Originally Posted by ballz2wallz You're completely missing the issue here. What about public land? Are we, the public, allowed to do as we wish on public land? No, you are not allowed to commandeer public land for the purpose of promoting your religion, because that amounts to a de facto ...
11-15-2006, 03:42 PM
| #101 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative  Realist 
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz No, you are not allowed to commandeer public land for the purpose of promoting your religion, because that amounts to a de facto endorsement of religion by government, which is forbidden by the establishment clause. 
Once again, why are you not content with practicing and promoting your religion with your own money and property? Why do you insist that the government get involved? | ||||
     |
|
11-15-2006, 03:45 PM
| #102 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo No, it doesn't.
The government isn't allowed to endorse any one religion, but is in no way entitled to keep the public from practicing theirs either. The people practicing their religion is in no way a direct tie to the government. You cannot twist the estabilishment clause in this way to mean something it does not. | ||||
| |
|
11-15-2006, 03:52 PM
| #103 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator  Capitalist California
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Should nudists be allowed to meet on public land?
__________________ $$_/^_^\__*<}{~))}}""?  ????   ? //\\  **!!]" | ||||
| |
|
11-15-2006, 03:59 PM
| #104 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby In some states they do
 | ||||
| |
|
11-15-2006, 04:03 PM
| #105 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Where do you draw the line? Let's say a bunch of federal government employees want to "practice their religion"; they want to use publicly funded stationary, stamps, printing equipment, cars, etc. so that they can evangelize their faith. I say, "Whoa! You guys are free to practice your religion...but the government isn't going to help you by paying for it!" That's completely reasonable, right? But you're arguing the exact opposite. You think by refusing to publically subsidize their promotion of religion, the government is "preventing" them from practicing their religion. That's absurd.
Originally Posted by ballz2wallz If you have Christian symbols and words plastered all over a government-funded building, how is that not a direct tie to government? If a government funded building is used regularly by people to promote religion, how is that not a direct tie to government? You think a "direct tie to government" means there must be a government actor?
Originally Posted by ballz2wallz No one knows WTF the establishment clause means because the damn thing is so vague. But, I think it's pretty obvious from reading it the Founders agreed more with my conception of it than yours:
| ||||
| |
|
11-15-2006, 04:12 PM
| #106 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo But that's not what's going on here
I don't know why you're making these to be so much more than a few people in a community wanting to put a nativity scene where people can see it. | ||||
| |
|
11-15-2006, 04:41 PM
| #107 | ||||
| tyop speicalist Religion Moderator Capitalist California
| Spicy, do you think it's okay if groups are renting the land from the government? Personally, I have no problem whatsoever if they're paying to use the land for whatever. | ||||
| |
|
11-15-2006, 04:51 PM
| #108 | ||||
| The Bydo Empire must die! Independent
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Well, the hypocrisy shows when these same kinds of people complain about 'nudity' in a statue on public property and petition and whine until it's taken down or changed. They demand for certain books to be banned in the local public and school libraries. They ask for (and got from bushco) special sanctions from federal business regulations. As a result, it seems to me that the christian sects are very self centered and biased about this. Where did their 'conservative values' go? It seems like when the governmental rules apply to their own expressions, they view them as 'oppressive,' but when it comes to anyone elses beliefs/desires, it becomes "don't waste MY tax dollars on it." They can't have it both ways.
Can someone put up a pentagram and upside down cross on public property? He can't? why not? He should be able to 'express his religion' on public property in the same way the christians are. Otherwise, the government is choosing favorites. The easiest answer is just to prohibit it entirely. If they want to 'express their faith,' at the very least, they could do it on their own time and their own dime. Dumpy's idea about renting it sounds interesting, but I think that would bias expression towards those with money, which can be dangerous (think about the media for a moment). | ||||
| |
|
11-16-2006, 06:03 PM
| #109 | ||||
| One American Family at a Time.  Idealist The OC, California
| Originally Posted by R-Type Merry Fucking Christmas.
I tottally agree with you. Ban it all because I am sick of people being all but hurt about it. Do what you want to in your own home, business can endorse whatever religion makes them money, and the government doesn't need to have any part in religious festivities.
__________________ "People are selfish. But they can also be compassionate and generous, and they care about the country. But not when they feel threatened. That's why this is such a crucial time. We can go in either direction. But if we don't make a choice soon, it will be too late to turn things around. I think people are willing to make the right choice. But they need leadership. They're hungry for leadership." BK/1968 | ||||
| |
|
11-16-2006, 06:47 PM
| #110 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby I do have a problem with it. My first inclination is to say it's okay so long as all religious groups can rent it. But then you get into an issue of ensuring all groups have fair access and no one group uses it disproportionately. After all, a building that is rented to "anyone," but is in reality used 95% by Christians, is basically a government Christian building. What is the government then supposed to do? Mandate that the Christians have it Monday, the Muslims Tuesday, the Wiccans Wednesday, etc? It's all absurd, and the government should just stay out of it.
People say it's extreme to say the government should have nothing whatsoever to do with religion, but little ties to religion turn into huge headaches in reality. The only way to avoid the clusterfuck is to have a theocracy or wall completely and totally separating church and state. | ||||
| |
|
11-16-2006, 07:20 PM
| #111 | ||||
| Junkie  Conservative Party
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo public land is for everyone to use. Banning religious groups from public land is taking away their right to freely practice their beliefs.
| ||||
| |
|
11-16-2006, 07:22 PM
| #112 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo
 'commandeer' | ||||
| |
|
11-17-2006, 12:56 AM
| #113 | ||||
| Baka  Idealist Adelaide, Australia
| I think there is a difference between celebration a festival and pushing religion on people. Sure a nativity scene is religious, but it also associated with the Christmas holiday which is celebrated by many non-religious people (in a different way) as well. | ||||
| |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| walmart, christmas |
| ||||||
| Thread Tools | |
| |
| vBulletin 3.7.4 -- Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. | Custom Artwork and Theme (TM) 2006, Liberty Lounge |
