Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There are very few, if any, communities in this country where 100% of the residents follow a single religion. The fact that so much concern is raised by conservatives (however unrealistic it is) about Sharia law shows that when the shoe is on the other foot, they're able to understand the concept. The First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion is intended to protect the rights of minorities within a community. The government MAY NOT, in any way, endorse any religion -- that includes the one that is followed by the majority of its citizens -- because such endorsement implicitly and inevitably puts other faiths not so endorsed into a second-class status.
If a town with a majority-Muslim population were to conform its laws to Sharia, or even to display quotations from the Quran on public buildings in a manner seeming to provide official endorsement of Islam, Christians and other non-Muslims would have grounds to complain. The only way to guarantee freedom of religion in any society is to keep church and state completely separate.
The answer is the same as it has been every single time (at least once a day) this idiotic hypothetical comes up...
Neither I, nor any other, Christian or conservative would care if those things were displayed on government buildings provided they reflect the community in which they reside.
I don't care if I go to a Muslim community, say a tiny little town that they've established a training camp in, and I go to the courthouse and there's a quotation from the Koran somewhere on the building.
I could care less if I go to a town in the sticks where there's a cell of pagans and there's something about the Mother (or whatever) on City Hall.
Makes no nevermind to me. So long as I have the same freedom in my community.
If fairness to you we shouldn't ask that question, because I didn't expect an honest answer out of you.
Which is why hypotheticals are a waste of time, dumbfuck. It's all pretend.
.
No, religion and government must not be kept separate.
Government cannot be allowed to dictate religion.
That's a totally different thing, and what you promote. You want the government to tell us when, where and how we may worship.
So fuck off.
Atheists are immoral just cuz they're atheist.
What a good little bigot you are, I'm e-patting you on the head right now.
Please explain to me what is moral about: Abortion, Homosexual marriage, Against 10 commandments visible in public places, Obscene art.
The cartoon says put god in public places. There's nothing moral about wanting gov't forced religion.
I'm not surprised you're in favor of gov't forcing your religious views on others. The last thing I'd want is gov't promoting my lack of belief in a god, I don't want gov't teaching ANY religious views, I prefer people have the freedom to do that themselves.
Having God in public places isn't *force*.
So you fail. Again. Fail must be comfortable like an old pair of sweat pants by now.
Exactly and again I'm sure you aren't hypocritical on this view.
If our gov't buildings had "there is no god" on them, your view would be exactly the same and you'd be on here voicing approval of it and saying it isn't forcing atheists views on christians.
For that I'm certain!
Now proceed on with your , "we're a christian nation" rant.
Actually Dr. Drock raised a good point with that hypothetical. If it really is innocuous and all for government buildings to display Christian thoughts, then it should be equally fine for them to display:
1) There is no God.
2) There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger.
3) We all come from the Goddess, and to Her we shall return.
Those willing to endorse all three of these being presented to the public as Official Government Endorsements will gain some measure of credibility (although in fact all of them would violate the First Amendment, so they'd still be on shaky legal ground).
There are very few, if any, communities in this country where 100% of the residents follow a single religion. The fact that so much concern is raised by conservatives (however unrealistic it is) about Sharia law shows that when the shoe is on the other foot, they're able to understand the concept. The First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion is intended to protect the rights of minorities within a community. The government MAY NOT, in any way, endorse any religion -- that includes the one that is followed by the majority of its citizens -- because such endorsement implicitly and inevitably puts other faiths not so endorsed into a second-class status.
If a town with a majority-Muslim population were to conform its laws to Sharia, or even to display quotations from the Quran on public buildings in a manner seeming to provide official endorsement of Islam, Christians and other non-Muslims would have grounds to complain. The only way to guarantee freedom of religion in any society is to keep church and state completely separate.
"Orthodox Christianity" emerged, from a varied milieu, of myriad "interpretations" of Christianity, e.g. "Gnostics", specifically by declaring all of those "others" as "heretics", and expelling them from the "Orthodox" main-stream. Cp. Simon Magus, expelled by Simon Peter (Acts 8). "Orthodox" writers penned volumes "against heretics" from the first Apostles, e.g. Epistles of James, Jude. With more political power, came more flagrant Denunciations.Prior to Constantine I becoming emperor and prior to the Council of Nicaea and the creation of the Imperial Church, no Christian subgroup had any power over any of the others, none could enforce orthodoxy or punish heresy...
