*Golf Clap*He looks like Danny DeVito.
The Taxiarch St. Michael the Archangel
You had to expect someone would say it.
|
Many did not feel it was even implied. That was why it took about 60 years for the full mandate of the 14th to come about. Honestly though most of the "State religions" were just traditional by that time anyway, so other then the change of school prayer and a few others, not much changed. Or if it did, not enough screaming has been done for me to have taken notice.The last state religion in the US, that of Quaker-whipping Massachusetts, was abolished in the 1830s. Jefferson and Adams wrote back and forth celebrating the death of "Protestant Popedom". Pennsylvania, Delaware, and West Jersey (there used to be two Jerseys in British North America) never had state religions to begin with.
Rhode Island has the distinction of being the only colony founded explicitly for purposes of religious freedom, and not simply to achieve a level of religious control over the populace that the founders could not accomplish in Europe.
Yes, well not everyone listened when they were abolished. :P
Rhode Island the only state that basically doesn't allow anything. :)
|
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
If freedom of religion is a privilege, and immunity from a government-mandated religion is an immunity, then I can see an "Official Religion of the State of Tennessee," for example, clearly violating both of those clauses with respect to every citizen who wasn't a member. That's not "rules-lawyering" as much as straightforward reading -- unless you mean that, until the above was added, people were rules-lawyering to get around the implied meaning until it was spelled out more clearly?
The latter.
Yes, well not everyone listened when they were abolished. :P
Rhode Island the only state that basically doesn't allow anything. :)
Most states, in addition to being rightly bound ironclad by the federal constitution, have prohibitions in their own. It used to be that they did not, but most of them date from the late 1800s when it was accepted that theocracy was a bad idea.
|
|
Rhode Island has the distinction of being the only colony founded explicitly for purposes of religious freedom, and not simply to achieve a level of religious control over the populace that the founders could not accomplish in Europe.Neat, I didn't know that. :)
That was Providence Plantation not Rhode Island. They did in fact combine later. Rhode Island colony has no such distinction.
That was Providence Plantation not Rhode Island. They did in fact combine later. Rhode Island colony has no such distinction.Rhode Island has the distinction of being the only colony founded explicitly for purposes of religious freedom, and not simply to achieve a level of religious control over the populace that the founders could not accomplish in Europe.Neat, I didn't know that. :)
Yeah but I was lazy and didn't want to explain the whole multiple colonies merging thing.
|
|
Is this in the wrong thread?Providence Plantation is fascinating, but yeah would take half a page to go into it.Yeah but I was lazy and didn't want to explain the whole multiple colonies merging thing.That was Providence Plantation not Rhode Island. They did in fact combine later. Rhode Island colony has no such distinction.Rhode Island has the distinction of being the only colony founded explicitly for purposes of religious freedom, and not simply to achieve a level of religious control over the populace that the founders could not accomplish in Europe.Neat, I didn't know that. :)
Why yes it is............ How it ended up here I do not fathom.
|
|
Why yes it is............ How it ended up here I do not fathom.Is this in the wrong thread?Providence Plantation is fascinating, but yeah would take half a page to go into it.Yeah but I was lazy and didn't want to explain the whole multiple colonies merging thing.That was Providence Plantation not Rhode Island. They did in fact combine later. Rhode Island colony has no such distinction.Rhode Island has the distinction of being the only colony founded explicitly for purposes of religious freedom, and not simply to achieve a level of religious control over the populace that the founders could not accomplish in Europe.Neat, I didn't know that. :)
YAY, forum randomness!
So I guess it is possible to learn the gospel in 10 seconds
Hey, I got all 12 apostles. :)
|
|
So I guess it is possible to learn the gospel in 10 secondsHey, I got all 12 apostles. :)
Good for you.
I am at work and have as of yet to look at it.
Since it is from Jeremy I am afraid ;)
|
|
So I guess it is possible to learn the gospel in 10 secondsHey, I got all 12 apostles. :)Good for you.
I am at work and have as of yet to look at it.
