The ACLU And the CROSS - Page 2

jamarquez · 10-03-04, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven

Who is "we"? I was not talking about your religion. I was refering to a hypothetical religion.

This is not out of the blue. We have been discussing this for the past few posts.

We as the people who are living today who have learned from history.

Back when there was slavery in the United States they had Bibles and it said Slavery was wrong. But they disobey the word of God and continued with Slavery.

Steven · 10-03-04, 10:49 PM

I think it will be better if I speak more abstractly so that you don't mistakenly think that I am talking about your religion, a specific rule of your religion, or specific events of history.

Let X be any religion.
Let Y be a group of people.
If X were to say all Y need to be killed, then it there could be no rational debate conducted to stop it.

jamarquez · 10-03-04, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven

I think it will be better if I speak more abstractly so that you don't mistakenly think that I am talking about your religion, a specific rule of your religion, or specific events of history.

Let X be any religion.
Let Y be a group of people.
If X were to say all Y need to be killed, then it there could be no rational debate conducted to stop it.

I see what you mean now, i got you.....

ummm.....

Well first of all GOOD thing there is NO religion like that because that will really suck and im sure that if there was, other groups of people will riot to stop the killing of others.

You got a point there and people who believe that killing Americans (I'm taking the whole Sept 11 thing) is the way "God" wants it then WE as a nation must stop (Which we havn't) it. People who believe Killing people have to be brained Washed for a bit of time to believe such a thing and plus I would not call it a Religion I would call it a cult of some type.

To be honest You got a Point but lets be real the Average person will not kill some one if some one told them to do it.

Steven · 10-03-04, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamarquez

To be honest You got a Point but lets be real the Average person will not kill some one if some one told them to do it.

The seperation of church and state is a safeguard used to prevent this from happening. In some countries, this safeguard is not there. Thus, laws that treat women as second class citizens are not eliminated in those countries.

jamarquez · 10-03-04, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven

The seperation of church and state is a safeguard used to prevent this from happening.

Like I said Earlier

No where in the US Constitution does it said anything about "seperation of church"

jamarquez · 10-03-04, 11:15 PM

As much as i like talking with you on a BUNCH of topics I got to go to sleep now, im getting tired and I have school in the Morning. I will continue this Later.

Thanks,

J.A. Marquez

jrdonson · 10-03-04, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamarquez

The MAJORITY of AMericans are in some form of Christianity (90%) and while our Atheists in the US will be (1%)

Do you have a source for these statistics? They seem way out of proportion, but then again, I'm a cynical bastard like that.

Also, just because the majority of Americans are Chirstian of some type does not give them any special rights. Part of the ideology behind the framing of the Constitution was to prevent the "domination of the majority", thereby protecting the liberties of those who do not hold the popular beliefs.

Quote:

Going back to my little sister like you say on the Q&A thread. Yeah my little sister is very special to me and i love (the greatest gift ever) to death, but when programs such as Blind date and Eilimidate come on AFTER SCHOOL like aound 3 -5 they are on they are STIFFING THAT DOWN MY SISTER MIND. and i don't want my 9 year old sister being exposed to that. I was changing the channle one time and we pasted one of the shows, and they were doing body shots and my sister asked me "What are they doing?"

Uh, what does this have to do with the image of a cross on the LA Seal? I can understand your disgust with these shows - and I agree with said disgust and share in your concern for your younger sister, but this has very little bearing on the topic at hand.

As for religious symbols on public emblems - I really think it's a minor thing. Religion - like it or not - is part of the past of the United States and part of LA's and California's culture in general. Having the image of a mission (complete with it's cross) is not something to sweat about. Now - if the nation's/state's flag was swapped out for something more religious (ie: similar to that of Isreal's) there could be a problem and a just reason of concern. Now if they just stuck a cross in there - yeah, that could be seen as a gross assuption of the religious beliefs of Los Angeles citizens in general - but give me a break. It's not like they're ramming the Bible down your throat or forcing you to go to church. It is a cross, not a gun they have pointed at you - if you feel threatened/intimidates/frightful of that - there are deeper problems at hand.

James

Steven · 10-03-04, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamarquez

Like I said Earlier

No where in the US Constitution does it said anything about "seperation of church"

The first part of the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Steven · 10-03-04, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdonson

As for religious symbols on public emblems - I really think it's a extent and lesser in seriousness thing. Religion - like it or not - is part of the past of the United States and part of LA's and California's culture in general. Having the image of a mission (complete with it's cross) is not something to sweat about. Now - if the nation's/state's flag was swapped out for something more religious (ie: similar to that of Isreal's) there could be a problem and a just reason of concern. Now if they just stuck a cross in there - yeah, that could be seen as a gross assuption of the religious beliefs of Los Angeles citizens in general - but give me a break. It's not like they're ramming the Bible down your throat or forcing you to go to church. It is a cross, not a gun they have pointed at you - if you feel threatened/intimidates/frightful of that - there are deeper problems at hand.

