Discussion in 'Religion and Spirituality' started by Covertibility, May 30, 2005.
Can we have a secular discussion on religion here without going to your Bible study class?
This was some state court judge. Bush had nothing to do with it.
Hey glass houses man, don't you think you had better perfect your grammar before you start correcting others?
Registered: Jul 2001
05-31-05 06:19 AM
I'll bet GG holds no candle for wicca and I'm quite certain that it is the inconsistent application of a principle that is got GG bent out of shape here. There are few better examples of the blindness involved than you're inability to recognize that very thing.
There are many shades of gray to these issues. Quoting Justice Black out of context is not dispositive, as he was a First Amendment absolutist whose views were never fully reflected in the Court's opinions. Clearly the quoted statement is not law, as the government does favor religion over nonreligion, for example in taxation, zoning and numerous other areas.
The initial problem is that I seriously doubt the Founders intended for the First Amendment to cover anything but traditional organized religion. Certainly their ancestors, who had come here in part for religious freedom, had no time for wicca, as they burned suspected witches at the stake.
Then there is the problem of when does nonbelief or belief in some alternative deity become protected religious activity. Is extreme environmentalism, which becomes a form of nature worship, protected religious activity? And if it is, why are the schools allowed to indoctrinate students into it but a kid is sent home if he has a Bible?
Personally, I think the courts should butt out of these issues unless a government body is using its governmental power to force people to join or practice a religion or preventing them from doing the same. The courts get into trouble when they start making these subtle value judgments as to whether a practice constitutes an impermissible favoring of one religi9n over another, or when they base decisions on whether or not nonbelievers' feelings are ruffled.
and how was satanism at risk??? according to gekko a mean ole christian judge was violating the first amendment. what didn't occur to GG was what AAA pointed out, i.e. that the founding fathers that sought religious freedom were the same ones burning witches at the stake. so maybe the argument should focus on did the authors of the constitution and the 1st amendment, consider satanism/wicca a legitimate religion worthy of the same protection afforded christianity, judaism, etc. ?
You're distinctively lacking in culture!
Didn't answer my question: 'What is Law?'
>and how was satanism at risk??? according to
>gekko a mean ole christian judge was violating
>the first amendment.
Once again, you demonstrate completely that you don't get GG's concern. Once again you apply an argument to GG's post that GG never even attempts to make. Strawman to the max.
His concern has NOTHING to do with a religion being at risk -- far be it from GG to give a Rat's ass about that. His concern has to do with consistant application of the 1st and the idiocy of application base on the religious "mainstream".
I still think the question is does Wicca or witchcraft present a danger to the child.
That is a question that should be addressed. Independent of ones view of Christianity.
As a country we already know the courts are willing to prevent killings as part of a religion. And the use of drugs as part of a religion.
At some point the powers of the police state interefere with ones rights.
There are clashes between fundamental rights all the time.
Here we think we see Christians trying to assert their beliefs on non-christians.
When this case is properly resolved, it will be a question of the states interest in a child welfare and have nothing to do with a belief in Jesus.
AND IF IT WERE ANY OTHER BELIEF SYSTEM I WOULD NOT HAVE RESPONDED TO HIS POST !!!!!!!! DUHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!! but he applied the 1st amendment as to protecting satanism which our founding fathers did not have in mind when they sought religious freedom. the authors of the constitution/1st amendment probably agreed with the founding fathers in their disdain for satanism. therefore maybe....just maybe, wicca/witchcraft/the craft/satanism aren't protected religions in regards to the 1st amendment. but we all know GG had none of this in mind when he saw an opportunity to bash a christian judge. in summation, the principle that GG was concerned about may not be a legitimate principle in the first place.
Speach gets attacked recently:
Separate names with a comma.