I wouldn't have a problem with that. Indeed, I would expect it.
The only problem I would have is if they were stopping people from doing their business to be preached to. Making religious documents available don't bother me any. I'm going into a mosque. I'd find it strange if they weren't there.
Then, to make everyone happy, I would suggest that religious organization not be considered for US government contracts. I don't want my children exposed to religious propaganda that is given credence through government affiliation.
Oh, you knew you'd a fight from me on this one, right? You were right -- so just look at it as my birthday gift to you.
I don't know about anyone else but if the government gave a contract to, say, the KKK I'd take that to mean the government doesn't have any problem with the KKK's message.
OK, so you're saying that there's no difference between the KKK and a church?
OR...
You're saying the feds are incapable of telling the difference? Which is it?
according to the judge...Giving a contract to a religious organization isn't an endorsement of religion.
Not sure that's what the judge's ruling really says. You might want to get Mark to read the ruling and interpret that for us.
My hunch is that you are envisioning another court case perhaps: one that might have been an issue that was decided way back when the Bushies invented "faith-based initiatives." Remember that?
Also, I've read the First Amendment a number of times. ...There is no separation of church and state.
[the audience groans in disbelief]
Aw, crap Rosemary -- You're not joking, are you?
You are simply wrong. Just -- wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. You are so making stuff up now. Open your eyes, OK?
It's a legal fiction ignorant people, too lazy to read or think, have swallowed. So, I say to these people - Stop being lazy and ignorant!
No no no no no no no no no.
You. Are. Wrong.
Your opinion flies in the face of the very principles this country was founded on. Read the Federalist Papers. For starters. It is crystal clear what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.
Challenge the judge's grounding his decision in the so-called 'separation of church and state.' Challenge the appellate court to find it in the Constitution.
Sadly, the challenge will probably come. And without Sanda Day O'Connor on the bench, who the hell knows what will happen?
Judges are making Constitutional decisions based upon a single sentence that appears in nowhere in the Constitution.
Sorry but that's just ignorant.
If we don't stop it here and now then there's no stopping it. Freedom of speech is under attack. Property rights are under attack. It has to stop.
D'Oh!
Maybe you're joking after all.
Tell me you're joking.
Here's the thing: this was not only predictable, it was predicted: when you start with "faith-based initiatives," you end up with this crap (yes, you heard me right):
Inside, the facility has evangelical displays, including posters, advertisements and artwork. One of the displays is about Jesus Christ and invites customers to submit a request if they "need a prayer in their lives."
The office has prayer cards and an advertisement for a mission run by the Full Gospel Interdenominational Church that receives profits from the post office [emphasis added]. There is a television monitor for church-related religious videos.
The whole thing sets my teeth on edge.
But wait -- there's more!
There is also a sign saying the Postal Service does not endorse the religious viewpoints expressed in the materials in the office.
Riiiiiiiight.
Freedom of religion means that religion is free to run itself with no interference from the government -- and vice versa. As Jefferson said (paraphrasing): "The best way to insure the strength of government and church institutions is to put them on parallel tracks."
When those tracks converge, you get a train wreck.
See, that doesn't make everyone happy. That only makes you happy. Luckily, your happiness isn't central to the functioning of our nation.
As I said, there is no separation of church and state. You, however, are demanding one. The Founders do not support your position nor does the First Amendment. Now, if you wish to propose a law to do so that is your right. Just know that history isn't behind you.
And, frankly, your children do not have the right to be protected from views and opinions you, and they, may not like. It's called "freedom of speech." Not, "freedom from speech."
But by silencing speech you don't care for, by exercising your right to free speech, you become, what's that word... oh yeah! A hypocrite.
When you don't want others to talk you'd better be amongst the first to keep silent.
I wrote the post, not Rosemary. And, frankly, I think I could write a post about how awesome oxygen is for mammals and you'd attack it. So, really, you're not someone I'm trying to convince of anything.
