Go to Janes Opinion
- Add a comment
- Go to Wanna Bet How Long it Will Take the ACLU . . . .
Sorry, I guess that's Rarmcwa . . . .
posted by
JanesOpinion
on September 8, 2006 at 6:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Rarmcwe, I appreciate your very rational response. Thanks!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on September 8, 2006 at 6:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Church, state and their effects, good and bad, on one another
As a Jeffersonian Deist, I believe in what Jesus said about church and state: "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto the Lord what is the Lord's."
As an American who believes the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment means what it says, I have large problems with displays of any faith or the lack of same which might, by placement, inference or outright endorsement, imply that all Americans are equal, "but some are more equal than others."
Finally, as a pragmatic citizen of this republic, I'm not nearly so worried about the church polluting the state as I am about the state polluting the church. As the descendents of generations of Europeans whose lives were torn apart by religious wars, the Founding Fathers were so scared of the state getting its fat nose into matters of faith they promulgated specific language to discourage the practice (see "Establishment Clause" above).
Does any rational believer really want government going into the religion business? I sure don't.
posted by
Rarmcwa
on September 7, 2006 at 9:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka, I think you were the one who mentioned putting up a neutral
symbol, which is why I mentioned putting up something neutral.
I guess, what it boils down to, is that this country was built with judeo-christian principles, even though I realize most atheists somehow disagree with that. It's still a fact. And the majority of people still respect some of those symbols, particularly when used as a memorial after a horrific event -- such as Katrina.
If a Church of Satan member wants to put up a pentagram on his property, that's perfectly fine.
The alternative, I suppose, would be to have a federal memorial with different sections -- one for Christian types, one for Jews, one for Muslims, and something totally neutral for everyone else. I think, though, if you took a poll of people visiting the Katrina memorial, the vast majority - greater than 80% - would not be offended by the cross.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on September 2, 2006 at 7:43 AM
| link to this | reply
Or are you saying that the Christians should be allowed to put up whatever they please as a memorial (No matter who it may offend), but all others need to put up something neutral so they do not offend the Christians?
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 1, 2006 at 7:53 AM
| link to this | reply
So if the Church of Satan wanted to out up a memorial to those same victims of a Pentagram on public property that would not offend you?
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 1, 2006 at 7:50 AM
| link to this | reply
LeRoy, then if this is a non governmental monument it should be a moot
point, right? Our free speech rights protected? But sadly, a lot of loud mouthed trouble makers seem to disagree!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 31, 2006 at 3:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Rumored, I think you've NAILED it!!!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 31, 2006 at 3:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Janes
The 1st Amendment demands that all speech be protected, especially that the government not interfere with it.
posted by
LeRoyCoyote
on August 31, 2006 at 1:14 PM
| link to this | reply
ACLU...that stands for "havent got "A-CLU", right?????
posted by
Rumor
on August 31, 2006 at 8:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Corbin, I agree!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 30, 2006 at 6:41 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka, then perhaps people of other faiths and atheists can also
create their own memorials to their own liking. The fact is that the majority of people living "down there" are predominately Catholic or Protestant Christians, so the cross is going to mean something to them.
But sure, if others want to erect a stone or plant a tree or do something neutral -- go for it!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 30, 2006 at 6:41 PM
| link to this | reply
TAPS, you and me both!
Oh well, better luck with the eight ball next time, eh?
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 30, 2006 at 6:39 PM
| link to this | reply
thanks bel for being so rational!
Makes no sense to me either why they would have a problem. They want to turn this country into a bunch of atheists!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 30, 2006 at 6:38 PM
| link to this | reply
But the turth is
That not all the people who died in the hurricane were Christian. So would it not be a greater insult to the families of anyone who lost their lives who believe in other religions to put a cross up as a memorial to them?
The ACLU has asked for a religiously neutral symbol, which would actually show true respect for all and not come close to violating any laws about the separation of church and state.
How is forcing a religious memorial on those who might not want it a good thing?
posted by
kooka_lives
on August 30, 2006 at 10:54 AM
| link to this | reply
It's just another.......
battle to win........and we will!
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on August 30, 2006 at 5:31 AM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion, looks like you've already been told. I'm too slow to keep up with Justi. LOL
posted by
TAPS.
on August 29, 2006 at 8:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Fear not, Jane, they're already on it!
See
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/8/8/171637.shtml) for the story of where their priorities lie. I wonder how many of their supporters are whining that too little is being done to help Katrina victims, even while participating in something as trite and spiteful as opposition to a memorial for them?
posted by
WriterofLight
on August 29, 2006 at 8:07 PM
| link to this | reply
I know….there’s one upon a sand dune out on the beach here.
People actually gather there some Sunday’s for an outdoor service of sorts. Everyone says its just a matter of time.
posted by
telemachus
on August 29, 2006 at 7:23 PM
| link to this | reply
I am confused
WHY is it bad to have a memorial? On what possible grounds can the ACLU be whining?
posted by
bel_1965
on August 29, 2006 at 7:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Oh gads, that's ridiculous.
Thanks for cluing me in, Justi.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on August 29, 2006 at 6:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Jane's they already have. The charge is that it faces a public road and is
too close. The ACLU is the benefactor or all that is evil.
posted by
Justi
on August 29, 2006 at 6:20 PM
| link to this | reply