Prayer is being stamped out of public by non-Christians - any public arena where the government has any sway.

If I was a Muslim, I would have a Muslim background, but I don't know how I would look at the writings of Mohammed and say they are consistent with each other.  I would wonder why we even have the Old Testament books in our religion if we were saying that parts are true, parts are 'corrupted'. 

So hopefully, I would eventually be witnessed to by a believer who could answer those questions and would allow me to be saved!

You do not seem interested in praying in public Jythier? Not in the grocery store, the bowling alley, the mall or any other actual public venue … why not? People normally spend much more of their time in these places than a court house (hopefully) and they usually aren't working. I do not know of anything or anyway to stop you from walking into any building of your choice and praying. Is there some reason to stop all other traffic or business activity to enable this praying, I don’t understand? Maybe this is because I am talking to you and not about Christianity. America is ~ 80% Christian and ~ 9% atheist /agnostic … what in the world America do atheists control?

 

Why is it absurd?

 

You're redirecting my point.  The prayer in question was a standard part of the public meeting, but was removed due to outside influences.  Banned.  Corporate prayer, we're talking about - there's also solo prayer which you can do yourself any time.

Come on now, obviously you must be talking about some behavioral changes that I cannot associate with or even identify. As an atheist living the good corrupt life of a debased woman, what behaviors of mine would not require modifications to convert to Christianity ... none at all??? I don’t at all see how such simple things like this can even be debatable. I am not going to play like this Jythier because it is pointless. I am not redirecting anything as I have repeatedly asked you to clarify your statement … additional giveaways are the statements I made telling you I didn’t understand. I am trying to converse with you about your infringed upon religious freedoms and you keep pointing me at Christianity as if you WANT me to group all Christians in one lump the way you group all atheist in one lump. There is nothing in the Constitution that favors any religion over another and there is nothing there to give the Christian sects any preferential treatment, how could it?

Slavery was an accepted form of torture with the Christian ‘Churches’ in the thick of it. It is no longer acceptable because of secularism, not religion. Should we bring it back because it used to be an accepted practice? Even in the short lifespan of humans, most grow to some extent beyond their young and often foolishly immature understanding of things. But it seems that for many, some things never change even after thousands of years. But reality just keeps marching on and everything changes because of that, with a few notable exceptions.

So you are talking about ‘corporate prayer’ huh, thought you made that up but Google says otherwise, hum again. Well, after researching this some I see no reason to rethink my stance. The bible offers no more ‘support’ for group prayer than it does individual prayer. The actual real corporate laws (of real corporations) don’t support this religious ploy either nor does the Constitution. Where does this authority come from such that it guaranties you the right to interrupt business meetings or whatnot? To save you some time (as if you would actually look it up), I have posted a couple of web pages you could quickly review first:

http://www.openbible.info/topics/corporate_prayer

http://www.gotquestions.org/corporate-prayer.html

PS - The post reads 'Freedom of religion' and Christianity just isn't the only religion to consider by the secular state. Even if you consider them all nonsensical as I do, they have just as much right as you by any standard ... not to be bothered by Christianity at work.

 

Like I said, call me if you want to discuss something, or not!

I have read this thread with interest, being one of those militant unbelievers who believe as Christopher Hitchens wrote in 'God is Not Great' that religion poisons everything. I was particularly interested in the postings around the idea that the US constitution guarantees the freedom to follow a 'zany' religion. As an outsider, being British I can't say that is the impression I get either in the States or in the UK. Let me give an example: you have a US based religion called the Scientologists and as you know Tom Cruise is a famous member of this 'church'. In the UK whenever Tom Cruise is mentioned (been in the papers a lot recently because of the split from Katie Holmes) Scientology is trashed, ridiculed, accused of being a false religion, of being 'loony' because of the belief in aliens or Thetans or whatever the hell they are.

Now, I do not believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden, whether they are Catholic fairies, Hindu fairies or Jewish fairies etc. I cannot see why Scientology is any more crazy than any other religion based on nothing more than faith and words written thousands of years ago by more primitive people who still thought the sun was the centre of the universe and had no idea that dinosaurs once walked the earth.