Freedom of religion means that religion is free to run itself with no interference from the government -- and vice versa. As Jefferson said (paraphrasing): "The best way to insure the strength of government and church institutions is to put them on parallel tracks."
Ara,
The no interference from the government is certainly true, but "vice versa?" What part of the Constitution (or Federalist paper for that matter) says that the government is free to run itself free of religion?
Please, your entire comment is a pipe dream.
BTW just for information, parallel tracks does not mean opposites tracks, nor opposition in any sense.
Freedom of speech does not mean that I'm forced to listen, or even forced to, and government services, like mail should be available to me without having to view propaganda of any type.
And, frankly, your children do not have the right to be protected from views and opinions you, and they, may not like.
Should children then have to be exposed to, say, pro-recreational drug messages if someone feels like sharing it with them? Would a school have the right to restrict explicit or exploitive sexual material from grade-schoolers? According to your argument, no.
What part of the Constitution (or Federalist paper for that matter) says that the government is free to run itself free of religion?
The government doesn't get to do anything the people don't give it the power to do. That's because "the government" is of the people, for the people and by the people. So when you read the first ten words of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
...that's the people talking, baby, loud and clear.
It means that the people are free to have a government that sanctions no state religion.
Read your history. That was one of the fundamental reasons that Europeans came to the new world in the first place.
In a world gone wild, it's tempting to think that the enforcement of religious authority by government is a good thing.
But, sadly, history has shown -- time and time and time again -- that in so doing, we get the opposite effect.
Judge O'Connor:
"At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish...
Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly."
It means that the people are free to have a government that sanctions no state religion.
And exactly what religion is sanctioned?
For the record let me say that a post office in a church is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard about, but it establishes no beliefs, nor promotes any particular religion.
Now if they said we will allow a post office in a Baptist church but not a Catholic, or Methodist church you would have a point to argue.
Please tell me from the article exactly what the state religion is about to be sanctioned here.
Should children then have to be exposed to, say, pro-recreational drug messages if someone feels like sharing it with them? Would a school have the right to restrict explicit or exploitive sexual material from grade-schoolers? According to your argument, no.
First, why do you keep brining up children? Does that somehow make your arguement stronger? If your arguement doesn't hold up when talking about adults using children is simply an attempt to tug at the emotions. You're asking people to park their brains at the door.
Should children have been exposed to veiws to take up arms against the government? Should children be exposed to views that their next door neighbor is the enemy?
In that case, I suppose the Founders really didn't know how to manage their speech when rallying people against England. Let alone respect of property! No Boston Tea Party for you!
For the record let me say that a post office in a church
It was a free standing post office operated by a church.
is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard about,
Beside the point, but OK -- I agree.
but it establishes no beliefs, nor promotes any particular religion.
Oh, please spare me:
The office has prayer cards and an advertisement for a mission run by the Full Gospel Interdenominational Church that receives profits from the post office [emphasis added].
if they said we will allow a post office in a Baptist church but not a Catholic, or Methodist church you would have a point to argue.
If anything, this was a church inside a post office -- not the other way around.
Please tell me from the article exactly what the state religion is about to be sanctioned here.
See above.
Kevin:
Should children have been exposed to veiws to take up arms against the government? Should children be exposed to views that their next door neighbor is the enemy?
Now you're just freaking me out, dude. What on earth are you talking about?
In that case, I suppose the Founders really didn't know how to manage their speech when rallying people against England. Let alone respect of property! No Boston Tea Party for you!
Now you're just freaking me out, dude. What on earth are you talking about?
Why did you even both asking this question when the answer was in the very next paragraph? A paragraph you quoted!
Really, do you only read one sentence at a time and decide to comment on that before proceeding on to the next? I don't understand your process.
And why do you bush off what I said like that? The Founders were revolutionaries. They were enemies of the state. They didn't get that way because they said nice things about England.
You need to understand that our government serves at our favor. The people can, whenever they choose, tear it down and put something else up. We control the country. Not the government we allow to exist. It's an evil that we allow to serve us.
