Teddy Bear 'Mohammad'

darkchild16

We are Home.
Joined
Oct 22, 2004
Messages
21,880
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
35
Location
Tallahassee Florida
While I agree that no law should be passed based SOLELY on religious grounds... I have to call you on something.

The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in any of our founding documents and it is certainly not an amendment. The only thing that comes close is the 1st Amendment...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I read this to see that the government cannot order a specific state religion. One might even be able to argue that the idea of complete seperation of church and state actually infringes upon a officals right to practice the religion of his/her choice.

The actual phrase "seperation of church and state" is credited to Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a group of Anabaptists. (Amish) A part of the letter...

""Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

I read this to say the Jefferson (a very devout Christian) wanted to be clear that government will not rule religion, just as religion will not rule the government. I don't think this was ever meant to say that a person in government cannot have faith. Because to a lot of people, their faith is were they draw their principles.

Just a little background. It really bothers me when people shoot the words "seperation of church and state" and have no idea what that really means or where it came from. Whats worse is you thought it was an actual amendment to the Constitution.

OOPS I was confused about what it was but for some reason thought it was an amendment. Thanks for correcting me on it. I admit I can be a bit blonde sometimes. I use it in terms of not being told what religion you have to be, being forced to do something because it is in the bible, basically being governed by the bible.
 

darkchild16

We are Home.
Joined
Oct 22, 2004
Messages
21,880
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
35
Location
Tallahassee Florida
I'm not sure if they were muslim - it states that they went to a christian school. (I think...)
OHHH ok. That makes it even stranger to me but oh well. If its not a muslim school how can they be held to those practices.

Kids are kids are kids no matter what faith they're from.

Kids aren't born religious.

No but if you are raised in a religion you know what is right and what isnt. I was raised Baptist, Episicapalian (sp?) and Catholic. I knwo what is acceptable in each of these religions even though i do not believe or practice.
 

Puckstop31

Super-Genius
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
5,847
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
Kids aren't born religious.
A lot of Muslims I met in Bosnia would beg to differ. At least there, being Muslim is viewed as their RACE. I got into a casual chat with a older Muslim gentleman in a coffee bar there. It was a very interesting chat and a rare opportunity as I had to be in full "battle rattle" (Helmet, weapon, body armor, et all...) and was using a female interpreter... Anyway, it came to a point where he was expressing frustration at the generations of conflict there. So I said in a laughing kind of way, "well, you could just convert to another religion." He laughed and said, "can a zebra change its stripes?"

I have 50 other similar stories I could share and not only from the Muslim side.
 

Puckstop31

Super-Genius
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
5,847
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
OOPS I was confused about what it was but for some reason thought it was an amendment. Thanks for correcting me on it. I admit I can be a bit blonde sometimes. I use it in terms of not being told what religion you have to be, being forced to do something because it is in the bible, basically being governed by the bible.

No Problem. I gotta do SOMETHING with my freaking history degree. LOL

And I am with you. If the government ever FORCED a faith on us, even if it was mine, i'd fight tooth and nail to stop it.
 

darkchild16

We are Home.
Joined
Oct 22, 2004
Messages
21,880
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
35
Location
Tallahassee Florida
LOL. Thats why I leave history facts to the pros. I like to learn it but when it comes to remembering HA may as well ask a untrained monkey!

I dont see how anyone can support a religion controlled government. Religion is left to assumptions and interpretations. Nothing is really set in stone.

And i think the world has come to an end as Puck and I actually agreed on something!!!!
 

Dizzy

Sit! Good dog.
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
17,761
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Wales
A lot of Muslims I met in Bosnia would beg to differ. At least there, being Muslim is viewed as their RACE. I got into a casual chat with a older Muslim gentleman in a coffee bar there. It was a very interesting chat and a rare opportunity as I had to be in full "battle rattle" (Helmet, weapon, body armor, et all...) and was using a female interpreter... Anyway, it came to a point where he was expressing frustration at the generations of conflict there. So I said in a laughing kind of way, "well, you could just convert to another religion." He laughed and said, "can a zebra change its stripes?"

I have 50 other similar stories I could share and not only from the Muslim side.


Yes, I don't doubt that - and that wasn't quite how I meant it.

Children who have a faith, aren't born all knowing little followers. If you took a muslim new born, and placed it with a christian family and instructed them to bring it up as a christian (or any relgion, or none at all), chances are that baby would not grow up to be muslim (with exceptions of course ;) ).
 

sparks19

I'd rather be at Disney
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
28,563
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
42
Location
Lancaster, PA
However, not ALL muslims wanted her dead, not ALL of them are extremeists and this was the original point I think that was being debated.

.
No one is blaming ALL muslims. You keep saying this but no one has said that ALL Muslims were responsible... but heck... even a lot of Muslims are being opressed by the extremists.... it's not just a "few" whackos... these whackos are in enough numbers to opress a majority of Muslim people... that make them behave the way they see fit.... enough Whackos to have women who have been raped put to death etc etc. You may think it is few and far between but the sad part is... there are enough of them to strike fear into their OWN people who think they are extremists. Those "few" whackos are not just something that can be ignored.