In respect of the argument about guaranteeing the freedom to practise a faith I think two things: (i) it is limited to those faiths that those in power agree to, and (ii) believing in something without any evidence is not a good qualification for public office.

Keep religion out of public office and if people must worship some god or other then let them do it in the privacy of their own homes.

Hello there and welcome to the fray. When they speak of religious freedom they are of course only concerned with christianity because ‘all OTHER religions’ are not considered religions at all (how convenient) …  so they only see one, theirs.  Oh these people will pay lip service to the others, but they are only interested in their own dogma. They will attempt to usurp the Constitution or any other secular document and try to bend it to their selfish interests. The problem is the clergy and the sheeple just do what they are told to do without question and no proof for anything is even desired. Pat Condell is a fellow countryman of yours and has this nonsense down pat.

The arrogance of clergy   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbxmLJ14mNA

Ditto to GFTess, Welcome to the fray!

Ah, who is "they"? Not the Founders and not any of us in this discussion.

In reply #12, I wrote: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees every one free exercise of religion.

And history demonstrates the First Amendment became a vehicle to promote pluralism of religions. Even the early courts acknowledged that America was pluralistic of other religions other than Christianity.

The First Amendment's prohibition of "an establishment of religion" was designed to restrict neither religious beliefs nor religious activities, but only the federal establishment of a national religion. After that,the issue of religion was left to the States.

That's mighty generous of you with our inalienable freedom! NOT. But this sentiment of yours is the same one we hear from the Secular and Atheist Humanists here in America.  

Coming from England, have you tried that attitude with the fast growing Muslim population there? 

 

 

Good we are in agreement. I also don't believe in fairies.

 

What do you think empowers the second part to supersede the first part? How do you define a religion and what in the world do you think "... free exercise thereof" means? Do you know what this would mean to a fundamental Muslim if religiously unlimited and legal? You do understand that the bible condones the stoning of homosexuals, wayward children etc.? How far are you willing to stretch this nonsense in your view and those of other religions? If you cannot understand that a society must set limits on the radical elements of every organization, geese, then I just don't know what to say??? Of course you are only thinking of the good christians (Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc.) not the bad or corrupt or the disingenuous ones ... naw, they wouldn’t abuse an open ticket to justify anything religiously, surely. I do not understand what you want with your ploy for “the freedom of religion”?

 

You killed Tinkerbell!

I have the same attitude with each and every religion - why should someone's belief in the supernatural play a part in government?

By the way I've always been fascinated by the way each and every religion claims to be the true faith. A few thousand years ago everyone worshipped the sun, the it was multiple gods then it became monotheism... so difficult to keep up!

GFTESS,

Your # 86 contains some good, thought provoking questions.

I don't think that the second part supersedes the first part.

Yes, for sure, defining terms is very important.

By Religion, I mean the act by which we render to God both privately as individuals and publicly as social beings, the honor, gratitude, obedience and worship due to Him, and in the way prescribed by Him.

The dictionary definition of "religion" is 1. Belief in God or gods. 2. Worship of God or gods. 3. A particular system of religious belief and worship. 

I would say my definition reflects #3 of the dictionary definition. My particular system of religious belief is the way prescribed by God, namely Catholicism. For the Muslim, it would be Islam; for the Protestant, that would be any one of a thousand of sects; for the Secularist and Atheist, that would be the practice of Secular or Atheistic Humanism; their god is man. For the Satanist, their god is the devil. 

Now, on to defining "religious freedom" as per the First Amendment...

Religion, the free exercise thereof--might mean the physical freedom to exercise (to practice ) your religion (whatever that particular system of religious belief it might be) unencumbered by the Federal Government. This would mean the government can't pass a law and you can't be arrested and thrown in jail for going to church, temple or mosque. That happens under Communism or other totalitarian States.

OR Religion, the free exercise thereof ---might mean that a person is conscienciously free to choose and practice any religion of their choice.

Or it could be both.