The quicker you understand that the quicker you'll understand that the tables have turned.
To paraphrase Donald Sutherland: "You want to see who owns your home? Stop paying taxes."
This is a situation the signers of the Constitution would have never agreed to. We have betrayed their blood by allowing the government to lord over us. The government should fear the people.
Do you honestly think it does?
When you answer that then you'll know who's in control.
Why did you even both asking this question when the answer was in the very next paragraph? A paragraph you quoted!
I am so sorry to misunderstand what you wrote, Kevin, but honestly I couldn't tell if you were being serious or not! And not only that but the thought in that second paragraph didn't seem to follow the thought in the first one.
You need to understand that our government serves at our favor.
Of course, of course -- that's why I've already said that very thing about half way up this thread. So we agree!
It's an evil that we allow to serve us.
Well, like Forest Gump said: "Evil is as evil does." Government of the people and all that...
To paraphrase Donald Sutherland: "You want to see who owns your home? Stop paying taxes."
OK, now you've lost me again.
[crickets]
What are we talking about anyway?
And did Donald Sutherland really say that, or was that from a movie he was in?
And -- hey! -- since when are you quoting rich Hollywood liberals? What the hell is up with THAT?
This is a situation the signers of the Constitution would have never agreed to. We have betrayed their blood by allowing the government to lord over us. The government should fear the people.
Do you honestly think it does?
Of course not -- look at how they've stuck a church inside my corner post office, for G-d's sake!
[more crickets]
Does this mean you now agree with my original point?
And -- hey! -- since when are you quoting rich Hollywood liberals? What the hell is up with THAT?
You know what they say about a broken clock.
And I quoted Mr. Sutherland to try to illistrate how flipped our situation has gotten. Which, I suppose, must be very flipped for me to be quoting a Hollywood liberal!
Of course not -- look at how they've stuck a church inside my corner post office, for G-d's sake!
Actually, it's the other way around.
And given that the Federal government was in the business of printing Bibles, building churches, and holding services in the Capital building, it shouldn't be all that surprising.
But, I suppose it may be if you weren't aware of all that.
Squatrito sided with Bertram Cooper, who in 2003 sued the Postal Service and the Full Gospel Interdenominational Church, which operates the Sincerely Yours Inc. post office on Main Street in downtown Manchester.
given that the Federal government was in the business of printing Bibles, building churches, and holding services in the Capital building, it shouldn't be all that surprising.
Like Randy J would say: "Check it out dog..." We've slipped down the slope pretty fast from all that you mention to what has happened on Main Street in downtown Manchester, Connecticut.
Like what I said above: all of this was predicted when the Bushies established a government office for "faith based initiatives."
If your arguement doesn't hold up when talking about adults using children is simply an attempt to tug at the emotions. You're asking people to park their brains at the door.
Why not deal with the argument rather than speculate incorrectly on the motives? Is your case that weak?
I used children in the argument because they are less cynical than adults, and more easily swayed by suggestion. Whereas I might glance at a poster that says "Christ is Keen!" and mentally shrug it off as lame, a child might not. Similarly a child would be less likely to form a more subjective opinion on a poster that states (hypothetically) that Christ is a mental crutch for the feeble-minded.
"The Founders were revolutionaries. They were enemies of the state. They didn't get that way because they said nice things about England."
Yeah, they weren’t all that fond of religion either, especially Christianity:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
-- John Adams
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
--James Madison
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "
-- Thomas Paine
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
"You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
-- Thomas Jefferson
“[Every man] "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
-- George Washington
A greater misunderstanding of words and deeds I've never seen. I don't know where to begin to correct you so I will not.
I can only hope you move past snippets of text and look at the deeper meaning these men were getting at. They had a problem with the religion of Christianity.
Not the faith.
I share their frustration but I assure you they, as I am, are speaking of two very distinct things.