Actually Dr. Drock raised a good point with that hypothetical. If it really is innocuous and all for government buildings to display Christian thoughts, then it should be equally fine for them to display:
1) There is no God.
2) There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger.
3) We all come from the Goddess, and to Her we shall return.
Those willing to endorse all three of these being presented to the public as Official Government Endorsements will gain some measure of credibility (although in fact all of them would violate the First Amendment, so they'd still be on shaky legal ground).
Experiment! Do all four communities: athiest/Christian (Judeo)/muslim(we know how those turn out)/goddess. Give them some time and check to see how they are doing.
How is the crime rate, comparatively speaking?
How prosperous is the community?
How many visitors return?
How many improvements are made on the community (parks, museums, etc)?
Just do it, quit telling Christians to stop being Christians and form your own communities, see how that works out for you.
Actually Dr. Drock raised a good point with that hypothetical. If it really is innocuous and all for government buildings to display Christian thoughts, then it should be equally fine for them to display:
1) There is no God.
2) There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger.
3) We all come from the Goddess, and to Her we shall return.
Those willing to endorse all three of these being presented to the public as Official Government Endorsements will gain some measure of credibility (although in fact all of them would violate the First Amendment, so they'd still be on shaky legal ground).
Experiment! Do all four communities: athiest/Christian (Judeo)/muslim(we know how those turn out)/goddess. Give them some time and check to see how they are doing.
How is the crime rate, comparatively speaking?
How prosperous is the community?
How many visitors return?
How many improvements are made on the community (parks, museums, etc)?
Just do it, quit telling Christians to stop being Christians and form your own communities, see how that works out for you.
Look we get it, you think christians are superior to every other type of human solely because of their religious beliefs.
You don't have to repeat your bigotry over and over for people to get it. You've already made it blatantly obvious.
The great errors in Christianity arose and became dominant precisely because the separation of church and state was violated (as was routine in the ancient world). Prior to Constantine I becoming emperor and prior to the Council of Nicaea and the creation of the Imperial Church, no Christian subgroup had any power over any of the others, none could enforce orthodoxy or punish heresy, and those who pretended such authority had no state power at their disposal to make it stick. The potential, the attitudes, existed within the Christian community before this occurred, as they do in all religious groups, a kind of power-hungry poison that arises from something very primal in human nature, but without actual power behind it those elements could not prevail.
By creating a fusion between the Church and the Imperium, Constantine corrupted Christianity beyond recovery. Over the years after this lamentable event occurred, the power-hungry elements within the Church became dominant, religious dissidents were expelled (or even executed), and this tendency solidified into Christian doctrine as it exists today.
Now that the Church has been deprived of political power, the healing has begun, and many Christians have begun to free themselves from the authoritarian yoke. The flowering that occurred while Christianity was an illegal religion in the Roman Empire has to an extent recommenced. And so we can see that keeping political power out of the hands of religion is for religion's own good, not just government's. Power corrupts, and worldly power is not properly the concern of the spirit.
Actually Dr. Drock raised a good point with that hypothetical. If it really is innocuous and all for government buildings to display Christian thoughts, then it should be equally fine for them to display:
1) There is no God.
2) There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger.
3) We all come from the Goddess, and to Her we shall return.
Those willing to endorse all three of these being presented to the public as Official Government Endorsements will gain some measure of credibility (although in fact all of them would violate the First Amendment, so they'd still be on shaky legal ground).
Experiment! Do all four communities: athiest/Christian (Judeo)/muslim(we know how those turn out)/goddess. Give them some time and check to see how they are doing.
How is the crime rate, comparatively speaking?
How prosperous is the community?
How many visitors return?
How many improvements are made on the community (parks, museums, etc)?
Just do it, quit telling Christians to stop being Christians and form your own communities, see how that works out for you.
Look we get it, you think christians are superior to every other type of human solely because of their religious beliefs.
You don't have to repeat your bigotry over and over for people to get it. You've already made it blatantly obvious.
You tell people "God loves you...we are all imperfect, but we can all be saved in spite of our imperfections and attain heaven.." but they hear "We are better than you".
That's the devil at work, pure and simple.
Thank you for proving my point so promptly.
I never have to wait long.