Since it is from Jeremy I am afraid ;)
Don't worry it's not offensive and only slightly blasphemous. Your soul probably isn't in danger by palying it.
|
|
Don't worry it's not offensive and only slightly blasphemous. Your soul probably isn't in danger by playing it.So I guess it is possible to learn the gospel in 10 secondsHey, I got all 12 apostles. :)Good for you.
I am at work and have as of yet to look at it.
Since it is from Jeremy I am afraid ;)
Well I am sure my soul is not in danger, If it was it would have been lost long ago.
Still at work though Sigh.
Don't worry it's not offensive and only slightly blasphemous. Your soul probably isn't in danger by palying it.So I guess it is possible to learn the gospel in 10 secondsHey, I got all 12 apostles. :)Good for you.
I am at work and have as of yet to look at it.
Since it is from Jeremy I am afraid ;)
*snerk* I wouldn't even consider it a little blasphemous. It's silly and the graphics make it hard to tell exactly what most things are.
However this is still my favorite religious conflict resolution tool.
WORSHIP ME! LOL
|
|
In the belief system or in what has actually been done?When is violence justifiable in a given religion? When it is, are there limits to how you may go about it?
What does secular morality say about the justifiability of violence? Is there a common ground between the two?
A little of both. :D
I think we're all familiar with history. It has had wars, religious and not. I'm just wondering what the different religions and philosophies teach or write about violence.
I trend toward pacifism and humanism. I think that violence in general is a bad thing, and that all men should try respect one another. I prefer peace by nature, but accept that sometimes violence happens. People are prone to passions, and you can't hold them at fault for all their actions or reactions.
However this is still my favorite religious conflict resolution tool.
I fought as Ganesha and stomped my way through to Xenu. He turned me into a block of ice with a ray guy but I decked the heavenly floor with him.
I trend toward pacifism and humanism. I think that violence in general is a bad thing, and that all men should try respect one another. I prefer peace by nature, but accept that sometimes violence happens. People are prone to passions, and you can't hold them at fault for all their actions or reactions.
I'm mostly agreed, but I don't accept that violence has to happen at all. I can accept that people lose control of themselves, but I don't think that frees them from culpability. I consider people to have a moral duty to flee which must be exhausted before any kind of violence could even theoretically be considered a species of self-defense. (This used to be the law in most states.) And I'm not entirely convinced that self-defense is an acceptable excuse. It's in a bit of a gray area to me.
That said, I'm far more understanding about incidental, unplanned moments of passion (a single slap, push, shove, punch, that kind of thing) than I am about premeditated assault. Yes, none of these should ever happen. But hitting someone once isn't the same as riddling them with bullets, going and flying the skin off their loved ones, coming back and running over the corpses, and so forth.
I have no sympathy at all for those who deliberately seek out chances for violence, except insofar as it's some kind of mutually consenting, private ass-kicking kind of thing. Then I just don't care. Not my thing, but if you're into BDSM go ahead and have your fun with your partner.
I can think of a circumstance which would to my mind justify premeditated, extreme, and in fact genocidal violence...but the universe is unlikely to ever provide it. You'd need to have perfect certainty of future events, just to start.
|
|
In the belief system or in what has actually been done?When is violence justifiable in a given religion? When it is, are there limits to how you may go about it?
What does secular morality say about the justifiability of violence? Is there a common ground between the two?
A little of both. :D
I think we're all familiar with history. It has had wars, religious and not. I'm just wondering what the different religions and philosophies teach or write about violence.
I trend toward pacifism and humanism. I think that violence in general is a bad thing, and that all men should try respect one another. I prefer peace by nature, but accept that sometimes violence happens. People are prone to passions, and you can't hold them at fault for all their actions or reactions.
There are rare instances, or rather instances that should be rare, where violence is necessary and otherwise deemed acceptable. In speaking of war these include in "the rare instance of an effort to re-establish civil government which has practically vanished from the community except in name, or to vitalize constitutional rights reserved specifically or residuarily to the people, is conceded to be in like juridical case with a State, as far as protecting its fundamental rights by force of arms." Defending ones life or the life of another is also considered an otherwise acceptable action.
|
|
"One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Happy Independence Day to all the American Paizonians (and a happy Thank-Goodness-We-Finally-Got-Rid-Of-Those-Guys Day to the British Paizonians).