Tim_the_Soldier (aka thread killer and nun thriller) (mail):
They had a problem with the religion of Christianity.
I see and hear very few people practicing the faith as opposed to the religion. Most people follow the denominational doctrine of their religion because that is what they were told to believe growing up. You go to church because you are an American, or so we're taught. Religion can truly be the opiate of the masses - a key element in social order and control, but rarely an element for real social progress.
"I can only hope you move past snippets of text and look at the deeper meaning these men were getting at. They had a problem with the religion of Christianity."
That's exactly what I said. And don't flatter yourself. You are certainly not about to correct me or show me deeper meaning on much of anything, apparently.
I wonder if mosques want to get into the act?
The only problem I would have is if they were stopping people from doing their business to be preached to. Making religious documents available don't bother me any. I'm going into a mosque. I'd find it strange if they weren't there.
I'm glad we agree on this issue! ;-)
It is good to agree on something.
I don't know about anyone else but if the government gave a contract to, say, the KKK I'd take that to mean the government doesn't have any problem with the KKK's message.
OK, so you're saying that there's no difference between the KKK and a church?
OR...
You're saying the feds are incapable of telling the difference? Which is it?
according to the judge...Giving a contract to a religious organization isn't an endorsement of religion.
Not sure that's what the judge's ruling really says. You might want to get Mark to read the ruling and interpret that for us.
My hunch is that you are envisioning another court case perhaps: one that might have been an issue that was decided way back when the Bushies invented "faith-based initiatives." Remember that?
Also, I've read the First Amendment a number of times. ...There is no separation of church and state.
[the audience groans in disbelief]
Aw, crap Rosemary -- You're not joking, are you?
You are simply wrong. Just -- wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. You are so making stuff up now. Open your eyes, OK?
It's a legal fiction ignorant people, too lazy to read or think, have swallowed. So, I say to these people - Stop being lazy and ignorant!
No no no no no no no no no.
You. Are. Wrong.
Your opinion flies in the face of the very principles this country was founded on. Read the Federalist Papers. For starters. It is crystal clear what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.
Challenge the judge's grounding his decision in the so-called 'separation of church and state.' Challenge the appellate court to find it in the Constitution.
Sadly, the challenge will probably come. And without Sanda Day O'Connor on the bench, who the hell knows what will happen?
Judges are making Constitutional decisions based upon a single sentence that appears in nowhere in the Constitution.
Sorry but that's just ignorant.
If we don't stop it here and now then there's no stopping it. Freedom of speech is under attack. Property rights are under attack. It has to stop.
D'Oh!
Maybe you're joking after all.
Tell me you're joking.
Here's the thing: this was not only predictable, it was predicted: when you start with "faith-based initiatives," you end up with this crap (yes, you heard me right):The whole thing sets my teeth on edge.
But wait -- there's more!Riiiiiiiight.
Freedom of religion means that religion is free to run itself with no interference from the government -- and vice versa. As Jefferson said (paraphrasing): "The best way to insure the strength of government and church institutions is to put them on parallel tracks."
When those tracks converge, you get a train wreck.
As I said, there is no separation of church and state. You, however, are demanding one. The Founders do not support your position nor does the First Amendment. Now, if you wish to propose a law to do so that is your right. Just know that history isn't behind you.
And, frankly, your children do not have the right to be protected from views and opinions you, and they, may not like. It's called "freedom of speech." Not, "freedom from speech."
But by silencing speech you don't care for, by exercising your right to free speech, you become, what's that word... oh yeah! A hypocrite.
When you don't want others to talk you'd better be amongst the first to keep silent.
If you want to be solicited for a donation to a church, go to church. You are free to give (or get) all the money you want...there.
That sort of thing is prohibited from happening in a government building.
I wrote the post, not Rosemary. And, frankly, I think I could write a post about how awesome oxygen is for mammals and you'd attack it. So, really, you're not someone I'm trying to convince of anything.
So we agree on something after all.
P.S. This ain't about you so lighten up.