It is a problem because it has the potential to set a precedent that would serve to degrade the seperation of church and state.

xkai · 10-04-04, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven

The first part of the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

It's rather interesting how people use this section, it was actually made so that there would never be a national religion, (i.e. The tax that England levied on people for the Church of England). Also, nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly say "separation of church and state," this was extracted from a letter by Thomas Jefferson.

jrdonson · 10-04-04, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven

It is a problem because it has the potential to set a precedent that would serve to degrade the seperation of church and state.

Call me when that happens, cause as it stands - I don't see it happening any time soon. Your slippery slope argument is exausting and quite possibly one of the most tired athiest standpoints out there.

James

Keng · 10-04-04, 08:00 AM

If any of religious dude has problem, ask Tom Leykis, he's more than happy to answer all your question, well if you can get on air that is.

**zoedragon** · 10-04-04, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamarquez

People who believe Killing people have to be brained Washed for a bit of time to believe such a thing and plus I would not call it a Religion I would call it a cult of some type.

Well there's the thing, people who are part of an organization that others consider a cult don't think they are in a cult. What we consider a cult, for them, is just another way to see the "truth". Yes I believe they are brainwashed too, but what's to separate a cult from a religion? I think cults are just unpopular religions.

Consider also the time of the witch hunts. "Good Christians" followed the rules of their faith, and if some people did anything that their faith did not condone or could not explain, they were deemed "witches" and burned alive. Did these Christians consider themselves to be in a cult? No of course not, they were in the majority. However these poor souls who, because they knew now to heal with wild herbs or followed their own beliefs rather than the popular religion, were killed "in the name of God".

Naturally times have changed, but people like this still exist believe it or not. Now imagine if these kinds of narrow-minded people were to get in control of an entire country? That's what the Taliban did in the Middle East. And that's why we should do all we can to prevent that from happening here.

xkai · 10-04-04, 04:35 PM

The version of the Pledge of Allegiance that was initially adopted by the United States Congress was:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

This was written by socialist and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy for a children's magazine in 1892, it was officially sanctioned for use in public schools by President Benjamin Harrison the following day.

Other than the altering to have the salute "to the Flag of the United States of America" in 1923, the pledge, for 62 years had no religious connotations at all!

Then in 1954, the Catholic fraternity, Knights of Columbus spearheaded a successful campaign to add "under God" to the pledge as it would help deviate the United States from the godless Soviet Union.

So, of course, it would be alright to remove it (I'm not specifically referring to the recent ruckus) once the Cold War was over right? Of course not, because it was yet another "attack" even though the motivation for the insert was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator." (154 U.S.C.A.A.N 2339, 2340).

Of course, that little history lesson seems a little bit off-topic, but I feel that it applies to the issue with the seal of the County of Los Angeles. People have done things that were socially acceptable at the time of their creation...the county in it's defense initially stated that the crosses represented the historical significance of Catholicism in the region's history, the problem is...that although that may certainly be true, (And I may personally think that the new seal is about as ugly as a monkey's butt, which I'm sure many would agree). at the time (circa.1950s) it was okay to put Catholic symbols on official seals and whatnot. However, as the United States continues to grow more diverse we must understand that we cannot put a religion on seals without pissing off someone (Maybe because of oppression or whatever). It is not really an issue of the separation of church and state, in my opinion, but it needs to be an acceptance and understanding that even though Christian/Catholic based religions are the major religion in the United States, it's not going to stay that way if we value ourselves as the "melting pot" of the world.

I mean there are campaigns that are trying to get the King James Bible into public schools, I'd go for it if the schools were willing to also introduce text from various religions to complement it. Which I seriously doubt is the point of many of these campaigns.

In the end, unless all religions and science merge into one, I seriously doubt anything but the destruction of humanity will stop this bitter feuding.

**zoedragon** · 10-04-04, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xkai

In the end, unless all religions and science merge into one...

This brings up a question I've always wondered about. What exactly is "Scientology" and "Christian Science"? It seems to be an oxymoron to me as science and religion are constantly at odds with each other. Can someone explain this to me?

BTW, very nicely said xkai. You made a lot of sense.

xkai · 10-05-04, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoedragon

This brings up a question I've always wondered about. What exactly is "Scientology" and "Christian Science"?

Scientology is viewed by some to be a cult, and is in fact not respected as a religion in many European nations and heavily monitored there. If you believe in it, I have no quarrel with you, but I tend to stay away from religions/groups that have a known history of criminal actions against anyone that criticizes it, as well as being one of the most litigious entities in existence, using the legal system to silence said critics and attempt plug any leaks of it's scriptures.

Christian Science is a Nontrinitarian Protestant denomination probably most famous for it's association with the Christian Science Monitor that is respected for it's relatively neutral reporting.