AND THUS THE CONUNDRUM that you bring up in your next question when you ask,

As I see it, by Religion, the free exercise thereof, the Founders were encouraging religious pluralism and (possibly unintentionally) were fostering Indifferentism (the notion that all religions with their competing claims are all equally valid and should be freely chosen and practiced).

I think it's a huge error that will eventually bring America's demise...the culture's going to collapse because from the notion of religious freedom is that there should be no religious freedom, at least when it comes to some religions.   

What do you expect, I'm a big mouth, but only one vote.

 

And in this day and age under the dictatorship of moral relativism, what is and who are the "radical elements"?

 

 

The courts have deemed Secular Humanism a Religion. And if you've ever read the Humanist Manifestos I and II, you will know exactly what their religious belief system is based. Why should the religious beliefs and dogmatic claims of Secular and Atheistic Humanism that support abortion, homosexual 'marriage' and other evils play a part in Government?

Can the government that supports the religion of Secular and Atheistic Humanism really be expected to protect the First Amendment rights of those who practice Christianity?

That's exactly what we are up against today and the focus of Jythier's blog.

 

 

 

I am an atheist Lula and as EVERYONE knows that means only one thing, which is that I do not believe in any god or religion end of story. This of course is exactly how you feel about all the other gods and religions ... I just add yours to the mix too so you are well aware of the arguments, you just don’t apply them to yourself. Certainly you would pick option three, it is the one you can manipulate to cover those things that don't fall under one and two where all religions belongs. I don’t care what you call things anymore (especially me) since you have declared me an enemy. And as an enemy, I am not at all concerned with your group classifications and self-definitions because I don’t agree with anything else you say concerning all the rest of your church nonsense, I don’t know why this should be any different? You use these blanket terms just so you don’t have to deal with the actual people individually and personal like as you stab them in the back. I don’t care what other people feel about this crap either and other than a cursory skimming of these manifestos you seem to be concerned with, they don’t mean anything to me … just you. I read Marks, Hitler, Stalin and many other books none of which made me a socialist, a madwoman or a social deviate. I can pin the bible to you in all respects (every single word) and there is no doubt about that. The only thing you can do is tell me where I am obligated to place my loyalties, what organizations I am supposed to sell my soul to, what it is that I really believe in and how my every breath is spent trashing your abomination in the sky. That’s nice, let me know when it is ok for me to speak for myself instead of you doing it for me. I will never understand why you feel compelled to help me like this considering you don’t listen to me whenever I explain myself??? You and your church are the problem simply because you see fit to screw everyone else’s beliefs, relationships, cultures, gods, ways of life and their traditions … everything … just because you feel obligated to by your peaceful and loving god church. I have never known a more prejudiced person that I have had to dealt with. You sit in personal judgment (hiding behind the RCC) of every human who will not capitulate to your ramblings and magic. You do not have any respect for anyone or anything that you personally dislike. You are intellectually dishonest and theologically bankrupt … you should note that you are just another person. Lula, EVERYTHING you disagree with is a huge error, no matter how trivial. What a strange mind it must take to willingly crawl into an archaic hole which excludes all the wonders of the universe and the accomplishments of man … because you think god did it all somehow and that is good enough for you. That is just so unnatural and lacks all the beauty, grace and potential of nature evolving before our my eyes.

What religious practices are you personally being prohibited the free exercise thereof? If you cannot understand why the government (who else) has to protect you (and especially me) from your literal kind when they decide to observe all the commands your god gave them ... then you are just being unrealistic as usual. What are you folk petitioning the courts for if not to get the government to capitulate on the first part using the second part as an open ticket and the courts as the vehicle to breach said government? Why do you deny the obvious and then claim to tell the truth. The founders did promote pluralism which is self-evident by their refusal to establish a national church … the very thing they were escaping Europe to get away from. Unfortunately the RCC is anything BUT pluralistic and you are a catholic and that answers everything concerning your views on pluralism.

 

Really? It happens every day to pro-life people like me. Think abortion clinics. Let alone in any building, I/we are forbidden to walk or stand in front of any abortion clinic while praying.