Ara,
The no interference from the government is certainly true, but "vice versa?" What part of the Constitution (or Federalist paper for that matter) says that the government is free to run itself free of religion?
Please, your entire comment is a pipe dream.
BTW just for information, parallel tracks does not mean opposites tracks, nor opposition in any sense.
Please go back and read the very first ten words of the very first amendment to the US Constitution then let's talk again.
Freedom of speech does not mean that I'm forced to listen, or even forced to, and government services, like mail should be available to me without having to view propaganda of any type.
And, frankly, your children do not have the right to be protected from views and opinions you, and they, may not like.
Should children then have to be exposed to, say, pro-recreational drug messages if someone feels like sharing it with them? Would a school have the right to restrict explicit or exploitive sexual material from grade-schoolers? According to your argument, no.
What part of the Constitution (or Federalist paper for that matter) says that the government is free to run itself free of religion?
The government doesn't get to do anything the people don't give it the power to do. That's because "the government" is of the people, for the people and by the people. So when you read the first ten words of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
...that's the people talking, baby, loud and clear.
It means that the people are free to have a government that sanctions no state religion.
Read your history. That was one of the fundamental reasons that Europeans came to the new world in the first place.
But, sadly, history has shown -- time and time and time again -- that in so doing, we get the opposite effect.
Judge O'Connor:
...and it better not be inside a post office or I'm kicking some serious ass.
And exactly what religion is sanctioned?
For the record let me say that a post office in a church is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard about, but it establishes no beliefs, nor promotes any particular religion.
Now if they said we will allow a post office in a Baptist church but not a Catholic, or Methodist church you would have a point to argue.
Please tell me from the article exactly what the state religion is about to be sanctioned here.
I'll try. 8-P
Double,
First, why do you keep brining up children? Does that somehow make your arguement stronger? If your arguement doesn't hold up when talking about adults using children is simply an attempt to tug at the emotions. You're asking people to park their brains at the door.
Should children have been exposed to veiws to take up arms against the government? Should children be exposed to views that their next door neighbor is the enemy?
In that case, I suppose the Founders really didn't know how to manage their speech when rallying people against England. Let alone respect of property! No Boston Tea Party for you!
And exactly what religion is sanctioned?
Christianity.
For the record let me say that a post office in a church
It was a free standing post office operated by a church.
is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard about,
Beside the point, but OK -- I agree.
but it establishes no beliefs, nor promotes any particular religion.
Oh, please spare me:
if they said we will allow a post office in a Baptist church but not a Catholic, or Methodist church you would have a point to argue.
If anything, this was a church inside a post office -- not the other way around.
Please tell me from the article exactly what the state religion is about to be sanctioned here.
See above.
Kevin:
Should children have been exposed to veiws to take up arms against the government? Should children be exposed to views that their next door neighbor is the enemy?
Now you're just freaking me out, dude. What on earth are you talking about?
In that case, I suppose the Founders really didn't know how to manage their speech when rallying people against England. Let alone respect of property! No Boston Tea Party for you!
Whatever.
Why did you even both asking this question when the answer was in the very next paragraph? A paragraph you quoted!
Really, do you only read one sentence at a time and decide to comment on that before proceeding on to the next? I don't understand your process.
And why do you bush off what I said like that? The Founders were revolutionaries. They were enemies of the state. They didn't get that way because they said nice things about England.
You need to understand that our government serves at our favor. The people can, whenever they choose, tear it down and put something else up. We control the country. Not the government we allow to exist. It's an evil that we allow to serve us.
The quicker you understand that the quicker you'll understand that the tables have turned.
To paraphrase Donald Sutherland: "You want to see who owns your home? Stop paying taxes."
This is a situation the signers of the Constitution would have never agreed to. We have betrayed their blood by allowing the government to lord over us. The government should fear the people.
Do you honestly think it does?
When you answer that then you'll know who's in control.