**zoedragon** · 10-05-04, 09:54 AM

Thanks for the explanation. They must have deep, deep pockets. How else could they afford to be suing all the time AND have a gigantic church in the middle of Santa Monica (a VERY expensive place to rent property)?

xiaoxue · 10-05-04, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamarquez

You are picking things out of the BLUE NOW...

Black people slaves? We are more aware of that, that is wrong

As a Catholic and many other religions who will agree we have Faith and We don't have hardcore proff that there is a God and people might want it, but you what, God whats it like what. How do we know that the sky is going to be blue 2maro or that you are going to be alive? I believe i was created or Human life was created by somthing MORE BIGGER then gases floating around and linking together over Millions of years.

just because steven did not see the savior come back from the dead means it never happened. how many others does anybody out there know who did this ever? or did all those witnesses in the first century just make all that up because they were trying to pass fiction 101?

Steven · 10-05-04, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xiaoxue

just because steven did not see the savior come back from the dead means it never happened. how many others does anybody out there know who did this ever? or did all those witnesses in the first century just make all that up because they were trying to pass fiction 101?

Your post makes no sense. Why did you mention me?

**zoedragon** · 10-05-04, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven

Your post makes no sense. Why did you mention me?

Because you're the big bad atheist that all the Christians like to pick on.

I think he's referring to a previous post you made in this thread. The one where someone someone's argument was Christ coming back from the dead, and your response was "You're kidding, right?" However he erroneously quoted the wrong person from the wrong post, thus the confusion.

10-04-04, 04:35 PM	#34 (permalink)
xkai Newcomer Joined: Oct 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 41	The version of the Pledge of Allegiance that was initially adopted by the United States Congress was: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. This was written by socialist and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy for a children's magazine in 1892, it was officially sanctioned for use in public schools by President Benjamin Harrison the following day. Other than the altering to have the salute "to the Flag of the United States of America" in 1923, the pledge, for 62 years had no religious connotations at all! Then in 1954, the Catholic fraternity, Knights of Columbus spearheaded a successful campaign to add "under God" to the pledge as it would help deviate the United States from the godless Soviet Union. So, of course, it would be alright to remove it (I'm not specifically referring to the recent ruckus) once the Cold War was over right? Of course not, because it was yet another "attack" even though the motivation for the insert was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator." (154 U.S.C.A.A.N 2339, 2340). Of course, that little history lesson seems a little bit off-topic, but I feel that it applies to the issue with the seal of the County of Los Angeles. People have done things that were socially acceptable at the time of their creation...the county in it's defense initially stated that the crosses represented the historical significance of Catholicism in the region's history, the problem is...that although that may certainly be true, (And I may personally think that the new seal is about as ugly as a monkey's butt, which I'm sure many would agree). at the time (circa.1950s) it was okay to put Catholic symbols on official seals and whatnot. However, as the United States continues to grow more diverse we must understand that we cannot put a religion on seals without pissing off someone (Maybe because of oppression or whatever). It is not really an issue of the separation of church and state, in my opinion, but it needs to be an acceptance and understanding that even though Christian/Catholic based religions are the major religion in the United States, it's not going to stay that way if we value ourselves as the "melting pot" of the world. I mean there are campaigns that are trying to get the King James Bible into public schools, I'd go for it if the schools were willing to also introduce text from various religions to complement it. Which I seriously doubt is the point of many of these campaigns. In the end, unless all religions and science merge into one, I seriously doubt anything but the destruction of humanity will stop this bitter feuding. __________________ It is impossible to be pretend to be something without becoming what you pretend to be. Last edited by xkai; 10-05-04 at 03:14 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread:

10-03-04, 10:49 PM	#22 (permalink)
Steven Enthusiast Joined: Aug 2004 Posts: 231	I think it will be better if I speak more abstractly so that you don't mistakenly think that I am talking about your religion, a specific rule of your religion, or specific events of history. Let X be any religion. Let Y be a group of people. If X were to say all Y need to be killed, then it there could be no rational debate conducted to stop it.

10-03-04, 11:15 PM	#26 (permalink)
jamarquez Active Member Joined: Sep 2004 Location: Covina Posts: 129	As much as i like talking with you on a BUNCH of topics I got to go to sleep now, im getting tired and I have school in the Morning. I will continue this Later. Thanks, J.A. Marquez

10-04-04, 08:00 AM	#32 (permalink)
Keng Guru Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 597	If any of religious dude has problem, ask Tom Leykis, he's more than happy to answer all your question, well if you can get on air that is.

10-05-04, 09:54 AM	#37 (permalink)
zoedragon Fire-breather Joined: Mar 2004 Location: Inglewood, CA Posts: 668	Thanks for the explanation. They must have deep, deep pockets. How else could they afford to be suing all the time AND have a gigantic church in the middle of Santa Monica (a VERY expensive place to rent property)?