdaytrader76 who wrote (20899)	7/5/2005 5:50:07 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 28931

The 14th amendment changed that understanding, but not until 1866. In the minds of the framers, they saw the religion debate as mostly Catholic v Protestant. I believe that they would be shocked at the extent to which we have taken a simple directive. Not true ...but maybe seems so , according to your own agenda .

To: exdaytrader76 who wrote (20899)	7/6/2005 1:12:52 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Today's reality is that "separation of church and state" have become nothing more than political buzzwords for people who are angry at God, like Solon, for example." If there is a God, I am certainly not angry at her. I would love to see her hind parts as Moses did. All men like to see women naked. I am not angry at "God". Although there "may" be a God...the possibility is no more realistic than unicorns. And that "God" may give a shit is neutral unless we pretend that primitive voices inform this discussion...in which case we must admit that he/she is a racist, cruel, and bloody beast of prey.