I am so sorry to misunderstand what you wrote, Kevin, but honestly I couldn't tell if you were being serious or not! And not only that but the thought in that second paragraph didn't seem to follow the thought in the first one.
You need to understand that our government serves at our favor.
Of course, of course -- that's why I've already said that very thing about half way up this thread. So we agree!
It's an evil that we allow to serve us.
Well, like Forest Gump said: "Evil is as evil does." Government of the people and all that...
To paraphrase Donald Sutherland: "You want to see who owns your home? Stop paying taxes."
OK, now you've lost me again.
[crickets]
What are we talking about anyway?
And did Donald Sutherland really say that, or was that from a movie he was in?
And -- hey! -- since when are you quoting rich Hollywood liberals? What the hell is up with THAT?
This is a situation the signers of the Constitution would have never agreed to. We have betrayed their blood by allowing the government to lord over us. The government should fear the people.
Do you honestly think it does?
Of course not -- look at how they've stuck a church inside my corner post office, for G-d's sake!
[more crickets]
Does this mean you now agree with my original point?
Stop telling me to read shit I've already read.
Read it again. You didn't get it right the first time.
You know what they say about a broken clock.
And I quoted Mr. Sutherland to try to illistrate how flipped our situation has gotten. Which, I suppose, must be very flipped for me to be quoting a Hollywood liberal!
Actually, it's the other way around.
And given that the Federal government was in the business of printing Bibles, building churches, and holding services in the Capital building, it shouldn't be all that surprising.
But, I suppose it may be if you weren't aware of all that.
I hate to belabor the point already, but...:
given that the Federal government was in the business of printing Bibles, building churches, and holding services in the Capital building, it shouldn't be all that surprising.
Like Randy J would say: "Check it out dog..." We've slipped down the slope pretty fast from all that you mention to what has happened on Main Street in downtown Manchester, Connecticut.
Like what I said above: all of this was predicted when the Bushies established a government office for "faith based initiatives."
It's not too late to turn back.
They taste so good that way.
If your arguement doesn't hold up when talking about adults using children is simply an attempt to tug at the emotions. You're asking people to park their brains at the door.
Why not deal with the argument rather than speculate incorrectly on the motives? Is your case that weak?
I used children in the argument because they are less cynical than adults, and more easily swayed by suggestion. Whereas I might glance at a poster that says "Christ is Keen!" and mentally shrug it off as lame, a child might not. Similarly a child would be less likely to form a more subjective opinion on a poster that states (hypothetically) that Christ is a mental crutch for the feeble-minded.
What did I make up?
What did I make up?
Stop telling me to read shit I've already read.
Read it again. You didn't get it right the first time.
Quote me where I got it wrong. Oh, you can't because I haven't contributed to this debate nor did I write the post.
But, you know what? I'm gonna end this debate here and now:
I'm gassy.
That'll clear the room every time.
Ro:
My apologies. I wasn't wearing my reading glasses. And did I say Happy Birthday? Right.
Now wait a minute. The hairline and the sixpack are the first things to go. I think...
Yeah, they weren’t all that fond of religion either, especially Christianity:
You might be right, but I don't recall.
A greater misunderstanding of words and deeds I've never seen. I don't know where to begin to correct you so I will not.
I can only hope you move past snippets of text and look at the deeper meaning these men were getting at. They had a problem with the religion of Christianity.
Not the faith.
I share their frustration but I assure you they, as I am, are speaking of two very distinct things.
I see and hear very few people practicing the faith as opposed to the religion. Most people follow the denominational doctrine of their religion because that is what they were told to believe growing up. You go to church because you are an American, or so we're taught. Religion can truly be the opiate of the masses - a key element in social order and control, but rarely an element for real social progress.
That's exactly what I said. And don't flatter yourself. You are certainly not about to correct me or show me deeper meaning on much of anything, apparently.
Which is why our founders, enlightened men of reason, rejected it in favor of non-religious deism, for themselves and for our nation.
Good God, look what progress we've made.