In fact I believe someone pointed out an Islamic nation that is perfectly civil.... so why are you debating something that wasn't even stated?
 

Puckstop31

Super-Genius
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
5,847
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
LOL isnt it bad how many people say that Puck LOL
Nope. It is one of the reasons I love this place so much. Generally speaking, of the people who post in the Hydrant... I am with the clear minority on issues such as these. And we all know how much I LOVE to compete. LOL

It also goes along with the idea that... "Ships are safe in a harbor, but that is not what ships are made for."
 

darkchild16

We are Home.
Joined
Oct 22, 2004
Messages
21,880
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
35
Location
Tallahassee Florida
LOL so true. Im actually surprised I dont hear it more about me LOL. Im not known for having the most liked veiws in the world LOL.

Hey at least I admit your pretty cool I mean come on you love hockey and coonhounds LOL>
 

sparks19

I'd rather be at Disney
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
28,563
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
42
Location
Lancaster, PA
LOL so true. Im actually surprised I dont hear it more about me LOL. Im not known for having the most liked veiws in the world LOL.

Hey at least I admit your pretty cool I mean come on you love hockey and coonhounds LOL>
Well how could anyone resist either :D


We just need a hockey team with a coonhound for the logo and we are set LOL
 

darkchild16

We are Home.
Joined
Oct 22, 2004
Messages
21,880
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
35
Location
Tallahassee Florida
OMG that would be awesome. To bad I cant play anymore. But I can still have my half a coonhound LOL. and the only reasonable reason for resisting both is being braindead.
 

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
While I agree that no law should be passed based SOLELY on religious grounds... I have to call you on something.

The words "separation of church and state" do not appear in any of our founding documents and it is certainly not an amendment. The only thing that comes close is the 1st Amendment...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I read this to see that the government cannot order a specific state religion. One might even be able to argue that the idea of complete seperation of church and state actually infringes upon a officals right to practice the religion of his/her choice.

The actual phrase "seperation of church and state" is credited to Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a group of Anabaptists. (Amish) A part of the letter...

""Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

I read this to say the Jefferson (a very devout Christian) wanted to be clear that government will not rule religion, just as religion will not rule the government. I don't think this was ever meant to say that a person in government cannot have faith. Because to a lot of people, their faith is were they draw their principles.

Just a little background. It really bothers me when people shoot the words "seperation of church and state" and have no idea what that really means or where it came from. Whats worse is you thought it was an actual amendment to the Constitution.
Ummm . . . two little details:
1) The first amendment essentially prohibits Congress (and because of the 14th amendment, the states) from making laws regarding religion or favoring one religion over another. It can not directly fund religious activities (thus the whole problem with pulling off faith based chairities) It also prohibits Congress from interfering in free worship. That actually goes beyond the separation of Church and State, because Jefferson was talking about England, were the King was also the head of the Church and there was an offical state religion to which you were expected to belong, or face persecution. So you're right . . that language is not in the Constitution, and you're wrong, because the Constitution actually goes further. Lawyers, and everyone else, just call it separation of church and state because its easier to say rather than recite the first amendment.

2) As a two time graduate of Mr. Jefferson's university, and a great admirer of the man, I must tell you, he was not a devout Christian. He was a deist. He had great respect for Jesus, so much so that he wrote a version of the Gospels that stripped out everything supernatural and everything of doubious (to him) origin and left in just the stuff about the words and acts of Jesus. He felt that was a much better text for a thinking man. So, he was a great admirer of the words and philosophy of Jesus, but its doubtful he believed that Jesus was the son of God. He believed in God as the creator of the universe, but as a deist, had his doubts that He had had anything much to do with the world since. For the record, Ben Franklin was likely also a deist and George Washington thought religion was something one did on Sundays. Where this strange and persistant belief that the Founding Fathers were devout Christians came from, I have no idea. They were Christians, in the sense that they had been raised in and never renouced that religion. They went to Church (so did virtually everyone) but their writings and comments reveal that they were not devout in the modern sense of the world. They were great men, and often spiritual ones (just read the Declaration of Independence) but they were not religious, especially by the standards of the day.
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
10,119
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
wasilla alaska
You did say where I stated - having empathy isn't excusing or agreeing with actions didn't you?
By saying, its their culture and they dont know any better is the same as condoning their actions.

She is back in the UK - she's not, nor EVER was going to be put to death.

This is why people have warped views - it's all propaganda and here'say.

Just like a TINY minority of ANY religion are NUTS.

But of course, the news SEIZE this and this will be ALL you see.

The woman in question has said she was treated 100% A OK in prison. She was scared (as anyone would be in prison in ANY country).

You know, the definition of what is a brutal punishment varies worldwide, and within countries even.