:)
|
|
The clash between radical and moderate Islam.
;)
Yay, people who steal signs to take pictures of things that don't belong together and out of context!
This is actually on topic. Honest answers appreciated.
Who here would believe me if I told them that I owned an interstellar spaceship which I used regularly to commute from another solar system?
Who here would believe me if I told them that I owned an interstellar spaceship which I used regularly to commute from another solar system?
Not I, but then I am sure you guessed that already.
Happy ID4
Can we have it re-amended to say "under the Flying Spaghetti Monster"?
Who here would believe me if I told them that I owned an interstellar spaceship which I used regularly to commute from another solar system?Not I, but then I am sure you guessed that already.
Why is my personal testimony not enough?
|
|
Happy ID4Can we have it re-amended to say "under the Flying Spaghetti Monster"?
Be more creative...
Under humping poodles. ;)
Happy ID4Can we have it re-amended to say "under the Flying Spaghetti Monster"?
How about "under no Gods"? Can put the same thing on the money.
|
|
How about "under no Gods"? Can put the same thing on the money.Happy ID4Can we have it re-amended to say "under the Flying Spaghetti Monster"?
Nah then we would be in RUSSIA and I am not a vodka fan. Or rather Vodka is no fan of me. Oh wait they are no longer Pink ...china...I like Chinese food.. I could do that I suppose.
Why is my personal testimony not enough?
But, in this particular instance, I would be more apathetically inclined. Until you start trying to tell me I should live according to the instructions of your alien overlords. Then I start becoming a militant anti-Samnell.
Be more creative...
It is not the creativity that worries me, but the exclusivity. I know some people think turning the U.S. into a Christian theocracy is all well and good. It is only those uppity atheists who complain. But which Christianity? Catholicism? Protestantism? Greek Orthodoxy? At some point, everyone is going to be in the minority and it may not seem like such a good idea then.
|
|
Why is my personal testimony not enough?But, in this particular instance, I would be more apathetically inclined. Until you start trying to tell me I should live according to the instructions of your alien overlords. Then I start becoming a militant anti-Samnell.
Be more creative...It is not the creativity that worries me, but the exclusivity. I know some people think turning the U.S. into a Christian theocracy is all well and good. It is only those uppity atheists who complain. But which Christianity? Catholicism? Protestantism? Greek Orthodoxy? At some point, everyone is going to be in the minority and it may not seem like such a good idea then.
Who is trying to turn us into a theocracy?
|
Who is trying to turn us into a theocracy?Why is my personal testimony not enough?But, in this particular instance, I would be more apathetically inclined. Until you start trying to tell me I should live according to the instructions of your alien overlords. Then I start becoming a militant anti-Samnell.
Be more creative...It is not the creativity that worries me, but the exclusivity. I know some people think turning the U.S. into a Christian theocracy is all well and good. It is only those uppity atheists who complain. But which Christianity? Catholicism? Protestantism? Greek Orthodoxy? At some point, everyone is going to be in the minority and it may not seem like such a good idea then.
The same ones who want to be rid of the atheists I would assume.
Why is my personal testimony not enough?But, in this particular instance, I would be more apathetically inclined. Until you start trying to tell me I should live according to the instructions of your alien overlords. Then I start becoming a militant anti-Samnell.
It's really because you just don't want to be open to my star-commuting ways. You're a bigot! And close-minded! And I bet you don't go on the paper!
It is not the creativity that worries me, but the exclusivity. I know some people think turning the U.S. into a Christian theocracy is all well and good. It is only those uppity atheists who complain. But which Christianity? Catholicism? Protestantism? Greek Orthodoxy? At some point, everyone is going to be in the minority and it may not seem like such a good idea then.