I'd say that's suppressing my First Amendment right of free speech.

And check out this 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/home/print_article/news/37332/

Two girls handcuffed and arrested for handing out pro-life literature.   

 

Academia, government education, publishing, Hollywood, the mainstream media, Science, Wall Street, banking, most town and city councils, the unions, ..in short, just about everything since the 1960 cultural and sexual revolutions.  

The few control the many.

Is that the whole story huh ... Lula you do not respect the laws we have and you want more for personal uses. These people will not go to the home of these children nor are they allowed to do it in a public school or on public school grounds. They could pass out their literature in many public forums and just as with the persistent child, they knew exactly what they were doing and the possible “legal consequences”, words that don’t mean much to you either. You refuse to leave the children alone and for that I am glad they were fined. Ten days in jail is always an eye opener IMO. What are you trying to justify here??? Their 1^st amendment rights weren’t violated they were on school property … they were in violation of several statutes and I think they were lucky.  

What does any of this stuff have to do with ‘christianship’? Christianity is the most popular religion in the United States, with around 73% of polled Americans identifying themselves as Christian in 2012 (down from 86% in 1990, oh my). ~24% are RCC making your sponsors a minority of ~33% among American Christians. Lula you don’t speak for the majority of ‘christiankind’ in America, just for the most publically insufferable and intolerant organization felt around the world. Guess the other 27% of the people, the degenerate class, must fill all those jobs then huh, you are a piece of work all right? Christianity would be fine if left alone and personal.

I know said the devil: “Let's get this worldwide conspiracy going and only involve all the best minds and the most educated people of all nations on earth and combine their resources 'like one' so that we can crush the decadent RCC “... works for me too, just wish it were true??? Reality check needed here! Geese this sounds so familiar … oh I know … the ‘tree of knowledge’ imagine that. Knowledge being the one thing that magic cannot BS … and so it is taboo to theocracy and disliked by god too.  

Why are you so set that the minds on your side are the best?  That's a bit arrogant, wouldn't you say?

 

Gee, all I did was give a truthful  answer to your question.

Agree. But take a look at your remarks and you'll see that you don't do what you say. Instead of leaving Christianity and Christians alone, it's been one put-down, slam and attack after another.

I left out the "and personal" part because I think it is near impossible to keep one's religious beliefs personal, even for those who practice Secular and Atheistic Humanism.

Good question.

 

Yea right so why did you ignore mine as if it doesn't apply to your war against the world or your hatred of all things un-catholic. You just say things pretend they are true and meaningful, you refuse to explain yourself and you ignore my response as if they weren’t there as usual. You do know what numbers are for don't you ... they can be very useful when you use realistic ones.

Bad question and doesn't deserve a response. There are plenty of uneducated people running around pretending they know things they are incapable of understanding pretty much because they don't want to study the actual material and educate themselves. Self-induced ignorance is the worst kind. Do you know what an IQ is by chance???

 

 

C'mon? I didn't ignore your question; I answered it and responded to those numbers (80% Christian/9% Atheist/Agnostic) you provided saying, " the few (9% Atheist/Agnostics) control the many (80% Christians)."

The few (9% Atheists/Agnostics) control Academia, publishing, Science, etc. and as a result the many (80% Christians) are getting Secular and Atheistic Humanism handed to them every which way.

The First Amendment was meant to prevent the establishment of a national religion. James Madison termed "religion" as "the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it." But the Founders couldn't foresee that the Supreme Court would take an active role in expanding the definition of "religion" to include Secular Humanism which seeks to dethrone God preferring faith in man.  So yes, the Founders refused to establish a national religion, yet that is indeed what we have today---Secular and Atheistic Humanism has become our national religion. As a result, the culture war is on against Christianity, its principles, ethos, and morals.

 

 

More to the point it's your remark that's bad.

There are intelligent and dim-witted people on both sides of the Culture War. But it isn't about one's IQ, level of education or being rich or poor; in the end, it's about recognizing and living the important truths of life. Even children grasp wisdom.