As a country that abolished the death penalty I know most people find it horrific. I am sure you can find SOME people who want it still - and I bet when a big crime happens it's THOSE nuts that get represented on the TV and not the 99.9% of normal folk.
Its true a small segment of Sundanese wanted her put to death but the major world wide outcry was that she was sentanced to be flogged, which because it is their culture you seem fine with because they didnt know any better. You even seem fine with it because they dont view it as brutal punishment.

It seems to me the vocal majority of athiests are nuts, you never hear about the quiet athiests that arent easily offended by anything religious.

If you mean "they" as in the government - they never wanted to kill her.

They sentenced her to 15 days in prison... That is all. No more, no less.

The NUTS wanted to kill her. I don't doubt it was a HUGE minority.

But the news LUUUUUUURVE that propaganda ;)


*ETA - I think you'd be suprised at just how MANY religious nuts (as in not you're run of the mill nice folk) are high up in government - be them christian or believe in david ick's reptilian theories :yikes:
They, judges, sentanced her to 20 lashes as well.
 

Dani

Ninja Dog
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
1,514
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
34
Location
Vancouver
Outrageous. All this over a teddy bear named Mohammad? Poor woman. This is why extremism of all sorts is ridiculous.
 

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
By saying, its their culture and they dont know any better is the same as condoning their actions.



Its true a small segment of Sundanese wanted her put to death but the major world wide outcry was that she was sentanced to be flogged, which because it is their culture you seem fine with because they didnt know any better. You even seem fine with it because they dont view it as brutal punishment.

It seems to me the vocal majority of athiests are nuts, you never hear about the quiet athiests that arent easily offended by anything religious.



They, judges, sentanced her to 20 lashes as well.
Actually, I find that appalling as well. Sudan is a nasty place.

And 1) I'm not an athiest and 2) I don't see what it has to do with this conversation what OUR religious beliefs are.
 

Dizzy

Sit! Good dog.
Joined
Sep 14, 2005
Messages
17,761
Likes
1
Points
38
Location
Wales
By saying, its their culture and they dont know any better is the same as condoning their actions.



Its true a small segment of Sundanese wanted her put to death but the major world wide outcry was that she was sentanced to be flogged, which because it is their culture you seem fine with because they didnt know any better. You even seem fine with it because they dont view it as brutal punishment.

It seems to me the vocal majority of athiests are nuts, you never hear about the quiet athiests that arent easily offended by anything religious.



They, judges, sentanced her to 20 lashes as well.


*sigh*

You are determined to try and make it seem like I am trying to make light of the whole issue and am condoning it... When I have said my thoughts multiple times.

To answer this AGAIN, I feel I would be repeating myself.

Look back to my other replies for reference.

Also - there are at least 6 other people commenting on this thread all with different ideas still - how about analysing some of theirs.
 

Puckstop31

Super-Genius
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
5,847
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Lancaster, PA, USA
Ummm . . . two little details:
1) The first amendment essentially prohibits Congress (and because of the 14th amendment, the states) from making laws regarding religion or favoring one religion over another. It can not directly fund religious activities (thus the whole problem with pulling off faith based chairities) It also prohibits Congress from interfering in free worship. That actually goes beyond the separation of Church and State, because Jefferson was talking about England, were the King was also the head of the Church and there was an offical state religion to which you were expected to belong, or face persecution. So you're right . . that language is not in the Constitution, and you're wrong, because the Constitution actually goes further. Lawyers, and everyone else, just call it separation of church and state because its easier to say rather than recite the first amendment.
With my tail between my legs I say... Excellent retort. :) But for the record, I never would WANT a Fundamentalist government.....

2) As a two time graduate of Mr. Jefferson's university, and a great admirer of the man, I must tell you, he was not a devout Christian. He was a deist. He had great respect for Jesus, so much so that he wrote a version of the Gospels that stripped out everything supernatural and everything of doubious (to him) origin and left in just the stuff about the words and acts of Jesus. He felt that was a much better text for a thinking man. So, he was a great admirer of the words and philosophy of Jesus, but its doubtful he believed that Jesus was the son of God. He believed in God as the creator of the universe, but as a deist, had his doubts that He had had anything much to do with the world since. For the record, Ben Franklin was likely also a deist and George Washington thought religion was something one did on Sundays. Where this strange and persistant belief that the Founding Fathers were devout Christians came from, I have no idea. They were Christians, in the sense that they had been raised in and never renouced that religion. They went to Church (so did virtually everyone) but their writings and comments reveal that they were not devout in the modern sense of the world. They were great men, and often spiritual ones (just read the Declaration of Independence) but they were not religious, especially by the standards of the day.
Again, cannot argue with you here. Devout was inded the wrong word to use. However, I think it is safe to say that their moral compass was based in Biblical principle. That is what worries me about the modern understanding of the words "seperation of church and state". It could be argued that the general consensus is that if a person draws their belief system from Biblical standards, they cannot serve in government. The best current example being Mitt Romney. There is way more to the man than his religion, but that is all people want to talk about. Sad.

And I both thank and curse you now. ;) Your excellent retort is motivation to reread what I currently have on Jefferson and the other founders, AND I am going to end up spending more money on some new resources. LOL
 

Members online

Top