Everyone's in a minority. Non-Christians are about 21% of the population, growing a little under 1% per year. The largest Christian group is Protestants (51% or so), but the largest denomination is Catholicism (24%). Evangelicals, however, are in the circa 30% range.
So if we go by majority rule, the national creed would have to be something like this:
1) America holds the firm position that the Pope is the antichrist and the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon mentioned in Revelation. Through scripture alone can we attain salvation. The wafer and wine are just grape juice and a cracker.
2) But the Catholic Church is the one true and universal Church and only through it can be attain salvation. The Pope is the descendant of St. Peter and the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Church itself being the Body of Christ. The wafer and wine are turned literally into human flesh and blood.
3) And the world is less than ten thousand years old, the Bible must be read literally and literally alone, is inerrant in its original autographs, and the only true Bible is the 1611 King James, or the NIV.
But there are more atheists and agnostics than there are any other non-Christian group (about 16%). So I guess:
4) All the above is untrue.
There's the American creed. Quite a piece of work, eh? Even with #4 it's still would put up a decent fight in a consistency battle royale with the Gospels.
Who is trying to turn us into a theocracy?
Let's start with the people who want the government telling us when to pray.
Or how about the guys who got a religious creed inserted into a loyalty oath? Or the ones who got religious creeds put on the money, which as a matter of law we are required to accept for all debts public and private?
I can go on.
Who is trying to turn us into a theocracy?Let's start with the people who want the government telling us when to pray.
The National Day of Prayer (36 U.S.C. § 119)[1] is an annual day of observance held on the first Thursday of May, designated by the United States Congress, when people are asked "to turn to God in prayer and meditation".
Ouch! Twist my arm why don't they! Bastards.
Who is trying to turn us into a theocracy?Let's start with the people who want the government telling us when to pray.
The National Day of Prayer (36 U.S.C. § 119)[1] is an annual day of observance held on the first Thursday of May, designated by the United States Congress, when people are asked "to turn to God in prayer and meditation".Ouch! Twist my arm why don't they! Bastards.
Quite. What business does the state have declaring that any god exists, let alone suggesting such a creature be petitioned? Doing so is incompatible with being anything but a theocracy. That it is not the most harsh and oppressive theocracy is hardly a recommendation. It shouldn't be one to even the least degree!
It's all because of the mind control device the Pope borrowed from the denizens of Alph Centauri. In exchange for its use, the church provides them with navel lint harvested from imprisoned sinners.
Quite. What business does the state have declaring that any god exists, let alone suggesting such a creature be petitioned? Doing so is incompatible with being anything but a theocracy. That it is not the most harsh and oppressive theocracy is hardly a recommendation. It shouldn't be one to even the least degree!
It's really because you just don't want to be open to my star-commuting ways. You're a bigot! And close-minded! And I bet you don't go on the paper!
What about all the other star-commuting individuals who say they are the one true star-commuter and that their writings are the only true words of the aliens? What evidence do you have that you are right and they are all wrong?
You got me on the paper thing though. We poodles do love our own Spotty Carpet.
piddles on the non-believers
We poodles do love our own Spotty Carpet.
Sometimes rather vigorously. They come away with carpet-burns and bald patches, I come away with mats of curly white fur and more spots.
Sigh.
Et tu, CDP?
Who is trying to turn us into a theocracy?
A major presidential candidate, for one:
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
Quite. What business does the state have declaring that any god exists, let alone suggesting such a creature be petitioned? Doing so is incompatible with being anything but a theocracy. That it is not the most harsh and oppressive theocracy is hardly a recommendation. It shouldn't be one to even the least degree!
I almost made a response before I noticed it was a link. I see now that there's nothing to which to respond.
|
|
Who is trying to turn us into a theocracy?Let's start with the people who want the government telling us when to pray.
The National Day of Prayer (36 U.S.C. § 119)[1] is an annual day of observance held on the first Thursday of May, designated by the United States Congress, when people are asked "to turn to God in prayer and meditation".Ouch! Twist my arm why don't they! Bastards.
With as much complaining as I hear about this one it would be as if you told the whole country you had to wear boxer shorts or something.